• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

TSR Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR

In the winter of 1997, I traveled to Lake Geneva Wisconsin on a secret mission. In the late fall, rumors of TSR's impending bankruptcy had created an opportunity to made a bold gamble that the business could be saved by an infusion of capital or an acquisition with a larger partner.

In the winter of 1997, I traveled to Lake Geneva Wisconsin on a secret mission. In the late fall, rumors of TSR's impending bankruptcy had created an opportunity to made a bold gamble that the business could be saved by an infusion of capital or an acquisition with a larger partner. After a hasty series of phone calls and late night strategy sessions, I found myself standing in the snow outside of 201 Sheridan Springs Road staring at a building bearing a sign that said "TSR, Incorporated".

Inside the building, I found a dead company.

In the halls that had produced the stuff of my childhood fantasies, and had fired my imagination and become unalterably intertwined with my own sense of self, I found echoes, empty desks, and the terrible depression of lost purpose.

The life story of a tree can be read by a careful examination of its rings. The life story of a corporation can be read by a careful examination of its financial records and corporate minutes.

I was granted unprecedented access to those records. I read the TSR corporate log book from the first page penned in haste by Gary Gygax to the most recent terse minutes dictated to a lawyer with no connection to hobby gaming. I was able to trace the meteoric rise of D&D as a business, the terrible failure to control costs that eventually allowed a total outsider to take control away from the founders, the slow and steady progress to rebuild the financial solvency of the company, and the sudden and dramatic failure of that business model. I read the euphoric copyright filings for the books of my lost summers: "Player's Handbook", "Fiend Folio", "Oriental Adventures". I read the contract between Gary and TSR where Gary was severed from contact with the company he had founded and the business he had nurtured and grown. I saw the clause where Gary, forced to the wall by ruthless legal tactics was reduced to insisting to the right to use his own name in future publishing endeavors, and to take and keep control of his personal D&D characters. I read the smudged photocopies produced by the original Dragonlance Team, a group of people who believed in a new idea for gaming that told a story across many different types of products. I saw concept artwork evolve from lizard men with armor to unmistakable draconians. I read Tracy Hickman's one page synopsis of the Dragonlance Story. I held the contract between Tracy and Margaret for the publication of the three Chronicles novels. I read the contract between Ed Greenwood and TSR to buy his own personal game world and transform it into the most developed game setting in history - the most detailed and explored fantasy world ever created.

And I read the details of the Random House distribution agreement; an agreement that TSR had used to support a failing business and hide the fact that TSR was rotten at the core. I read the entangling bank agreements that divided the copyright interests of the company as security against default, and realized that the desperate arrangements made to shore up the company's poor financial picture had so contaminated those rights that it might not be possible to extract Dungeons & Dragons from the clutches of lawyers and bankers and courts for years upon end. I read the severance agreements between the company and departed executives which paid them extraordinary sums for their silence. I noted the clauses, provisions, amendments and agreements that were piling up more debt by the hour in the form of interest charges, fees and penalties. I realized that the money paid in good faith by publishers and attendees for GenCon booths and entrance fees had been squandered and that the show itself could not be funded. I discovered that the cost of the products that company was making in many cases exceeded the price the company was receiving for selling those products. I toured a warehouse packed from floor to 50 foot ceiling with products valued as though they would soon be sold to a distributor with production stamps stretching back to the late 1980s. I was 10 pages in to a thick green bar report of inventory, calculating the true value of the material in that warehouse when I realized that my last 100 entries had all been "$0"'s.

I met staff members who were determined to continue to work, despite the knowledge that they might not get paid, might not even be able to get in to the building each day. I saw people who were working on the same manuscripts they'd been working on six months earlier, never knowing if they'd actually be able to produce the fruits of their labor. In the eyes of those people (many of whom I have come to know as friends and co workers), I saw defeat, desperation, and the certain knowledge that somehow, in some way, they had failed. The force of the human, personal pain in that building was nearly overwhelming - on several occasions I had to retreat to a bathroom to sit and compose myself so that my own tears would not further trouble those already tortured souls.

