-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D General The First Demise of TSR: Gygax's Folly
- Thread starter Snarf Zagyg
- Start date
TerraDave
5ever, or until 2024
The story as I know it is that the Blume brothers almost bankrupted the company—at its peak—and Gygax came back to Lake Geneva to save it, releasing Unearthed Arcana and other products with his name on them.
This and firing a bunch of people, some of whom would found other game companies.
The core fail seemed to be assuming that the boom would continue and the growth would not stop, allowing a lot of things to be indulged. This is not an uncommon mistake, though this version of it does have some juicy drama associated with it.
This and firing a bunch of people, some of whom would found other game companies.
The core fail seemed to be assuming that the boom would continue and the growth would not stop, allowing a lot of things to be indulged. This is not an uncommon mistake, though this version of it does have some juicy drama associated with it.
Marc Radle
Legend
Excellent article!
Game Wizards by Jon Peterson is a fantastic book - can’t recommend it highly enough.
I’ve always been, and honestly always will be, a big fan of Gary Gygax, but it’s important to be as unbiased as possible and look at people and history from all sides, so articles and books like this are invaluable!
Game Wizards by Jon Peterson is a fantastic book - can’t recommend it highly enough.
I’ve always been, and honestly always will be, a big fan of Gary Gygax, but it’s important to be as unbiased as possible and look at people and history from all sides, so articles and books like this are invaluable!
This is the story I've heard too, but as I recall that was the story Gygax himself told. And there's a teeny tiny possibility that his version puts himself in a better light than is strictly speaking correct.
I will however say that there seems to have been some malice in Williams-era TSR toward Gygax, because I can't find any other reason why TSR would sue Gygax and GDW over Dangerous Journeys/Mythus and claim it as infringing on TSR's copyright to AD&D, using some absolutely bonkers claims (one of which was something like "The First Aid skill in Mythus is derivative of the Cure Light Wounds spell in AD&D.")
mamba
Legend
Gary was helping with the bankrupting himself quite a bit too, but yes, he came back and got some hardcovers out to avoid the impending demise of TSR
I'm not sure it's that simple. He moved to LA in 1983 IIRC, and came back to Lake Geneva for good in '85. He had the money that he could've gone back to LA, but he didn't.
I really don't think that writing TTRPGs was Gygax's dream. He was 36 when D&D came out. He was already in his 30s when he was exposed to the game's concept, with a wife and children. When he did take that first step to becoming a game designer, he produced historical wargames and miniatures games. He didn't move into fantasy until the Twin Cities crowd came to him with their ideas.
He makes a game that becomes a huge hit, but he ends up in an endless feud and lawsuit with his co-designer. That co-designer has plenty of friends in his social circle who also turn against him. TSR is wracked with constant in-fighting and politicking. He can't just be the guy who writes new character classes, puts together a dungeon, or spends a year researching a historical battle to do a hex and counter wargame. Within TSR and in the broader world, he's too big for that now. His marriage falls apart. Why wouldn't he go to LA and leave all that behind? Who's left in Lake Geneva that isn't a mortal enemy or someone just trying to get a hand in his wallet?
I'm not saying it's healthy or objectively wise to head to LA and party like a teenager, but I wonder how much of that was a reaction to losing the dream. Our imagining of our ambition rarely matches the reality of it.
TerraDave
5ever, or until 2024
There was certainly malice, at least by some. See the "Castle Greyhawk" parody adventure.
Black Dougal
Footpad
Gygax’s Folly
9th-level enchantment
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: 120 feet
Components: V, S, M (a silver coin split in half and a miniature iron throne)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 hour
Description
"The first mistake was believing you could control it."
This spell was devised by a legendary mage who sought to bind his creative genius to eternal rule—but found that mastery and ownership are often at odds. Gygax’s Folly serves as a metaphysical caution: those who cling to power without wisdom invite their own undoing.
You manifest the tragic collapse of unchecked ambition. Choose up to five creatures within range. Each must make a Wisdom saving throw.
On a failed save:
On a successful save:
The creature resists the full effect but suffers disadvantage on all Charisma-based checks and saving throws for the duration.
9th-level enchantment
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: 120 feet
Components: V, S, M (a silver coin split in half and a miniature iron throne)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 hour
Description
"The first mistake was believing you could control it."
This spell was devised by a legendary mage who sought to bind his creative genius to eternal rule—but found that mastery and ownership are often at odds. Gygax’s Folly serves as a metaphysical caution: those who cling to power without wisdom invite their own undoing.
