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

[MGibster]

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:

I'm smart guy. No, really, at least I think I am, but without the experience or education on how to run a large business, I likely wouldn't be able to run what unexpectedly became a multi-million dollar company. I'd probably make some of the same mistakes TSR made by hiring a lot of my friends and/or relatives even though there's nothing really for them to do. (This actually happens to a lot of people who suddenly become quite wealthy. See MC Hammer.) I'm more than happy to give Gygax credit for being as successful as he was with TSR and I don't think I would have done any better. That is to say, if I did any better, it's because I learned from his lessons and brought people into the company who knew how to run a business. Of course that risks having it taken away from me.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I'm smart guy. No, really, at least I think I am, but without the experience or education on how to run a large business, I likely wouldn't be able to run what unexpectedly became a multi-million dollar company. I'd probably make some of the same mistakes TSR made by hiring a lot of my friends and/or relatives even though there's nothing really for them to do. (This actually happens to a lot of people who suddenly become quite wealthy. See MC Hammer.) I'm more than happy to give Gygax credit for being as successful as he was with TSR and I don't think I would have done any better. That is to say, if I did any better, it's because I learned from his lessons and brought people into the company who knew how to run a business. Of course that risks having it taken away from me.

Later in life I got an MBA. It amazes
Me that any small business survives long. It is incredibly easy to tank an enterprise. As a younger guy I did not grasp a cash flow problem. How can you be wealthy and not have cash?

I don’t think there are many saints in most scenarios but really get annoyed with armchair quarterbacking.

People act like they would do better and chances are pretty good they would not.

We’re just people.

I really get annoyed when some are judgmental about a world changing creation and they have done…not much in their own life.

These essays and discussion are interesting but they don’t let us easily categorize people as worthwhile or heroes or devils but allow us to see the complexity of people and the unfolding drama of lives lived.

 

[Arilyn]

Gygax was complicated. He worked very hard to support his family at the insurance company and then escaped into wargaming on the weekends. Kinda understandable. He lost his job, maybe from using the company's equipment for his hobby? We'll never really know. Then, poverty, a struggling cobbler business in the basement, and a continuation of his hobby. Gygax also struggled greatly with his religious beliefs, at one point, deciding to abandon wargaming to pay more attention to family and church.

TSR and huge success hits. Gygax wears himself out working, on top of all the drama. From personal accounts, he could in turns be extremely generous and affable or a tyrant. He drifts away from the office. Hollywood calls. Terrible business and personal decisions are made throughout the years, and boom.

Reading the book and listening to the podcast causes a roller coaster of emotions. In the end, I feel sad for Gygax, like watching a tragedy unfold. In his later years, however, he seemed happier, like he could just be a gamer again.

Lorraine is similiar in some ways. The staff were relieved when she took the reins, and at first she seemed like a pretty good boss. Her personality seems mercurial, however, and she too ends up turning a lot of people against her. Lorraine ends up making some big errors, some understandable and some baffling. But gotta love all those box sets.

Thanks for the summary, @Snarf Zagyg. Always enjoy me some history.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I've mentioned before how TSR era was a textbook class on how not to run a business (both under Gygax and Williams), but Gygax is also the textbook example of why we shouldn't deify anyone. He was just a man. Did some great things, did some bad things. I've always thought celebrity culture to be an odd thing.

 

[MGibster]

Me that any small business survives long. It is incredibly easy to tank an enterprise. As a younger guy I did not grasp a cash flow problem. How can you be wealthy and not have cash?

It's like seeing a restaurant shut down even though it was always busy. It's amazing how a seemingly healthy company can go under fairly quickly because of cash flow. Hats off to those brave enough to start a business.

Gygax was complicated. He worked very hard to support his family at the insurance company and then escaped into wargaming on the weekends. Kinda understandable. He lost his job, maybe from using the company's equipment for his hobby? We'll never really know. Then, poverty, a struggling cobbler business in the basement, and a continuation of his hobby. Gygax also struggled greatly with his religious beliefs, at one point, deciding to abandon wargaming to pay more attention to family and church.

Like all human beings, he was complicated, and I certainly don't want to demonized the guy. Dude has his flaws but he was willing to take up cobbling, something I don't think he cared for in the least, to make sure his family didn't starve at least.

 

[Mistwell]

Given that you have such very strong feelings on the subject, I will try to be as nice as possible despite this claim.