I ran hundreds of spreadsheets, determined to figure out what had to be done to save the company. I was convinced that if I could just move enough money from column A to column B, that everything would be ok. Surely, a company with such powerful brands and such a legacy of success could not simply cease to exist due to a few errors of judgment and a poor strategic plan?

I made several trips to TSR during the frenzied days of negotiation that resulted in the acquisition of the company by Wizards of the Coast. When I returned home from my first trip, I retreated to my home office; a place filled with bookshelves stacked with Dungeons & Dragons products. From the earliest games to the most recent campaign setting supplements - I owned, had read, and loved those products with a passion and intensity that I devoted to little else in my life. And I knew, despite my best efforts to tell myself otherwise, that the disaster I kept going back to in Wisconsin was the result of the products on those shelves.

When Peter put me in charge of the tabletop RPG business in 1998, he gave me one commission: Find out what went wrong, fix the business, save D&D. Vince also gave me a business condition that was easy to understand and quite direct. "God damnit, Dancey", he thundered at me from across the conference table: "Don't lose any more money!"

That became my core motivation. Save D&D. Don't lose money. Figure out what went wrong. Fix the problem.

Back into those financials I went. I walked again the long threads of decisions made by managers long gone; there are few roadmarks to tell us what was done and why in the years TSR did things like buy a needlepoint distributorship, or establish a west coast office at King Vedor's mansion. Why had a moderate success in collectable dice triggered a million unit order? Why did I still have stacks and stacks of 1st edition rulebooks in the warehouse? Why did TSR create not once, not twice, but nearly a dozen times a variation on the same, Tolkien inspired, eurocentric fantasy theme? Why had it constantly tried to create different games, poured money into marketing those games, only to realize that nobody was buying those games? Why, when it was so desperate for cash, had it invested in a million dollar license for content used by less than 10% of the marketplace? Why had a successful game line like Dragonlance been forcibly uprooted from its natural home in the D&D game and transplanted to a foreign and untested new game system? Why had the company funded the development of a science fiction game modeled on D&D - then not used the D&D game rules?

In all my research into TSR's business, across all the ledgers, notebooks, computer files, and other sources of data, there was one thing I never found - one gaping hole in the mass of data we had available.

No customer profiling information. No feedback. No surveys. No "voice of the customer". TSR, it seems, knew nothing about the people who kept it alive. The management of the company made decisions based on instinct and gut feelings; not data. They didn't know how to listen - as an institution, listening to customers was considered something that other companies had to do - TSR lead, everyone else followed.

In today's hypercompetitive market, that's an impossible mentality. At Wizards of the Coast, we pay close attention to the voice of the customer. We ask questions. We listen. We react. So, we spent a whole lot of time and money on a variety of surveys and studies to learn about the people who play role playing games. And, at every turn, we learned things that were not only surprising, they flew in the face of all the conventional wisdom we'd absorbed through years of professional game publishing.

We heard some things that are very, very hard for a company to hear. We heard that our customers felt like we didn't trust them. We heard that we produced material they felt was substandard, irrelevant, and broken. We heard that our stories were boring or out of date, or simply uninteresting. We heard the people felt that >we< were irrelevant.

I know now what killed TSR. It wasn't trading card games. It wasn't Dragon Dice. It wasn't the success of other companies. It was a near total inability to listen to its customers, hear what they were saying, and make changes to make those customers happy. TSR died because it was deaf.

Amazingly, despite all those problems, and despite years of neglect, the D&D game itself remained, at the core, a viable business. Damaged; certainly. Ailing; certainly. But savable? Absolutely.

Our customers were telling us that 2e was too restrictive, limited their creativity, and wasn't "fun to play'? We can fix that. We can update the core rules to enable the expression of that creativity. We can demonstrate a commitment to supporting >your< stories. >Your< worlds. And we can make the game fun again.

Our customers were telling us that we produced too many products, and that the stuff we produced was of inferior quality? We can fix that. We can cut back on the number of products we release, and work hard to make sure that each and every book we publish is useful, interesting, and of high quality.

Our customers were telling us that we spent too much time on our own worlds, and not enough time on theirs? Ok - we can fix that. We can re-orient the business towards tools, towards examples, towards universal systems and rules that aren't dependent on owning a thousand dollars of unnecessary materials first.