You manifest the tragic collapse of unchecked ambition. Choose up to five creatures within range. Each must make a Wisdom saving throw.
On a failed save:
- The creature loses all legendary resistances and damage immunities for the duration.
- Suffers visions of betrayal and downfall, becoming Frightened for 1 minute.
- While frightened, the creature cannot willingly move closer to any ally it perceives as having greater authority or influence (DM’s discretion).
- Each time it attempts to issue commands or use leadership abilities (minion control, auras, etc.), it must succeed on an Intelligence saving throw or the action fails and it takes 10d10 psychic damage.
On a successful save:
The creature resists the full effect but suffers disadvantage on all Charisma-based checks and saving throws for the duration.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
You state several falsehoods in your rendition. 100% provable falsehoods. For example, you state the only person surprised by Gary's ouster is Gary. However, we can all hear directly from many people there at the time they were all surprised. We know this. We're certain. There is no doubt at all in their own words many people were shocked at how it happened and that it happened. Rose Estes for example talks about how shocking it was.
You also state we know Gary offered to buy the Blume's shares. No, we don't. That's a disputed issue which was never proved. We don't know. There is direct testimony on both sides of that issue and no written proof or other decent evidence aside from the contradictory testimony. The court didn't hold Gary was lying it simply couldn't depend on the issue beyond knowing TSR was aware of their desire to sell. It otherwise found there was contradictory testimony.
As for the court case, you make another misstatement. You say first it was a "technicality" to receive notice under a right of first refusal when THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL so definitely not a mere technicality. Second you claim, "the Court found, quite rightly, that not only did Gygax get the actual required notice that the Blumes were trying to sell their shares, the Blumes tried over and over and over again and Gygax ignored them and lied."
That's not quite what they held. Yes they held TSR was on notice of their desire to sell, however they did not hold he lied to them (that was left as a disputed issue), nor did they hold the Blumes had given proper notice to Gary OF THE INTENT TO SELL TO WILLIAMS.
There is a reason Williams changed the rule on the books from 30 days notice to 10 days notice without notifying Gary of the rule change while he was out of town at a funeral (which - BY ANY RATIONAL VIEW, is underhanded and nasty), and that's because she worried if he had the full 30 days notice he'd find out in time and make some arrangement to be able to buy those shares himself as was his right under the right of first refusal. I would love to hear your defense of those actions. How on earth do you feel it's acceptable business practice to change the rule from 30 days to 10 days, and tell everyone to keep it secret, explicitly because you know someone is out of town at a funeral and that enables you to complete the transaction before they return? Tell me how you view that as not unethical?
Indeed when Gary does return he thinks the Blumes still have their shares because, according to the rules, they should have.
The court instead rules that their notifying TSR itself of their general intent to desire to sell the shares to TSR is sufficient. NOT that Gary was given direct notice of this transaction.
Now that point is iffy by the judge, legally speaking. It's the strongest case Gary has in an appeal. Because the law doesn't strongly support what the judge decides on that issue very well. There was a lot of precedent that a general intent to sell is not the same as a specific notice to sell to a specific person at a fixed price and date, and that a right of first refusal requires the later. Had Gary appealed, he may well have won on that issue. That's what his attorney at the time is telling him, but an appeal is costly and Gary's been going without his compensation for quite some time at this point as he loans the company money. But he didn't appeal and instead settled, with part of the settlement the company paying him back his loan.
You linked to my comment, in a fairly underhanded way by not actually quoting the comment or putting an @ sign with my username so I'd be notified or commenting in that actual thread. Not surprising I suppose since you're saying some nasty things about what I said in what I view is a misrepresentation of what I said. But to be clear what I said was that EVEN THOUGH GARY DID WORSE THINGS THAN WILLIAMS (something you entirely left out) THAT DOESN'T MEAN WILLIAMS WAS GOOD. She did some really underhanded and unethical things. Everyone can hear it for themselves directly from people there, in that podcast. Your "interpretation" of those events is, in my opinion, pretty weird. I think everyone on that podcast other than you agrees the methods she used are pretty nasty and underhanded in taking over the company. And that she deserves criticism.
That does not mean Gary didn't need to go, in order to save the company (sort of - it just delays it). However, in no way is the manner she chose the only possible manner to have accomplished those goals. The methods she used are not ethical methods are should be up for criticism. Just because you (and I) think Gary was doing a lot of bad stuff, does not make Williams' actions "good" simply because they're "better" than Gary's action. There is a heck of a lot more to the analysis of whether Williams did the right thing than the low bar of "at least it's better than Gary's actions."
