Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Chat with Rose Estes
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9064568" data-attributes="member: 8461"><p>No, not really. Having a different opinion doesn't make someone wrong.</p><p></p><p>It's not incorrect by any means, let alone <em>prima facie</em>; just because two or three other people read the book differently (and, by the by, that was with regard to the takeaway regarding Lorraine Williams, rather than the tenor of Riggs' bias) doesn't mean that something isn't very clear.</p><p></p><p>At some point there has to be an assertion that certain things are self-evident, otherwise there's no basis for the discussion to happen. If you're asserting that Riggs is an unbiased source whose personal assertions should be trusted, and can't accept that things such as his repeatedly calling Gary Gygax "Saint Gary" are indicative of why his take on things merits at least a certain degree of skepticism, then the only reasonable conclusion is that you're the one whose mind is made up.</p><p></p><p>It's worth noting here that you're once again mischaracterizing what I'm saying with regard to Riggs' take. I've never once called him a liar; I'm pointing out that his open display of bias on his part is justification for not taking his assertions to be unquestionable. He's certainly open about his methodology, and I don't think that anyone is challenging him on the facts (or saying his book isn't worth reading). But when he makes repeated displays of contempt for a particular individual, and then says "I couldn't find anyone who thought he was better to work for than his successor," the former undercuts the trustworthiness of the latter.</p><p></p><p>Again, I don't really see how this is so hard for you to understand. Partisanship erodes credibility, at least when it comes to the area where someone is partisan. Riggs' repeatedly makes it clear in his book that he doesn't respect Gary Gygax, ergo, his claims that no one else did (as much as Williams) are not something I'm willing to put my faith in purely on his say-so. If you can't understand the degree of nuance between that and "he's a liar!", that's a reflection on you, not me.</p><p></p><p><em>The Game Wizards</em> is far and away a more rigorous source, but that doesn't make the above any less of a counterfactual. Peterson might very well be right, we'll never know, but he's basically saying what we've already agreed to: that she kept the company going. He doesn't speak to her own employees being afraid of her, to her allegedly using misogynistic and dehumanizing insults when firing employees, etc. In other words, he gives her credit where it's due with regard to management, but doesn't address what kind of boss she was.</p><p></p><p>No, I didn't. I met him a few times, but nothing he'd ever remember. That said, I think you're reading a bit too much into my choice of name usage; looking back over my posts, I've referred to him as both "Gary" and "Gygax" more than once, and his successor as both "Williams" and "Lorraine" as well (admittedly, the distribution has been uneven; chalk that up to which sounds more mellifluous in my head, I suppose?).</p><p></p><p>No doubt. The Blumes' mismanagement is undeniable. But that doesn't mean that Lorraine Williams should be held up as the only one who could have saved the company.</p><p></p><p>I'll point out again that it wasn't one source. I've quoted Fallone, I've quoted <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20071213191608/http://www.ptolus.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?int_dnd30_WWC" target="_blank">Connors</a>, and I've quoted <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/mike-breault-on-lorraine-williams.661642/" target="_blank">Mike Breault</a>, at a minimum. While they all have good things to say, they also have very frank bad things to say about her leadership. As I've repeatedly noted, it's up to everyone to decide which are more salient, but when issues such as her employees being afraid of her, her yelling at her staff, and her hurling vile epithets at people in front of other heads of the company before firing them come up, I personally have a hard time reconciling that as anything except "toxic."</p><p></p><p>Clearly, you disagree.</p><p></p><p>No, actually, that's not how the discussion has progressed. <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/chat-with-rose-estes.698668/post-9064274" target="_blank">Another poster</a> said "you don't hear stories about her being toxic [or] out of touch." I pointed out that you <em>do</em> hear stories about both of those things, and that Fallone's quote in Riggs' book corroborated that. He characterizes her as not knowing what her staff did (and it's worth noting that Lorraine herself agrees that she didn't fully understand what D&D was; if you look at her quote in Chapter 11 of David Ewalt's <em>Of Dice and Men</em>, she says "I may not have understood it one hundred percent, but I understood intellectually that it was the right product for the right time.").</p><p></p><p>That, to me, says "out of touch." As for the "toxic" part, I've already spoken to that.</p><p></p><p>And here I have to disagree with you; if Riggs had applied that label once, and explained it in the context you just did, that would be one thing. But his repeated adoption and persistent usage of that term characterizes his outlook as being not a corrective against an viewpoint that's uncharitably positive, but as his own being uncharitably negative.