Our customers were telling us that they prefer playing D&D nearly 2:1 over the next most popular game option? That's an important point of distinction. We can leverage that desire to help get them more people to play >with< by reducing the barriers to compatibility between the material we produce, and the material created by other companies.

Our customers told us they wanted a better support organization? We can pour money and resources into the RPGA and get it growing and supporting players like never before in the club's history. (10,000 paid members and rising, nearly 50,000 unpaid members - numbers currently skyrocketing).

Our customers were telling us that they want to create and distribute content based on our game? Fine - we can accommodate that interest and desire in a way that keeps both our customers and our lawyers happy.

Are we still listening? Yes, we absolutely are. If we hear you asking us for something we're not delivering, we'll deliver it. But we're not going to cater to the specific and unique needs of a minority if doing so will cause hardship to the majority. We're going to try and be responsible shepards of the D&D business, and that means saying "no" to things that we have shown to be damaging to the business and that aren't wanted or needed by most of our customers.

We listened when the customers told us that Alternity wasn't what they wanted in a science fiction game. We listened when customers told us that they didn't want the confusing, jargon filled world of Planescape. We listened when people told us that the Ravenloft concept was overshadowed by the products of a competitor. We listened to customers who told us that they want core materials, not world materials. That they buy DUNGEON magazine every two months at a rate twice that of our best selling stand-alone adventures.

We're not telling anyone what game to play. We are telling the market that we're going to actively encourage our players to stand up and demand that they be listened to, and that they become the center of the gaming industry - rather than the current publisher-centric model. Through the RPGA, the Open Gaming movement, the pages of Dragon Magazine, and all other venues available, we want to empower our customers to do what >they< want, to force us and our competitors to bend to >their< will, to make the products >they< want made.

I want to be judged on results, not rhetoric. I want to look back at my time at the helm of this business and feel that things got better, not worse. I want to know that my team made certain that the mistakes of the past wouldn't be the mistakes of the future. I want to know that we figured out what went wrong. That we fixed it. That we saved D&D. And that god damnit, we didn't lose money.

Thank you for listening,
Sincerely,
Ryan S. Dancey
VP, Wizards of the Coast
Brand Manager, Dungeons & Dragons

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ryan S. Dancey

Ryan S. Dancey

OGL Architect

ScottDeWar_jr

second birthdate : 15 Dec 2011
Now, I just read the article you posted and M. Cook hits the same nails that I have been smacking at. I only have time to read about half of his article, though.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

ScottDeWar_jr

second birthdate : 15 Dec 2011
I really really can't agree here. AD&D 1e was the biggest cash-grab in the history of D&D, not ignoring 3.5. Gygax literally put AD&D 1e out in order to claim it was a different game and screw Dave Arneson out of royalties. And he did this in part by throwing in a large collection of badly playtested rules. The idea he "just loved the game" and wasn't willing to sacrifice making a good game if it made him more money is sadly contradicted by the historic record.
I have read this before, but I need to research more to have a proper opinion. I only knew of 1st ed., I had not played any previous edition.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I really really can't agree here. AD&D 1e was the biggest cash-grab in the history of D&D, not ignoring 3.5.
In hindsight, maybe, but at the time - 1977, when the AD&D PH came out - there as yet wasn't all that much cash to grab. D&D didn't really take off until about 1979, after (and arguably because) all three of the core 1e books were out.
 

Dire Bare

Legend
I really really can't agree here. AD&D 1e was the biggest cash-grab in the history of D&D, not ignoring 3.5. Gygax literally put AD&D 1e out in order to claim it was a different game and screw Dave Arneson out of royalties. And he did this in part by throwing in a large collection of badly playtested rules. The idea he "just loved the game" and wasn't willing to sacrifice making a good game if it made him more money is sadly contradicted by the historic record.
I've come to loath the term "cash-grab" in D&D discussions, because it usually is overly simplistic and really just reflects the posters opinion on the direction a game goes. You don't like X-Edition? Cash grab! Besides, every D&D product published since the white box in '74 was a cash-grab, in the sense it was published in order to make a profit. Of course, each of those products had other reasons for being published, especially from the POV of the various writers and designers.

