D&D General The First Demise of TSR: Gygax's Folly

[mearls]

There was certainly malice, at least by some. See the "Castle Greyhawk" parody adventure.

I'm not sure it was malice so much as a move away from dungeon delving and the wargamer-level detail that Gygax liked to put into products. I have trouble believing that, given the resources involved, it was pure spite. The City of Greyhawk boxed set came about a year later, and that is one of the best city supplements ever made for D&D.

IME, it's more likely that someone thought a collection of parody adventures would work, they needed to attach it to a setting, and Greyhawk ended up with it by default. The Realms already had a full schedule and pop culture humor makes even less sense for Dragonlance (still no overall sense for any setting, IMO).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You state several falsehoods in your rendition. 100% provable falsehoods.

Given that you have such very strong feelings on the subject, I will try to be as nice as possible despite this claim. I will note the following before I very briefly* defend what I wrote- first, I am sure you remember that writing rambling posts about D&D history isn't my actual job, and maybe you might want to reconsider calling me a liar given what you are arguing. Second, the reason I chose to make a very involved post about this was because of your comment which seemed to ignore all of the history involved to make what appeared to be a bizarre point which contained multiple errors.** I would further note that you can't cherrypick passages to make claims- I recommend everyone feel free to read the history and make up their own minds.

*Under the Snarfian definition of "briefly."
**I edited this out. I recommend against using legal terms to try and enhance points, as always.


However, given the tenor of your comments, and the claim you make that I am lying, I will state the following:

The final judgment of the case is from the Hon. Robert Read. Feel free to find the relevant sections of the judgment and cite them to all of us to show why you are correct that I am stating 100% falsehoods (as well as support all of your claims about how Gygax was so wronged). Or, if you are unable to, you can go ahead and cite to the book that I already provided, with the pages I already gave that detail the events, and explain back to me why I am wrong using the source that I gave.

Now, if you do that and you still want to make the argument that I am lying because, um, "No one can ever say for sure that Gygax was lying, because who knows what lurks in the hearts of men, and instead the Court only found (as the Court decides disputed facts) that Gygax sat on his rights and that the Court made a ruling as a matter of fact that, inter alia, Gygax had offered to buy the shares of the Blumes in April, and therefore the Court only found that the testimony of the Blumes and other third parties and the documents was credible, while the testimony of Gygax was not credible, which isn't lying, because it's just a factual finding of a disputed fact that the Court made that wasn't necessary to the resolution of the claim ..."

Well, knock yourself out! Given Gygax's history of prevarication, and the abundant testimony and documents that contradicted his self-serving testimony, I am confortable with my formulation - certainly as an opinion bolstered by reality. I will leave it to others after they also look at the source materials as to whether they believe Gygax's testimony was credible.

That said, I always appreciate additional historical research. If you upload any source documents or can point to recent scholarship that I can verify about factual claims, I am happy to review them! I would truly appreciate that. I don't mind, at all, being a liar ... so long as I learn something new! But your post in long on vitriol and lacking any citations.

I think it was the famous economist, Abraham Maynard Lincoln, who said, "In the long run, we're all dead, so why so mad?" "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?"

 

[Zardnaar]

Given that you have such very strong feelings on the subject, I will try to be as nice as possible despite this claim. I will note the following before I very briefly* defend what I wrote- first, I am sure you remember that writing rambling posts about D&D history isn't my actual job, and maybe you might want to reconsider calling me a liar given what you are arguing. Second, the reason I chose to make a very involved post about this was because of your comment which seemed to ignore all of the history involved to make what appeared to be a bizarre point which contained multiple errors. But rather than point out those errors which result when people engage in heated rhetoric, I chose to write a post that focused on the overall history. So instead of just saying that "fiduciary duty" is a a term you didn't use correctly (both because I knew you didn't, and because it wasn't litigated which it would have been had that been an issue) by pointing out that it is to the company, not to an individual, I instead thought it would be better to provide a full understanding of the history instead of engage in posturing. I think anyone who has experience in corporations or corporate law (or has watched Succession) is aware that when companies are struggling, the Board often acts in ways to protect the company from the executive in order to save the company, and that is not a fiduciary breach because (all together) the duty is to the company, not to the CEO. I would further note that you can't cherrypick passages to make claims- I recommend everyone feel free to actually read the history and make up their own minds.

