You stated they had little choice, they have THE choice. That was the fact check.
They can also change it. It might not be easy but it can be done.
I am not pretending to be a tax expert or to know the ins and outs of Hasbro/WotC's business, but I can look up things like this.
I am not against Hasbro/WotC, but after the last 12-18 months I am just over giving them the benefit of doubt, everything they have botched could have been handled way better.
Either they need more direction and supervision before creating these PR nightmares, or they simply do not care about the fallout from them.
One of the biggest accounting principles is consistency. One of the key things that make financial statements useful is their consistency. You want to compare ripe fuji apples to ripe fuji apples, year after year, on the same month and day. You do not really want to compare ripe fuji apples to green fuji apples, let alone granny smith apples, pears, oranges, or bananas. Companies do change their fiscal year occasionally, but those changes are few and far between. Like once or twice over the life of the business type of rare. And once a business hits a certain size, the cost of changing the fiscal year can get really high, while the benefit from doing so is generally low, and that makes it impractical to do so. You also do not want shareholders and investors complaining about frivolous changes and calling their own lawyers and accountants, and then the IRS and SEC might get involved, and all those investigations would just be a pain in the ass to deal with. Keep in mind all those things also cost money to deal with (accountants and lawyers are not cheap), and that money that could have been better spent retaining existing employees, or better severance packages for laid-off employees to make re-attracting talent easier when business is doing well and hiring again.
You do not have to give Hasbro the benefit of the doubt. Be vocal about your displeasure that key employees are being let go. However, changing the fiscal year really is not the way to go about it. Vote for better labor laws and write to your representative about making the tax code easier. Or simply vote with your wallet and do not buy from Hasbro. Support the your favorite creators when they leave Hasbro and make their own products.
Violating consistency without a valid reason is a big no-no in accounting, and firing people until after the holidays unfortunately is not a good enough reason. Due to the sheer cost of doing so, Hasbro will probably need to do an additional round of firing just to secure enough funds, and it makes more sense to spend that money retaining those employees.
I understand how it works, just not sure why we are ok with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
You stated they had little choice, they have THE choice. That was the fact check.
They can also change it. It might not be easy but it can be done.
I am not pretending to be a tax expert or to know the ins and outs of Hasbro/WotC's business, but I can look up things like this.
I am not against Hasbro/WotC, but after the last 12-18 months I am just over giving them the benefit of doubt, everything they have botched could have been handled way better.
Either they need more direction and supervision before creating these PR nightmares, or they simply do not care about the fallout from them.
One of the biggest accounting principles is consistency. One of the key things that make financial statements useful is their consistency. You want to compare ripe fuji apples to ripe fuji apples, year after year, on the same month and day. You do not really want to compare ripe fuji apples to green fuji apples, let alone granny smith apples, pears, oranges, or bananas. Companies do change their fiscal year occasionally, but those changes are few and far between. Like once or twice over the life of the business type of rare. And once a business hits a certain size, the cost of changing the fiscal year can get really high, while the benefit from doing so is generally low, and that makes it impractical to do so. You also do not want shareholders and investors complaining about frivolous changes and calling their own lawyers and accountants, and then the IRS and SEC might get involved, and all those investigations would just be a pain in the ass to deal with. Keep in mind all those things also cost money to deal with (accountants and lawyers are not cheap), and that money that could have been better spent retaining existing employees, or better severance packages for laid-off employees to make re-attracting talent easier when business is doing well and hiring again.
You do not have to give Hasbro the benefit of the doubt. Be vocal about your displeasure that key employees are being let go. However, changing the fiscal year really is not the way to go about it. Vote for better labor laws and write to your representative about making the tax code easier. Or simply vote with your wallet and do not buy from Hasbro. Support the your favorite creators when they leave Hasbro and make their own products.
Violating consistency without a valid reason is a big no-no in accounting, and firing people until after the holidays unfortunately is not a good enough reason. Due to the sheer cost of doing so, Hasbro will probably need to do an additional round of firing just to secure enough funds, and it makes more sense to spend that money retaining those employees.
I understand how it works, just not sure why we are ok with it.
Because, when it comes down to it, we all benefit from consistency. It ensures companies cannot dodge taxes as easily, bringing in more revenues for our governments. It makes it easier to keep them accountable, not only to their shareholders, but to their customers, employees, and anyone they contract with. It gives everyone--not just the company--a solid foundation on which to build long-term plans, and that is a big benefit. Encouraging consistency is a net win for everyone, and the entire system would start to break down if folks could change it with relative ease.
Which, of course, is why I was very clear to say there was "little" other choice--and thus why your "fact check" was not exactly useful and betrayed a lack of knowledge of that on which you were commenting. There is little other choice than what they have--and their other choices are either so impractical as to be effective impossibilities (changing their accounting to move when folks get downsized) or financially not feasible given their current struggles (simply waiting, incurring major financial challenges on a cash strapped company due to when they could write things off on their taxes).
In times like this, it sucks, to be sure--but it sucks a lot less than what might happen if companies were given carte blanche authority to manipulate their books to try and make their finances too complicated to really patrol.
You stated they had little choice, they have THE choice. That was the fact check.
They can also change it. It might not be easy but it can be done.
I am not pretending to be a tax expert or to know the ins and outs of Hasbro/WotC's business, but I can look up things like this.
I am not against Hasbro/WotC, but after the last 12-18 months I am just over giving them the benefit of doubt, everything they have botched could have been handled way better.
Either they need more direction and supervision before creating these PR nightmares, or they simply do not care about the fallout from them.
One of the biggest accounting principles is consistency. One of the key things that make financial statements useful is their consistency. You want to compare ripe fuji apples to ripe fuji apples, year after year, on the same month and day. You do not really want to compare ripe fuji apples to green fuji apples, let alone granny smith apples, pears, oranges, or bananas. Companies do change their fiscal year occasionally, but those changes are few and far between. Like once or twice over the life of the business type of rare. And once a business hits a certain size, the cost of changing the fiscal year can get really high, while the benefit from doing so is generally low, and that makes it impractical to do so. You also do not want shareholders and investors complaining about frivolous changes and calling their own lawyers and accountants, and then the IRS and SEC might get involved, and all those investigations would just be a pain in the ass to deal with. Keep in mind all those things also cost money to deal with (accountants and lawyers are not cheap), and that money that could have been better spent retaining existing employees, or better severance packages for laid-off employees to make re-attracting talent easier when business is doing well and hiring again.
