| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 14 Dec 2011 : 23:07:57
http://community.wizards.com/wotc_richbaker/blog/2011/12/14/change_of_plans
Rich Baker's position was eliminated, though he hopes to continue as a freelancer for Forgotten Realms novels and for miniature design. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 05 Jan 2012 : 07:55:27
I would suspect that - as always - there will be default "core" rules which are assumed for the setting. Authors will prefer them (for generic canon consistency) and many or most DMs/players will naturally (even blindly) follow their example when forming the basis for their campaigns.
My personal experience is that inexperienced DMs usually attempt to immediately use whatever cool new content just became available in the latest sourcebook purchase with little thought of consequences, yet they will also be critically unwilling to ever fork along a non-canon path or challenge/adjust/ignore rules and content which aren't liked. More conservative DMs tend to introduce new content at a more timely and considered pace, on a smaller scale, and tend to more confidently impose arbitrary modifications to the rule systems which defy published canon. The latter crowd is generally unimpeded by any convolutions and imperfections within the published game system, the former crowd is easily confused by rules complexities (and more prone to Monty Hall gaming or being abused by munchkins).
No game system can possibly address everybody's abilities and tastes. In addition, grognards tend to be a difficultly stubborn lot who won't generate substantial revenues on new product lines, so there's less corporate impetus to cater to "everybody" with innumerable pages of logical and canonical consistency. It's a game, it's meant to sell as many copies to the widest gaming audience possible. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 05 Jan 2012 : 07:36:39
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I don't see how your nightmarish future really differs from real present or past D&D gaming, Diffan. Every D&D edition had "optional rules" and every gaming table imposes "house rules" ... and they've always depended overwhelmingly on which sourcebooks and modules a particular group could access.
True to a point, but houserules are done by the house, not a confirmed basis as printed material. Same is said for optional material found in other source books with the base being found in "Core". It's easier to differentiate with "My DM allows X, Y, and Z books" and go from there. Not "My DM allows X, Y, and Z rules." Which all might come from one book. It would be as if EVERY house rule the Designers could come up with were thrown all into one tome and it's up to the players/DM to decide what to use and what not too. WHile this might seem to be the case now, it really isn't. Additional alternative rules can be purchased with the full intent of saying "These are different than the norm, use with caution." Instead, it's "This is ALL GOOD and ALL BALANCED with EVERYTHING!" I think this causes confusion for anyone wanting to discuss things outside that sphere of players, requiring them to go fully into detail the specifics of their particular game.
When someone asks for character optimization help about a Class/build/whatever I can generally understand what he has access to (yes to X books, no to DDI content) and go from there. Were I to be given a long list of "build-in" rules from one supplment that may or may NOT mesh with the current standard, it become more confusing and thus harder to help such people.
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 05 Jan 2012 : 05:51:43
I don't see how your nightmarish future really differs from real present or past D&D gaming, Diffan. Every D&D edition had "optional rules" and every gaming table imposes "house rules" ... and they've always depended overwhelmingly on which sourcebooks and modules a particular group could access. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 05 Jan 2012 : 05:01:28
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
I hold that it is possible to make a system with core close to "AD&D2.5" (PO) and d20, and capable of expansion much like GURPS. Provided the lessons of both are taken into account, that is.
I abandoned hope on the nosedive's happy end after seeing those 4e antics, anyway. 
Aaand IMHO of the game developers who worked on *D&D Rich Baker is the best in overall/mechanics categories. Just look at this list. Whole lines of cool stuff - Birthright, Combat&Tactics, The Will and The Way, lots of FR sourcebooks.
So there's a good chance it all will turn to the better. Let's hope soon Rich will find a game with bright future and publisher who values his skill, and get a whole crate of new tools with it.
Waiting for his next book...
Having not seen much of Rich's work outside D&D, I have really no room for comparison but I thought Rich's work was pretty well received and I liked a lot of it. If he puts out more/new games in the future, I'm sure they'll be pretty darn amazing. Same with his writing as well, thoroughly enjoying the Blades of the Moonsea trilogy right now.