</p><p></p><p>Now, you can absolutely take a different stance on that, but the point is that Riggs compromises his own objectivity in the process of being so partisan. Leaving aside the usual blather about how "objectivity doesn't really exist; everything is filtered through our own perceptions," someone who wants to report on a history should (in my opinion) at least <em>try</em> to check their own biases with regard to people and events. Riggs not only doesn't make this attempt, he's brazen about it. Ergo, I find it difficult to grant him the level of personal faith that you apparently do.</p><p></p><p>I'm going to have to ask you to source your citation on Peterson showing that Gygax "easily" had the means to afford to buy the Blumes out for $500 a share. That said, the idea that something is reasonable because someone else paid it seems to overlook that Lorraine came from a trust fund family, and was extremely flush with cash on hand to make such a large purchase.</p><p></p><p>The words were in no way "cherry-picked." Cherry-picking quotes means taking them out of context, i.e. not presenting the entire quote. At each point, I've noted the full text of what Fallone, Connors, and Breault all said, including the good as well as the bad. I feel comfortable in saying that the bad eclipses the good, and that it's so bad that when someone says Williams wasn't "toxic" in her leadership, there's a reasonable basis for disagreeing.</p><p></p><p>And once again, I disagree. Lorraine Williams started from a far, <em>far</em> more advantageous position than Gary Gygax did. When she took over in 1985, D&D was already a household name, having come off of a multi-year boom (albeit one that was well and truly tapped out several years prior) and a lot of (oftentimes controversial) press. She wasn't trying to establish the company, nor was she fighting any internal battles against shareholders. She wasn't even dividing her time between management and creating new product herself (as I noted in my <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/5-fun-facts-about-the-1991-d-d-black-boxed-set.685296/" target="_blank">thread on the black boxed set</a>, she was the impetus for its creation, but it was actually written by Troy Denning). Not to mention her pushing the Buck Rogers IP, which was personally beneficial for her and her family.</p><p></p><p>She was, in other words, running the company on the lowest difficulty setting, at least compared to Gygax, and yet she still only kept it going for the same amount of time. Moreover, her employees have described her in terms such as "afraid," "yelling," "run the company into the ground," and screaming dehumanizing insults. Take that as you will, but I don't see that as the ringing endorsement that you seem to.</p><p></p><p>Interesting fact about the Buck Rogers IP: it appears that there's been a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_Rogers#Future_films_and_conflict" target="_blank">recent series of court battles</a> over who actually owns the character (from what I can tell, it comes down to an issue of Lorraine's grandfather John Dille being the publisher, but not the actual creator of the character; to my layman's eye, it looks like an issue of whether or not it was work-for-hire or not).</p><p></p><p>And this is where I disagree most strongly; I don't see issues of misogyny being of any particular note in Williams' having an overall worse reputation compared to Gary. Rather, I think that Gygax's reputation is buoyed because, while there seems to be a comparable number of negatives to be said about him, he has more positives than she does, those revolving around the fact that he created the game (insert obligatory reference to Arneson here), founded the company, made both a household name, and was himself a creator, whereas Williams' greatest achievement was keeping the company going after it was already established (albeit in financial trouble), and didn't actually care for it the way Gary did.</p><p></p><p>Now, there's absolutely different takes to be had on that. As I noted, it's entirely reasonable to say that the positives don't outweigh the negatives where Gary is concerned. For that matter, you can argue as to the merit of those positives in the first place. I'm not going to tell you what to value. I just think that there's a general sense that Gary truly loved what he did, whereas Lorraine saw it as a business opportunity, and that rightly or wrongly, the former evokes more sympathy than the latter.</p><p></p><p>I'm not sure why your numbering is off, but it is: the listed quote is point number seven; there is no point number nine.</p><p></p><p>As for the issue of Breault's not seeing that first-hand, I'm not surprised that you compared that to my distrust of Riggs' reporting; indeed, I was fully expecting it! However, I think it's important to remember the different contexts; Riggs openly went in with an agenda (page 67 of the hardcover of <em>Slaying the Dragon</em>: "And as I read some of the most intense and vicious attacks on Williams, I could not help but wonder what role misogyny might play in her villainization." When you openly speculate as to the motivations and biases of others, you tend to reveal your own.), whereas Breault worked there.</p><p></p><p>I say that not to suggest that Breault is necessarily more trustworthy, but that his vitriol is more understandable for his having had her as a boss. Remember, it was Fallone who said that her own employees were afraid of her; I find myself more sympathetic toward someone who worked in a climate of fear than I do toward someone writing a book about it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 9064568, member: 8461"] No, not really. Having a different opinion doesn't make someone wrong. It's not incorrect by any means, let alone [I]prima facie[/I]; just because two or three other people read the book differently (and, by the by, that was with regard to the takeaway regarding Lorraine Williams, rather than the tenor of Riggs' bias) doesn't mean that something isn't very clear. At some point there has to be an assertion that certain things are self-evident, otherwise there's no basis for the discussion to happen. If you're asserting that Riggs is an unbiased source whose personal assertions should be trusted, and can't accept that things such as his repeatedly calling Gary Gygax "Saint Gary" are indicative of why his take on things merits at least a certain degree of skepticism, then the only reasonable conclusion is that you're the one whose mind is made up. It's worth noting here that you're once again mischaracterizing what I'm saying with regard to Riggs' take. I've never once called him a liar; I'm pointing out that his open display of bias on his part is justification for not taking his assertions to be unquestionable. He's certainly open about his methodology, and I don't think that anyone is challenging him on the facts (or saying his book isn't worth reading). But when he makes repeated displays of contempt for a particular individual, and then says "I couldn't find anyone who thought he was better to work for than his successor," the former undercuts the trustworthiness of the latter. Again, I don't really see how this is so hard for you to understand. Partisanship erodes credibility, at least when it comes to the area where someone is partisan. Riggs' repeatedly makes it clear in his book that he doesn't respect Gary Gygax, ergo, his claims that no one else did (as much as Williams) are not something I'm willing to put my faith in purely on his say-so. If you can't understand the degree of nuance between that and "he's a liar!", that's a reflection on you, not me. [I]The Game Wizards[/I] is far and away a more rigorous source, but that doesn't make the above any less of a counterfactual. Peterson might very well be right, we'll never know, but he's basically saying what we've already agreed to: that she kept the company going. He doesn't speak to her own employees being afraid of her, to her allegedly using misogynistic and dehumanizing insults when firing employees, etc. In other words, he gives her credit where it's due with regard to management, but doesn't address what kind of boss she was. No, I didn't. I met him a few times, but nothing he'd ever remember. That said, I think you're reading a bit too much into my choice of name usage; looking back over my posts, I've referred to him as both "Gary" and "Gygax" more than once, and his successor as both "Williams" and "Lorraine" as well (admittedly, the distribution has been uneven; chalk that up to which sounds more mellifluous in my head, I suppose?). No doubt. The Blumes' mismanagement is undeniable. But that doesn't mean that Lorraine Williams should be held up as the only one who could have saved the company. I'll point out again that it wasn't one source. I've quoted Fallone, I've quoted [URL='https://web.archive.org/web/20071213191608/http://www.ptolus.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?int_dnd30_WWC']Connors[/URL], and I've quoted [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/mike-breault-on-lorraine-williams.661642/']Mike Breault[/URL], at a minimum. While they all have good things to say, they also have very frank bad things to say about her leadership. As I've repeatedly noted, it's up to everyone to decide which are more salient, but when issues such as her employees being afraid of her, her yelling at her staff, and her hurling vile epithets at people in front of other heads of the company before firing them come up, I personally have a hard time reconciling that as anything except "toxic." Clearly, you disagree. No, actually, that's not how the discussion has progressed. [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/chat-with-rose-estes.698668/post-9064274']Another poster[/URL] said "you don't hear stories about her being toxic [or] out of touch." I pointed out that you [I]do[/I] hear stories about both of those things, and that Fallone's quote in Riggs' book corroborated that. He characterizes her as not knowing what her staff did (and it's worth noting that Lorraine herself agrees that she didn't fully understand what D&D was; if you look at her quote in Chapter 11 of David Ewalt's [I]Of Dice and Men[/I], she says "I may not have understood it one hundred percent, but I understood intellectually that it was the right product for the right time."). That, to me, says "out of touch." As for the "toxic" part, I've already spoken to that. And here I have to disagree with you; if Riggs had applied that label once, and explained it in the context you just did, that would be one thing. But his repeated adoption and persistent usage of that term characterizes his outlook as being not a corrective against an viewpoint that's uncharitably positive, but as his own being uncharitably negative. Now, you can absolutely take a different stance on that, but the point is that Riggs compromises his own objectivity in the process of being so partisan. Leaving aside the usual blather about how "objectivity doesn't really exist; everything is filtered through our own perceptions," someone who wants to report on a history should (in my opinion) at least [I]try[/I] to check their own biases with regard to people and events. Riggs not only doesn't make this attempt, he's brazen about it. Ergo, I find it difficult to grant him the level of personal faith that you apparently do. I'm going to have to ask you to source your citation on Peterson showing that Gygax "easily" had the means to afford to buy the Blumes out for $500 a share. That said, the idea that something is reasonable because someone else paid it seems to overlook that Lorraine came from a trust fund family, and was extremely flush with cash on hand to make such a large purchase. The words were in no way "cherry-picked." Cherry-picking quotes means taking them out of context, i.e. not presenting the entire quote. At each point, I've noted the full text of what Fallone, Connors, and Breault all said, including the good as well as the bad. I feel comfortable in saying that the bad eclipses the good, and that it's so bad that when someone says Williams wasn't "toxic" in her leadership, there's a reasonable basis for disagreeing. And once again, I disagree. Lorraine Williams started from a far, [I]far[/I] more advantageous position than Gary Gygax did. When she took over in 1985, D&D was already a household name, having come off of a multi-year boom (albeit one that was well and truly tapped out several years prior) and a lot of (oftentimes controversial) press. She wasn't trying to establish the company, nor was she fighting any internal battles against shareholders. She wasn't even dividing her time between management and creating new product herself (as I noted in my [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/5-fun-facts-about-the-1991-d-d-black-boxed-set.685296/']thread on the black boxed set[/URL], she was the impetus for its creation, but it was actually written by Troy Denning). Not to mention her pushing the Buck Rogers IP, which was personally beneficial for her and her family. She was, in other words, running the company on the lowest difficulty setting, at least compared to Gygax, and yet she still only kept it going for the same amount of time. Moreover, her employees have described her in terms such as "afraid," "yelling," "run the company into the ground," and screaming dehumanizing insults. Take that as you will, but I don't see that as the ringing endorsement that you seem to. Interesting fact about the Buck Rogers IP: it appears that there's been a [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_Rogers#Future_films_and_conflict']recent series of court battles[/URL] over who actually owns the character (from what I can tell, it comes down to an issue of Lorraine's grandfather John Dille being the publisher, but not the actual creator of the character; to my layman's eye, it looks like an issue of whether or not it was work-for-hire or not). And this is where I disagree most strongly; I don't see issues of misogyny being of any particular note in Williams' having an overall worse reputation compared to Gary. Rather, I think that Gygax's reputation is buoyed because, while there seems to be a comparable number of negatives to be said about him, he has more positives than she does, those revolving around the fact that he created the game (insert obligatory reference to Arneson here), founded the company, made both a household name, and was himself a creator, whereas Williams' greatest achievement was keeping the company going after it was already established (albeit in financial trouble), and didn't actually care for it the way Gary did. Now, there's absolutely different takes to be had on that. As I noted, it's entirely reasonable to say that the positives don't outweigh the negatives where Gary is concerned. For that matter, you can argue as to the merit of those positives in the first place. I'm not going to tell you what to value. I just think that there's a general sense that Gary truly loved what he did, whereas Lorraine saw it as a business opportunity, and that rightly or wrongly, the former evokes more sympathy than the latter. I'm not sure why your numbering is off, but it is: the listed quote is point number seven; there is no point number nine. As for the issue of Breault's not seeing that first-hand, I'm not surprised that you compared that to my distrust of Riggs' reporting; indeed, I was fully expecting it! However, I think it's important to remember the different contexts; Riggs openly went in with an agenda (page 67 of the hardcover of [I]Slaying the Dragon[/I]: "And as I read some of the most intense and vicious attacks on Williams, I could not help but wonder what role misogyny might play in her villainization." When you openly speculate as to the motivations and biases of others, you tend to reveal your own.), whereas Breault worked there. I say that not to suggest that Breault is necessarily more trustworthy, but that his vitriol is more understandable for his having had her as a boss. Remember, it was Fallone who said that her own employees were afraid of her; I find myself more sympathetic toward someone who worked in a climate of fear than I do toward someone writing a book about it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Chat with Rose Estes
Top