D&D General Lorraine Williams: Is it Time for a Reevaluation?


log in or register to remove this ad

There's a lot of strange mythmaking and personal vendettas going on the marrs truly understanding what happened in the past of D&D.

Compare Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax's recollections, or Rob Kuntz vs. Gary Gygax. I remember everyone used to talk about how Brian Blume was the "traitor" but then I found out that Jim Ward was still playing in a regular game with him up until the early 21st century!
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Most of the stuff they put out for public playtest can't be playtested properly.

It's what a month between release and survey? That's not enough time for an extensive playtest. That seems more like an opinion poll.

I don't know how much in-house playtesting they do, but whatever it is that would be the real playtesting.
The UA is not for the real playtesting, it is an opinion poll to see if the design should be taken to the stage of actual internal playtesting. If the public doesn't like an option, no need to test it further. If they do, it goes into the test pipeline.
 

Defender_X

Explorer
I liked Buck Rogers XXV and all the writers work on that. My biggest gripe of that era was Skills and Powers not being able to move past the tacked on skill system.
 

This debate makes me think it would be fun to see the D&D biopic movie from two distinct perspectives. Part of the movie could be from Gary Gygax's perspective as he designs a groundbreaking game. Lorraine Williams is portrayed as the primary antagonist -- a ruthless corporate raider. Another part could be from Williams perspective dealing with the business mess Gygax created and a sexist gaming industry. Now Gygax is the primary antagonist. He's a symbol of this entitled "bro" culture and undermines her efforts to save the company. The movie could end in the early 2000s with the successful launch of 3rd edition. It would be a good workout for the principal actors to play both hero and villain in their role.
 

This debate makes me think it would be fun to see the D&D biopic movie from two distinct perspectives. Part of the movie could be from Gary Gygax's perspective as he designs a groundbreaking game. Lorraine Williams is portrayed as the primary antagonist -- a ruthless corporate raider. Another part could be from Williams perspective dealing with the business mess Gygax created and a sexist gaming industry. Now Gygax is the primary antagonist. He's a symbol of this entitled "bro" culture and undermines her efforts to save the company. The movie could end in the early 2000s with the successful launch of 3rd edition. It would be a good workout for the principal actors to play both hero and villain in their role.
Y'know, that's why I really don't think a biopic would actually be that good of a way to communicate who these people were. Having them take turns being hero and villain reinforces the framing that there are (and perhaps even have to be) heroes and villains. In the end we are talking about different people attempting to run a successful company and make a fortune -- there might be some overall beneficence (and difference between them) towards their respective partners, employees, and maybe even the game itself, but in the end this is the story of a business venture.

For my money, what I'd like isn't a nice 90 minute narrative, but more a general understanding close to the OP's question -- did we get the story right the first time around? I really dislike being lied to, especially by myself, and we the nerd community are really good at telling ourselves things which reestablish certain preexisting notions or reinforce parts of our self image. Lorraine Williams could well have been a terrible (beyond being unsuccessful at saving the company), mean-spirited boss; but that is also a really convenient story towards some of those notions and self images. Peterson's book stops pretty much at Gary's ouster (and supports the notion that the ouster, if nothing else, was justified or at least justifiable). I'd love it if the next one (so, seven years out, I suppose...?) to be an exploration of the next phase of TSR. I'd really like it if we could go take a look at the events that have inspired the refrain of "It's well documented that Ms. Williams did, in fact, harbor a strong disdain for the fanbase," and see if 1) they actually happened, and 2) if they happened in the way in which they are recounted, and 3) if the (one and only) reasonable interpretation is that the instigation of each event was a disdain for the fanbase. Also if we can get any corroboration on the playtesting, the reasoning behind the overbearing IP defensiveness online, what other shareholders had to say regarding Buck Rogers, and the other components of the story of Lorraine the villain. Peterson has thus far been good at not presupposing that the existing narrative is true, nor assuming that what he'd find would completely disrupt what we knew (this latest book shakes up a lot of notions, Playing at the World mostly did not). I'd like to think he'd be a good candidate for an unbiased historian to that question.
 

GreyLord

Legend
Welcome to the first in, perhaps, an occasional series: Snarf Presents Hawt Taek Thursdays.

Ahem. Anyway, if you read my review of Jon Peterson's new book, or better yet read his book (Game Wizards, now on sale!), you probably see that it presents the ouster of Gary Gygax from TSR and the takeover by Lorraine Williams in a very different light than what was commonly received before. And it began solidifying some thoughts I have had that I wanted to put out, and see the reaction that it got-

Here it is- Lorraine Williams was a positive influence on D&D.

Let me start with the traditional narrative about Lorraine Williams (I'm just going to use "Lorraine" from here on out, because her first name is more distinctive) that many older gamers either say, or have been taught-

The Great God Gygax ran his kingdom of TSR, and all were happy. But one day, Gygax did the unthinkable- he allowed in a non-gamer by the name of Lorraine. And Lorraine did conspire in the darkness with the Brothers Blume and overthrew Gygax from his throne and banished him from his kingdom. It was only too late did Gygax realize that this person he had trusted was actually the Wicked Witch Lorraine, who hated all things good, gamer, and TSR.

And thus was the Golden Age of TSR ended. From then on, the Wicked Witch Lorraine belittled all the gaming citizens of TSR, and ensured that all of the great gold and treasures of TSR would go to her own treasuries, starving the kingdom. The Wicked Witch Lorraine did not even see that a new, goodly Kingdom of Carding Wizards was gaining power on her borders. This continued for interminable ages, until one day, with the treasury of TSR depleted, Kingdom of Carding Wizards invaded and took over the Kingdom of TSR, and the Wicked Witch Lorraine fled, never to be seen again.


I exaggerate, but only slightly. There are some gaming circles were the name Lorraine is roughly akin to Voldemort.

But how true is that narrative? I would stipulate that the basic beginning and ending facts are true- yes, she ousted Gygax, and yes, she was the one forced to sell out to Wizards of the Coast. Is that it, or is there more nuance to the story?


A. The Good That Gets Overlooked.

This is the important part- I think that there is a lot of good that people tend to forget. Let's start with the most basic; if you read Game Wizards, or have a passing familiarity with what happened, you quickly understand that Lorraine was not the villain in the ouster of Gygax- she was the hero. Quite literally, she saved TSR. The sheer amount of details and the repetition of them truly paint the picture, but in brief, TSR had massive debts, Gygax was both ignoring the financial issues (and the banks), ignoring meetings, spending TSR's money, and also demanding (in his capacity as majority shareholder) that TSR begin dramatically increasing royalty payments to him. To add to all of that, he negotiated a deal with the Brothers Blume and then reneged on the terms. In short, he was a disaster, and was quickly running what was left of the company into the ground. Lorraine didn't pull this off by herself- all the people involved with TSR at senior levels except Gygax knew the score. If you are a fan of shows like Succession, it's like a scene where the person comes into dictate terms, and realizes that no one is supporting him. Not a single person. More importantly, at the time there were a lot of outstanding liabilities other than just the terrible debts they already had due to poor projections and governance- such as the multiple suits due to the promise of stock options that TSR chose not to honor (settled under Lorraine's watch).

So she should get credit for saving TSR, in my opinion.

The second thing is we should reflect on the intellectual property that was developed during her tenure. Sure, you can't beat the very original few years, simply because it developed a lot of the vocabulary (classes, levels, AC, etc.) and lore (Fighters, Clerics, Beholders, Mind Flayers, Githyanki etc.) that still resonate today. But let's do a quick check into what happened during her reign-
1. Signed the contract with Ed Greenwood and began developing Forgotten Realms as a D&D property.
2. Published the Manual of the Planes, the first major step in going from the prime material centric (with multiple planes) to the outer planes model we are used to today. (Yes, I have mixed feeling on this one).
3. Successfully launched 2e. There's a lot more to this- but this is already a long post.
4. Launched campaign settings we continue to be familiar with today (other than FR!), such as Spelljammer, Ravenloft, Hollow World, Dark Sun, Al-Qadim, Birthright, and Planescape.
5. Drizzt. sigh Okay, whatever your feelings about Drizzt specifically, or about the quality of writing in TSR's books in general, there was a massive explosion of titles and fantasy novels in the D&D world that brought new people to D&D.

Overall, and without going too far into the details, that's a pretty solid track record! What about the other side?


B. What About the Bad?

Well, here (without getting into the "not a gamer" thing, which I'll address in the next part), I'll put it simply-
SCOREBOARD.
That's the common refrain in sports events- you can make all the excuses you want, but at the end of the game, the only thing that matters is the final score. And business is a lot like that. Sure, there's reasons. There's extenuating circumstances. There's bad economies. But at the end of the day, TSR collapsed under Lorraine's watch. That's the alpha and the omega the end.

...and yet, businesses fail all the time. It's sad, but true, that a lot of businesses fail (or have issues) and the CEOs/owners get fat payouts. I mean, don't look at what happened with WeWork. Seriously, don't. More importantly, we don't usually have a specific level of vitriol toward the person running the business. I mean, it's not like "Blume" is a dirty name in the gaming community!

I would start by looking at why TSR failed the second time. Unfortunately, we don't have the full account like we did with Jon Peterson's book, but there have been scattered accounts here and there (there is a post by Ryan Dancey, for example, here). I think that the failure of TSR is like the old saying .... it happened slowly then all at once. There were warning signs- the rise of computer games, the rise of Games Workshop (which made money with miniatures, a market TSR was not in), and most importantly, the rise of WoTC, which was making insane profits off of a ... card game. The industry itself was having issues, with many major distributors suffering and going under. TSR tried to adapt (Dragon Dice, for example) and tried to expand (pushing out more profitable fiction hardcovers), but, much like the 80s, they were in a trap of their own creation. The success of the many of the 2e supplements had saturated the AD&D market, and their attempts to expand through Dragon Dice other means were not successful (not to mention much more costly than the cards WoTC was making). That, plus the Random House contract, meant that a company that looked like it was going gangbusters, or at least okay, in the early 90s, faced a cash crunch in '95, and was decimated and sold to WoTC in '97.

Not great, Bob. But ... understandable.

Oh, the Buck Williams thing? Without going too far into the weeds, not the best look, but also not surprising in closely-held corporations. It wasn't a factor in TSR's demise.


C. So ... why the Hate?

I have a few theories I'd like to throw out-

1. Lorraine ousted Gygax. This is the most simple. Gygax was, for many people, D&D. So she was always going to be the villain in any morality play.

2. Lorraine wasn't a gamer. This is a little more nuanced, especially consider that, for example, Kevin Blume wasn't really a gamer either. But Lorraine never cared much about the "community" in the sense of gamers. She wanted to run TSR as a company, with products. This tends to be a reciprocal thing- you don't care about us, we don't care about you.

3. Surprise. I'm not sure I agree with this, given there was a lot of hate even before the collapse, but ... I think a lot of people were genuinely shocked that TSR collapsed suddenly, and, moreover, it was sold to a "mere" card company. It's more difficult to understand now, but there was a sizeable number of people that thought that D&D was it, and M:TG was just some kids playing a silly game. Kind of like how, way back when, wargamers thought what they were doing was it, and D&D was just kids playing a silly game. Anyway, the collapse and sale of TSR was shocking to a lot of people, and Lorraine was a convenient target to blame.

4. Misogyny. Not to put too fine a point on it, but female executives were not common in the 80s and 90s. And the gaming community could be rough. I'm not going to spell this out for you, I'm just going to say this- Lorraine was probably treated a lot worse than a comparable male executive would have been.


D. Conclusion.

Look, I think two things can be said- first, Lorraine wasn't a great owner. I wouldn't say that. In the end, SCOREBOARD is a valid argument. But I do think it is important that we balance that ending with the fact that she both helped save TSR in the 80s, and also was at the helm for a number of products that still resonate with people today. If you love Forgotten Realms, for example, you can thank Ed Greenwood. And you can tank Jeff Grubb. But it was Lorraine who was running the company during the big FR bet.
T$R

There's a reason for the meme.

Sue your fans and it can make your worst case looks look even worse.

There are REASONS why she is seen in not such a great light...and that's just the topping on the cake.

Resenting your employees AND your customers and bad mouthing them...not a great thing to do when your depending on both.

Preventing your employees from actually participating in the hobby...that's like making video games without any playtesting or anyone even checking to see if it works...I mean it's done in video games...but normally turns out very badly for everyone.

And the reason TSR went under was not because of the reasons I've read Dancey write (or Paizo would be underwater today if it were...sure they have a singular world...SPLIT INTO about TWENTY DIFFERENT CAMPAIGN settings...which is far more than even TSR had going all at once).

Core rulebooks were selling well even to the end....well...decently...however...there were other investments that were badly placed (dragon dice...I can see that...the book thing probably was the nail in the coffin, but it was certain gaming and other supplements that no one did a price checking on and no accountants were being involved...or even someone with a business acumen that could say spending MORE on an item and selling it below what it cost to produce is going to lose money is a BAD idea and will cause you to go out of business is a BIG thing that sent it over the edge in costs I feel).

However, with Williams, her hostility towards...well...just about everyone and everything in the latter half of her reign is REALLY why she is painted so badly by so many.

Sure, she did some good things as well...but one must understand WHY some see her in such a dark light.
 
Last edited:

Sacrosanct

Legend
T$R

There's a reason for the meme.

Sue your fans and it can make your worst case looks look even worse.

There are REASONS why she is seen in not such a great light...and that's just the topping on the cake.

Resenting your employees AND your customers and bad mouthing them...not a great thing to do when your depending on both.

Preventing your employees from actually participating in the hobby...that's like making video games without any playtesting or anyone even checking to see if it works...I mean it's done in video games...but normally turns out very badly for everyone.

And the reason TSR went under was not because of the reasons I've read Dancey write (or Paizo would be underwater today if it were...sure they have a singular world...SPLIT INTO about TWENTY DIFFERENT CAMPAIGN settings...which is far more than even TSR had going all at once).

Core rulebooks were selling well even to the end....well...decently...however...there were other investments that were badly placed (dragon dice...I can see that...the book thing probably was the nail in the coffin, but it was certain gaming and other supplements that no one did a price checking on and no accountants were being involved...or even someone with a business acumen that could say spending MORE on an item and selling it below what it cost to produce is going to lose money is a BAD idea and will cause you to go out of business is a BIG thing that sent it over the edge in costs I feel).

However, with Williams, her hostility towards...well...just about everyone and everything in the latter half of her reign is REALLY why she is painted so badly by so many.

Sure, she did some good things as well...but one must understand WHY some see her in such a dark light.
The first five pages of this thread seem to debunk most of what you wrote here, as all of the things you're accusing have been pointed out as hearsay without a whole lot of concrete proof, and in some cases, proof of examples that are the opposite of the claims.
 

Why are you spinning this,

"That being said, here's something horrible to admit: The vast majority of modules and systems in hardback books were not playtested, to the very best of my knowledge. The designer would make them up, perhaps playtest them on his own or informally call a buddy or co-worker over to review or briefly playtest them, but as a general rule I saw very little playtesting occur."

as this,

"there was playtesting"

?
He's not the one spinning here. If "the vast majority of modules and systems ... were not playtested" then some were. And if he saw very little playtesting then he saw some. And playtesting wasn't banned if it happened.

What he's saying happened under Williams probably wasn't a ban on playtesting. It was Corporate America giving too little time to playtest - probably combined with an understandable ban on playing your own games on company time. And given the sheer volume of books TSR put out for 2e it's pretty clear there can't have been remotely enough playtesting time for all of them. If you're telling me that The Complete Book of Elves was fully playtested I'm going to laugh. But I'm also going to laugh at you if you tell me e.g. Serpent Kingdoms (or one of the other later 3.5 Forgotten Realms or Eberron books) or the Book of Vile Darkness was properly playtested. Or for that matter 4e's Heroes of Shadow or The Dungeon Explorer's Handbook.

Williams-era TSR was, I'm sorry to say, in the business of producing the RPG equivalent of shovelware. That it was shovelware that wasn't tested enough is, however, very different from "she absolutely banned any playtesting".
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Sure, she did some good things as well...but one must understand WHY some see her in such a dark light.

In the end, people can have the opinions that they want.

I'm just no longer comfortable parroting the opinions I have heard about Lorraine Williams. When I look back at a lot of the stories about her, I find that many of them are either completely untrue on closer examination, are contested by other people, or are hearsay. More importantly, looking back at some of the "ha ha she's an evil witch and fat too" stories makes me deeply uncomfortable.

I think her faults are well-known and obvious- TSR didn't adapt and survive in the 90s. More and more, though, I think that it's ... interesting ... that one of the only women heavily involved in TSR is the single most vilified figure that we have in our gaming history. And as I wrote, it was fascinating to read a book that had the receipts (Game Wizards) and see how completely different that account of Gygax's ouster was from the accounts of the many people who didn't actually know what happened, but are comfortable using it to vilify her.

In the end, I keep thinking back to the same thing. It's a shame we haven't heard her perspective on this. Look, D&D (and the TTRPG hobby in general) wasn't exactly super-welcoming to women in 80s and 90s. I'm just thinking that, perhaps, some of the people at TSR might have been predisposed to feel unfavorably to a woman who was in charge, and not a gamer. Just maybe. It doesn't exonerate her, but perhaps we should have a more nuanced view (and/or see who has actual receipts). That was why I started the thread.

YMMV.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top