It's Monte that I'm having doubts about, espically from his musing from the Legends and Lore column. I for one don't feel a "One Edition to Rule Them ALL" apporach is even possible because gamers all like something different. And a game that's designed to fit everyone's different style is already in for a mountain of work and it'll take quite a few supplements to even support something from gitty and dark with low magic to high-fantasy to no-magic to space aliens and everything in-between. When they talk about modular systems, dials that the DM sets for the system makes me feel people who want to talk about the system have to go into an indepth detail about what they're specifically running in order to get feedback.
Example:
Guy 1: "Hey, my DM is running a new 5E game and I'm going to make a Warlock. How can I help him be a better attacker that deals decent damage?"
Guy 2: "Are you using the modular spellcasting with Hexes instead of arcane-spells? Do you use the calculated Avg. Damage approach or do you roll for damge (and possibly get 1's) like Old Guard players? And is your DM factoring in the new Feats from the Unreal Death-Guide? Also, some DMs have decided to get rid of multple attacks per level and Opportuinity Attacks so that'll decrease your DPR. BTW, what builds are you allowed because most DMs only go with "Core" which severly limits you to two options instead of the "best" one called Dark-Apprentice Path from Threats of the Dark-Bad supplement?
Guy 1: "Uh, well I'm not sure? Core only I guess? Most of that is all available right?"
Guy 2: Heh, noob. No, it's only available if the DM has set the modular-dial to a specific tone for the campaign. He should've been more thorough in what your allowed and not allowed to access with that book. If the campaign is set for a "medium setting" then your Warlock only gets Hexes, can't use Eldritch Blast til 4th level, and doesn't get an Imp familiar at all because those rules are too advanced for the style of game."
Yea, that's the future I invison with modular games and it frightens me. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Jan 2012 : 04:31:12
When I saw this thread get bumped up again, my first thought was "oh no, who'd they fire now?"
Thinks I there's a sad statement in the fact that I thought of that before anything else.  |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 05 Jan 2012 : 01:49:25
I tend to avoid Hollywood when seeking meaningful information. I don't want my life to turn into a soap full of inanities and false facts. |
| Therise |
Posted - 04 Jan 2012 : 23:25:02
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
FIRST, I just want to make it known that what I am about to say is NOT my opinion of what I think may have happened in Rich's case, because I am completely unfamiliar with any of the facts involved. It could be what happened, or it might not - I have no way of knowing this (and wouldn't even try to guess, in this instance).
In corporate America, and Government jobs (read: anything with a strong union), if they want to get rid of someone but have no legitimate reason to, they offer them a promotion, and then eliminate that position shortly thereafter.
I know, it happened to my mother when she worked for the IRS. She was 'making waves', filing charges against some of her superiors, and she needed to be 'moved'. So they offered her 'a better job', which they promptly eliminated 90 days later (I guess there has to be a minimum amount of time, to avoid looking guilty of any sort of malfeasance).
Two ways to get rid of someone - create a 'paper trail' (write them up for every little thing), or promote them right out of a job. Like I said, I have no idea what happened in Rich's case, and since they are all presumably friends, I don't see how he could have 'rocked the boat'. I could guess, but thats all it would be - shots in the dark.
Either way, once again, I wish him only the best. 2012 has just begun, and its full of hopes, dreams, promises... and, oh yeah.... the Apocalypse. 
Oh, I don't know Markus. Doesn't really sound right. Rich doesn't strike me as a "making waves" kind of person at all. He's more of a "bring the team together" person, IMO. I think it's far more likely that he was promoted by his own department and then accounting had it's own issues later that led to "restructuring" (or whatever WotC/Hasbro calls it). So department 1 was happy, promoted him, then department 2 comes along and drops the bad news. I'd strongly bet that it had more to do with statistics and spreadsheets, and a "we don't even know that person" bottom line corporate thing.