In conclusion I think you should follow your own advice. You have certain biases about Williams which leads you to spin her actions in a more positive light than necessary or wise. You seem to think if the ends are good then any means were justified. I'd suggest you're engaging in revisionist history on this topic. My dislike of Williams isn't because of some rumor or existing Zeitgeist or sexism. I think she was better for TSR at that time than Gary and I am not a defender of Gary. HOWEVER, I think she absolutely deserves plenty of criticism and that you seem to have some rose colored glasses on when in comes to her.
You also state we know Gary offered to buy the Blume's shares. No, we don't. That's a disputed issue which was never proved. We don't know. There is direct testimony on both sides of that issue and no written proof or other decent evidence aside from the contradictory testimony. The court didn't hold Gary was lying it simply couldn't depend on the issue beyond knowing TSR was aware of their desire to sell. It otherwise found there was contradictory testimony.
As for the court case, you make another misstatement. You say first it was a "technicality" to receive notice under a right of first refusal when THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL so definitely not a mere technicality. Second you claim, "the Court found, quite rightly, that not only did Gygax get the actual required notice that the Blumes were trying to sell their shares, the Blumes tried over and over and over again and Gygax ignored them and lied."
That's not quite what they held. Yes they held TSR was on notice of their desire to sell, however they did not hold he lied to them (that was left as a disputed issue), nor did they hold the Blumes had given proper notice to Gary OF THE INTENT TO SELL TO WILLIAMS.
There is a reason Williams changed the rule on the books from 30 days notice to 10 days notice without notifying Gary of the rule change while he was out of town at a funeral (which - BY ANY RATIONAL VIEW, is underhanded and nasty), and that's because she worried if he had the full 30 days notice he'd find out in time and make some arrangement to be able to buy those shares himself as was his right under the right of first refusal. I would love to hear your defense of those actions. How on earth do you feel it's acceptable business practice to change the rule from 30 days to 10 days, and tell everyone to keep it secret, explicitly because you know someone is out of town at a funeral and that enables you to complete the transaction before they return? Tell me how you view that as not unethical?
Indeed when Gary does return he thinks the Blumes still have their shares because, according to the rules, they should have.
The court instead rules that their notifying TSR itself of their general intent to desire to sell the shares to TSR is sufficient. NOT that Gary was given direct notice of this transaction.
Now that point is iffy by the judge, legally speaking. It's the strongest case Gary has in an appeal. Because the law doesn't strongly support what the judge decides on that issue very well. There was a lot of precedent that a general intent to sell is not the same as a specific notice to sell to a specific person at a fixed price and date, and that a right of first refusal requires the later. Had Gary appealed, he may well have won on that issue. That's what his attorney at the time is telling him, but an appeal is costly and Gary's been going without his compensation for quite some time at this point as he loans the company money. But he didn't appeal and instead settled, with part of the settlement the company paying him back his loan.
You linked to my comment, in a fairly underhanded way by not actually quoting the comment or putting an @ sign with my username so I'd be notified or commenting in that actual thread. Not surprising I suppose since you're saying some nasty things about what I said in what I view is a misrepresentation of what I said. But to be clear what I said was that EVEN THOUGH GARY DID WORSE THINGS THAN WILLIAMS (something you entirely left out) THAT DOESN'T MEAN WILLIAMS WAS GOOD. She did some really underhanded and unethical things. Everyone can hear it for themselves directly from people there, in that podcast. Your "interpretation" of those events is, in my opinion, pretty weird. I think everyone on that podcast other than you agrees the methods she used are pretty nasty and underhanded in taking over the company. And that she deserves criticism.
That does not mean Gary didn't need to go, in order to save the company (sort of - it just delays it). However, in no way is the manner she chose the only possible manner to have accomplished those goals. The methods she used are not ethical methods are should be up for criticism. Just because you (and I) think Gary was doing a lot of bad stuff, does not make Williams' actions "good" simply because they're "better" than Gary's action. There is a heck of a lot more to the analysis of whether Williams did the right thing than the low bar of "at least it's better than Gary's actions."
In conclusion I think you should follow your own advice. You have certain biases about Williams which leads you to spin her actions in a more positive light than necessary or wise. You seem to think if the ends are good then any means were justified. I'd suggest you're engaging in revisionist history on this topic. My dislike of Williams isn't because of some rumor or existing Zeitgeist or sexism. I think she was better for TSR at that time than Gary and I am not a defender of Gary. HOWEVER, I think she absolutely deserves plenty of criticism and that you seem to have some rose colored glasses on when in comes to her.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
