D&D General When We Were Wizards: Review of the Completed Podcast!

[PHATsakk43]

Speaking of Lorraine, I just noticed a rather heartfelt thank you to her in the back of the Encyclopedia Magica.

I don’t get from one sentence an impression that Lorraine was completely unaware of what TSR was selling or that she was not involved with product.

Just a weird little note.

 

[Mistwell]

It is simply inconceivable to me that someone could listen to that podcast and have the sole takeaway that, "Hey, Lorraine Williams was a real piece of work, AMIRITE?"

I said repeatedly I think gary is worse.

You repeatedly quoted posts of mine where in those posts I say I think Gary is worse.

I then directly wrote to you saying that comparing Williams to Gary isn't the point, that Gary was worse relative to Williams but the standard for being "good" isn't the extremely low bar of Gary.

Are you suggesting you missed all of that?

 

[Mistwell]

That's not what Snarf wrote, despite you quoting it right above this, which is weird.

"I think that a lot of the inchoate dislike towards her that later became calcified into "common wisdom" really needs to be re-evaluated. And the more we get real histories (this, and more importantly, books like Game Wizards) the more we see that a lot of the hate toward Williams is the product of attitudes of the time, and not of actual events."

While Williams certainly did some crappy things, it has become increasingly clear as the real histories come out that "a lot of" the hate towards her "needs to be reevaluated". "A lot of" (not all) "the hate towards Williams is a product of attitudes of the times, and not of actual events". Which seems indisputable at this point. Those are appropriately caveated statements. We KNOW and have seen some of the gross sexism which has been part of the anti-Williams stories over the years. We now know that a lot of the "Lorraine stabbed Gary in the back" narrative Gary and others spread was deeply self-serving and misleading in that it completely left out their own misdeeds and dishonesty. Much of the hate towards Williams was clearly grounded in fan ignorance and unwarranted hero worship of Gary, as well as credulity toward his narrative.

That doesn't mean that ALL of it was, but clearly a big element of these more complete histories is debunking some of the misinformation and allowing us to challenge some of the narratives we previously had which were rooted in ignorance and misinformation.

That's not what I wrote on that part of the topic however. I wrote extensively why my view isn't based on the inchoate dislike towards her, isn't based on rumor over years, but is based directly on specific events in the podcast where she does bad things. I then also wrote about alternatives should could have used which were ethical (like arbitration and mediation, both of which had existed for 40 years in our nation at that point for resolving these kinds of disputes) or going to the bankers themselves to mediate the matter or put their own person in charge.

I am not saying those things as wild speculation, I'm certified in that field and was trained by one of the leading arbitrators in the nation who was experienced back to the WW2 railroad mandatory arbitration matters. In the years these events went down (the late 70s and early 80s) arbitration and mediation for exactly these kinds of matters was widely available and often encouraged by lenders when they're made aware of internal disputes and companies in trouble. There is no good reason for back room shenanigans about hiding stock sales and reducing notification times on right of first refusal while someone is out of town or any of that in that era. Saying "she had no choice" is frankly ignorant of the history of that era. She definitely had more ethical choices than the ones she chose. She wasn't operating in the beginnings of capitalism where it was the wild west any anything goes. And she had a background in finance where she was well aware of these other options even if Gary was not. The Bloomes would have also been well aware, or at least one of them and their father was.

The reason you're not quoting what I said on that matter, and only quoted that one quote, is because Snarf never replied to that part, never re-quoted it, and so it appears as if I never said it this late in the thread when I did and then re-challenged him on it later which he again cut.

I've often said Gary was worse, but that the bar for good behavior isn't Gary Gygax and just because Gary was worse that doesn't make Williams free from criticism. And my criticisms of her have been relatively mild compared to my criticisms of Gary Gygax. But only my more mild criticisms of Williams ever get responses from Snarf, where he says it's because of my bias and refusal to reconsider my biases, though he's never once established I ever had any pre-existing bias regarding Williams and only ever based it on actual facts, not prior rumor like so many others did.

It's the "while Williams certainly did some crappy things" that I am challenging Snarf on. When has he ever said or implied that phrase? I know you did just now, but he has not. Look back on his now long history of regaling everyone on his defense of Williams. He doesn't ever criticize anything she did. As far as I can tell, he doesn't think she ever did any crappy things in this situation. I've given him lots of opportunities to explain how I am wrong in that, and he also declines those opportunities.