It's certainly true, however, that the development of AD&D was motivated in large part to screw Arneson out of his share and involvement with the game. But it wasn't the sole motivation, Gygax really was trying out a reinvention of the game, he really was trying to improve it, and he really did feel it was "advanced" over the original game. I just wish he hadn't been such a toxic bastard towards Arneson, and just made AD&D the "2nd Edition" of the game, without the weird and irritating split between B/X D&D and AD&D.
 

MGibster

Legend
Our customers were telling us that 2e was too restrictive, limited their creativity, and wasn't "fun to play'? We can fix that. We can update the core rules to enable the expression of that creativity. We can demonstrate a commitment to supporting >your< stories. >Your< worlds. And we can make the game fun again.
Holy cow! This was the exact reason I stopped playing AD&D 2nd edition back around 1996-1997. I still liked it but I wanted to try some new things and I didn't feel like AD&D could be part of that journey. I didn't get back into D&D until 3rd edition was released in 2000.
 

4E needed an extra 12-18 months in the oven if not longer. Rushed out the door.
I would agree and strongly suggest 5E also needed another 6-12 months in the oven, too (probably closer to 6 than 12). I think this is most obvious with the DMG, which is utterly stuffed with half-baked systems and ideas (to the point where at least one optional system seems to be a failure to even work through their own idea, leading to a perverse mechanic), and in the early products for 5E, but also in some of the class design in the PHB, where some classes feel like they got design-in-depth, and others have a very "Well, close enough, go with it!" vibe.

(For that matter, you could probably make a good case 3E needed some more dev time, given how rapidly 3.5E followed!)

Looking at Dancey's stated issues/goals from 2000 here is absolutely fascinating, because they're a real mix of three things:

1) Was an issue then, they dealt with it, no longer really relevant.

2) Wasn't really an issue, even though it was perceived to be.

3) Not actually achieved until 5E.

This last category (which I actually feel is the bulk of them) is particularly fascinating, because it seems like, to me, 3E actually failed at a lot of the goals he set (though it didn't lose money, AFAICT!), and 4E failed at some, and only 5E can roundly be seen as succeeding at the relevant goals. For example:
Our customers were telling us that we produced too many products, and that the stuff we produced was of inferior quality? We can fix that. We can cut back on the number of products we release, and work hard to make sure that each and every book we publish is useful, interesting, and of high quality.
I'd say 3.XE was a massive failure here. Not as big a failure as 2E, sure, but worse than 4E and 5E. 5E finally overcompensated and started undersaturating the market and is now turning that around, but 3E, good god? The sheer volume of books was staggering, and most of them were kind of awful. High production values, though!
Our customers were telling us that we spent too much time on our own worlds, and not enough time on theirs? Ok - we can fix that. We can re-orient the business towards tools, towards examples, towards universal systems and rules that aren't dependent on owning a thousand dollars of unnecessary materials first.
This is subjective as hell, I have to admit, but I definitely do not feel like 3.XE at all practiced what it preached here. Not at all. On the contrary I felt like 3.XE was worse for this than 2E, with the aggressive usage of hyper-specific PrCs, the bizarre Greyhawk-specific-material obsession (despite not actually supporting Greyhawk as a setting!) and a lot of other stuff that felt like it was supporting specifics, rather than acting as a toolbox - plus it took an insane number of books to get all the bits you might want to use! The second part is more like something they achieved - the "d20" system was more broadly applicable than 2E approaches, but perhaps too broad (and ultimately I think destructive to the industry, but to be fair to Dancey it'd have been nearly impossible to foresee that, and things have since largely recovered).
Are we still listening? Yes, we absolutely are.
I totally believe that was true in 2000. I have a lot of difficulty believing it was still true by even 2003, and much as I love 4E, I very much doubt it was true in 2007/8. And again, just like 5E overcompensated wildly by cutting the number of books down to a trickle (when a moderate stream would be fine), 5E wildly overcompensated with it's obsessive surveys, and strange approach to playtesting, which caused it to "listen" well but only to a subsection of the audience, and they failed to do what companies who want to listen have to do, and think carefully about who they're hearing from and when to accept input, and when to question it (in particular the arbitrary "70% approval" standard, which was very inconsistently applied and hasn't been mentioned for years, thankfully, was an outright mistake - you listen, but you shouldn't be letting the surveys dictate stuff like that). Still, it feels like maybe they went back and looked at Dancey's ideas here, when approaching 5E.
 