You mistook my saying you stated falsehoods with my calling you a liar. I don't think you're a liar. I think you believe falsehoods because of the extreme bias I mentioned which you have in favor of Williams. Which I found ironic given your essay on Revisionist History, and your unwillingness to address my challenge to you to reexamine your impression of her and not only look at her relative to Gygax.

I will note the following before I very briefly* defend what I wrote-

You didn't defend 90% of what you wrote. I'll demonstrate. The very first point I make, the example I give of you stating a falsehood, was this:

"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."

Your response to that was crickets. Because you know darn well the podcast proves without any shadow of a doubt your statement was false. You knew Rose Estes is on that podcast describing just how shocked she was about what happened. How shocked everyone at the company was, except that small cadre who had pulled off the dethroning.

Did you think nobody would notice just how many points you had ignored and your total lack of responsibility for what you had said?

I'm happy to go back down the list of what I said that you had no response to. But let's just start with the first accusation I made shall we.

How about we not instead do what you just tried to do, and we not cherry pick the one point you thought "see above" would be sufficient for, knowing people would have to do homework to even know what you're referencing (homework which isn't actually the links you included - being the court case transcript, which people would have to dig deeper to even find). No, let's go through all of the points made instead of that cherry picking so you can feel like you could get away with hand waiving the entire thing.

And maybe try and do it without all the self-righteous grandstanding. You lost the higher ground the moment you called out my post nastily without responding to me directly, or in the thread in question, and simply linking to my post in a manner you knew wouldn't alert me with a notice. You're not new here and you knew what you were doing, so don't now pretend to be the victim. You started this call-out, not me. All I did was reply to the podcast thread with my views like everyone else (and with views that are pretty well supported and shared) and you made it into something nasty and personal for some reason.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

@Mistwell

There appears to be an absence of any reference to the well-researched book I stated that I was primarily relying on. There is also a complete absence to any citations to the trial court record that you appeared to be making statements about when you posted. I am sadly not surprised.

I will make the following last two points:

1. You now appear focused on the following single sentence in the entire essay that I wrote. For everyone's benefit, these are the sentences surrounding the new most important issue showing I am a serial prevaricator:
I am not going into all the financial issues or the final board meetings (again, read the book!). I am just going to say this- the only person surprised by Gygax's ouster was Gygax. If Gygax had not been ousted, the company would have failed.

Now, if you want to think that I am a lying liar because someone, somewhere, had been surprised by his ouster ... you are correct! For example, I was surprised at the time, as were MANY MANY PEOPLE! I covered that at the beginning of the essay. But as you correctly note, I did listen to the podcast, and I read the books, and I do know about these things ... so maybe it is possible that I was referring to the events of the ouster? I'm guessing you still haven't read the book (or at least you refuse to acknowledge or cite to it) but luckily there is an abridged version of the incident on-line:

Here's a pull quote:
After a short discussion, the board approved the motion to appoint Lorraine Williams President and CEO, overriding Gygax’s strenuous objections. But Gygax probably would not have bothered to contest this appointment had he understood the true situation. Unbeknownst to him, everyone else in the room was privy to a critical piece of information that he lacked.

I think that saying that Gygax was only person surprised at the final board meetings by his ouster (and, as detailed in the podcasts, that his approach was truly hubristic in the classical sense) is a fair characterization.

Again, I suggest people look at histories being done by credible people using source materials that can be independently verified - and not rhetoric - and make up their own minds.

2. Given that you refuse to cite sources while arguing facts that contradict what I have seen, and continue to move the goalposts after I requested citations, I think we are good. I have no wish to engage in any acrimony, and it is clear that you do not have the desire to provide sources that would expand my knowledge of the history of the game.

 

[Clint_L]

This is, per your usual standards, both an entertaining and carefully argued, meticulously supported OP. Not everyone values the importance of a good citation; as a teacher, I can only say "bless you."

 

[Mistwell]

@Mistwell

There appears to be an absence of any reference to the well-researched book I stated that I was primarily relying on.

Because the post you linked to of mine, without direct reference, was about the podcast. Which you knew, because you had just linked to it without replying to it to start this thread, remember?

There is also a complete absence to any citations to the trial court record

Saying "see the record" without linking to the record or referencing a specific part of it isn't a citation. I also said "see the record" and you found that pretty unacceptable, remember?

that you appeared to be making statements about when you posted. I am sadly not surprised.