However, given the tenor of your comments, and the claims, I will thus state the following:

The final judgment of the case is from the Hon. Robert Read. Feel free to find the relevant sections and cite them to all of us to show why you are correct that I am stating 100% falsehoods (as well as support all of your claims about how Gygax was so wronged). Or, if you are unable to, you can go ahead and cite to the book that I already provided, with the pages I already gave, and explain back to me why I am wrong using the source that I gave.

Now, if you do that and you still want to make the argument that I am lying because, um, "No one can ever say for sure that Gygax was lying, because who knows what lurks in the heart of men, and instead the Court only found (as the Court decides disputed facts) that Gygax sat on his rights and that the Court made a ruling as a matter of fact that Gygax had offered to buy the shares of the Blumes in April, and therefore the Court only found that the testimony of the Blumes and other third parties and the documents was credible, while the testimony of Gygax was not credible, which isn't lying, because it's just a factual finding of a disputed fact that the Court made that wasn't necessary to the resolution of the claim ..."

Well, knock yourself out! Given Gygax's history of prevarication, and the abundant testimony and documents that contradicted his self-serving testimony, I am conformable with my formulation - certainly as an opinion bolstered by reality.

That said, I always appreciate additional historical research. If you upload any source documents or can point to recent scholarship that I can verify about factual claims, I am happy to review them! I would truly appreciate that. I don't mind, at all, being a liar ... so long as I learn something new! But your post in long on vitriol and lacking any citations.

I think it was the famous economist, Abraham Maynard Lincoln, who said, "In the long run, we're all dead, so why so mad?" "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?"



*Under the Snarfian definition of "briefly."

You've served up a very biased account. Very few ex TSR alumni seem to have nice things to say about Lorraine.

A few say something to the effect she wasn't as bad as the internet claims and she had sone positive points.

She arguably drained TSR money herself with Buck Roger's.

Gary wasn't good at business he also wasn't in charge lije Lorraine was

It's no big secret around here I like Lorraine's era better in terns of product. Gary buried her but she had here own issues as well even if you ignore Gary's worst accusations.

Gary also came from nothing essentially. Struck gold and messed it up. Lorraine cane from money theoretically should have known better.

Gary was a jackass we knew that long before new books came out. At least if you paid attention to various interviews. Doesn't make Lorraine a saint either.

None of us were there and it often cones down to who liked who in interviews.

Lorraine bought D&D a decade or so though.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You've served up a very biased account. Very few ex TSR alumni seem to have nice things to say about Lorraine.

A few say something to the effect she wasn't as bad as the internet claims and she had sone positive points.

She arguably drained TSR money herself with Buck Roger's.

Gary wasn't good at business he also wasn't in charge lije Lorraine was

I appreciate that you made my point?

You claim that the reason my account of Gary Gygax's ouster from TSR in 1985 is a very biased account is because:

1. Very few people have nice things to say about Lorraine. (This was covered in the introduction)
2. She arguably drained TSR's money ... later. Of course, this ignores the inarguable draining by the Blumes and Gygax, and also ... it has nothing to do with Gygax's ouster in 1985!
3. The entire essay was about when Gary WAS IN CHARGE and why he should not have been. You can't say my essay was biased by saying he wasn't good at business and wasn't in charge, when the point of the essay was to go through the history and show that he was in charge, and that he should not have been, and that is why he was ousted- not because of some sinister plot.

I will point out that it might be helpful to consider reading the (lengthy) introduction to the essay again- this isn't about Lorraine being a saint. This is about why the narrative that was peddled for decades about Gygax's ouster was wildly incorrect.

 

[KYRON45]

Great Snarfticle as always.

Snarfticles...exclusively from SnarfCo.
Side affects may include....

 

[KYRON45]

"I don't mind being called a liar when I'm lying, or about to lie, or just finished lying, but NOT WHEN I'M TELLING THE TRUTH."......Homer J. Simpson

 

[TiQuinn]

I suspect that in some people's eyes, Lorraine Williams' worst sin is not giving a bleep what they think of her.