You do not have to give Hasbro the benefit of the doubt. Be vocal about your displeasure that key employees are being let go. However, changing the fiscal year really is not the way to go about it. Vote for better labor laws and write to your representative about making the tax code easier. Or simply vote with your wallet and do not buy from Hasbro. Support the your favorite creators when they leave Hasbro and make their own products.
Violating consistency without a valid reason is a big no-no in accounting, and firing people until after the holidays unfortunately is not a good enough reason. Due to the sheer cost of doing so, Hasbro will probably need to do an additional round of firing just to secure enough funds, and it makes more sense to spend that money retaining those employees.
I understand how it works, just not sure why we are ok with it.
Because most businesses operate on calendar year fiscal years for a mix of simplicity and general market consistency, and asking that they go through a massive, difficult, and costly process to change it comes across as fairly unreasonable, particularly when the basis for it is a hypothetical soft gain of less ill will from consumers when they have lay offs. This seems particularly dubious because nothing I've seen suggests that it would move the needle of public opinion by any appreciable degree; when good things are happening at a corporation, people take it for granted and generally don't pay much attention, but bad things get a 24/7 spotlight shone on them and people start breaking out the pitchforks and torches.
For someone like me who began with D&D 5e this year (I avoided 4e), this comes as a big surprise. There's a plethora of modules, adventures, and general content created by Dan Dillon, Mike Mearls, and many others, so their essence, rules, and influence still resonate in recent publications.
In my case, I'll hold off on purchasing items from an ecosystem that has been somewhat compromised.
I genuinely hope that those who were let go can soon find a new home. They deserve a good future.
The year 2024 will reveal the final impact on DnD One and its 50th anniversary.
Could they be making a dumb choice with Wizards staffing? Sure—but they could also be course correcting and trimming elements which probably are not exactly necessary. Without knowing more about the corporate structure within Wizards and who is staying and who is being laid off, it is too soon to determine whether a “silly move” was made.
Now that we know that people like Amy Dallen (one of the staples of D&DB's Youtube channel), Mike Mearls (who was one of the architects of 5e and was doing lots of stuff for Magic the Gathering), Bree Heis (the "art director" for D&D) and many more that actually seemed to have relatively crucial roles.
"As has been the case for the last couple of years, Hasbro’s gaming endeavors, led by Wizards of the Coast, have been the only consistently profitable part of the company. In its most recent earnings report, Hasbro wrote that its toy and entertainment segments are both losing money, while its Gaming segment’s revenue grew by 40% in Q3 2023."
Despite that success, reports this week indicate that at least 20 employees of Wizards of the Coast and its own subsidiaries had been laid off."
Those affected, as per a list assembled by ComicBook.com’s Christian Hoffer, include Mike Mearls, Magic: The Gathering director and former Dungeons & Dragons creative director; Amy Dallen, D&D Beyond host and producer; Eytan Bernstein, D&D senior development editor; Larry Frum, senior communications manager; and Bree Heiss, D&D art director. Some employees also opted, according to an internal memo from Cocks, to voluntarily accept early retirement."
So, Caerwyn, I understand all this before the info on who got sacked was publicized. But I'm genuinely curious now to see if you still believe this won't have a major effect on Wizards and was merely removing corporate bloat. Additionally, I think it's pretty clear they aren't just removing unimportant staff here and hope you'll update your original post because now it's outdated and actively misleading as the whole argument in it is literally predicated off the knowledge of who was fired having not been released yet.
EDIT: To be clear, I misunderstood Caerwyn's terminology of corporate bloat and that it's more likely to apply to high-level employees. For further info, see the post right below this one.
Could they be making a dumb choice with Wizards staffing? Sure—but they could also be course correcting and trimming elements which probably are not exactly necessary. Without knowing more about the corporate structure within Wizards and who is staying and who is being laid off, it is too soon to determine whether a “silly move” was made.
Now that we know that people like Amy Dallen (one of the staples of D&DB's Youtube channel), Mike Mearls (who was one of the architects of 5e and was doing lots of stuff for Magic the Gathering), Bree Heis (the "art director" for D&D) and many more that actually seemed to have relatively crucial roles.
"As has been the case for the last couple of years, Hasbro’s gaming endeavors, led by Wizards of the Coast, have been the only consistently profitable part of the company. In its most recent earnings report, Hasbro wrote that its toy and entertainment segments are both losing money, while its Gaming segment’s revenue grew by 40% in Q3 2023."
Despite that success, reports this week indicate that at least 20 employees of Wizards of the Coast and its own subsidiaries had been laid off."
Those affected, as per a list assembled by ComicBook.com’s Christian Hoffer, include Mike Mearls, Magic: The Gathering director and former Dungeons & Dragons creative director; Amy Dallen, D&D Beyond host and producer; Eytan Bernstein, D&D senior development editor; Larry Frum, senior communications manager; and Bree Heiss, D&D art director. Some employees also opted, according to an internal memo from Cocks, to voluntarily accept early retirement."
So, Caerwyn, I understand all this before the info on who got sacked was publicized. But I'm genuinely curious now to see if you still believe this won't have a major effect on Wizards and was merely removing corporate bloat. Additionally, I think it's pretty clear they aren't just removing unimportant staff here and hope you'll update your original post because now it's outdated and actively misleading as the whole argument in it is literally predicated off the knowledge of who was fired having not been released yet.
I stand by my post. Names are not all that useful in determining what might happen long-term, and not all corporate bloat comes from “unimportant staff.” In fact, corporate bloat very often can come at the top—which is exactly what seems to have happened at Wizards.
Here is the reality: Wizards has a bit of a management bloat problem—understandable, they are THE primary name in the business, so, once you have your Wizards job, there’s no reason to really leave. That results in lots of folks staying for long periods of time, their importance growing, their salaries growing, and their titles growing, ultimately leading to something too too heavy, where the salaries of long-term employees are impeding the introduction of new blood
You look at reviews on sites like Glassdoor, and they list a number of folks complaining that the established individuals have become too entrenched and are not really welcoming of new ideas. Back during the Hadozee fiasco, there were even comments by senior members of Wizards’ staff about how their management has become stagnant and they need to bring in fresh eyes so they don’t miss things less entrenched staff might have seen.
And you look at their products, and there are some signs of an aging core group. Magic has made a number of systemic changes in the past few years (like removing the Block system ages ago), but has a number of relics from that block system that result in game design issues when the block system is gone. And you have the 2024 core rules, which probably played things a bit conservatively—they have hints of interesting ideas, but there is a reluctance to change (and I think a lingering fear that things like Feat Trees might remind folks of 4e), which is indicative of stagnation.