Don't really know. Rich seems okay, though, having read his blog. Might even end up being a very good thing for him.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 04 Jan 2012 : 23:14:15
Having just watched the film The Company Men two nights ago, this is really hitting home. Great film (despite Ben Afflek); if you are unfamiliar how corporate America really works (as pointed out by Erik), you should see this just for its educational value. You should also watch The Distinguished Gentleman for an accurate (and sadly funny) portrayal of the US legislative system.
I ran for office once, but thats another story....
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Not to belabour the issue with Rich Baker, but didn't they promote him not too long ago? Surely a promotion would have had to have been approved by accounting or personnel... or is this a case of the corporate left hand not knowing what the corporate right hand is doing?
FIRST, I just want to make it known that what I am about to say is NOT my opinion of what I think may have happened in Rich's case, because I am completely unfamiliar with any of the facts involved. It could be what happened, or it might not - I have no way of knowing this (and wouldn't even try to guess, in this instance).
In corporate America, and Government jobs (read: anything with a strong union), if they want to get rid of someone but have no legitimate reason to, they offer them a promotion, and then eliminate that position shortly thereafter.
I know, it happened to my mother when she worked for the IRS. She was 'making waves', filing charges against some of her superiors, and she needed to be 'moved'. So they offered her 'a better job', which they promptly eliminated 90 days later (I guess there has to be a minimum amount of time, to avoid looking guilty of any sort of malfeasance).
Two ways to get rid of someone - create a 'paper trail' (write them up for every little thing), or promote them right out of a job. Like I said, I have no idea what happened in Rich's case, and since they are all presumably friends, I don't see how he could have 'rocked the boat'. I could guess, but thats all it would be - shots in the dark.
Either way, once again, I wish him only the best. 2012 has just begun, and its full of hopes, dreams, promises... and, oh yeah.... the Apocalypse. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 26 Dec 2011 : 16:51:26
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
As a Libertarian, I'm going to stray far away from WotCs practices because, well its just not my buisness. I think its a mistake to let Rich go, but I hardly know what goes on there and thus can't criticise their decisions with any authority.
Well, yeah.
quote:
lot of crappy rules for 3e that intentionally motivated System Mastery and judging from his recent Legends and Lore articles, I very much fear for D&D's future. It almost seems as if they're putting together the basis for a system SO FLEXABLE that it'll cater to everyone.
I hold that it is possible to make a system with core close to "AD&D2.5" (PO) and d20, and capable of expansion much like GURPS. Provided the lessons of both are taken into account, that is.
I abandoned hope on the nosedive's happy end after seeing those 4e antics, anyway.
Aaand IMHO of the game developers who worked on *D&D Rich Baker is the best in overall/mechanics categories. Just look at this list. Whole lines of cool stuff - Birthright, Combat&Tactics, The Will and The Way, lots of FR sourcebooks.
So there's a good chance it all will turn to the better. Let's hope soon Rich will find a game with bright future and publisher who values his skill, and get a whole crate of new tools with it.
Waiting for his next book... |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 25 Dec 2011 : 13:34:12
Rich has a new blog!
It's a link to Rich's thread with a link to the blog at en world.
Robot Dragon Battleship |
| Shemmy |
Posted - 25 Dec 2011 : 11:38:16
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Not to belabour the issue with Rich Baker, but didn't they promote him not too long ago? Surely a promotion would have had to have been approved by accounting or personnel... or is this a case of the corporate left hand not knowing what the corporate right hand is doing?
During the previous round of layoffs, Bill Slavicsek was one of the casualties, and they moved Mearls up to fill his position. Rich Baker then got promoted up to fill the job that Mearls had been doing. This current round they eliminated that position. Don't know how that changes the reporting structure, or if the group doing TTRPG work (versus the other group of formerly TTRPG folks now doing boardgames and such like Cordell and Wyatt) has shrunk that much to cut out that management position, or if it was motivated purely on a monetary basis or what. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 24 Dec 2011 : 00:08:16
As a Libertarian, I'm going to stray far away from WotCs practices because, well its just not my buisness. I think its a mistake to let Rich go, but I hardly know what goes on there and thus can't criticise their decisions with any authority. Secondly, if some makes more money, good for them.