Snarf isn't repeating his argument about Williams for no reason. He says why he's repeating it by linking to my post in a different thread and starting this new one. He's not saying "general" hate towards Williams is based on that stuff with this new thread, he's directing it at me and what I said and using my post as his "example" of this concept when it's definitely not an example of this concept. And when challenged on that fact he goes silent. When I repeatedly explain my position on Williams, the facts I use to support my position, how it's not based on just a general sense of rumor and misinformation and ignorance but on direct facts from the podcast he himself endorsed as a source for information, and how I view Gary as worse, he never responds to that part.

 

[PHATsakk43]

That's not what I wrote on that part of the topic however. I wrote extensively why my view isn't based on the inchoate dislike towards her, isn't based on rumor over years, but is based directly on specific events in the podcast where she does bad things. I then also wrote about alternatives should could have used which were ethical (like arbitration and mediation, both of which had existed for 40 years in our nation at that point for resolving these kinds of disputes) or going to the bankers themselves to mediate the matter or put their own person in charge.

I am not saying those things as wild speculation, I'm certified in that field and was trained by one of the leading arbitrators in the nation who was experienced back to the WW2 railroad mandatory arbitration matters. In the years these events went down (the late 70s and early 80s) arbitration and mediation for exactly these kinds of matters was widely available and often encouraged by lenders when they're made aware of internal disputes and companies in trouble. There is no good reason for back room shenanigans about hiding stock sales and reducing notification times on right of first refusal while someone is out of town or any of that in that era. Saying "she had no choice" is frankly ignorant of the history of that era. She definitely had more ethical choices than the ones she chose. She wasn't operating in the beginnings of capitalism where it was the wild west any anything goes. And she had a background in finance where she was well aware of these other options even if Gary was not. The Bloomes would have also been well aware, or at least one of them and their father was.

The reason you're not quoting what I said on that matter, and only quoted that one quote, is because Snarf never replied to that part, never re-quoted it, and so it appears as if I never said it this late in the thread when I did and then re-challenged him on it later which he again cut.

I've often said Gary was worse, but that the bar for good behavior isn't Gary Gygax and just because Gary was worse that doesn't make Williams free from criticism. And my criticisms of her have been relatively mild compared to my criticisms of Gary Gygax. But only my more mild criticisms of Williams ever get responses from Snarf, where he says it's because of my bias and refusal to reconsider my biases, though he's never once established I ever had any pre-existing bias regarding Williams and only ever based it on actual facts, not prior rumor like so many others did.

It's the "while Williams certainly did some crappy things" that I am challenging Snarf on. When has he ever said or implied that phrase? I know you did just now, but he has not. Look back on his now long history of regaling everyone on his defense of Williams. He doesn't ever criticize anything she did. As far as I can tell, he doesn't think she ever did any crappy things in this situation. I've given him lots of opportunities to explain how I am wrong in that, and he also declines those opportunities.

Snarf isn't repeating his argument about Williams for no reason. He says why he's repeating it by linking to my post in a different thread and starting this new one. He's not saying "general" hate towards Williams is based on that stuff with this new thread, he's directing it at me and what I said and using my post as his "example" of this concept when it's definitely not an example of this concept. And when challenged on that fact he goes silent. When I repeatedly explain my position on Williams, the facts I use to support my position, how it's not based on just a general sense of rumor and misinformation and ignorance but on direct facts from the podcast he himself endorsed as a source for information, and how I view Gary as worse, he never responds to that part.

Just got here but, maybe the reasoning is that you're suggesting that Ms. Williams actions were unethical as opposed to a legal course of action that could have been pursued in a different method is a type of characterization. A characterization that is a form of labeling.

I think we can form an opinion about the events that led to Ms. Williams ouster of Gary. I will agree with you that there were likely other options available to Ms. Williams once she had a majority of the shares of the company, but I don't see the option she chose to be particularly unethical. From a practical business standpoint, it would have dragged the company down. You simply can't operate a business with a powerful minority shareholder who is outright hostile to the leadership, which at this point was Ms. Williams.