Last edited:


Dire Bare

Legend
I would agree and strongly suggest 5E also needed another 6-12 months in the oven, too (probably closer to 6 than 12). I think this is most obvious with the DMG, which is utterly stuffed with half-baked systems and ideas (to the point where at least one optional system seems to be a failure to even work through their own idea, leading to a perverse mechanic), and in the early products for 5E, but also in some of the class design in the PHB, where some classes feel like they got design-in-depth, and others have a very "Well, close enough, go with it!" vibe.

(For that matter, you could probably make a good case 3E needed some more dev time, given how rapidly 3.5E followed!)

Looking at Dancey's stated issues/goals from 2000 here is absolutely fascinating, because they're a real mix of three things:

1) Was an issue then, they dealt with it, no longer really relevant.

2) Wasn't really an issue, even though it was perceived to be.

3) Not actually achieved until 5E.

This last category (which I actually feel is the bulk of them) is particularly fascinating, because it seems like, to me, 3E actually failed at a lot of the goals he set (though it didn't lose money, AFAICT!), and 4E failed at some, and only 5E can roundly be seen as succeeding at the relevant goals. For example:

I'd say 3.XE was a massive failure here. Not as big a failure as 2E, sure, but worse than 4E and 5E. 5E finally overcompensated and started undersaturating the market and is now turning that around, but 3E, good god? The sheer volume of books was staggering, and most of them were kind of awful. High production values, though!

This is subjective as hell, I have to admit, but I definitely do not feel like 3.XE at all practiced what it preached here. Not at all. On the contrary I felt like 3.XE was worse for this than 2E, with the aggressive usage of hyper-specific PrCs, the bizarre Greyhawk-specific-material obsession (despite not actually supporting Greyhawk as a setting!) and a lot of other stuff that felt like it was supporting specifics, rather than acting as a toolbox - plus it took an insane number of books to get all the bits you might want to use! The second part is more like something they achieved - the "d20" system was more broadly applicable than 2E approaches, but perhaps too broad (and ultimately I think destructive to the industry, but to be fair to Dancey it'd have been nearly impossible to foresee that, and things have since largely recovered).

I totally believe that was true in 2000. I have a lot of difficulty believing it was still true by even 2003, and much as I love 4E, I very much doubt it was true in 2007/8. And again, just like 5E overcompensated wildly by cutting the number of books down to a trickle (when a moderate stream would be fine), 5E wildly overcompensated with it's obsessive surveys, and strange approach to playtesting, which caused it to "listen" well but only to a subsection of the audience, and they failed to do what companies who want to listen have to do, and think carefully about who they're hearing from and when to accept input, and when to question it (in particular the arbitrary "70% approval" standard, which was very inconsistently applied and hasn't been mentioned for years, thankfully, was an outright mistake - you listen, but you shouldn't be letting the surveys dictate stuff like that). Still, it feels like maybe they went back and looked at Dancey's ideas here, when approaching 5E.
Dancey was pretty insightful, and WotC and D&D was lucky he was in the right place at the right time. But he was just one guy at WotC, and management has changed over several times since those days. It's not uncommon in any industry for new management to fail to learn from the previous managements experience. I totally agree with you, that progress on Dancey's goals has been back-and-forth . . . but overall, the game is progressing on those goals!
 

ScottDeWar_jr

second birthdate : 15 Dec 2011
Dancey was pretty insightful, and WotC and D&D was lucky he was in the right place at the right time. But he was just one guy at WotC, .. .. .. .. ..snip
I am quoting this to reiterate a very important truth: He was one person, and there was only so much one person can do. No matter what I have said here prior, This truth must be made known, and I agree with it 100%.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top