As for Rich and Montes "vision", I'm just not sure. Monte put out lot of crappy rules for 3e that intentionally motivated System Mastery and judging from his recent Legends and Lore articles, I very much fear for D&D's future. It almost seems as if they're putting together the basis for a system SO FLEXABLE that it'll cater to everyone. But its my experience that when you try to please everyone, you often don't please anyone.
As for the BoVD movie, I believe its still on schedule and set to be aired on the SyFy channel next year sometime. There ws even a contest for people who submitted character ideas to Wizards to be able to play that character in a "cameo" in the move. |
| Therise |
Posted - 23 Dec 2011 : 19:07:22
Not to belabour the issue with Rich Baker, but didn't they promote him not too long ago? Surely a promotion would have had to have been approved by accounting or personnel... or is this a case of the corporate left hand not knowing what the corporate right hand is doing?
Also, in terms of "vision", Baker seems like he'd be pretty compatible with Monte Cook.
And speaking of D&D movies, weren't they working on a new movie, filming in some eastern European country, based on the Book of Vile Darkness? Whatever happened to that project?
|
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 21 Dec 2011 : 23:53:53
The way I've heard it told, WotC had very little to do with the D&D movie. That was basically some guy who came to them and said, "I want to make a D&D movie--here's some money. Can I do it?" Maybe they should have provided more oversight (ok, definitely), but the blame isn't all on them. 
As for the CEO getting a huge raise while people are getting laid off, that's just Corporate Capitalism for you. It sucks, and it's going to be the downfall of the country. (It's already come pretty close, the last couple years.) Call me a socialist, but I rather think that if you make $1 million a year, there is no reason to make more than that. Money doesn't buy happiness, but it certainly does buy misery when you're taking food off the tables of your puny workers.
Cheers |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 21 Dec 2011 : 22:17:23
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
Hasbro created the HUB channel as a TV venue for shows featuring its major franchises including a game show based on its family board games.
And STILL no Dungeons & Dragons cartoon!!
I was going to mention it in my post, but I sent that poor horse to the glue factory long ago.
Considering the stellar success of the original D&D movie, I understand why they shy away from it. Then again, there is a plethora of good stories to draw from, if only they're done right. Not only Realms stuff, but Dragonlance, maybe, especially, Dragonlance with the original Chronicles would make an awesome TV series, animated. For HBO or some such to pick up DL, there is just too little swearing and sex :P |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 21 Dec 2011 : 19:39:56
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
Hasbro created the HUB channel as a TV venue for shows featuring its major franchises including a game show based on its family board games.
And STILL no Dungeons & Dragons cartoon!!
I was going to mention it in my post, but I sent that poor horse to the glue factory long ago. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 21 Dec 2011 : 14:21:14
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
Hasbro created the HUB channel as a TV venue for shows featuring its major franchises including a game show based on its family board games.
And STILL no Dungeons & Dragons cartoon!! |
| Markustay |
Posted - 21 Dec 2011 : 01:15:36
That sucks.
I once suggested to Rich (when we were still on 'speaking terms') that he try his hand at Golarion (which was my way of complimenting him - I like Golarion), and he said he couldn't because his contract with wotC wouldn't allow him to.
Conflict of interest, and all of that. Now that he is no longer 'in house', he is in a position to expand his horizons, and with that, I wish him the best of luck. I like Rich, truly, and although I have had some small quibbles with his research (and I would indeed "find fault with God"), I have always enjoyed his writing, be it source or novel. My signed copy of Swordmage was one of my prized possessions, and one of the few things I could never replace.
I could always make a suggestion over at Paizo, which has worked for two others in the past, but I think Rich's qualifications speak for themselves, and someone at Paizo has probably already been in touch with him, if I know anything at all about business, RPGs, and people.
Best of luck Rich Baker - you were "one of the good ones". {salute}
quote:
Originally posted by Marc
Interesting, those behind 4th edition Realms managed to survive
MacArthur was warned well in-advance after the attack on Pearl Harbor, and he insisted that no such attack would be possible in the Philippines, which he was in charge of. He personally assured Roosevelt the Philippines were secure.
