D&D General Not the Wicked Witch: Revisiting the Legacy of Lorraine Williams

[billd91]

Draconian rules about artists not owning the originals of the work they made (Brom, specifically, cited that as being why he left TSR).

You might want to consider your spin on that since Brom didn't seem to think the policy was draconian - rather he's cited as thinking the policy was ethical and fair. And while being able to keep his own artwork may have been cited as his #1 reason, he was also looking to get his artwork into more publications rather than just the TSR ones. So his departure wasn't acrimonious and doesn't really support a narrative of alienating him.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You might want to consider your spin on that since Brom didn't seem to think the policy was draconian - rather he's cited as thinking the policy was ethical and fair. And while being able to keep his own artwork may have been cited as his #1 reason, he was also looking to get his artwork into more publications rather than just the TSR ones. So his departure wasn't acrimonious and doesn't really support a narrative of alienating him.

More importantly, this was a change instituted by Gygax and the Blumes in the 1970s. Not a Lorraine thing.

Of course, if you review the history, the fact that Gygax also singed those agreements (that TSR held all the rights to the creative works) in order to show everyone else that it was no big deal ... well, the repeated motif of hubris comes to mind.

 

[jolt]

Stuff like pushing Buck Roger’s and weird things like D&D wood working kits

And spending money they didn't have. The boxes sets were high quality, but they didn't have the money and their entire plan was based on future sales being so unrealistically high that is had no chance of ever being met. I've talked to people to worked under her (like Brom) and very few had anything good to say (like being forced to use expensive paints because she thought the project was more important). Not to mention, publicly dissing the people you want to buy your product is just stupid.

 

[Lord Shark]

Stuff like pushing Buck Roger’s and weird things like D&D wood working kits

The infamous D&D woodburning kit came out in 1983, a year before Williams was hired at TSR and two years before she bought out the Blumes and took over.

 

[DarkCrisis]

OK, that doesn't seem like that qualifies as "a LOT," but I guess perspectives differ. IMO, that pales in comparison to what Gygax did (or didn't) do. Not saying she is a hero or anything, but ultimately it seems she saved D&D twice, once by helping to get rid of Gary and secondly selling to WotC. I respect her for that alone.

Im not going to make a full list. It wasnt just 2 things.

 

[DarkCrisis]

And spending money they didn't have. The boxes sets were high quality, but they didn't have the money and their entire plan was based on future sales being so unrealistically high that is had no chance of ever being met. I've talked to people to worked under her (like Brom) and very few had anything good to say (like being forced to use expensive paints because she thought the project was more important). Not to mention, publicly dissing the people you want to buy your product is just stupid.

Exactly.

The infamous D&D woodburning kit came out in 1983, a year before Williams was hired at TSR and two years before she bought out the Blumes and took over.

Both sides made so many bad business decisions it's hard to keep them all straight.

 

[Alzrius]

You might want to consider your spin on that since Brom didn't seem to think the policy was draconian - rather he's cited as thinking the policy was ethical and fair. And while being able to keep his own artwork may have been cited as his #1 reason, he was also looking to get his artwork into more publications rather than just the TSR ones. So his departure wasn't acrimonious and doesn't really support a narrative of alienating him.

You're engaging in quite a bit of spin yourself, in all honesty. He might have thought that the policy was ethical and fair, but you don't have to be unfair or unethical to be draconian, which strikes me as a perfectly valid way of describing a policy that drives your staff to quit.

More importantly, this was a change instituted by Gygax and the Blumes in the 1970s. Not a Lorraine thing.

This is something of a half-truth. To quote from Slaying the Dragon:

When [Jeff] Easley arrived at the company, the policy was that when an artist had completed a work, they would also take the original away from them. The artist was paid to make the painting. They painted at the company on a canvas paid for by the company with company paint. It was, therefore, company property. (TSR, however, didn't make a habit of tossing original paintings in the trash.)

[...]

Soon after Easley's arrival, however, the policy changed. Artists would be allowed to retain their original works of art. They could sell them, keep them, or give them away.

[...]

But in the early 1990s, the company decided to again keep ownership of all the paintings.

Now, Easley went to work for TSR in 1982, and the book doesn't say exactly how "soon after" his arrival that policy changed. But that it changed back during a period that was unquestionably during Williams' tenure is notable, and while Riggs does note that artists were given a raise to try and offset that this new policy hurt their income (since they made a lot of money selling the originals), Easley notes that "the artists were not too happy about it anyway."

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This is something of a half-truth. To quote from Slaying the Dragon:

Not a half truth, I misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about the ownership of the rights to the art; that was something that Gygax and the Blumes changed (along with royalties, etc.) in the '70s.

But again, AFAIK the company under their leadership kept the original artwork.

Now, Easley went to work for TSR in 1982, and the book doesn't say exactly how "soon after" his arrival that policy changed. But that it changed back during a period that was unquestionably during Williams' tenure is notable, and while Riggs does note that artists were given a raise to try and offset that this new policy hurt their income (since they made a lot of money selling the originals), Easley notes that "the artists were not too happy about it anyway."

shrug

No idea. But first, we don't know when the policy was changed to allow them to keep the original (and it would be weird to attribute against Lorraine since she was at TSR in 1984 and running day-to-day soon thereafter). Second, at least they were given something for it when the policy reverted (unlike the past policy).

Again, this is just bizarre that this is evidence against Lorraine. IMO.

But that's what I mean. It appears that people, despite the accumulation of historical evidence, will just categorize everything as "Lorraine bad."

You are welcome to do that. I am not comfortable doing that any longer, for the reasons I have already outlined with far too many words.

 

[billd91]

You're engaging in quite a bit of spin yourself, in all honesty. He might have thought that the policy was ethical and fair, but you don't have to be unfair or unethical to be draconian, which strikes me as a perfectly valid way of describing a policy that drives your staff to quit.

I have literally never heard or seen anyone describe "draconian" as "fair".
Before today. Make of that what you will...

 

[Alzrius]

It appears that people, despite the accumulation of historical evidence, will just categorize everything as "Lorraine bad."

Without going further into the weeds, I'll say only that I think it's because of the evidence that said categorization holds up.

with far too many words.

The real Snarf would never say such a thing! I call bard!

I have literally never heard or seen anyone describe "draconian" as "fair".
Before today. Make of that what you will...

I mean, I suppose we could start quoting dictionary entries at each other; isn't that how these things usually go?