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

[TiQuinn]

Something that I’ve observed over the years: the number of people who worked at TSR who were considered either worthless, or backstabbers, or incompetent by someone seems pretty high. Meaning, everyone who worked there had an axe to grind with someone, and since it’s a hobby and a number of these folks still either work or make the rounds in the industry and at conventions, there’s a lot of stories that get told and there’s a lot of opinions.

 

[Clint_L]

I can't say she did anything illegal or unethical, but I think it does look bad because clearly there's a conflict of interest there. If I had side business catering, my employer wouldn't hire me to cater events because of a clear conflict of interest.

Huh? My employer hires employee and employee family businesses whenever they can! It helps support the staff and there's usually a discount, so it's win-win. There's nothing remotely unethical about it. It's a very normal practice and perfectly ethical.

 

[MGibster]

Huh? My employer hires employee and employee family businesses whenever they can! It helps support the staff and there's usually a discount, so it's win-win. There's nothing remotely unethical about it. It's a very normal practice and perfectly ethical.

Every year, various departments at my company do things at the end of the year like having lunch together. If my VP were to take the department to his wife's restaurant, you don't see a potential for a conflict of interest here? The VP of marketing hires the wife of our VP of information security as a consultant. You don't see a potential problem here?

I guess it just depends on your employer and what industry you're in. My industry is highly regulated and we have a lot of rules in place to avoid conflicts of interest, kickbacks, and nepotism.

 

[Iosue]

TSR had gone through a number of layoffs and I think was down to less than 100 employees around the time she took over based on the podcast (though that could be incorrect), but my point is it doesn’t fly that culture kept the management style the same from the Gygax years. She was the CEO and responsible for the culture she wanted to create going forward and could’ve changed it. I don’t believe she carried on either the Blumes’ or Gygax’s ideas around management. Hers just happened to be just as bad.

Setting aside the fact that the idea of "corporate culture" was just beginning to make inroads in the late 80s/early 90s, and its possible, even likely, that Williams didn't have a full understanding of the concept, one person, no matter how powerful, can't change a culture. It requires buy-in from the top down, and stringent efforts are needed at every level to make an active, conscious change. Many coordinated efforts to change a company's culture often fail.

That's assuming, of course, that management recognizes a need to change, which I doubt happened here.

This actually goes into another issue with the narrative, similar to one I see a lot today with WotC. And that's the idea that the CEO sees and knows all, and controls the company like strings on a puppet from their office. Williams was the CEO, and so bears ultimate responsibility for all that was done at TSR, but as an individual, she delegated decisions to others, and approved proposals brought to her. I doubt she was combing through the trades, seeing Mayfair's ads for Invincible Overlord, and clenching her fist, saying "Gygax!"

All of which is a long-winded way of saying I think Lorraine Williams deserves the same benefit of the doubt we give Gygax.

Again, just a long winded way of saying both sides could be just as wrong for their own reasons.

Certainly! I personally don't see this as needing to be about Gygax vs. Williams. My intent is not to tear Gary down to rehabilitate Lorraine. I think by now we know that Gary was flawed in many ways, as a person, and a businessman. Lorraine, no doubt, was similarly flawed in her own ways. I just don't think she deserves to be reduced to the Evil Villain of Gary's story (or D&D's, or TSR's). I think that's what Snarf is saying, as well.

 

[Staffan]

The GDW lawsuit was actually mentioned in the podcast. Specifically, that Gygax used D&D spells with just their names removed. I don't recall who was saying it (Steve Winter, I think?) but they seemed to think the lawsuit was justified.

Here is part of the complaint in question. It does list a lot of spells, but it's not like those spells are any great invention on the part of AD&D. Some examples:

(73) The Shutfast Charm in MYTHUS MAGICK (page 35) is derived from the Wizard Lock Spell in the AD&D 1st ed. PHB (page 72) and the AD&D OA (page 81).

(67) The Disembodied Voice Formula in MYTHUS MAGICK (page 34) is derived from the Magic Mouth Spell in the AD&D 1st ed. PHB (pages 71 and 96).

(114) The Circe's Transformation Spell in MYTHUS MAGICK (page 56) is derived from the Polymorph Other Spell in the D&D 1st ed. PHB (page 78) and the AD&D OA (page 86).

(81) The Understanding of Ur Spell in MYTHUS MAGICK (page 36) is derived from the Comprehend Languages Spell in the AD&D 1st ed. PHB (page 65) and the AD&D OA (page 75).

And some of the other stuff they claimed...