 

[Mistwell]

Just got here but, maybe the reasoning is that you're suggesting that Ms. Williams actions were unethical as opposed to a legal course of action that could have been pursued in a different method is a type of characterization. A characterization that is a form of labeling.

I think we can form an opinion about the events that led to Ms. Williams ouster of Gary. I will agree with you that there were likely other options available to Ms. Williams once she had a majority of the shares of the company, but I don't see the option she chose to be particularly unethical. From a practical business standpoint, it would have dragged the company down. You simply can't operate a business with a powerful minority shareholder who is outright hostile to the leadership, which at this point was Ms. Williams.

I am characterizing Williams as an unethical businessperson during that brief window when she effectively took over the company (and for a few other decisions well after all this which hasn't been discussed in this thread). I am characterizing Gary Gygax as both an unethical businessperson and far worse than that, for a much longer period of time.

Gary's actions in Hollywood were frankly gross. I've intentionally not mentioned my views of on of his son's actions at that time because he just passed away and I'd rather leave him out of it. But the stuff that happened in Hollywood, that entire period of time, was horrible ethics and was damaging the company for sure. The argument that the way to make movie deals was to coke it up with playboy bunnies at a mansion in Beverley Hills and invite entertainment people holds no credibility. I know actual famous people from the entertainment industry at that time and that was not in any way necessary or even one of the more effective means of breaking into the business. It was the result of people who had already broken in and had more money than they knew what to do with, not the means of breaking into the industry to begin with. That whole thing was an abuse of company funds, while he was neglecting his company duties.

The only point of disagreement I had with the podcasters was their conclusion that it was specifically the royalties harming the company more than anything else. Gary was forgoing those royalties as debt. In fact, had he insisted on collecting them (which was his contractual right), he could have bought more TSR stock with the funds and transferred the cash that way back to the company. He didn't have to take it as debt and probably shouldn't have from a business perspective. The settlement offer Williams later made to him included a payment which was even larger than the royalties that was in debt at that point doubly making it clear (to me at least) that it wasn't his royalties harming the company as much as the podcasters repeatedly claimed it was. It was more the entire entertainment department's budget, and his absence from the company itself, that was doing the harm.

All that said, Gary being a worse actor doesn't mean Williams should be free of criticism. I should be free to characterize Williams based on her actions as a bad actor, despite Gary Gygax being a worse actor, without being called out for daring to characterize Williams as a bad actor. I never said or implied that was my sole takeaway from the podcast, but Snarf literally just claimed that I did say it was my sole takeaway, though he'd quoted posts of mine where I made it really clear it was not.

Before Williams had the shares, she had talked to the Bloomes about the matter. She could have suggested to them better courses of action, but instead installed herself. They didn't choose her - the podcast makes it clear it was her plan. In addition, Williams was Gary's personal adviser on these matters. She could have talked to him about finding a better way to resolve his differences with the Bloomes. She chose to not do that as well, probably because he insulted her and she quietly plotted revenge from that moment on. I don't fault her for being upset - I would have too. But she had a responsibility to the company, even though Gary was clearly neglecting his responsibilities to the company.

In my opinion (which certainly could be wrong), a better solution would have been cutting the Entertainment division entirely and bringing Gary back to Lake Geneva as a Lead Designer or something like that, until the company was back on better footing. In exchange for that, Gary should have been offered a new issuance of TSR stock in exchange for his royalties debt as non-preferred shares (so he'd make money if the company ever sold, but not be voting on board membership with those shares and only with his prior shares), and a portion of his royalty rights in exchange for D&D trademark rights, and dropped the Entertainment stuff temporarily and the CEO position in exchange for another CEO (maybe Williams but more likely someone the bank found). The new CEO would be buying the Blumes shares.

Gary was willing to come to the table to re-negotiate the royalty issue in exchange for making it clear he owned the rights to D&D. That could have been part of a bigger deal, BEFORE WILLIAMS' COUP. Indeed, had Williams made the settlement offer she did make before she took the stock, I am betting Gary would have jumped at it. He just needed to be made to feel like they were not taking everything from him by force. And introducing the bank as a motivating factor and initial decisionmaker, along with the exit of the Blumes, probably would have mollified a lot of the hurt feelings over it.

