WotCs early days, and saving D&D

[I'm A Banana]

Lisa Stevens is insanely amazing.

Also: Innnnnteresting history!

 

[mudbunny]

Just a quick question that came into my head.

Lisa Stevens left WW because of the way that it was structured, with two people at the top and no possibility for advancement beyond a certain point. Is Paizo structured the same way, owned by [MENTION=19732]Lisastevens[/MENTION] and Vic Wertz (sp??)

(Note, this is based only on the limited amount that I have read on Paizo's ownership structure in various posts. This is not, in any sort of way, meant to be an attempt to slam or disparage Lisa, Erik or Paizo. They are an awesome company and do awesome work.)

(Note, edited to correct mistake on my part as to the actual owners of Paizo. I thought that [MENTION=16133]erikmona[/MENTION] was an owner. I apologize for the mistake.)

 

[Reynard]

This suggests an interesting hypothesis: D&D (and, yes, I'm including Pathfinder here) does better with a small company/start-up mentality. Early TSR, WoTC and now Paizo. Assuming the hypothesis is correct, why would that be? Is D&D just not "big" enough for a corporate mentality? Is it because D&D is made for outsiders it needs to be made by outsiders?

 

[Bullgrit]

This suggests an interesting hypothesis: D&D (and, yes, I'm including Pathfinder here) does better with a small company/start-up mentality. Early TSR, WoTC and now Paizo. Assuming the hypothesis is correct, why would that be? Is D&D just not "big" enough for a corporate mentality? Is it because D&D is made for outsiders it needs to be made by outsiders?

Interesting hypothesis. If this idea has truth, maybe it's not so much the mentality, but more the audience size.

If a company sells a million units, (core rules, in this case), maybe it requires 20 people in the company. And maybe with this sales figure and employee count, the company can service its market perfectly. But a company wants to grow.

The company has grand ideas for growth, and it needs more employees to do so, to push the growth and to keep up with the growth. But maybe something like D&D requires so much to grow and hold growth, that the cost of the sales growth outpaces the income from the sales growth. Maybe to sell two million units requires 100 employees. But then two million sales can't support 100 employees. And two million sales can't be sustained without 100 employees.

So maybe there is an equation for perfect equilibrium that D&D companies have either failed to recognize, broken, or maybe found and accepted?

Plus, D&D is a bit different than most other products in that the consumer tends to create as much of his own product as does the publisher. Player (DMs & Players) make their own characters, their own adventures, their own worlds, their own stories; they don't rely on the company to produce such stuff for them. In fact, after the core rules, the consumer can pretty much move on without the company at all.

Bullgrit

 

[mudbunny]

I wonder how much of the company size has to do with the ability of the company to quickly adjust to the market. A smaller company is, buy its very nature, able to adjust and change directions fairly quickly, something that is more difficult for a larger company.

 

[13garth13]

Just a quick question that came into my head.

Lisa Stevens left WW because of the way that it was structured, with two people at the top and no possibility for advancement beyond a certain point. Is Paizo structured the same way, owned by [MENTION=19732]Lisa[/MENTION]stevens and [MENTION=16133]erik[/MENTION]mona??

(Note, this is based only on the limited amount that I have read on Paizo's ownership structure in various posts. This is not, in any sort of way, meant to be an attempt to slam or disparage Lisa, Erik or Paizo. They are an awesome company and do awesome work.)

I can't really answer your question 100% correctly (being neither Lisa nor Erik ), but I do believe that it is Vic Wertz (sp?!?) and Lisa Stevens who own Paizo....Erik is "merely" the publisher, i.e. he calls a lot of shots about the directions taken, but is by no means an owner and must ultimately answer to the aforementioned dymanic duo of Wertz and Stevens.

Cheers, eh
Colin

 

[wedgeski]

Thanks for that link. That sentence was almost koan like in the manner in which it enlightened me.

Good luck selling your company with a contractual stipulation that "our strategies are successful and you must therefore follow them after you've outright purchased us." That's about the most ridiculous thing I've heard since Tuesday.

 

[mudbunny]

I can't really answer your question 100% correctly (being neither Lisa nor Erik ), but I do believe that it is Vic Wertz (sp?!?) and Lisa Stevens who own Paizo....Erik is "merely" the publisher, i.e. he calls a lot of shots about the directions taken, but is by no means an owner and must ultimately answer to the aforementioned dymanic duo of Wertz and Stevens.

Cheers, eh
Colin

Thanks.

I will change it above in my OP.

 

[jmucchiello]

Good luck selling your company with a contractual stipulation that "our strategies are successful and you must therefore follow them after you've outright purchased us." That's about the most ridiculous thing I've heard since Tuesday.

Did you read everything Rick wrote on Grognard? I didn't say strategies should be in a contract. And what did you hear Tuesday?

What the contract should have stated was the Wizards executives were going to take high-level roles in the Hasbro corporation. That is what they failed to stipulate in the contract. Rick says talks about the sellout being a win-win situation. I assume that's because they thought they would end up in charge of Hasbro somehow.

It seemed like a marriage made in heaven, a win-win situation. Hasbro really needed the new blood in their management, and the Wizards principals needed to sell to get themselves back to being financially healthy.

THAT is what should have been in the contract. It was naive to think that they would get "promoted" later.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Idealists, visionaries, the inspired... ah, those were the days (of WotC), eh?

Still, never mind: "irrevocable" has its advantages, it so turns out.