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.
So, they fired the guys that bought the guys who fired the guys who created the game. IOW, this is the world of TTRPGs. Play for decades and you gonan see this play out over and over and over again in all the TTRPG companies -- if they don't collapse.
I saw folks talking about Paizo, and I will just take a moment to mention a company called Judges Guild.
The only bad thing here is that they did it in December. That's just farking rude and uncouth.
Wall street is happy-ish, though -- that "lean" comment is a six sigma reference, so it was going to be brutal to anyone who was in a management role.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
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.
That's valid. But It's the fault of the speculator, not the speculation, if their predictions are desperately held onto even after being obviously disproved.
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.
Huh... So essentially, you're saying that the "game design issues" that come from obsolete block system design strategies being used by employees that have their heads' stuck in the past?I'm not trying to be rude but my drowsy 5 Intelligence brain is confused: What "mechanical and dead content bloat" are you citing? And what do you mean by "bloat" when you're not referring to the company but to game design?
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.
Firstly, I obviously grasp that this won't automatically be a negative change. I haven't gazed through a crystal ball, but my guess is that its more likely to be a harmful one. Though I have little idea where you got the idea that me predicting something potentially means I believe my prediction could never be off.
And I misunderstand your usage of the word "corporate bloat" when I first replied and asked you to edit your original post to correct it. I do still think it'd be smarter to edit your original post so genuine users like me aren't confused as to your thoughts on the change based off you rationalizing it.
And I'ma edit my post to explain that I misunderstood you even though yours is 1 below mine. You should've requested I do so and I have little understanding of why you somehow believe misconceptions and inaccurate info should be allowed to flourish. So even though I misunderstood you, asking for the og post to be edited wouldn't have been ridiculous if I were correct and I dunno why you view asking me to update mine to avoid further miscommunication would be problematic.
--
But anyways, I agree with most of what you're stating, so I doubt I'll continue this unproductive argumentfest unless I'm badly misinterpreted or something.
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.
It's hard to tell if these cuts are likely to be harmful long-term or not. Hopefully everyone agrees the short-term PR is a nightmare, and will cause significant disruption to the work environment / organization. IMO the big question that remains to be considered is how the other TTRPG companies respond. Whether Paizo or another company takes advantage of this to head-hunt the best talent still at WotC (who might be considering leaving due to the risk of further lay-offs) or that has been layed off from WotC already, to try to build on the OGL-exodus, or not.
It's hard to tell if these cuts are likely to be harmful long-term or not. Hopefully everyone agrees the short-term PR is a nightmare, and will cause significant disruption to the work environment / organization. IMO the big question that remains to be considered is how the other TTRPG companies respond. Whether Paizo or another company takes advantage of this to head-hunt the best talent still at WotC (who might be considering leaving due to the risk of further lay-offs) or that has been layed off from WotC already, to try to build on the OGL-exodus, or not.
I would not say it is a PR nightmare, but it definitely is not a good look, since Wizards is Hasbro's bright spot. Or maybe it might not be as bright as we thought it would be, and there might be some issues going on we do not know about.
It's hard to tell if these cuts are likely to be harmful long-term or not. Hopefully everyone agrees the short-term PR is a nightmare, and will cause significant disruption to the work environment / organization. IMO the big question that remains to be considered is how the other TTRPG companies respond. Whether Paizo or another company takes advantage of this to head-hunt the best talent still at WotC (who might be considering leaving due to the risk of further lay-offs) or that has been layed off from WotC already, to try to build on the OGL-exodus, or not.
I would not say it is a PR nightmare, but it definitely is not a good look, since Wizards is Hasbro's bright spot. Or maybe it might not be as bright as we thought it would be, and there might be some issues going on we do not know about.
Having had two of my family members take the "golden handshake" (early retirement to avoid being layed-off) twice each, when the company is doing that it isn't because of "issues" but because they believe those people are simply too expensive and the organization wants to replace them with workers paid a fraction of their current salary, even if those replacements are less competent. It usually comes down to math like: "we could replace X with someone with 70% of their skill and competence but who costs 50% of their current salary." or occasionally is it "we could replace X with someone with better qualifications but 0 experience but who costs 50% of their current salary."