Now he didn't deserve that settlement offer, in a vacuum. Again, he's a worse actor than Williams at this point. But I think it would have been a healthier solution for the company going forward if Gary had settled this on equal footing with Williams and the Blumes, and been part of design going forward. I don't know if the fate of the company would have been better going forward, but I suspect it would have. We're not talking about some missteps Williams makes after this point, but she definitely makes some missteps and at least some of them were the kind Gary would have advised against. His hyper-focus on D&D, even though a meaningful portion was based on his royalties, probably was a better choice for the company than some of the "diversification of product line" that Williams engaged in later. But maybe not.

Maybe Gary still being there in some meaningful capacity would have led to the company failing earlier. I don't know. But I suspect it could have gone better had Williams made some better choices at that time. And certainly it would have gone better had Gary made some better choices at that time.

 

[Clint_L]

Just my two cents, but it didn’t sound like Williams really was concerned with people’s opinions from a game industry standpoint. She was just about the business and I don’t think she cares too much about legacy from a fan’s perspective. Even if she did, she’d be opening herself up to more than just rehashing the fight with Gary Gygax: she’d have to get into the pretty blatant attempt to benefit herself by pushing Buck Rogers consistently throughout her time running the company.

That latter criticism is one that I've never understood, at least not from an ethical perspective. She owned a genre-based game design and publishing company. Her family owned the Buck Rogers rights, which had previously been pretty lucrative (I loved the TV show when I was a kid, so it's not like it was ancient history...well...any more than I am). Why wouldn't she try to combine the two? Blatantly or otherwise? It's not like she was doing something shady, like putting family members on the payroll when they didn't even work at the company (c.f. the Blumes).

Strategically, yeah. It didn't work. Turned out to be a bad idea from a business perspective. But it wasn't an obviously ludicrous idea, and it certainly wasn't unethical.

 

[Warren]

Strategically, yeah. It didn't work. Turned out to be a bad idea from a business perspective. But it wasn't an obviously ludicrous idea, and it certainly wasn't unethical.

I don't think it was the intent so much as continuing to push a bad idea after it was an obvious flop, and suggesting it all the time for new product ideas. I think it was James Ward in one of the biographies quoted with "We're going to keep making Buck Rogers until you start buying it."

 

[TiQuinn]

That latter cirticism is one that I've never understood, at least not from an ethical perspective. She owned a genre-based game design and publishing company. Her family owned the Buck Rogers rights, which had previously been pretty lucrative (I loved the TV show when I was a kid, so it's not like it was ancient history...well...any more than I am). Why wouldn't she try to combine the two? Blatantly or otherwise? It's not like she was doing something shady, like putting family members on the payroll when they didn't even work at the company (c.f. the Blumes).

Strategically, yeah. It didn't work. Turned out to be a bad idea from a business perspective. But it wasn't an obviously ludicrous idea, and it certainly wasn't unethical.

I think it’s highly questionable how lucrative Buck Rogers the TV show was. It was conceived right in that time following Star Wars when everyone suddenly had a space opera movie or show to try and cash in. Buck Rogers ran for only 2 seasons, with the second season only being half the number of episodes as season 1. It was gone by Spring of 1981. The first Buck Rogers TSR product came out 7 years later, well after the cache of follow ons to Star Wars had worn out their welcome.

Was it unethical? Depends on your perspective of ethics. I think pushing a product by a company that you are that has low interest in the market but would benefit your family personally because they own the rights is bordering on unethical even if you have controlling shares in the company.

 

[Warren]

Was it unethical? Depends on your perspective of ethics. I think pushing a product by a company that you are that has low interest in the market but would benefit your family personally because they own the rights is bordering on unethical even if you have controlling shares in the company.

The devil is in the details: specifically how much TSR paid Williams' family for the rights to a Buck Rogers game.

 

[TiQuinn]

The devil is in the details: specifically how much TSR paid Williams' family for the rights to a Buck Rogers game.

Which we may never know unless someone finds some record of the deal. Still, the full number of products released by TSR for Buck Rogers included a full TTRPG, video games, board games, and comic books. They did this for other settings, of course, but those were fully owned by TSR. If the CEO was literally anyone else, would that deal have been pushed that aggressively? I don’t think so.