TSR Lorraine Williams, unfairly lambasted?

[Parmandur]

...but:

1. There was only "rot" because she saved it.

2. It didn't fail. It got sold, and continued on. It's not like she destroyed D&D and you can't play it anymore. From a purely business perspective, she bought a company on the cheap, kept it going (and made a good deal of money off of it), and then cashed out with no liability.

3. I will point out, one more time, that business failures are a part of life and the American way of doing business, and yet, for some reason, no one holds the multitude of male CEOs and owners up to this impossible standard. Seriously, go through all of the men in the TTRPG field whose companies folded or were bought out. How many of them have the level of vitriol directed at them that Williams does?


This is a lingering artifact of a time that was, well, kind of misogynistic in general, and more than kind of when it came to TTRPGs (unfortunately).

More than just armchair Internet ramblings, I have a bad taste in my mouth from a lot of the comments directed at her from TSR insiders. It does seem that she was not a beloved boss due in a fair part to her own choices, but some of the vitriol has a particular bitter flavor.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Have you actually read the module? I got it when WoTC had it available as a free pdf.
Frankly those TSR designers dumping on Wells sound like jerks.

Yeah, I actually have the module, so I've read it...

And you've completely missed the point. That orange cover was recalled. Because of how it was made. The warning bells were sounded by the people in that article I linked, and they were ignored because Jean and Gary were friends and she told Gary to tell everyone else to lay off. So they did. And guess what happened? Total disaster. It had to be recalled and dumped in the landfill.

But hey, keep attacking the people that were there instead of looking at the actual facts of what happened to that module. Ad hominems never go out of style.

Sorry, but she was the one in charge. What went before isn't relevant. She had the ability to rectify the situation and rescue the company, and didn't. Her time was a litany of bad decisions. She and she alone bears responsibility. That's why CEOs get paid the big bucks.

What happened before absolutely is relevant. If you're handed a dumpster fire, how reasonable is it for you to fix it completely and long term, compared to if you're handed a solid business with tons of cashflow? That makes a world of difference, regardless of the industry.

It seems to me to be the opposite. Every singe discussion of TSR business I have seen for the past year or more has included how bad a position the company was in before Williams.

The opposite? Have you even read your own forums you're a moderator of? Just look at the the responses in this thread. I don't even have to link to those other threads where it seems Lorraine gets all the blame (like a week or two ago when there was a dumping on her with comments like "Was there anything she touched that she didn't destroy?"). I have no idea how you can say it's the opposite of that. Especially since the responses in this very thread prove otherwise.

From some of the financials articles, the many settings was actually a direct part of the problem. They were splintering their user base, and making products that would only appeal to a fration of them at a time, but still had all the costs of making something that could appeal to them all.

The settings didn't destroy TSR, or lead to it's ruin. Getting hit with Random Houses's fees are what did it. That one act dumped TSR with a ton of debt, and those fees are directly tied to overproducing novels and dragon dice. If not for the novels and dragon dice (and therefore the fees), TSR would have been in much healthier financials.

.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'm not excusing her bad decisions, as I said in my OP. But the comments here seem to prove what I was saying. She gets all of the blame, none of the recognition for the good things that happened under her watch, and Blume and Gary barely even get acknowledged about how TSR would have had to sell before Lorraine even joined, and that only happens if you force people to acknowledge it. If not for Williams, TSR would have went bankrupt and dissolved in the mid 80s.

 

[dave2008]

..., go through all of the men in the TTRPG field whose companies folded or were bought out. How many of them have the level of vitriol directed at them that Williams does?

In general I am with you and think misogyny is a big factor here; however, the fact the it is D&D is also a big issue. We care less about the tug boats and more about the flagship.

Another odd thing is she gets blamed for the failure of TSR, but not the credit for saving D&D by selling it to WotC! CEOs are often given big raises or cheered when they sell their company.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I don't think the blame is that one-sided, at least not these days. I've never read up on the whole thing in detail, but what I've gotten from osmosis is that a lot of bad decisions happened over a course of several years, and the combined effect of all of them dragged the company down.