In light of the evidence about Wizards’ top-heavy problems, the more names are revealed, the more it looks like Hasbro is aiming to fix one of their major sources of bloat at Wizards. Far from being disproven, my point is more likely accurate today than it was before the names were revealed.
Now, does that mean the game will get better or Wizards is better off? Of course not—though I expect that will be the message folks on this forum try to put in my month. For some reason this forum has a problem of reading “we don’t have any real evidence to support whether this will be good or bad; but there is at least the chance things might not be as bleak as those rushing to judgment on faulty data are trying to say” as “I do not think will not be bad.” This very well could be a bad thing; but it doesn’t have to be—and the reality is that we do not know what is going to happen.
Because, here is the thing folks miss when they see lots of important names—being important does not make you necessary, and there are plenty of important people who are not being laid off. And, in a company that has a cash issue, it is not enough for someone to just be important.
So, for now, I’m not going to extrapolate from data points that are inconclusive, and I’m not going to jump to any conclusion about the future, when there is nothing tangible signalling what direction things might go. These names mean nothing to me—what the rules books look like in a year or so, once products without those laid off’s touch start to matriculate? That is something that actually has use to me.
This isn't a shock when it comes to a large corporation. It's not a shock that members of the Wizards team, a segment of Hasbro that actually creates revenue, saw job loss. I would think some of those people have higher salaries/wages.
But the human element still sucks. Somebody like Amy Dallen, who exudes joy and positivity and likely wasn't paid much, is out of a job. And yet to the best of my knowledge there is no announcement of the CEO (blanking on his name) or any of the higher tiered execs taking pay cuts. They can cut their salary and still make up for it in bonuses and some corporate loophole legal maneuvering. Even if it's just for the aesthetics of saying "hey, we took a salary cut", it's at least something.
It appears that the 50th anniversary of D&D will not be as impactful as either the owners of the IP nor the consumers of the IP wished. This reduction in staff is likely to diminish the amount of product that will be finished during the coming year. It is quite a shame when we knew the anniversary has been coming and some of us were anticipating something special. But with their most recent releases, I wasn't getting my hopes up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
You stated they had little choice, they have THE choice. That was the fact check.
They can also change it. It might not be easy but it can be done.
I am not pretending to be a tax expert or to know the ins and outs of Hasbro/WotC's business, but I can look up things like this.
I am not against Hasbro/WotC, but after the last 12-18 months I am just over giving them the benefit of doubt, everything they have botched could have been handled way better.
Either they need more direction and supervision before creating these PR nightmares, or they simply do not care about the fallout from them.
One of the biggest accounting principles is consistency. One of the key things that make financial statements useful is their consistency. You want to compare ripe fuji apples to ripe fuji apples, year after year, on the same month and day. You do not really want to compare ripe fuji apples to green fuji apples, let alone granny smith apples, pears, oranges, or bananas. Companies do change their fiscal year occasionally, but those changes are few and far between. Like once or twice over the life of the business type of rare. And once a business hits a certain size, the cost of changing the fiscal year can get really high, while the benefit from doing so is generally low, and that makes it impractical to do so. You also do not want shareholders and investors complaining about frivolous changes and calling their own lawyers and accountants, and then the IRS and SEC might get involved, and all those investigations would just be a pain in the ass to deal with. Keep in mind all those things also cost money to deal with (accountants and lawyers are not cheap), and that money that could have been better spent retaining existing employees, or better severance packages for laid-off employees to make re-attracting talent easier when business is doing well and hiring again.
You do not have to give Hasbro the benefit of the doubt. Be vocal about your displeasure that key employees are being let go. However, changing the fiscal year really is not the way to go about it. Vote for better labor laws and write to your representative about making the tax code easier. Or simply vote with your wallet and do not buy from Hasbro. Support the your favorite creators when they leave Hasbro and make their own products.
Violating consistency without a valid reason is a big no-no in accounting, and firing people until after the holidays unfortunately is not a good enough reason. Due to the sheer cost of doing so, Hasbro will probably need to do an additional round of firing just to secure enough funds, and it makes more sense to spend that money retaining those employees.
I understand how it works, just not sure why we are ok with it.
We do not know exactly how they were or going to be laid off. If they had golden parachutes and generous severance packages, the timing of being laid off in that scenario is not that relevant: they would be well taken care of and have enough resources to last until their next job. And for the really big names, their fame and recognition will provide an additional layer of cushion to help them get their careers starting back up sooner. Personally, I am not too worried about the big names being let go; I am sure they are going to be fine. Letting so many big names go definitely sets off alarm bells and waves red flags on the business side of things, but I have not read into their financial statements yet so I cannot be certain how crucial they are to the future of the company. But yeah, on the surface right now, laying off so many famous people is not really a good look, especially when you consider Wizards being one of the few bright spots for Hasbro.
For the employees lower down the ladder, they most likely would not have much of a severance package, and it would definitely suck. However, that is where the government comes in where regular people can have an impact by voting for better labor laws, unemployment benefits, health care, retirement plans, and so on. People can also use social media, like you are doing right now, to publically bring awareness to the situation; Wizards still might not be able to save jobs with the spot light on them because they simply cannot afford to, but they might be able to implement better policies for retained employees that do not cost a lot of money like letting people work from home more, relaxing dress codes, or letting employees take unpaid time off more liberally.
We should not be okay with people losing their livelihoods and having a lower quality of life. However, changing the fiscal year is not really the right tool for that problem. You want a hammer for a nail, and a drill for a screw. I mean, you technically could wack a nail with a drill and hammer in a screw, but the results are poor at best if not downright horrible at worst. The consequences for using the wrong tool just is not really worth it.
Hasbeen has been screwing up with such force that they now have to sacrifice their employees. And as it's his (And other Execs) fault: Chris Cox should have been fired first. Ah well. The best IP Hasbeen owns is now being chopped up. I'm now waiting for AI generated art, and more digitization. Which I will successfully ignore.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's not the arrow with my name on it that worries me. It's the arrow that says, "To whom it may concern".
I stand by my post. Names are not all that useful in determining what might happen long-term, and not all corporate bloat comes from “unimportant staff.” In fact, corporate bloat very often can come at the top—which is exactly what seems to have happened at Wizards.
Here is the reality: Wizards has a bit of a management bloat problem—understandable, they are THE primary name in the business, so, once you have your Wizards job, there’s no reason to really leave. That results in lots of folks staying for long periods of time, their importance growing, their salaries growing, and their titles growing, ultimately leading to something too too heavy, where the salaries of long-term employees are impeding the introduction of new blood
Ehh... I feel ya there. But renegotiating contracts and adjusting roles seems kinder and more viable than just firing people. While it's possible Wotzy attempted this, I bet there'd be news of this and less firings were that the case.
