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

[damiller]

I don't have a lot of prior narrative about really any of the "villians" of TSR. I can see how it would be hard to shake those prior ideas, and I think it is cool @Snarf Zagyg that you've been able to do that. It isn't easy.

She kept D&D afloat till it could get into the hands of another company, rather than dying in bankruptcy.

And as for the comment about wood burning kits. I can go to Walmart right now and buy DND SQUIRT guns. And in fact it seems Hasbro is trying to put DND into everything (except maybe an RPG )

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

With respects to @Snarf Zagyg, he did gloss over the bad stuff Williams did in the OP.

Well, I didn't think it necessary to go over. Let me explain.

Let's make some buckets of "bad stuff."

In bucket 1 are the things that Lorraine didn't do, but people attribute to. People assume (as some have already done accidentally in this thread) all sorts of bad acts to her, even if they occurred prior to her joining the company.

In bucket 2 are the things that are just lies. Or, at best, half-truths. "Everyone knows" that she didn't allow playtesting, but when I hunted that down, guess what? Not. True.

In bucket 3 are the many, many, many anecdotes that I now realize say more about that time (and sometimes, the person telling them) than about her. The "chainmail bikini" one, or the "pregnancy announcement one."

In bucket 4 are the things that people claim, but I don't find receipts for. Buck Rogers, for example.

In bucket 5 are the things that people have accepted as truth, but when receipts have been given (such as the ouster of Gygax), we find out that they were not true.


What's left is her performance with TSR. As I wrote in the OP, she saved TSR from ruin at the beginning. I would argue she did a good job through the '80s. But she was in charge in the 90s when it all came tumbling down. I think some of her decisions then that were bad were due to desperation at the end. Some can be considered bad with hindsight (but we all have 20/20 hindsight), and others didn't work out. But yeah, she failed at the end.

So treat like we would any other male CEO of a gaming company where it doesn't work out. Stuff happens.

 

[MGibster]

So treat like we would any other male CEO of a gaming company where it doesn't work out. Stuff happens.

Assign it hit dice and send it after the party?

 

[Alzrius]

In bucket 4 are the things that people claim, but I don't find receipts for. Buck Rogers, for example.

I don't understand what you mean about "not finding the receipts" for the Buck Rogers RPGs.

EDIT: As far as receipts go, here's what Shannon Appelcline says about Buck Rogers in Designers & Dragons: The 70s (pages 98-99 in my copy):

A Buck Rogers Interlude: 1988–1995

Having caught up on all of the D&D-related goings-on of the early ’90s we now must take a step back and look at a very odd obsession which TSR was wrestling with in this same period — Buck Rogers — which we already met briefly at TSR West.

Lorraine Williams, who had taken over TSR in 1986, inherited the money she used in the takeover from her grandfather, John Dille. Dille had been the syndicator of the Buck Rogers comic strip, and its ownership had passed into the Dille Family Trust. Now with TSR also under her control, Williams decided to use the game company to increase the value of her family’s other property.

Doing so was clearly a conflict of interest, but at the same time, an above-board one. There was no secret that Williams’ family owned Buck Rogers, and when TSR started paying royalties on the character, there was no secret that some of that ultimately went back to Williams herself. On the other hand, licensing this character and continuing to publish it was probably not beneficial to TSR or its other stockholders.

TSR kicked off their Buck Rogers line with a Jeff Grubb board game (1988), which was sufficiently overprinted that it can still be found in large quantities today. After that they began to focus on a new setting called “XXVc,” which was a reboot of the classic Buck Rogers universe designed by Flint Dille.

XXVc dominated Buck Rogers production throughout the next four years. Initial releases included the aforementioned TSR West comics (1990–1991), a series of 11 novels (1989–1993), and two SSI computer games (1990–1992). The TSR West roleplaying game, XXVc (1990), was finished up in Lake Geneva. It was supported by over a dozen supplements, however it didn’t do that well. Besides being burdened by an obtuse name, XXVc was also closely inspired by the second edition AD&D rules, and that class-and-level system had never been well-received in science-fiction circles.

After the failure of the XXVc line, the original Buck Rogers universe returned with a new High Adventures Cliffhangers Buck Rogers Adventure Game (1993) and a final novel (1995).