However, the danger in these types of decisions is in underestimating the value of being #1 at something. The profit margins on any product that is the best in class of that product can be much much higher than the profit margins on the product that is #2 in class, because the reason people would "settle" for #2 is because it is significantly cheaper than whatever is #1 thus you instantly get a price squeeze.
It's hard to tell if these cuts are likely to be harmful long-term or not. Hopefully everyone agrees the short-term PR is a nightmare, and will cause significant disruption to the work environment / organization. IMO the big question that remains to be considered is how the other TTRPG companies respond. Whether Paizo or another company takes advantage of this to head-hunt the best talent still at WotC (who might be considering leaving due to the risk of further lay-offs) or that has been layed off from WotC already, to try to build on the OGL-exodus, or not.
I think nightmare is dramatically overstating it. A company laid people off in December, like all companies do. I’ve been laid off, it sucks. I feel for the people and hope they land on their feet soon. But this isn’t exactly some new thing Hasbro is trying out, here. Outside of the usual WotC-bashers on message boards (not trying to say that’s you), few will care. In the lists I’ve seen, they’ve only let one D&D game designer go. Again, I feel awful for him and hope he finds something that uses his talents soon. But really, losing one designer isn’t going to have a huge impact on the quality of the books. And in the end, when the new books drop in May — or whenever — I’ll wager exactly no one will choose not to buy because of these layoffs. There’s plenty who won’t buy, but it won’t be for this reason. Well, maybe the laid off people, so maybe not no one.
As far as paizo picking them up, I don’t know that they have extra positions just lying around unfilled. It’s a pretty small company.
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.
While I don't have an Insider's Peek or anything into WotC's development of D&D products, my guess is that they pushed what seem to be rushed product through their dev pipeline very quickly in 2022 and 2023 in part b/c Chris Cocks was already anticipating some kind of layoffs in 2023. While I credit WotC with publishing some quality products during the pandemic years (such as Dragonlance and Fizban's Treasury) during a time a reduced overall productivity, I wonder if the roll-out of two out of three major world-building book sets felt rushed because they were, in fact, rushed to satisfy a timeline that had more to do with staffing costs than actual concerns about product integrity. (I'm talking about Spelljammer and Planescape.) IOW, we got a large volume of new modules and settings in 2022 and 2023 at the expense of some that published content.
IOW, now that Dragonlance, Spelljammer, Ravenloft, and Planescape have been all refurbished for 5E and the development of OneD&D is mostly completed, WotC will just focus on milking the most likely-to-be-profitable of its I.P. in 2024 and 2025, namely OneD&D via release of updated PHB, DMG, Monster Manual , it's much (internally) hyped VTT platform, and, ofc, further iterations of MtG as well as various digital games using the OneD&D ruleset.
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".
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 >
So, they fired the guys that bought the guys who fired the guys who created the game. IOW, this is the world of TTRPGs. Play for decades and you gonan see this play out over and over and over again in all the TTRPG companies -- if they don't collapse.
I saw folks talking about Paizo, and I will just take a moment to mention a company called Judges Guild.
The only bad thing here is that they did it in December. That's just farking rude and uncouth.
Wall street is happy-ish, though -- that "lean" comment is a six sigma reference, so it was going to be brutal to anyone who was in a management role.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
That's valid. But It's the fault of the speculator, not the speculation, if their predictions are desperately held onto even after being obviously disproved.
Huh... So essentially, you're saying that the "game design issues" that come from obsolete block system design strategies being used by employees that have their heads' stuck in the past?I'm not trying to be rude but my drowsy 5 Intelligence brain is confused: What "mechanical and dead content bloat" are you citing? And what do you mean by "bloat" when you're not referring to the company but to game design?
Firstly, I obviously grasp that this won't automatically be a negative change. I haven't gazed through a crystal ball, but my guess is that its more likely to be a harmful one. Though I have little idea where you got the idea that me predicting something potentially means I believe my prediction could never be off.