And I do think it's confusing to explain that this could be attempting to cut down corporate bloat and that doing so'd be an ethical business strat, while not condoning that. You know people will readily misinterpret statements about the difficulties of having too many unnecessary or overpayed employees as you supporting their firing - and while these are obviously vastly different - I think you ought to be clearer because not only do the trolls easily "misunderstand" it, but I as someone who doesn't have a vendetta against WotC genuinely did misinterpret it.
And you look at their products, and there are some signs of an aging core group. Magic has made a number of systemic changes in the past few years (like removing the Block system ages ago), but has a number of relics from that block system that result in game design issues when the block system is gone. And you have the 2024 core rules, which probably played things a bit conservatively—they have hints of interesting ideas, but there is a reluctance to change (and I think a lingering fear that things like Feat Trees might remind folks of 4e), which is indicative of stagnation.
Firstly, people protested against the removal of the block system because it makes it significantly harder to have a linear and clear story, and was generally just a move disliked by fans as it the block system is actually good mechanically because it more easily allows for consistent creature types, mechanics, and synergies. Not because there's a refusal of change.
More importantly, list a single mechanical issue that is tied to the block system. There really isn't one, because destroying the system harmed things mechanically and even Wizards reason for the change was because of the money being frontloaded in the first set and a decrease of purchases for the second. And to be clear, I'm not opining about the change from a millennia ago, but this is a barbarically poor example and has tastes of those that don't play Magic sharing there thoughts on things they don't understand. And maybe I'm wrong about that, but you seem to be drastically confused as to the reasoning behind the modification.
So, for now, I’m not going to extrapolate from data points that are inconclusive, and I’m not going to jump to any conclusion about the future, when there is nothing tangible signalling what direction things might go. These names mean nothing to me—what the rules books look like in a year or so, once products without those laid off’s touch start to matriculate? That is something that actually has use to me.
Here's the thing that baffles me: You have every right not to predict the impact of these changes, but others have every right to infer that removing countless positions will negatively effect future books. And at a minimum, a sidenote is it certainly damages these individuals' lives.
But back to the primary point: I do think it's fair to extrapolate on what us fans think this'll damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I stand by my post. Names are not all that useful in determining what might happen long-term, and not all corporate bloat comes from “unimportant staff.” In fact, corporate bloat very often can come at the top—which is exactly what seems to have happened at Wizards.
Here is the reality: Wizards has a bit of a management bloat problem—understandable, they are THE primary name in the business, so, once you have your Wizards job, there’s no reason to really leave. That results in lots of folks staying for long periods of time, their importance growing, their salaries growing, and their titles growing, ultimately leading to something too too heavy, where the salaries of long-term employees are impeding the introduction of new blood
Ehh... I feel ya there. But renegotiating contracts and adjusting roles seems kinder and more viable than just firing people. While it's possible Wotzy attempted this, I bet there'd be news of this and less firings were that the case.
And I do think it's confusing to explain that this could be attempting to cut down corporate bloat and that doing so'd be an ethical business strat, while not condoning that. You know people will readily misinterpret statements about the difficulties of having too many unnecessary or overpayed employees as you supporting their firing - and while these are obviously vastly different - I think you ought to be clearer because not only do the trolls easily "misunderstand" it, but I as someone who doesn't have a vendetta against WotC genuinely did misinterpret it.
And you look at their products, and there are some signs of an aging core group. Magic has made a number of systemic changes in the past few years (like removing the Block system ages ago), but has a number of relics from that block system that result in game design issues when the block system is gone. And you have the 2024 core rules, which probably played things a bit conservatively—they have hints of interesting ideas, but there is a reluctance to change (and I think a lingering fear that things like Feat Trees might remind folks of 4e), which is indicative of stagnation.
Firstly, people protested against the removal of the block system because it makes it significantly harder to have a linear and clear story, and was generally just a move disliked by fans as it the block system is actually good mechanically because it more easily allows for consistent creature types, mechanics, and synergies. Not because there's a refusal of change.
More importantly, list a single mechanical issue that is tied to the block system. There really isn't one, because destroying the system harmed things mechanically and even Wizards reason for the change was because of the money being frontloaded in the first set and a decrease of purchases for the second. And to be clear, I'm not opining about the change from a millennia ago, but this is a barbarically poor example and has tastes of those that don't play Magic sharing there thoughts on things they don't understand. And maybe I'm wrong about that, but you seem to be drastically confused as to the reasoning behind the modification.
So, for now, I’m not going to extrapolate from data points that are inconclusive, and I’m not going to jump to any conclusion about the future, when there is nothing tangible signalling what direction things might go. These names mean nothing to me—what the rules books look like in a year or so, once products without those laid off’s touch start to matriculate? That is something that actually has use to me.
Here's the thing that baffles me: You have every right not to predict the impact of these changes, but others have every right to infer that removing countless positions will negatively effect future books. And at a minimum, a sidenote is it certainly damages these individuals' lives.
But back to the primary point: I do think it's fair to extrapolate on what us fans think this'll damage.
It's fair to extrapolate what the fans will think, but that is an almost meaningless statistic. As we have seen this entire year, the forums were on fire and there were many, many out there who were saying that D&D is going to burn to the ground, but it turns out it's doing better than ever (even if they did take a hit). All I also want to say is that we need to wait and see. And I firmly believe that there is not a scenario out there in which official Dungeons and Dragons, the game all of us play and many of us love, is going to go down the toilet, or that there will ever not be an actual pen and paper version of the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
I stand by my post. Names are not all that useful in determining what might happen long-term, and not all corporate bloat comes from “unimportant staff.” In fact, corporate bloat very often can come at the top—which is exactly what seems to have happened at Wizards.
Here is the reality: Wizards has a bit of a management bloat problem—understandable, they are THE primary name in the business, so, once you have your Wizards job, there’s no reason to really leave. That results in lots of folks staying for long periods of time, their importance growing, their salaries growing, and their titles growing, ultimately leading to something too too heavy, where the salaries of long-term employees are impeding the introduction of new blood
Ehh... I feel ya there. But renegotiating contracts and adjusting roles seems kinder and more viable than just firing people. While it's possible Wotzy attempted this, I bet there'd be news of this and less firings were that the case.
