Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Chat with Rose Estes
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9064682" data-attributes="member: 8461"><p>I find your take on Riggs' statement regarding his own take on the issue of Lorraine's "villainization" to be more generous than (I feel) is warranted. The very fact that he refers to it as being "villainization" to begin with, rather than investigating whether or not the strongly negative takes on her tenure were accurate or not, strikes me as being a fairly straightforward announcement of bias on his part, which goes hand-in-hand with his numerous disrespectful references to Gary Gygax as "Saint Gary." </p><p></p><p>To put it another way, he entertained that notion (that Lorraine's portrayal was the result of misogyny) based on...well...nothing, since he doesn't seem to provide a reason for <em>why</em> he wondered that in the first place. That he had such an inclination isn't the problem in-and-of itself; as you correctly noted, all people have such biases. But Riggs doesn't seem to have made any effort to check his, and instead indulges it throughout his book. That doesn't make the book itself not worth reading by any means, but it makes me less inclined to give credence to his assurances.</p><p></p><p>Nuance is not equivocation. There is a very large area between "this person is (completely) trustworthy" and "this person is a liar." I see this as an instance of someone falling into that area; Riggs is giving us a personal assurance on his part that he didn't find anything to refute his viewpoint that Lorraine has been unfairly maligned with regard to Gary Gygax. I'm not saying he isn't telling us the truth as he sees it, but by that same token I don't find his word in that regard to be sufficient for me to regard that claim as airtight.</p><p></p><p>Once again, I'll point out that two or three people saying they had a different take on something does not mean that a particular claim is somehow invalid. Likewise, you're once again confusing the issue, as most of the posters you're citing took exception to the idea that Riggs' book painted Williams in a bad light, which is not the same as them saying that they thought the book was unbiased. Putting aside that I don't think that "self-evident" means that literally <em>no one</em> can call something into question, I'm <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/slaying-the-dragon-the-secret-history-of-dungeons-dragons-review.689824/post-8736498" target="_blank">not the first person</a> on these forums to point out that Riggs' presentations of his own opinion compromise the degree to which his book can be taken as a historical reference.</p><p></p><p>I suppose that goes to the amount of sympathy we respectively ascribe to someone coming out of a toxic work environment. When the boss of a company is described as being feared by their employees, I tend to presume that those employees are going to have some bitterness (or other bad feelings) toward said boss that will come out after the fact. Such an environment is <em>extremely</em> stressful to work in, and given the power dynamics involved my inclination is to believe the person with less power over (those defending) the person who had more.</p><p></p><p>Again, that's not cherry-picking; I not only posted the entire quote, but I specifically called out "emphasis mine" when I did so. Likewise, you've made it clear that you think Williams' positives make up for her toxicity; I disagree.</p><p></p><p>I'm not sure having spoken to him once or twice at Gen Con really counts as "having known him." Admittedly, it's more than I could say about Williams, though.</p><p></p><p>With regard to his being an icon (and because it seems like several posters here are getting tired of this digression), I'll let this be my last word on this subject in this thread:</p><p></p><p>I personally find Gary Gygax to be a more sympathetic figure than Lorraine Williams. While a comparison of their vices, both personal and professional, seems to come out roughly evenly, I don't believe that the same can be said of their virtues. Lorraine came from a background of considerable privilege, taking on uncontested leadership of a company because she wanted an "individual challenge" and a "great experience." (Ewalt, chapter 11) Gary was a principal in the company's founding, and his personal livelihood was tied to it (his background about working as a cobbler while being unemployed and having a family to feed is common knowledge to the point of needing no citation). Williams, by her own admission, didn't understand the product in question, whereas Gary had an undeniable love for it.</p><p></p><p>Now, there's more nuance to virtually all of the above (e.g. Gary's relationship to Arneson), and there's certainly an issue as to whether or not their respective virtues are more salient than their vices. That's up to every person to determine for themselves. But I think that there's value in being aware of the merits of both arguments, and that either position is eminently defensible.