After another (surprise?) attack against the Philippines which wiped out most of American airpower in the region - an attack that MacArthur did absolutely NOTHING to prevent - his two subordinates were relieved of command... even though they were never informed of the Japanese attack.
Someone always gets fired, but it is rarely the people responsible.
What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Absolutely nothing.
EDIT: I wonder what happens when there is no one left to cut, in order to convince your parent-company you have profits? Sooner or later, the truth has to come out, and you have no friends left, having thrown them all under the bus. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 Dec 2011 : 22:32:16
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
The article on CEO pay has a post date of April 2011 and deals with performance in 2010, so it's not related with the recent layoffs.
Good point. I only saw the article because Jeff Grubb mentioned it; I thought it was recent.
This was my bad. 
Consider my complaints about all but the timing of the layoff to be withdrawn. |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 20 Dec 2011 : 20:43:10
The article on CEO pay has a post date of April 2011 and deals with performance in 2010, so it's not related with the recent layoffs.
Even I'll have to admit, my own awareness of Hasbro's various brands has increased over the last several years, especially with major franchises like Transformer and GI Joe. They are well integrated cross-media properties with an endless stream of movies, cartoon shows, video games, toys, merchandise, etc.
Hasbro created the HUB channel as a TV venue for shows featuring its major franchises including a game show based on its family board games. They're gunning hard for the Nickelodeon model. They have the library of properties to stand a good chance to succeed.
Even boardgames like Battleship are getting movies. Love or hate the idea, it's exposing the brand to people.
Hasbro has done a lot to ensure its brands remain relevant and active in the minds of potential customers and fans. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 Dec 2011 : 19:16:46
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
Not really related at all, Wooly. WotC is its own business unit. If any blame needs to be assigned, it should be at that level.
Hasbro's profits increased 6% in 2010, which created many jobs for the company--something that can be directly attributed to Goldner's decisions.
The D&D brand isn't even a pimple in the larger game industry. Tabletop RPGs are a unique niche. Even in WotC, D&D is the weak step-child compared to Magic: The Gathering.
I get all that, I really do. I understand that this was nothing more than the realities of business. I've even defended WotC on this, with past layoffs...
It's the timing that bugs me. I'm no fan of Rich Baker's, but letting anyone go right before Christmas is just wrong. At the very least, wait a week until after Christmas...
And seeing the CEO of the parent company get a raise that is many times the annual salary of the laid off people -- when he was already making many times their salary, anyway -- is even more offensive to me.
I've lost a job at Christmastime. It drew major vacuum -- even though I hated that job! It's not something I'd wish on anyone.
I understand why WotC would let him go. I understand why Hasbro would give their CEO a raise. It doesn't mean I have to like it, and it doesn't mean the timing couldn't have been better. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 20 Dec 2011 : 12:35:02
Not really related at all, Wooly. WotC is its own business unit. If any blame needs to be assigned, it should be at that level.
Hasbro's profits increased 6% in 2010, which created many jobs for the company--something that can be directly attributed to Goldner's decisions.
The D&D brand isn't even a pimple in the larger game industry. Tabletop RPGs are a unique niche. Even in WotC, D&D is the weak step-child compared to Magic: The Gathering. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 Dec 2011 : 04:29:48
Even more bad form: WotC had to can a 20-year veteran, but an 11-year Hasbro vet gets a huge raise -- Hasbro pays CEO Goldner $23M.
So yeah, I know, the two events prolly weren't all that closely related, if at all... The execs at Hasbro prolly weren't even aware of the WotC layoffs. Still, one guy gets shown the door, another guy gets $15M. Not cool. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 19 Dec 2011 : 20:47:30
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Out of curiosity, for those posting, have you recently purchased anything new by Rich Baker or Steve Winter? Not counting any novels.