And I do think it's confusing to explain that this could be attempting to cut down corporate bloat and that doing so'd be an ethical business strat, while not condoning that. You know people will readily misinterpret statements about the difficulties of having too many unnecessary or overpayed employees as you supporting their firing - and while these are obviously vastly different - I think you ought to be clearer because not only do the trolls easily "misunderstand" it, but I as someone who doesn't have a vendetta against WotC genuinely did misinterpret it.
And you look at their products, and there are some signs of an aging core group. Magic has made a number of systemic changes in the past few years (like removing the Block system ages ago), but has a number of relics from that block system that result in game design issues when the block system is gone. And you have the 2024 core rules, which probably played things a bit conservatively—they have hints of interesting ideas, but there is a reluctance to change (and I think a lingering fear that things like Feat Trees might remind folks of 4e), which is indicative of stagnation.
Firstly, people protested against the removal of the block system because it makes it significantly harder to have a linear and clear story, and was generally just a move disliked by fans as it the block system is actually good mechanically because it more easily allows for consistent creature types, mechanics, and synergies. Not because there's a refusal of change.
More importantly, list a single mechanical issue that is tied to the block system. There really isn't one, because destroying the system harmed things mechanically and even Wizards reason for the change was because of the money being frontloaded in the first set and a decrease of purchases for the second. And to be clear, I'm not opining about the change from a millennia ago, but this is a barbarically poor example and has tastes of those that don't play Magic sharing there thoughts on things they don't understand. And maybe I'm wrong about that, but you seem to be drastically confused as to the reasoning behind the modification.
So, for now, I’m not going to extrapolate from data points that are inconclusive, and I’m not going to jump to any conclusion about the future, when there is nothing tangible signalling what direction things might go. These names mean nothing to me—what the rules books look like in a year or so, once products without those laid off’s touch start to matriculate? That is something that actually has use to me.
Here's the thing that baffles me: You have every right not to predict the impact of these changes, but others have every right to infer that removing countless positions will negatively effect future books. And at a minimum, a sidenote is it certainly damages these individuals' lives.
But back to the primary point: I do think it's fair to extrapolate on what us fans think this'll damage.
You are, of course, welcome to engage in whatever speculation you would like--but I do hope you realize it has about as much utility as gazing into a crystal ball. The simple reality? It could go either way--and there is not enough data to say conclusively what might happen. There is a reason courts do not allow speculation by laypeople, and only allow speculation by experts under controlled circumstances--speculation based on incomplete data can certainly be fun, but its probative value is nonexistent. I am not asking you not to engage in speculation--doomsaying based on incomplete information has been a mainstay of being human for thousands of years--and I certainly am not being so gauche as to ask you to change your posts, but I do hope you recognize that things could go either way. Far too often, the D&D/Magic community gets all worked up over incomplete data, engages in speculation, then holds a grudge based on their speculation for years to come--even if things actually got better.
Regarding Magic, I think you missed the point. The point was not about blocks per se, but that some folks in Wizards' senior development are still designing cards like we are in a block system--but that system is gone. If you look carefully, some of the issues with mechanic and dead content bloat likely stem from folks who have not yet realized we are in a new paradigm, and what worked in 2017 is not working for the block-less 2023. That's neither here nor there for the thread, but I did want to clear that up since your bolded text indicated a disconnect in our communication.
The TRUE last resort for a company in trouble isn't layoffs, it's cutting executive compensation. They will often drive the company under before that idea is entertained.
I just hope that the cuts are well placed and will work well for the hobby.
Ultimately, the decisions have been made. The only thing left now is to see the consequences. The timing kinda aligns though - 1D&D is winding up, they don't need so many people on board. Maybe the oldies were holding the brand back so had to be the ones to go to give space for fresh ideas. There have been serious problems there, maybe this will help fix them. Get the company back on track.
On the other hand, decisions don't have to be apocalyptic and company destroying in order to be bad. This won't sink WotC either way...but that doesn't mean it's good what they've done either. Nobody knows which way it'll go until the path has been trodden.
We'll see.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
You stated they had little choice, they have THE choice. That was the fact check.
They can also change it. It might not be easy but it can be done.
I am not pretending to be a tax expert or to know the ins and outs of Hasbro/WotC's business, but I can look up things like this.
I am not against Hasbro/WotC, but after the last 12-18 months I am just over giving them the benefit of doubt, everything they have botched could have been handled way better.
Either they need more direction and supervision before creating these PR nightmares, or they simply do not care about the fallout from them.
One of the biggest accounting principles is consistency. One of the key things that make financial statements useful is their consistency. You want to compare ripe fuji apples to ripe fuji apples, year after year, on the same month and day. You do not really want to compare ripe fuji apples to green fuji apples, let alone granny smith apples, pears, oranges, or bananas. Companies do change their fiscal year occasionally, but those changes are few and far between. Like once or twice over the life of the business type of rare. And once a business hits a certain size, the cost of changing the fiscal year can get really high, while the benefit from doing so is generally low, and that makes it impractical to do so. You also do not want shareholders and investors complaining about frivolous changes and calling their own lawyers and accountants, and then the IRS and SEC might get involved, and all those investigations would just be a pain in the ass to deal with. Keep in mind all those things also cost money to deal with (accountants and lawyers are not cheap), and that money that could have been better spent retaining existing employees, or better severance packages for laid-off employees to make re-attracting talent easier when business is doing well and hiring again.
You do not have to give Hasbro the benefit of the doubt. Be vocal about your displeasure that key employees are being let go. However, changing the fiscal year really is not the way to go about it. Vote for better labor laws and write to your representative about making the tax code easier. Or simply vote with your wallet and do not buy from Hasbro. Support the your favorite creators when they leave Hasbro and make their own products.
Violating consistency without a valid reason is a big no-no in accounting, and firing people until after the holidays unfortunately is not a good enough reason. Due to the sheer cost of doing so, Hasbro will probably need to do an additional round of firing just to secure enough funds, and it makes more sense to spend that money retaining those employees.
I understand how it works, just not sure why we are ok with it.
We do not know exactly how they were or going to be laid off. If they had golden parachutes and generous severance packages, the timing of being laid off in that scenario is not that relevant: they would be well taken care of and have enough resources to last until their next job. And for the really big names, their fame and recognition will provide an additional layer of cushion to help them get their careers starting back up sooner. Personally, I am not too worried about the big names being let go; I am sure they are going to be fine. Letting so many big names go definitely sets off alarm bells and waves red flags on the business side of things, but I have not read into their financial statements yet so I cannot be certain how crucial they are to the future of the company. But yeah, on the surface right now, laying off so many famous people is not really a good look, especially when you consider Wizards being one of the few bright spots for Hasbro.