Honestly, the more you look at the timeline of bad decisions, it's a wonder TSR didn't go out of business before the 80s even happened. The entire history of TSR was bad decision after bad decision. From Gary's repeated and constant stealing of other's IP (when it would have been so easy just to work out a deal; Iron Crown go the rights to do Middle Earth for a pittance in the mid 80s), to the unneeded rift he caused with Arneson, to his spending company cash on personal endeavors, to his management style (that carried over to the Blumes and later Lorraine), to the Blumes branching out into non profitable personal projects, to hiring management with no industry experience, to continuing to take up front advances (setting your long term financial ability on shaky ground for short term profit), it was just one really bad thing after another. If not for the devotion of fans and how we needed to buy everything up, TSR would have collapsed long before 1997. Honestly, looking at the timeline, and it's a wonder it lasted so long.

Yeah, Lorraine is to blame for poor management decisions and continuing to take advances (to be fair to her, I'm sure the board pressured that, because it's common among most corporations to do that). But she's just one piece in the managerial disasters that TSR encountered. She doesn't deserve any more hate than Gary or Kevin, and it's an equal thing between the three. Or should be. But of course it's not.

 

[Umbran]

The opposite? Have you even read your own forums you're a moderator of?

Yes, I do.

And if you're not prepared to consider that two reasonable people can read the same thing, and come away with different opinions, and then resort to accusing others of ignorance to make your point... This is going to go poorly. Intentionally or not, the hyperbolic incredulous stance messages that you are not interested in other viewpoints. If you want something constructive here. you probably want to back off of that.

 

[Sacrosanct]

In general I am with you and think misogyny is a big factor here; however, the fact the it is D&D is also a big issue. We care less about the tug boats and more about the flagship.

Another odd thing is she gets blamed for the failure of TSR, but not the credit for saving D&D by selling it to WotC! CEOs are often given big raises or cheered when they sell their company.

If you consider her saving D&D by selling it to Atkinson, then she saved it twice. Because TSR was dying when she took over.

 

[dave2008]

I'm not excusing her bad decisions, as I said in my OP. But the comments here seem to prove what I was saying.

I think you are getting more comments in support of your opinion than arguing against it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yes, I do.

And if you're not prepared to consider that two reasonable people can read the same thing, and come away with different opinions, and then resort to accusing others of ignorance to make your point... This is going to go poorly. Intentionally or not, the hyperbolic incredulous stance messages that you are not interested in other viewpoints. If you want something constructive here. you probably want to back off of that.

We have threads where most of the comments re: the problems of TSR that blame management, blame her. In this very thread we have people blaming her way more than any other blame.

So if you have way more attacks on her than anyone else, objectively, I'm curious to how one can come away with your conclusion that it's the opposite. This is an objective thing we can measure, but looking at the actual number of comments made.

If she gets attacked 100 times, and Kevin gets blamed 9 times, and Gary gets blamed maybe once, in what way, shape, or form can you say that it's the opposite, and she doesn't get blamed as much as the other two? This thread alone has more people blaming her than the other two, and you're honestly going to argue that it's the opposite?

This isn't about "two reasonable people interpreting things". I absolutely believe two reasonable people have have shades of grey in interpretation. But that's not what this is. This is about looking at the actual number of comments and seeing the difference in objective terms (number of comments about who gets blamed the most)

 

[darjr]

If you consider her saving D&D by selling it to Atkinson, then she saved it twice. Because TSR was dying when she took over.

Well, she didn’t know it was WotC. As far as she knew it was Ryan Dancys company, the 5 rings card game rpg mail order store company, or some other company he was brokering for. What Ryan hadn’t told her was he was working for WotC and WotC bought his company, or did shortly after.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think you are getting more comments in support of your opinion than arguing against it.

What I mean, is that there are more comments in this thread laying most of the blame at her feet, than there are that give the most blame to other people in charge (Kevin or Gary).