I will make the following last two points:

1. You now appear focused on the following single sentence in the entire essay that I wrote.

No, and this is the first time I am calling you a liar. You literally just quoted my post where I explained, in multiple paragraphs, how I am happy to go through all the points made and encourage you to go through them all as well, but I wanted TO START WITH THE FIRST POINT MADE and see if you really were interested in discussing it or just cherry picking.

To which you literally just cherry picked it out of context, again knowing the context was my saying let's do all the points. You cannot have missed it. Which is why I am saying you're lying about what I just did.

For everyone's benefit, these are the sentences surrounding the new most important issue showing I am a serial prevaricator:
I am not going into all the financial issues or the final board meetings (again, read the book!). I am just going to say this- the only person surprised by Gygax's ouster was Gygax. If Gygax had not been ousted, the company would have failed.

Now, if you want to think that I am a lying liar because someone, somewhere, had been surprised by his ouster

No I said you stated a falsehood which I think you believe despite having claimed to have listened to the podcast and heard Rose Estes and others say how shocked they were.

And Rose Estes is not fairly characterized as "someone somewhere" she is a prominent voice on the very podcast you linked to. Nor was she the only one. Are you denying that or do I need to go back to that episode and quote you word for word others before you take responsibility here for stating a falsehood?

... you are correct! For example, I was surprised at the time, as were MANY MANY PEOPLE! I covered that at the beginning of the essay. But as you correctly note, I did listen to the podcast, and I read the books, and I do know about these things ... so maybe it is possible that I was referring to the events of the ouster?

Yes we're both referring to the events of the ouster which is directly what Rose Estes says she is shocked about. Those events were so secret at the time that even Gary didn't know it was Williams behind it until it came out in court. Even after the board meeting he still didn't know Williams had bought the Bloome's stock. But you were arguing nobody at TSR was shocked it happened except Gary despite only 6 total people knowing about it in a company of hundreds.

I'm guessing you still haven't read the book (or at least you refuse to acknowledge or cite to it) but luckily there is an abridged version of the incident on-line:

Here's a pull quote:
After a short discussion, the board approved the motion to appoint Lorraine Williams President and CEO, overriding Gygax’s strenuous objections. But Gygax probably would not have bothered to contest this appointment had he understood the true situation. Unbeknownst to him, everyone else in the room was privy to a critical piece of information that he lacked.

I think that saying that Gygax was only person surprised at the final board meetings by his ouster (and, as detailed in the podcasts, that his approach was truly hubristic in the classical sense) is a fair characterization.

I was obviously referencing the larger company. WHICH YOU KNEW BECAUSE YOU KNEW ROSE ESTES WAS NOT AT THAT BOARD MEETING AND I QUOTED HER REACTION. And your statement never referenced the board meeting either. Indeed, your quote was, "the only person surprised by Gygax's ouster was Gygax. If Gygax had not been ousted, the company would have failed." You're saying the ouster itself, not the the meeting, is your reference. And that it's relevant because of "the company" and not "the board meeting." It's very clear the way you wrote it you're referring to the company at large (it's employees) and their lack of surprise at his ouster from the company. And now you're backtracking to pretend it was just about the board meeting itself (though Gary was still part of the company when he left that meeting, he just wasn't CEO or Chairman).

Again, I suggest people look at histories being done by credible people using source materials that can be independently verified - and not rhetoric - and make up their own minds.

2. Given that you refuse to cite sources while arguing facts that contradict what I have seen, and continue to move the goalposts after I requested citations, I think we are good. I have no wish to engage in any acrimony, and it is clear that you do not have the desire to provide sources that would expand my knowledge of the history of the game.

My man, the only "sources" you've cited were: 1) my post, unattributed, 2) the podcast (which is what my post was in reaction to, in a thread about it), and 3) the book, broadly speaking without specific reference. You claim to have referenced the court transcript, without a link to that or citation to any specific part of it, knowing nobody is just going to go dig that up to serve your demands on that.

So let's talk about it: does the book ever claim nobody at TSR was shocked by Gary's ouster, in contradiction to what Rose Estes said? If so, please name me who is disagreeing in the book with that claim.

Again, once I can pin you down to a non-shifting answer on this first point I am happy to move on to the next one. I'm fine going all the down to the Malcolm Gladwell point, which I again is deeply ironic given your consistent position regarding Williams despite new facts being introduced which should be changing your view if you're willing to objectively re-examine them.

 

[mamba]

"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."

I am sure there were many people surprised by it, there probably are people who never even heard of it too. Snarf was not talking about all 7B people on the planet, not even about everyone at TSR, but about the ‘management team’. At least that is how I understand it