For the employees lower down the ladder, they most likely would not have much of a severance package, and it would definitely suck. However, that is where the government comes in where regular people can have an impact by voting for better labor laws, unemployment benefits, health care, retirement plans, and so on. People can also use social media, like you are doing right now, to publically bring awareness to the situation; Wizards still might not be able to save jobs with the spot light on them because they simply cannot afford to, but they might be able to implement better policies for retained employees that do not cost a lot of money like letting people work from home more, relaxing dress codes, or letting employees take unpaid time off more liberally.
We should not be okay with people losing their livelihoods and having a lower quality of life. However, changing the fiscal year is not really the right tool for that problem. You want a hammer for a nail, and a drill for a screw. I mean, you technically could wack a nail with a drill and hammer in a screw, but the results are poor at best if not downright horrible at worst. The consequences for using the wrong tool just is not really worth it.
Where did I say they should change their fiscal year, I simply pointed out they COULD and That THEY get to chose the dates on their fiscal year. That was my fact check. Nothing about what they should do.
You stated they had little choice, they have THE choice. That was the fact check.
They can also change it. It might not be easy but it can be done.
I am not pretending to be a tax expert or to know the ins and outs of Hasbro/WotC's business, but I can look up things like this.
I am not against Hasbro/WotC, but after the last 12-18 months I am just over giving them the benefit of doubt, everything they have botched could have been handled way better.
Either they need more direction and supervision before creating these PR nightmares, or they simply do not care about the fallout from them.
One of the biggest accounting principles is consistency. One of the key things that make financial statements useful is their consistency. You want to compare ripe fuji apples to ripe fuji apples, year after year, on the same month and day. You do not really want to compare ripe fuji apples to green fuji apples, let alone granny smith apples, pears, oranges, or bananas. Companies do change their fiscal year occasionally, but those changes are few and far between. Like once or twice over the life of the business type of rare. And once a business hits a certain size, the cost of changing the fiscal year can get really high, while the benefit from doing so is generally low, and that makes it impractical to do so. You also do not want shareholders and investors complaining about frivolous changes and calling their own lawyers and accountants, and then the IRS and SEC might get involved, and all those investigations would just be a pain in the ass to deal with. Keep in mind all those things also cost money to deal with (accountants and lawyers are not cheap), and that money that could have been better spent retaining existing employees, or better severance packages for laid-off employees to make re-attracting talent easier when business is doing well and hiring again.
You do not have to give Hasbro the benefit of the doubt. Be vocal about your displeasure that key employees are being let go. However, changing the fiscal year really is not the way to go about it. Vote for better labor laws and write to your representative about making the tax code easier. Or simply vote with your wallet and do not buy from Hasbro. Support the your favorite creators when they leave Hasbro and make their own products.
Violating consistency without a valid reason is a big no-no in accounting, and firing people until after the holidays unfortunately is not a good enough reason. Due to the sheer cost of doing so, Hasbro will probably need to do an additional round of firing just to secure enough funds, and it makes more sense to spend that money retaining those employees.
I understand how it works, just not sure why we are ok with it.
We do not know exactly how they were or going to be laid off. If they had golden parachutes and generous severance packages, the timing of being laid off in that scenario is not that relevant: they would be well taken care of and have enough resources to last until their next job. And for the really big names, their fame and recognition will provide an additional layer of cushion to help them get their careers starting back up sooner. Personally, I am not too worried about the big names being let go; I am sure they are going to be fine. Letting so many big names go definitely sets off alarm bells and waves red flags on the business side of things, but I have not read into their financial statements yet so I cannot be certain how crucial they are to the future of the company. But yeah, on the surface right now, laying off so many famous people is not really a good look, especially when you consider Wizards being one of the few bright spots for Hasbro.
For the employees lower down the ladder, they most likely would not have much of a severance package, and it would definitely suck. However, that is where the government comes in where regular people can have an impact by voting for better labor laws, unemployment benefits, health care, retirement plans, and so on. People can also use social media, like you are doing right now, to publically bring awareness to the situation; Wizards still might not be able to save jobs with the spot light on them because they simply cannot afford to, but they might be able to implement better policies for retained employees that do not cost a lot of money like letting people work from home more, relaxing dress codes, or letting employees take unpaid time off more liberally.
We should not be okay with people losing their livelihoods and having a lower quality of life. However, changing the fiscal year is not really the right tool for that problem. You want a hammer for a nail, and a drill for a screw. I mean, you technically could wack a nail with a drill and hammer in a screw, but the results are poor at best if not downright horrible at worst. The consequences for using the wrong tool just is not really worth it.
Where did I say they should change their fiscal year, I simply pointed out they COULD and That THEY get to chose the dates on their fiscal year. That was my fact check. Nothing about what they should do.
[Redacted]
Once again, you are choosing to double down on something that you think is being helpful… but decidedly is not. You are ignoring that something being legal does not mean it is possible—and the reality is the difficulties of what you propose are so high that it is not a “they could” situation, it is a “in the real world, they can’t” situation. Your fact check is one of those things which likely seemed right when you saw it on the IRS website (which doesn’t mention any of the real world issues, including glancing over the difficulties in getting approval from their agency)—but which you probably do not need to triple down on, considering what you think “could” happen only can exist in a fantasy. I don’t know about you, but “fact checks” that only exist in fantasy lands are not exactly useful as fact checks.
I did not mean to dog pile, just trying to share my experience and knowledge on the subject.
I wish I worked for Wizards. I am tired, and honestly, I do not mind being laid off with a golden parachute, and just dick around for the next few months before finding another job. Even if I was a lowly employee without any severance package, just having a short break would be nice.
I understand how it works, just not sure why we are ok with it.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Because, when it comes down to it, we all benefit from consistency. It ensures companies cannot dodge taxes as easily, bringing in more revenues for our governments. It makes it easier to keep them accountable, not only to their shareholders, but to their customers, employees, and anyone they contract with. It gives everyone--not just the company--a solid foundation on which to build long-term plans, and that is a big benefit. Encouraging consistency is a net win for everyone, and the entire system would start to break down if folks could change it with relative ease.
Which, of course, is why I was very clear to say there was "little" other choice--and thus why your "fact check" was not exactly useful and betrayed a lack of knowledge of that on which you were commenting. There is little other choice than what they have--and their other choices are either so impractical as to be effective impossibilities (changing their accounting to move when folks get downsized) or financially not feasible given their current struggles (simply waiting, incurring major financial challenges on a cash strapped company due to when they could write things off on their taxes).