And I misunderstand your usage of the word "corporate bloat" when I first replied and asked you to edit your original post to correct it. I do still think it'd be smarter to edit your original post so genuine users like me aren't confused as to your thoughts on the change based off you rationalizing it.
And I'ma edit my post to explain that I misunderstood you even though yours is 1 below mine. You should've requested I do so and I have little understanding of why you somehow believe misconceptions and inaccurate info should be allowed to flourish. So even though I misunderstood you, asking for the og post to be edited wouldn't have been ridiculous if I were correct and I dunno why you view asking me to update mine to avoid further miscommunication would be problematic.
--
But anyways, I agree with most of what you're stating, so I doubt I'll continue this unproductive argumentfest unless I'm badly misinterpreted or something.
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 hard to tell if these cuts are likely to be harmful long-term or not. Hopefully everyone agrees the short-term PR is a nightmare, and will cause significant disruption to the work environment / organization. IMO the big question that remains to be considered is how the other TTRPG companies respond. Whether Paizo or another company takes advantage of this to head-hunt the best talent still at WotC (who might be considering leaving due to the risk of further lay-offs) or that has been layed off from WotC already, to try to build on the OGL-exodus, or not.
I would not say it is a PR nightmare, but it definitely is not a good look, since Wizards is Hasbro's bright spot. Or maybe it might not be as bright as we thought it would be, and there might be some issues going on we do not know about.
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 >
Having had two of my family members take the "golden handshake" (early retirement to avoid being layed-off) twice each, when the company is doing that it isn't because of "issues" but because they believe those people are simply too expensive and the organization wants to replace them with workers paid a fraction of their current salary, even if those replacements are less competent. It usually comes down to math like: "we could replace X with someone with 70% of their skill and competence but who costs 50% of their current salary." or occasionally is it "we could replace X with someone with better qualifications but 0 experience but who costs 50% of their current salary."
However, the danger in these types of decisions is in underestimating the value of being #1 at something. The profit margins on any product that is the best in class of that product can be much much higher than the profit margins on the product that is #2 in class, because the reason people would "settle" for #2 is because it is significantly cheaper than whatever is #1 thus you instantly get a price squeeze.
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].I think nightmare is dramatically overstating it. A company laid people off in December, like all companies do. I’ve been laid off, it sucks. I feel for the people and hope they land on their feet soon. But this isn’t exactly some new thing Hasbro is trying out, here. Outside of the usual WotC-bashers on message boards (not trying to say that’s you), few will care.
In the lists I’ve seen, they’ve only let one D&D game designer go. Again, I feel awful for him and hope he finds something that uses his talents soon. But really, losing one designer isn’t going to have a huge impact on the quality of the books. And in the end, when the new books drop in May — or whenever — I’ll wager exactly no one will choose not to buy because of these layoffs. There’s plenty who won’t buy, but it won’t be for this reason. Well, maybe the laid off people, so maybe not no one.
As far as paizo picking them up, I don’t know that they have extra positions just lying around unfilled. It’s a pretty small company.
While I don't have an Insider's Peek or anything into WotC's development of D&D products, my guess is that they pushed what seem to be rushed product through their dev pipeline very quickly in 2022 and 2023 in part b/c Chris Cocks was already anticipating some kind of layoffs in 2023. While I credit WotC with publishing some quality products during the pandemic years (such as Dragonlance and Fizban's Treasury) during a time a reduced overall productivity, I wonder if the roll-out of two out of three major world-building book sets felt rushed because they were, in fact, rushed to satisfy a timeline that had more to do with staffing costs than actual concerns about product integrity. (I'm talking about Spelljammer and Planescape.) IOW, we got a large volume of new modules and settings in 2022 and 2023 at the expense of some that published content.
IOW, now that Dragonlance, Spelljammer, Ravenloft, and Planescape have been all refurbished for 5E and the development of OneD&D is mostly completed, WotC will just focus on milking the most likely-to-be-profitable of its I.P. in 2024 and 2025, namely OneD&D via release of updated PHB, DMG, Monster Manual , it's much (internally) hyped VTT platform, and, ofc, further iterations of MtG as well as various digital games using the OneD&D ruleset.