(2) The Heroic Persona Attractiveness rules in MYTHUS (pages 18, 102 and 391) are derived from the Comeliness rules in the AD&D UA (pages 6-7); TSR's DRAGON Magazine, issue #67 (pages 61-62); and the WORLD OF GREYHAWK boxed set's Glossography (pages 33-34).

(4) The concept of adjusting a character's abilities corresponding to its age found in MYTHUS (pages 104-105) is derived from the similar concept in the AD&D 1st ed. DMG (page 13).

(7) The MYTHUS concept of character vocations in MYTHUS (pages 13 and 70-71) is derived from the character class concept in the AD&D 1st ed. PHB (pages 18-33); the AD&D 1st ed. DMG (pages 16-21); and the AD&D UA (pages 12-25 and 74-75).

(8) In MYTHUS (page 67), the concept of and the method by which the game characters' attributes are defined by randomly-generated numbers, and the players' choices of vocations precede and alter such attribute generation, are derived from a similar concept and method in the AD&D 1st ed. DMG (pages 11-12) and the AD&D UA (page 74).

(30) The "Accomplishment Point" system in MYTHUS (pages 29, 40, 134-136 and 303-304) is derived from the "Experience Point" system in the AD&D 1st ed. DMG (pages 84-86 and 228) and the AD&D 1st ed. PHB (pages 106-107).

(32) The method used in MYTHUS (page 9) of resolving game action by generating random numbers on a linear probability scale is derived from a similar method used in the AD&D game system in the AD&D 1st ed. DMG (pages 9-10).

(33) The method used in MYTHUS (pages 9 and 236-238) of determining game character damage using a weighted probability scale is derived from a similar method in the AD&D game system in the AD&D 1st ed. DMG (pages 9-10); the AD&D 1st ed. PHB (page 37); and the AD&D UA (page 26).

(47) The name of the main world, "Aerth", in MYTHUS (pages 5 and 7-8), is derived from the name of a world, "Oerth," in the AD&D WORLD OF GREYHAWK boxed set, specifically in the Glossography (page 2) and Guide (page 4).

(48) The races of other-world elves called the Elves, Fay and Faeries, from the fantasy world known as Phaeree in MYTHUS (pages 332-333), are derived from a race of other-world elves called the "Pharisees" in the AD&D QUEEN OF THE SPIDERS game module (pages 107-108) and the AD&D QUEEN OF THE DEMONWEB PITS game module (pages 13-14).

So yeah, that lawsuit was utter BS.
(There really ought to be the equivalent of Anti-SLAPP statutes regarding copyright and other IP, so that if someone tries to bully someone else with bogus copyright claims they should at the very least be liable for the other party's costs, and pay a hefty fine on top of that as well. Or maybe lose the rights to the thing they falsely claimed was infringed.)

 

[humble minion]

Methinks you've made this thread before @Snarf Zagyg !

D&D General - Lorraine Williams: Is it Time for a Reevaluation?

Welcome to the first in, perhaps, an occasional series: Snarf Presents Hawt Taek Thursdays. Ahem. Anyway, if you read my review of Jon Peterson's new book, or better yet read his book (Game Wizards, now on sale!), you probably see that it presents the ouster of Gary Gygax from TSR and the...

www.enworld.org

But I think you're perhaps bending over a little too far backwards to be fair to her here.

Let's be clear, Williams certainly saved TSR from being destroyed by Gygax's excess in the 80s. His disregard of business realities and enthusiam for spending TSRs money on himself or on cosy deals with his relatives' companies is very much a matter of record. However, didn't Williams then, progressively, proceed to do exactly the same thing? No, she didn't move to Hollywood and spend up big on white powder and blonde ladies, but once the Gygaxian cash haemorrhage was stopped, she certainly wasn't shy about feeding her family members and friends on TSRs bread. You can't really condemn it in Gygax, and paint it as the reason he deservedly lost control of TSR, then just brush aside the exact same behaviour in Williams.

As for the 'not a gamer' thing - well, certainly she wasn't a gamer, and she seems to have had some dislike for them (which may or may not have stemmed from her experiences with Gygax and the undoubted tidal wave of abuse she copped from fans after his ouster). But if you're not a gamer, and you're running a games company, it behooves you to be damn good at business. Williams ... doesn't seem to have been. Many sources, from Riggs to Dancey, have talked about how the Random House deal hung over TSR like a guillotine over a neck, and how many of the glorious boxed sets that were the trademark of TSRs post-Gygax creative heyday actually lost money per unit. These are situations that Williams created, persisted with, neglected addressing, and allowed to go on - and they would inevitably kill TSR in the end. What sort of CEO just casually whistles and collects a paycheque while their company blithely sells stuff at a loss? For years? Over a decade, even? That is, 100%, completely her responsibility, and I think you're brushing over that more than a bit.