In times like this, it sucks, to be sure--but it sucks a lot less than what might happen if companies were given carte blanche authority to manipulate their books to try and make their finances too complicated to really patrol.
Because most businesses operate on calendar year fiscal years for a mix of simplicity and general market consistency, and asking that they go through a massive, difficult, and costly process to change it comes across as fairly unreasonable, particularly when the basis for it is a hypothetical soft gain of less ill will from consumers when they have lay offs. This seems particularly dubious because nothing I've seen suggests that it would move the needle of public opinion by any appreciable degree; when good things are happening at a corporation, people take it for granted and generally don't pay much attention, but bad things get a 24/7 spotlight shone on them and people start breaking out the pitchforks and torches.
For someone like me who began with D&D 5e this year (I avoided 4e), this comes as a big surprise. There's a plethora of modules, adventures, and general content created by Dan Dillon, Mike Mearls, and many others, so their essence, rules, and influence still resonate in recent publications.
In my case, I'll hold off on purchasing items from an ecosystem that has been somewhat compromised.
I genuinely hope that those who were let go can soon find a new home. They deserve a good future.
The year 2024 will reveal the final impact on DnD One and its 50th anniversary.
Now that we know that people like Amy Dallen (one of the staples of D&DB's Youtube channel), Mike Mearls (who was one of the architects of 5e and was doing lots of stuff for Magic the Gathering), Bree Heis (the "art director" for D&D) and many more that actually seemed to have relatively crucial roles.
So, Caerwyn, I understand all this before the info on who got sacked was publicized. But I'm genuinely curious now to see if you still believe this won't have a major effect on Wizards and was merely removing corporate bloat. Additionally, I think it's pretty clear they aren't just removing unimportant staff here and hope you'll update your original post because now it's outdated and actively misleading as the whole argument in it is literally predicated off the knowledge of who was fired having not been released yet.
EDIT: To be clear, I misunderstood Caerwyn's terminology of corporate bloat and that it's more likely to apply to high-level employees. For further info, see the post right below this one.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I stand by my post. Names are not all that useful in determining what might happen long-term, and not all corporate bloat comes from “unimportant staff.” In fact, corporate bloat very often can come at the top—which is exactly what seems to have happened at Wizards.
Here is the reality: Wizards has a bit of a management bloat problem—understandable, they are THE primary name in the business, so, once you have your Wizards job, there’s no reason to really leave. That results in lots of folks staying for long periods of time, their importance growing, their salaries growing, and their titles growing, ultimately leading to something too too heavy, where the salaries of long-term employees are impeding the introduction of new blood
You look at reviews on sites like Glassdoor, and they list a number of folks complaining that the established individuals have become too entrenched and are not really welcoming of new ideas. Back during the Hadozee fiasco, there were even comments by senior members of Wizards’ staff about how their management has become stagnant and they need to bring in fresh eyes so they don’t miss things less entrenched staff might have seen.
And you look at their products, and there are some signs of an aging core group. Magic has made a number of systemic changes in the past few years (like removing the Block system ages ago), but has a number of relics from that block system that result in game design issues when the block system is gone. And you have the 2024 core rules, which probably played things a bit conservatively—they have hints of interesting ideas, but there is a reluctance to change (and I think a lingering fear that things like Feat Trees might remind folks of 4e), which is indicative of stagnation.
In light of the evidence about Wizards’ top-heavy problems, the more names are revealed, the more it looks like Hasbro is aiming to fix one of their major sources of bloat at Wizards. Far from being disproven, my point is more likely accurate today than it was before the names were revealed.
Now, does that mean the game will get better or Wizards is better off? Of course not—though I expect that will be the message folks on this forum try to put in my month. For some reason this forum has a problem of reading “we don’t have any real evidence to support whether this will be good or bad; but there is at least the chance things might not be as bleak as those rushing to judgment on faulty data are trying to say” as “I do not think will not be bad.” This very well could be a bad thing; but it doesn’t have to be—and the reality is that we do not know what is going to happen.
Because, here is the thing folks miss when they see lots of important names—being important does not make you necessary, and there are plenty of important people who are not being laid off. And, in a company that has a cash issue, it is not enough for someone to just be important.
So, for now, I’m not going to extrapolate from data points that are inconclusive, and I’m not going to jump to any conclusion about the future, when there is nothing tangible signalling what direction things might go. These names mean nothing to me—what the rules books look like in a year or so, once products without those laid off’s touch start to matriculate? That is something that actually has use to me.
This isn't a shock when it comes to a large corporation. It's not a shock that members of the Wizards team, a segment of Hasbro that actually creates revenue, saw job loss. I would think some of those people have higher salaries/wages.
But the human element still sucks. Somebody like Amy Dallen, who exudes joy and positivity and likely wasn't paid much, is out of a job. And yet to the best of my knowledge there is no announcement of the CEO (blanking on his name) or any of the higher tiered execs taking pay cuts. They can cut their salary and still make up for it in bonuses and some corporate loophole legal maneuvering. Even if it's just for the aesthetics of saying "hey, we took a salary cut", it's at least something.
Expected I guess ..but still sad
It appears that the 50th anniversary of D&D will not be as impactful as either the owners of the IP nor the consumers of the IP wished. This reduction in staff is likely to diminish the amount of product that will be finished during the coming year. It is quite a shame when we knew the anniversary has been coming and some of us were anticipating something special. But with their most recent releases, I wasn't getting my hopes up.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
His name is Cocks. And he made $9.4m last year.
Free Content: [Basic Rules],
[Phandelver],[Frozen Sick],[Acquisitions Inc.],[Vecna Dossier],[Radiant Citadel], [Spelljammer],[Dragonlance], [Prisoner 13],[Minecraft],[Star Forge], [Baldur’s Gate], [Lightning Keep], [Stormwreck Isle], [Pinebrook], [Caverns of Tsojcanth], [The Lost Horn], [Elemental Evil].Free Dice: [Frostmaiden],
[Flourishing], [Sanguine],[Themberchaud], [Baldur's Gate 3], [Lego].We do not know exactly how they were or going to be laid off. If they had golden parachutes and generous severance packages, the timing of being laid off in that scenario is not that relevant: they would be well taken care of and have enough resources to last until their next job. And for the really big names, their fame and recognition will provide an additional layer of cushion to help them get their careers starting back up sooner. Personally, I am not too worried about the big names being let go; I am sure they are going to be fine. Letting so many big names go definitely sets off alarm bells and waves red flags on the business side of things, but I have not read into their financial statements yet so I cannot be certain how crucial they are to the future of the company. But yeah, on the surface right now, laying off so many famous people is not really a good look, especially when you consider Wizards being one of the few bright spots for Hasbro.