Today, it’s hard to assess how much the Buck Rogers publications might have contributed to the eventual downfall of TSR, but it is instructive to note that all production was halted just as TSR entered its troublesome late phase, from 1995–1997, suggesting the products were not moneymakers.

 

[Count_Zero]

Let's make some buckets of "bad stuff."

And the lawsuits are in none of those buckets - that's my very strong objection. Because those happened, and Shannon Appelcline documented those extensively in Designers & Dragons in the entries for New Infinities Productions, GDW, and Mayfair Games. Plus the Cease & Desist letters sent out against fansites (which are also documented in Designers & Dragons, because Shannon Appelcline was one of the recipients of them).

If you are considering this "something people claim but there aren't receipts" - there we have very clearly documented receipts.

I don't understand what you mean about "not finding the receipts" for the Buck Rogers RPGs.

I also have problems with this, because it is fundamentally dependant on having the "fair market" value for the Buck Rogers license set which - well, what we've got is that the last Buck Rogers TV show had been canceled by this point (and maybe was in syndication on cable). Also, the comic strip was no longer in the papers (whereas Flash Gordon was still in newspapers). There wasn't an ongoing comic book until TSR published one themselves to support the line, there were no new fiction books, and the only video game had been the Sega arcade game (Buck Rogers: Planet of Zoom).

So, the property wasn't a going concern at the time, meaning the value of the license is based on whoever is bidding on the RPG license (since we don't have any other contemporary sales figures to go by), and if the only people doing that are TSR, which is owned by a member of the Dille family trust, then whether what they paid is fair market value is inherently questionable, because having a member of the trust that owns Buck Rogers as CEO of TSR inherently puts a thumb on the scale when it comes to closing the deal - meaning if the only company going after the license was TSR we can't consider that a "fair market price" - there are no other offers to compare to.

 

[Omak Darkleaf]

the old saying .... it happened slowly then all at once.

The saying actually originates with Ernest Hemingway. It appears in The Sun Also Rises (1926) as character Mike Campbell’s answer to Robert Cohn’s question of how Mike went bankrupt: “‘Two ways,’ Mike said. ‘Gradually and then suddenly.’”

I found this to be one of your more fascinating posts (which is saying something). Perception, as is often the case, makes all the difference.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't understand what you mean about "not finding the receipts" for the Buck Rogers RPGs.

I already addressed this in the OP.

This is not some sin. It is done all the time. Moreover, unlike a lot of the Gygax/Blume transactions, it was completely transparent and known. There are no allegations or RECEIPTS that she did not pay FMV (fair market value).

Mindlessly reiterating "Buck Rogers" is not a point. This may shock you, but TSR had more than one failed product. Unless someone shows that there is anything untoward about this, and no one has and I suspect no one will, this is just more of the "let's pile on."

Any way, I think I spent enough words. If you can't find it in the OP at this point, I don't think any thing else will change a mind. It is, as they say, what it is!

 

[Alzrius]

I already addressed this in the OP.

This is not some sin. It is done all the time. Moreover, unlike a lot of the Gygax/Blume transactions, it was completely transparent and known. There are no allegations or RECEIPTS that she did not pay FMV (fair market value).

Okay, that does make your position clearer; I found your take on it in the OP somewhat confusing, because it seemed to try and justify the issue based around economic questions of fair market value, which struck me as odd since the issue at question was an ethical one regarding a conflict of interest. In this case, I think that it's simply a difference of opinion. Which, it should be reiterated, is fine; people can and should have different takes on things.

As I see it, just because something is "done all the time" doesn't make it right; saying that something is commonplace is near-totally orthogonal to issues of whether or not it's a "sin." Conflicts of interest should (to my mind) be avoided wherever possible, as a general rule; there's a reason why even the appearance of some kind of impropriety can be damaging, and understandably so, since it diminishes people's trust in the relevant people, groups, or what have you. Just because something passes legal/economic muster doesn't mean that it isn't self-serving, and so looks bad.

Williams may or may not have paid fair market value for TSR's licensing Buck Rogers, and with nothing to suggest otherwise, we can assume for the purposes of this discussion that she did nothing wrong nor even unusual. But that doesn't mean it's not "sus," as the young people say.