I think it's undeniable that Williams presided over some of TSRs best creative output, from the FR grey box to Dark Sun and Ravenloft. How much she directly had to do with that, I'm not really sure (as a non-gamer, I suspect not much), but if you're the boss, I guess you get to take some of the credit for at least knowing who to delegate the creative decisions to. But was she good at CEO-ing? In the end, I think evidence points to no.

 

[Staffan]

As for the 'not a gamer' thing - well, certainly she wasn't a gamer, and she seems to have had some dislike for them (which may or may not have stemmed from her experiences with Gygax and the undoubted tidal wave of abuse she copped from fans after his ouster). But if you're not a gamer, and you're running a games company, it behooves you to be damn good at business. Williams ... doesn't seem to have been. Many sources, from Riggs to Dancey, have talked about how the Random House deal hung over TSR like a guillotine over a neck, and how many of the glorious boxed sets that were the trademark of TSRs post-Gygax creative heyday actually lost money per unit. These are situations that Williams created, persisted with, neglected addressing, and allowed to go on - and they would inevitably kill TSR in the end. What sort of CEO just casually whistles and collects a paycheque while their company blithely sells stuff at a loss? For years? Over a decade, even? That is, 100%, completely her responsibility, and I think you're brushing over that more than a bit.

It sounds a bit like under Gygax, the core business was doing fairly well but the money was being siphoned by various extravagancies, whereas Williams put a stop to most of those extravagancies (even if she did siphon off some money via Buck Rogers) but wasn't so good at managing the core business.

I think it's undeniable that Williams presided over some of TSRs best creative output, from the FR grey box to Dark Sun and Ravenloft. How much she directly had to do with that, I'm not really sure (as a non-gamer, I suspect not much), but if you're the boss, I guess you get to take some of the credit for at least knowing who to delegate the creative decisions to. But was she good at CEO-ing? In the end, I think evidence points to no.

I think her not being a gamer herself, combined with not having the business sense to do market research, lead to her being a bit more permissive than recommended regarding what products to make. So someone in the studio comes up with an idea, and they get the green light for a boxed set followed by a hardback and 10 other products over the next two years, without anything to go on other than "Hey, this seems like a swell idea." We got some awesome stuff out of it, but it wasn't very good business sense.

 

[TiQuinn]

I think her not being a gamer herself, combined with not having the business sense to do market research, lead to her being a bit more permissive than recommended regarding what products to make. So someone in the studio comes up with an idea, and they get the green light for a boxed set followed by a hardback and 10 other products over the next two years, without anything to go on other than "Hey, this seems like a swell idea." We got some awesome stuff out of it, but it wasn't very good business sense.

Being a kid back then, I wonder what market research would’ve entailed in those days. Like, I remember TSR putting out an Indiana Jones set, and a Conan set, and based on the movies of the time, you’d think that would’ve been a smart move. Lots of synergy with Conan. Indiana Jones was super popular. But they were duds.

Side note: I never ever recall seeing the Buck Rogers stuff in any game store. The owners must’ve been smart enough to know that would never sell and all the copies languished somewhere in Wisconsin.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Would it be fair to say that Gygax and company’s main issue was they decided to “live like rockstars” and that caused they failing.

While Williams just made bad business financial decisions?

So, had Gygax etc lived and spent responsibility, things might not have ended?

 

[TiQuinn]

Would it be fair to say that Gygax and company’s main issue was they decided to “live like rockstars” and that caused they failing.

While Williams just made bad business financial decisions?

So, had Gygax etc lived and spent responsibility, things might not have ended?

Not really. Gygax and company were making a lot of really bad investments as well. They purchased SPI and left all their products to basically collect dust in inventory. They invested in a needlecraft business as part of a diversification scheme (really another nepotism thing.) Their attempt to get into miniatures was a total failure, and was another case of the company hiring someone who was lining his own pockets and happened to be an old buddy of Gygax.

Plus there’s another really interesting aspect to the story that was talked about in the podcast - Gygax, creatively, seemed tapped out. Like, he wasn’t too far off from Arneson in this regard. He seemed to have enough juice for the first edition of AD&D but after that, he really didn’t want to put in work anymore.