I'm not really sure what Rich and Steve worked on specifically, though I've purchased 4E material since debut. I've also purchased Baker's Moonsea Trilogy which is very interesting and quite good IMO. It really puts the details of the Spellplague and all that in the background (where it belongs) and focuses on plot, character depth, and some interesting stuff around the Moonsea. If you like Pirate tales, sword fighting and magic the series is something you might enjoy.
For 4E materials recently, well I updated my DDI subscription for another year and I put the Neverwinter Campaign Guide on my X-Mas list, so hopefully I'll get it within the week. If not, i'll just go buy it. I hear it's also shock-full of Realms material and not so much 4E-mechanics specific, so it might interest many who relish Realmslore. I'm also looking forward to purchasing Heroes of the Feywild as I hear it's a great supplement that allows for Pixie characters, Skalds (a sort of Bard), and Berserkers. Also going to adapt whats in there to Evermeet as well.
The Boardgames look amazing too. I wish I had the money to buy a few of them. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 19 Dec 2011 : 14:11:03
I purchased many of the boardgames that Rich was in charge of. He did a lot more than D&D content. |
| Kris the Grey |
Posted - 19 Dec 2011 : 07:08:54
WR,
Do check out my modest proposal thread in General Realms chat (if you haven't already) it sounds like it would be right up your desired alley... |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Dec 2011 : 05:40:36
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Out of curiosity, for those posting, have you recently purchased anything new by Rich Baker or Steve Winter? Not counting any novels.
It's nice to offer sympathy, but are their products supported by purchases?
For instance, I haven't bought anything in 4E, no rulebooks, no sourcebooks, nothing. Except for a few novels, I don't own anything 4E (and the novels aren't by Baker or Winter either). WotC really just hasn't put out anything I've been terribly interested in, recently.
I did -very- much enjoy Baker's series on the elves, but that was pretty far back. Perhaps the industry is having a change in its vision, and while layoffs are horrible (and especially awful at Xmas), it might be a reflection more of sales and a change toward new directions than anything personal against the two.
For 4E Realms stuff, I have purchased, via standard retail outlets, two novels. A third I got directly from the author -- though money did change hands, there, I wasn't directly putting that money in WotC's hands. As for the 4E Realms sourcebooks, I've bought them all -- from eBay, for well under cover price.
I used to rush to my FLGS, on my lunch break, to buy the latest Realms releases. Now I wait to find them on the cheap on eBay, if I get them at all. WotC, and TSR before them, used to get most of my gaming dollars. Now my gaming dollars go to Paizo and Privateer Press.
If I had the time to roleplay right now, I'd seek either a FR campaign set just about any time before the end of the 3E era, or a Pathfinder game, or the chance to play a gun mage in the Iron Kingdoms. I'd not even consider a 4E game. |
| Therise |
Posted - 19 Dec 2011 : 03:33:06
Out of curiosity, for those posting, have you recently purchased anything new by Rich Baker or Steve Winter? Not counting any novels.
It's nice to offer sympathy, but are their products supported by purchases?
For instance, I haven't bought anything in 4E, no rulebooks, no sourcebooks, nothing. Except for a few novels, I don't own anything 4E (and the novels aren't by Baker or Winter either). WotC really just hasn't put out anything I've been terribly interested in, recently.
I did -very- much enjoy Baker's series on the elves, but that was pretty far back. Perhaps the industry is having a change in its vision, and while layoffs are horrible (and especially awful at Xmas), it might be a reflection more of sales and a change toward new directions than anything personal against the two.
|
| Matt James |
Posted - 19 Dec 2011 : 02:00:53
Ayrik, I know. I should have extrapolated. I was just wanted to confim. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Dec 2011 : 05:43:48
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Matt, I wasn't trying to start any vicious rumours or anything. I was just trying to say that it is not right for us to automatically jump to the conclusion that the evil faceless megacorp is swinging an axe.
I'll back up this one -- with prior WotC layoffs, that's often been the first reaction. Usually we've not had any more info than the fact that people were now unemployed -- this is a rare case for the general public, where we do know it wasn't something planned by the now-unemployed person. |
|
|
