Steel_Wind said:
Forgive me for saying so, but I do not think that the brand manager for WotC's new D&D line would ever be the most credible source of information in terms of the effect of M:TG on RPG sales. And that's not a knock on Ryan Dancey. That's just a statement that ANYBODY who held that position would not be putting that spin on the death of the product line they now owned.
But that line of thinking immediately invalidates anyone from making any sort of testimony about that time as evidence. Bill Slavicsek was working for TSR at the time, and said this:
Gamespy's History of D&D said:
"Picture it this way," Slavicsek says, "it's raining money outside and you want to catch as much of it as you can. You can either make a really big bucket or waste your time and attention by creating a lot really small buckets -- either way, you're never going to make more rain." In plain English, TSR, by putting out a lot of product lines instead of supporting the main Dungeons & Dragons line, fragmented the marketplace. The same audience was giving the same amount of money to TSR every year, which had taken on the additional financial burden of creating, producing, and supporting hundreds of products. It needed to grow the marketplace, and these brand extensions weren't doing that.
I don't think anyone underestimates the impact of CCGs on the overall market picture...but TSR's financial strategy was already damaged by 1993...so much so that WotC's sudden rise was another brick in the wall and possibly the final straw. If TSR had been healthy, they would have survived. Companies like White Wolf, Alderac, Mayfair Games, FASA and Steve Jackson Games weathered that storm and continued operation. Weaker companies like TSR and West End Games, who had financial mis-management issues, did not.
Consider that companies have also since weather the arrival of games like Mage Knight, Warhammer, HeroClix and other heavy cash sinks. In the same way, many companies survived the d20 glut, but many did not. This owes more to management issue than otherwise.
To the issue of EGG and other personal accounts: I think many fans are well aware that Gygax is no teddy-bear nor a saint (just ask Dave Arneson, Judges Guild or Mayfair Games)...but he has admitted some mistakes he made. Is his version of history colored by his personal interpretations? Almost certainly, as is true for anyone involved in these affairs, particularly if they involved often contentious events. But the issue stands that there are many former-employees willing to share negative stories of Lorraine Williams, and only one or two that paint a picture of her as a decent person (while at the same time painting an image of her as a terrible manager and CEO). The implication that ALL of these former employees are venting sour grapes seems unlikely, especially as some of them appear to demonstrate no ill will. The most neutral account came from Monte Cook, but his account only covers two years of work at TSR, versus some accounts of folks like Jim Ward (who'd been with TSR since virtually the beginning). Heck, even EGG, after 5 lawsuits, still hired Arneson to write a series of D&D Blackmoor modules...it was Williams who prevented the last one from being published. I think that says something right there.
I also think that most fans who are aware of Lorraine Williams don't particularly harbor any great hate of her, but certainly enjoy a negative view of her based on history, popular perception and her total lack of defenders. Kevin Siembeda, by contrast, has many detractors but also a fiercely loyal fan-base in some quarters. And again, Siembeda has the history as a game designer, artist and creative person...even his worst detractor has to admit that he has successfully created product; Williams has no such credentials. She was a financial planner brought on to the company by Gygax who bought out his partner's shares. Given that Willaims chosen profession prior to becoming TSR's CEO was that of a financial planner, her failure to actually manage TSR's finances becomes a more glaring error. Folks like Gygax, Jackson and Siembeda are creatives first and businessmen second....it's one of the reasons that so many game companies fail. Even WotC, who was making money hand over fist (as TSR did in the early 80s) was at risk of failure during the big CCG rush and then again after the d20 glut.
Spell said:
so far, it seems that lorraine williams is:
1. a bad manager who happened to be around when the whole RPG industry was about to have a big hit by other forms of entertainments aimed at the same niche market.
2. a person whose social skills could have used some improvement, especially when she didn't get her way.
3. a person who has at least a famous enemy (gygax), that every other person loves.
4. the head of the company who enraged a significant part of its online fans because of its narrow minded online policy.
I'd agree with 1 to some degree. #2 we don't really have a lot of data on...being a bad manager is not equivalent of having poor social skills. This was a professional situation, not a social one. In fact, we have some evidence to the contrary. Her management style, however, is generally regarded as inflexible. Number 3 is true for the first half, but certainly not true for the latter half. EGG has quite a few detractors, too. But unlike Lorraine Williams, he is active in the community and always has been. Number 4 is true, though I think it tries to make it sound like Williams was somehow distanced from the policy, as opposed to one of its architects. I would further add:
5. was directly influential in a lengthy series of legal actions against competitors, customers and former employees in an attempt to control their market
6. Made a series of decisions that paid rewards in the short-term but ulitmately damaged the company in the long-term (individualized software licensing rights, Spellfire, Dragon Dice, etc.)
6. Endangered the existence of the D&D brand by endangering the company the created and printed it.
Is the level of vinegar directed at LW justified or over-done? I couldn't say, especially as the only time I even hear of it is when I read histories of D&D and such. I personally have no impression of the woman either way, but I find the lion's share of public opinion is certainly against her, at least in a general sense.