The receipt, in other words, is that she did it at all. Yes, you can compare that to Gygax and the Blumes hiring their relatives (though as I recall, Gary hired his wife and a few of his kids, whereas the Blumes went much further afield in their nepotism; Lorraine, by contrast, stopped at giving her brother a job), and those should also be called out for what they were. Multiple wrongs don't make any of them right. But if we hold that against them, which we should, then this should also be held against her.

 

[Clint_L]

In bucket 3 are the many, many, many anecdotes that I now realize say more about that time (and sometimes, the person telling them) than about her. The "chainmail bikini" one, or the "pregnancy announcement one."

In another thread, someone brought up the anecdote that allegedly Williams kept a poster of Jimi Hendrix as a kind of trophy because she liked to brag that, when she was student president at Berkeley in the 1960s, she blocked him from performing there on the grounds that he was basically a degenerate.

This story was presented as more evidence of how awful and culturally out of touch Williams was.

Are you struck by the same thought I was? Lorraine Williams was student president at Berkeley in the 1960s? That would be incredibly impressive! I know Berkeley is progressive and everything, but still, that would be some historically significant glass ceiling breakage.

Never happened, or if it did, I can't find any record of it. And I think it would be kind of a big deal if any of it was true. It's just a made up story. Like a lot of stories about her that make her out to be some horrible troll of a person.

So my BS detector is on high alert when it comes to anecdotes about Lorraine Williams. TSR was an incredibly sexist environment when she took over (listen to the podcast, read any number of first hand accounts...including from Gygax himself) and, quite frankly, so was a significant portion of the fanbase. And it shows in so many of the comments about her, and not just the eagerness to tear her down, but the specifically gendered way in which it is often done.

But when I hear or read first hand accounts, and especially primary source documentation from court cases, from TSR, interviews, etc., a different picture appears. She seems like someone who really rubbed some folks, especially certain types of men, the wrong way. But lots of folks had good things to say about her. She didn't pillage the company and float away on a golden parachute, she invested heavily in it, probably saving it for a decade. She didn't make a strong effort to understand the hobby, but that's not a hanging offence as a human being. She made some good decisions and some bad ones.

She was in some respects a pioneer in this industry. And she was continually denigrated and disrespected in a way that no man would be. From what I've read about her, I don't think I would have liked her that much. But I respect a lot of what she accomplished. It can't have been easy.

Oh, and one more thing: while Gygax and his minions spared no effort in tearing her down, Williams kept her mouth shut. She didn't fire back, and from what we know now (again, listen to the podcast) she would have had plenty of ammunition. I respect that, too.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Okay, that does make your position clearer; I found your take on it in the OP somewhat confusing, because it seemed to try and justify the issue based around economic questions of fair market value, which struck me as odd since the issue at question was an ethical one regarding a conflict of interest. In this case, I think that it's simply a difference of opinion. Which, it should be reiterated, is fine; people can and should have different takes on things.

...

Williams may or may not have paid fair market value for TSR's licensing Buck Rogers, and with nothing to suggest otherwise, we can assume for the purposes of this discussion that she did nothing wrong nor even unusual. But that doesn't mean it's not "sus," as the young people say.

sigh I will once again point out that I wrote a LOT OF WORDS in the OP. This is not a new issue; I encounter it a lot. It is neither "sus" nor a conflict of interest. There are, in fact, rule about this. Because it is common.

Think of any closely-held corporation, and you will understand this. If you don't understand this after what I wrote, I can't help you.

The receipt, in other words, is that she did it at all. Yes, you can compare that to Gygax and the Blumes hiring their relatives (though as I recall, Gary hired his wife and a few of his kids, whereas the Blumes went much further afield in their nepotism; Lorraine, by contrast, stopped at giving her brother a job), and those should also be called out for what they were. Multiple wrongs don't make any of them right. But if we hold that against them, which we should, then this should also be held against her.

This is about the double standard. This is what the entire post is about. Our community has spent decades vilifying one of the only women to hold a major position in gaming, harping on things that aren't issues, and creating stories that aren't true. Meanwhile, we have ignored far worse problems by others- things that actually are against the rules (as came out in court, the self-dealing was an issue for the Blumes).

Once again, I am no longer comfortable mindlessly repeating the "Lorraine Williams" stories. She wasn't the greatest. But she certainly doesn't deserve what this community has given to her.