</p><p></p><p>And with that, I'm out.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 9064682, member: 8461"] I find your take on Riggs' statement regarding his own take on the issue of Lorraine's "villainization" to be more generous than (I feel) is warranted. The very fact that he refers to it as being "villainization" to begin with, rather than investigating whether or not the strongly negative takes on her tenure were accurate or not, strikes me as being a fairly straightforward announcement of bias on his part, which goes hand-in-hand with his numerous disrespectful references to Gary Gygax as "Saint Gary." To put it another way, he entertained that notion (that Lorraine's portrayal was the result of misogyny) based on...well...nothing, since he doesn't seem to provide a reason for [i]why[/i] he wondered that in the first place. That he had such an inclination isn't the problem in-and-of itself; as you correctly noted, all people have such biases. But Riggs doesn't seem to have made any effort to check his, and instead indulges it throughout his book. That doesn't make the book itself not worth reading by any means, but it makes me less inclined to give credence to his assurances. Nuance is not equivocation. There is a very large area between "this person is (completely) trustworthy" and "this person is a liar." I see this as an instance of someone falling into that area; Riggs is giving us a personal assurance on his part that he didn't find anything to refute his viewpoint that Lorraine has been unfairly maligned with regard to Gary Gygax. I'm not saying he isn't telling us the truth as he sees it, but by that same token I don't find his word in that regard to be sufficient for me to regard that claim as airtight. Once again, I'll point out that two or three people saying they had a different take on something does not mean that a particular claim is somehow invalid. Likewise, you're once again confusing the issue, as most of the posters you're citing took exception to the idea that Riggs' book painted Williams in a bad light, which is not the same as them saying that they thought the book was unbiased. Putting aside that I don't think that "self-evident" means that literally [i]no one[/i] can call something into question, I'm [url=https://www.enworld.org/threads/slaying-the-dragon-the-secret-history-of-dungeons-dragons-review.689824/post-8736498]not the first person[/url] on these forums to point out that Riggs' presentations of his own opinion compromise the degree to which his book can be taken as a historical reference. I suppose that goes to the amount of sympathy we respectively ascribe to someone coming out of a toxic work environment. When the boss of a company is described as being feared by their employees, I tend to presume that those employees are going to have some bitterness (or other bad feelings) toward said boss that will come out after the fact. Such an environment is [i]extremely[/i] stressful to work in, and given the power dynamics involved my inclination is to believe the person with less power over (those defending) the person who had more. Again, that's not cherry-picking; I not only posted the entire quote, but I specifically called out "emphasis mine" when I did so. Likewise, you've made it clear that you think Williams' positives make up for her toxicity; I disagree. I'm not sure having spoken to him once or twice at Gen Con really counts as "having known him." Admittedly, it's more than I could say about Williams, though. With regard to his being an icon (and because it seems like several posters here are getting tired of this digression), I'll let this be my last word on this subject in this thread: I personally find Gary Gygax to be a more sympathetic figure than Lorraine Williams. While a comparison of their vices, both personal and professional, seems to come out roughly evenly, I don't believe that the same can be said of their virtues. Lorraine came from a background of considerable privilege, taking on uncontested leadership of a company because she wanted an "individual challenge" and a "great experience." (Ewalt, chapter 11) Gary was a principal in the company's founding, and his personal livelihood was tied to it (his background about working as a cobbler while being unemployed and having a family to feed is common knowledge to the point of needing no citation). Williams, by her own admission, didn't understand the product in question, whereas Gary had an undeniable love for it. Now, there's more nuance to virtually all of the above (e.g. Gary's relationship to Arneson), and there's certainly an issue as to whether or not their respective virtues are more salient than their vices. That's up to every person to determine for themselves. But I think that there's value in being aware of the merits of both arguments, and that either position is eminently defensible. And with that, I'm out. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Chat with Rose Estes
Top