People were not wrong in calling her an outsider. She was. TSR was strictly business to her.

 

[TiQuinn]

Given that you have such very strong feelings on the subject, I will try to be as nice as possible despite this claim. I will note the following before I very briefly* defend what I wrote- first, I am sure you remember that writing rambling posts about D&D history isn't my actual job, and maybe you might want to reconsider calling me a liar given what you are arguing. Second, the reason I chose to make a very involved post about this was because of your comment which seemed to ignore all of the history involved to make what appeared to be a bizarre point which contained multiple errors.** I would further note that you can't cherrypick passages to make claims- I recommend everyone feel free to read the history and make up their own minds.

*Under the Snarfian definition of "briefly."
**I edited this out. I recommend against using legal terms to try and enhance points, as always.


However, given the tenor of your comments, and the claim you make that I am lying, I will state the following:

The final judgment of the case is from the Hon. Robert Read. Feel free to find the relevant sections of the judgment and cite them to all of us to show why you are correct that I am stating 100% falsehoods (as well as support all of your claims about how Gygax was so wronged). Or, if you are unable to, you can go ahead and cite to the book that I already provided, with the pages I already gave that detail the events, and explain back to me why I am wrong using the source that I gave.

Now, if you do that and you still want to make the argument that I am lying because, um, "No one can ever say for sure that Gygax was lying, because who knows what lurks in the hearts of men, and instead the Court only found (as the Court decides disputed facts) that Gygax sat on his rights and that the Court made a ruling as a matter of fact that, inter alia, Gygax had offered to buy the shares of the Blumes in April, and therefore the Court only found that the testimony of the Blumes and other third parties and the documents was credible, while the testimony of Gygax was not credible, which isn't lying, because it's just a factual finding of a disputed fact that the Court made that wasn't necessary to the resolution of the claim ..."

Well, knock yourself out! Given Gygax's history of prevarication, and the abundant testimony and documents that contradicted his self-serving testimony, I am confortable with my formulation - certainly as an opinion bolstered by reality. I will leave it to others after they also look at the source materials as to whether they believe Gygax's testimony was credible.

That said, I always appreciate additional historical research. If you upload any source documents or can point to recent scholarship that I can verify about factual claims, I am happy to review them! I would truly appreciate that. I don't mind, at all, being a liar ... so long as I learn something new! But your post in long on vitriol and lacking any citations.

I think it was the famous economist, Abraham Maynard Lincoln, who said, "In the long run, we're all dead, so why so mad?" "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?"

Well that was certainly a mic drop.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

All interesting stuff. Dare I fork out 13 bucks for a paperback book?

A person can be heroic and villainous both in the same lifetime. There might be limits (I am not suddenly clubbing baby seals nor offering my family home to the homeless…) and a lot of what gets discussed loses this fact.

Particularly someone upthread noted people changing with the fortunes of the company….yeah? No doubt. People sometimes having late midlife crises when hopes are dashed? Why not.

Smart people making bad financial decisions? Happens a lot. We all must be captains of our own souls, but let us not forget in judgment:

The fundamental attribution error (FAE) describes a tendency to attribute someone else's behavior to their personality or character, while overlooking or downplaying the role of situational factors or external influences.

 

[MGibster]

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.

Funny enough that's kind of what got Williams in the end. She structured TSR's cash flow with the assumption the money would always be rolling in. When it stopped, there was nothing TSR could do to stop the coming avalanche.

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're absolutely correct that Williams deserves plenty of criticism. Both for how she took control of TSR and for how she structured it's finances which eventually led to its demise.

Well, knock yourself out! Given Gygax's history of prevarication, and the abundant testimony and documents that contradicted his self-serving testimony, I am confortable with my formulation - certainly as an opinion bolstered by reality. I will leave it to others after they also look at the source materials as to whether they believe Gygax's testimony was credible.

Gygax looked at people with a straight face and said, "The contract I signed with TSR, turning over my rights to anything published, doesn't apply to me. It applies to everyone else who signed such a contract, but it does not apply to me." Gygax was a creative guy with an amazing ability to change the facts when it suited his purpose.