So a few things about what it means to be on this council.
Yes, we're under an NDA. We're not under a non-disparagement agreement. My other posts here on EN World and the stuff I talk about on my videos should hopefully prove that point.
We definitely offer our direct points of view to WOTC. As stated in our joint statement, we have a lot of folks from a lot of different backgrounds and approaches with different takes on the game. That said, I haven't seen a single time where we were at direct odds with one another. The group definitely focuses on providing our honest and independent feedback to WOTC as fans of the game.
WOTC has changed approaches and decisions based on the feedback we've provided. Not always, of course. We don't dictate WOTC's direction, but they definitely listen to our feedback.
Personally speaking, I saw joining the advisory council as an opportunity to help steer Wizards to be good stewards of D&D and good partners in the hobby. That's my goal. I didn't know how effective I'd be in that role but I saw joining this group as my best shot to help with that goal.
It's easy to know the views I bring to WOTC. The same stuff I talk about on my show and talk about here on EN World is the same feedback I give to them. For those who don't agree with my take, worry not. There are eleven other people in the group with their own priorities and points of view. There's no risk that WOTC will suddenly shift their entire focus to the whims of Mike Shea.
However, I was once part of a Comcast (Xfinity) consumer group. We were supposed to give them our opinions on new products and services, but constantly implied that negative comments (constructive feedback) about the new products wouldn't be tolerated.
So they made their decisions ahead of time, and were just looking for validation of their ideas.
Given WoTCs history, I wouldn't be surprised if this is nothing more than a PR stunt.
That's definitely not happening here and WOTC is great at accepting the feedback without defensiveness or judgement. They work very hard at that. It doesn't mean the whole company shifts direction, but they're very careful to ensure we're heard without resistance. You're free to decide what to make of the whole council, though, of course.
Too bad this advisory group apparently didn’t tell WotC that a live service model is a terrible idea for D&D (or weren’t listened to if they did).
It's easy to know what feedback I've given to WOTC if you read my other posts here on EN World or watch my show. Being given advice and them acting on it are two different things. And, let's be honest, WOTC's not going to steer a $130 million dollar purchase (way higher value now) on stuff we say about it.
You can bet @SlyFlourish did!
This is an advisory group, they weren't put in charge of the company.
Exactly.
depends on what they had to sign to get onto it
We had to sign an NDA. We did not have to sign a non-disparagement clause. Again, that should be pretty clear from the stuff I talk about on my show and the posts I've had here on EN World.
If it weren't for them we wouldn't even had an announcement.
If the "them" is WOTC, that's not the case. Everyone was interested in this group being announced.
They have a similar thing going with the Commander format for Magic
That was the model for this. The Commander group seems to have worked very well for Magic and they wanted something similar for D&D. As you mention, they're not gagged about talking about things they like or don't like and neither are we.