For the employees lower down the ladder, they most likely would not have much of a severance package, and it would definitely suck. However, that is where the government comes in where regular people can have an impact by voting for better labor laws, unemployment benefits, health care, retirement plans, and so on. People can also use social media, like you are doing right now, to publically bring awareness to the situation; Wizards still might not be able to save jobs with the spot light on them because they simply cannot afford to, but they might be able to implement better policies for retained employees that do not cost a lot of money like letting people work from home more, relaxing dress codes, or letting employees take unpaid time off more liberally.
We should not be okay with people losing their livelihoods and having a lower quality of life. However, changing the fiscal year is not really the right tool for that problem. You want a hammer for a nail, and a drill for a screw. I mean, you technically could wack a nail with a drill and hammer in a screw, but the results are poor at best if not downright horrible at worst. The consequences for using the wrong tool just is not really worth it.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Hasbeen has been screwing up with such force that they now have to sacrifice their employees.
And as it's his (And other Execs) fault: Chris Cox should have been fired first.
Ah well. The best IP Hasbeen owns is now being chopped up.
I'm now waiting for AI generated art, and more digitization. Which I will successfully ignore.
It's not the arrow with my name on it that worries me. It's the arrow that says, "To whom it may concern".
And I am sure he believes he is worth every penny. I repeat HE believes it.
Ehh... I feel ya there. But renegotiating contracts and adjusting roles seems kinder and more viable than just firing people. While it's possible Wotzy attempted this, I bet there'd be news of this and less firings were that the case.
And I do think it's confusing to explain that this could be attempting to cut down corporate bloat and that doing so'd be an ethical business strat, while not condoning that. You know people will readily misinterpret statements about the difficulties of having too many unnecessary or overpayed employees as you supporting their firing - and while these are obviously vastly different - I think you ought to be clearer because not only do the trolls easily "misunderstand" it, but I as someone who doesn't have a vendetta against WotC genuinely did misinterpret it.
Firstly, people protested against the removal of the block system because it makes it significantly harder to have a linear and clear story, and was generally just a move disliked by fans as it the block system is actually good mechanically because it more easily allows for consistent creature types, mechanics, and synergies. Not because there's a refusal of change.
More importantly, list a single mechanical issue that is tied to the block system. There really isn't one, because destroying the system harmed things mechanically and even Wizards reason for the change was because of the money being frontloaded in the first set and a decrease of purchases for the second. And to be clear, I'm not opining about the change from a millennia ago, but this is a barbarically poor example and has tastes of those that don't play Magic sharing there thoughts on things they don't understand. And maybe I'm wrong about that, but you seem to be drastically confused as to the reasoning behind the modification.
Here's the thing that baffles me: You have every right not to predict the impact of these changes, but others have every right to infer that removing countless positions will negatively effect future books. And at a minimum, a sidenote is it certainly damages these individuals' lives.
But back to the primary point: I do think it's fair to extrapolate on what us fans think this'll damage.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.It's fair to extrapolate what the fans will think, but that is an almost meaningless statistic. As we have seen this entire year, the forums were on fire and there were many, many out there who were saying that D&D is going to burn to the ground, but it turns out it's doing better than ever (even if they did take a hit). All I also want to say is that we need to wait and see. And I firmly believe that there is not a scenario out there in which official Dungeons and Dragons, the game all of us play and many of us love, is going to go down the toilet, or that there will ever not be an actual pen and paper version of the game.
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
You are, of course, welcome to engage in whatever speculation you would like--but I do hope you realize it has about as much utility as gazing into a crystal ball. The simple reality? It could go either way--and there is not enough data to say conclusively what might happen. There is a reason courts do not allow speculation by laypeople, and only allow speculation by experts under controlled circumstances--speculation based on incomplete data can certainly be fun, but its probative value is nonexistent. I am not asking you not to engage in speculation--doomsaying based on incomplete information has been a mainstay of being human for thousands of years--and I certainly am not being so gauche as to ask you to change your posts, but I do hope you recognize that things could go either way. Far too often, the D&D/Magic community gets all worked up over incomplete data, engages in speculation, then holds a grudge based on their speculation for years to come--even if things actually got better.
Regarding Magic, I think you missed the point. The point was not about blocks per se, but that some folks in Wizards' senior development are still designing cards like we are in a block system--but that system is gone. If you look carefully, some of the issues with mechanic and dead content bloat likely stem from folks who have not yet realized we are in a new paradigm, and what worked in 2017 is not working for the block-less 2023. That's neither here nor there for the thread, but I did want to clear that up since your bolded text indicated a disconnect in our communication.
The TRUE last resort for a company in trouble isn't layoffs, it's cutting executive compensation. They will often drive the company under before that idea is entertained.
I just hope that the cuts are well placed and will work well for the hobby.
Ultimately, the decisions have been made. The only thing left now is to see the consequences. The timing kinda aligns though - 1D&D is winding up, they don't need so many people on board. Maybe the oldies were holding the brand back so had to be the ones to go to give space for fresh ideas. There have been serious problems there, maybe this will help fix them. Get the company back on track.
On the other hand, decisions don't have to be apocalyptic and company destroying in order to be bad. This won't sink WotC either way...but that doesn't mean it's good what they've done either. Nobody knows which way it'll go until the path has been trodden.
We'll see.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Where did I say they should change their fiscal year, I simply pointed out they COULD and That THEY get to chose the dates on their fiscal year. That was my fact check. Nothing about what they should do.
[Redacted]
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Once again, you are choosing to double down on something that you think is being helpful… but decidedly is not. You are ignoring that something being legal does not mean it is possible—and the reality is the difficulties of what you propose are so high that it is not a “they could” situation, it is a “in the real world, they can’t” situation. Your fact check is one of those things which likely seemed right when you saw it on the IRS website (which doesn’t mention any of the real world issues, including glancing over the difficulties in getting approval from their agency)—but which you probably do not need to triple down on, considering what you think “could” happen only can exist in a fantasy. I don’t know about you, but “fact checks” that only exist in fantasy lands are not exactly useful as fact checks.
[Redacted]
I did not mean to dog pile, just trying to share my experience and knowledge on the subject.
I wish I worked for Wizards. I am tired, and honestly, I do not mind being laid off with a golden parachute, and just dick around for the next few months before finding another job. Even if I was a lowly employee without any severance package, just having a short break would be nice.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >