History Rhymes: Another Gygax Lawsuit

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yes, but let's not assume that the staffers and writers at Dragon were incapable of impartiality. Were the Gamers' Choice awards voted on by readers?

My point stands. WG7 was not as hated upon its release as it would become in the decades that followed.

Your point doesn't stand. If you'd like to point to some contemporaneous glowing reviews from a source other than Dragon Magazine, I'll wait.

No one is claiming that it was universally reviled at the time. Instead, as many have pointed out, many people who were aware (or even vaguely aware) of what was going on did not like this module at the time, at all. No one that I know of considered this a good, or classic, module.

I would further say that because the people who were more involved in the hobby at the time tended to be the people who, you know, kept involved, their opinions about the module became more of the settled wisdom. So the "settled wisdom" about the module definitely steered toward the hate. To the extent where you have people who look at it now and don't understand the hate because (not understanding the context) it just looks like a run-of-the-mill bad module.

But if you have a hill you want to die on, you and your bard army are welcome to occupy it.

 

[Some Dude]

You're being both pedantic and insulting, for no good reason.

My point does stand, because I've never said that it got any "glowing" reviews. Merely that it wasn't as hated upon its release as it would become. And while I understand your cynicism wrt Dragon, I respect Ken Rolston's integrity, as well as that of the readers (and yes, it was voted on) who voted WG7 as Best Role-Playing Adventure in Dragon 151.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

FYI, I just checked the Gamer's Choice Awards that was referenced for that year. The awards were given out at GenCon (the TSR convention) by Lorraine Williams (CEO of TSR). The ballots were through Polyhedron (TSR's other magazine) and administered by the RPGA Network (run by TSR).

Let's see who some of the amazing winners were!
Best Family Game? Mertwig's Maze! (TSR)

Best "Other Category" RPG? Bullwinkle and Rocky! (TSR)

Best RPG Accessory? It's a TIE! Lords of Darkness (TSR) managed to tie ... Kara-Tur, The Eastern Realms (TSR).

Best Historical Strategy Game? The Hunt For Red October (TSR).

Best Sci-Fi Strategy Game? Oh ... Lorraine loved this one.... Buck Rogers! Okay, it tied Merchants of Venus (Avalon)

Best Miniature Line? AD&D Miniatures

Best Computer Game? Pool of Radiance (this one is actually legit)

Best Professional Gaming Magazine? C'mon.... Polyhedron? The TSR publication that did the ballots? Yep.

Best RPGA Network Tournament: Scrap of Paper by Skip Williams (TSR Employee) and Jean Rabe (TSR Employee and head coordinator of RPGA).


Look, I'm not saying that it was totally in the bag for TSR. They didn't win best play-by-mail. Or science fiction RPG. Or satirical RPG. Or even fantasy game. That's right, they didn't win those four categories!

But they didn't have any products in those four categories that year.

In every single category that they had an entry, they either won, or a product made for them won (Ral Partha made their miniatures, SSI made their computer game).

These awards were "TSR wins, unless we didn't release a product in that category."

 

[Some Dude]

Yes, and TSR was the most popular and successful game company at that time. Were the Gamers' Choice Awards similarly slanted towards TSR every year? Or just this year?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yes, and TSR was the most popular and successful game company at that time. Were the Gamers' Choice Awards similarly slanted towards TSR every year? Or just this year?

Well, I am not your research monkey. But if you want to do the research to get a better context, I would suggest doing the following-

Find out where you would get full information on the Gamer's Choice Awards (hint - TSR had another magazine).

What was the difference between the Origin Award and the "Gamers' Choice Awards."

Why did Dragon cover the Gamer's Choice Awards in 1989 ... and so weirdly? Would it have something to do with why Dragon covered it in 1988? And why would they have covered the Origin Awards in 1988 (which is what led to the 1989 coverage).

Bonus context issue- why would Dragon specifically not normally cover the Origin Awards? And was anything going on with Dragon in the mid- and late-80s that further explains this shift?

I'm not trying to be pedantic, but given that you are explaining to me that I do not understand the context of how things were at the time, I am clearly not appreciating being lectured to. If you enjoy WG7, great. If you want to say that you liked it at the time, great. If you want to say that there were others that did as well, great. But don't tell me how I, and many others, received it when it was published; I was there, and I still remember it, and that feeling was shared by a lot of people- I know, because I talked to them. And I knew a lot of people.

Now, if you want to produce contemporaneous accounts by sources that aren't from TSR's publicity organs, I'll be happy to review them. I always love historical source documents. As far as sales go, I do not believe that there is any source for sales. Alzrius provided the sales that Ben Riggs did here-

D&D General Thread 'Master List of Benn Riggs' D&D Charts and Graphs'

Oct 12, 2023

So back when Ben Riggs was promoting his new book, Slaying the Dragon, he posted a lot of charts and graphs about the data he gathered in the course of his research. Unfortunately, most of that data was posted on his Twitter (now X) feed (and, I think, his Facebook page) rather than in the book itself. Fortunately, a lot of those charts were posted here (courtesy @darjr), but they're scattered around various threads, which can make them rather hard to find for aficionados who want to look for them again.

As such, I'm starting this thread as a repository for all of Riggs'...

• Alzrius
• Replies: 43
• Forum: *Dungeons & Dragons

• 
• 

But as you can see, there isn't a breakout of modules. In addition, sales wouldn't be a good barometer of reception- a lot of the sales (for example, to me) were the reason that the module was so widely reviled; people that bought it and hated it.

 

[trappedslider]

Best Historical Strategy Game? The Hunt For Red October (TSR).

Now i wanna go down the rabbit hole of finding info about that game

 

[Some Dude]

Well, I am not your research monkey. But if you want to do the research to get a better context, I would suggest doing the following-

Never implied that you were. And I have been looking for sources. But since you seemed to have some already, I saw no harm in asking.

To be fair, you are the one making a claim by implication (i.e., that TSR staffers and magazines were not trustworthy when it came to reviews or awards), not I. I'm of the opinion that the person making claims should be the one to supply evidence, but you're certainly free to disagree. And I do appreciate the nuance that I asked a follow-up question, which makes things less clear-cut (if they can be said to be so in the first place).

Find out where you would get full information on the Gamer's Choice Awards (hint - TSR had another magazine).

What was the difference between the Origin Award and the "Gamers' Choice Awards."

Why did Dragon cover the Gamer's Choice Awards in 1989 ... and so weirdly? Would it have something to do with why Dragon covered it in 1988? And why would they have covered the Origin Awards in 1988 (which is what led to the 1989 coverage).

Bonus context issue- why would Dragon specifically not normally cover the Origin Awards? And was anything going on with Dragon in the mid- and late-80s that further explains this shift?

Great advice, thank you. Again, it does seem that you have answers to these questions already, which makes it odd that you implied that some research would be needed to answer them. You are obviously quite knowledgeable, which, again, is why I asked the questions I did.

I'm not trying to be pedantic, but given that you are explaining to me that I do not understand the context of how things were at the time, I am clearly not appreciating being lectured to. If you enjoy WG7, great. If you want to say that you liked it at the time, great. If you want to say that there were others that did as well, great. But don't tell me how I, and many others, received it when it was published; I was there, and I still remember it, and that feeling was shared by a lot of people- I know, because I talked to them. And I knew a lot of people.

I have lectured no one, and comparing the tone of our respective posts in this thread, I'd say that while there is a lecture happening, it ain't coming from me. I made a simple statement that WG7 was not as hated as it would later become. The idea that I'm making some judgement about your knowledge now or at that time (or saying anything other than what was in my statement) is both extrapolated and inaccurate. No offense.

Now, if you want to produce contemporaneous accounts by sources that aren't from TSR's publicity organs, I'll be happy to review them. I always love historical source documents. As far as sales go, I do not believe that there is any source for sales. Alzrius provided the sales that Ben Riggs did here-

D&D General Thread 'Master List of Benn Riggs' D&D Charts and Graphs'

Oct 12, 2023

So back when Ben Riggs was promoting his new book, Slaying the Dragon, he posted a lot of charts and graphs about the data he gathered in the course of his research. Unfortunately, most of that data was posted on his Twitter (now X) feed (and, I think, his Facebook page) rather than in the book itself. Fortunately, a lot of those charts were posted here (courtesy @darjr), but they're scattered around various threads, which can make them rather hard to find for aficionados who want to look for them again.

As such, I'm starting this thread as a repository for all of Riggs'...

• Alzrius
• Replies: 43
• Forum: *Dungeons & Dragons

• 
• 

But as you can see, there isn't a breakout of modules. In addition, sales wouldn't be a good barometer of reception- a lot of the sales (for example, to me) were the reason that the module was so widely reviled; people that bought it and hated it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Now i wanna go down the rabbit hole of finding info about that game

It's surprisingly good ... for that period of time (this was LONG before the boardgame revolution). But IIRC, you have to come in with the proper expectations- it's a "family boardgame," that's also kinda sorta a wargame, but it's a little more complicated than your typical '80s "family game" (this was the Trivial Pursuit era) and it's a lot less complicated than an actual wargame.

 

[Clint_L]

To be fair, you are the one making a claim by implication (i.e., that TSR staffers and magazines were not trustworthy when it came to reviews or awards), not I. I'm of the opinion that the person making claims should be the one to supply evidence, but you're certainly free to disagree.

You have to admit the evidence is pretty damning that those awards were in the bag for TSR, and yes I absolutely do doubt the impartiality of them as their own judges. I mean, I guess you don't have to admit it, but it seems like a strange hill to die on.

I was there at the time - a young college student who had already been a player for a decade, and WG7 was an enormous dissapointment to all the fans I knew (and I was a massive fan of the Greyhawk setting and used it in many of my D&D campaigns, when I wasn't plagiarizing it for my own "original" setting). It seemed like a joke at our expense, like it was intentionally yucking our yum. So it wasn't just bad, it was insulting, with the basic premise seeming like "Oh, you like this thing? You're an idiot." Thus the hostility towards it.

 

[Some Dude]

You have to admit the evidence is pretty damning that those awards were in the bag for TSR, and yes I absolutely do doubt the impartiality of them as their own judges. I mean, I guess you don't have to admit it, but it seems like a strange hill to die on.

I was there at the time - a young college student who had already been a player for a decade, and WG7 was a massive dissapointment to all the fans I knew (and I was a massive fan of the Greyhawk setting and used it in many of my D&D campaigns, when I wasn't plagiarizing it for my own "original" setting). It seemed like a joke at our expense, like it was intentionally yucking our yum. So it wasn't just bad, it was insulting, with the basic premise seeming like "Oh, you like this thing? You're an idiot." Thus the hostility towards it.

To be honest, I haven't seen any evidence. Just an assumption that the folks at TSR who were involved with these awards, and with reviews, lacked integrity and/or were outright dishonest.

I'm not trying to die on any hill. I'd love to be proven wrong, and would gladly admit it if I was. But so far, the only person who seems to be able to do that is playing the "I know something you don't know" game, which, TBH, seems gatekeepery, grognardy, and kind of childish.

Not trying to be an a-hole. I just think it's weird to be told, "You're wrong, I know it, I can prove it, but I'm just not gonna. Nuh-uh."

Like what's the point of even knowing stuff if you're not gonna share it with people who, admittedly, know less than you? And are asking in good faith?

Anyway, it ultimately doesn't matter. To me or my life. I'm perfectly happy to go on believing what I do, based on the best information I've seen. And I'm perfectly happy to change my mind if and when better information becomes available. I am trying to find better info myself, based on suggestions given by the OP, maybe that time will be soon. It looks like the Origins awards for the previous year were definitely NOT populated with TSR stuff. What inference I'm supposed to draw from that, I do not know. I'll keep looking, though.