D&D General Not the Wicked Witch: Revisiting the Legacy of Lorraine Williams

[Mistwell]

Oh is it already that time of the year for this topic to be recycled, again with the usual suspects making the same arguments they made last time, being refuted by the same usual suspects who made the same refutations last time?

Gosh, I thought it was "Fudging Dice is Wrong" August.

 

[Mistwell]

And oh look, Snarf created THIS EXACT SAME TOPIC PREVIOUSLY, MAKING THE SAME ARGUMENT THEN!

Perhaps I should put a request in to merge the threads?

 

[Clint_L]

From what we read in Game Wizards and elsewhere, it wasn't until years after Williams took over that the core financials went bad enough again that they started using the RH deal that way.

Game Wizards doesn't discuss the Williams years much at all - it basically concludes with Gygax losing control of TSR. Anything you read about poor financials in Game Wizards is from the Gygax/Blumes era. The Random House deal started becoming a problem-in-waiting for TSR after their sales projections started exceeding their actual sales by a significant degree in the early 80s.

TSR was all but insolvent when Williams took over. That's well documented in Game Wizards and elsewhere, and made very clear in the podcast. I agree that part of her strategy to stabilize the company seemed to revolve around using the Random House deal as something like a line of credit to keep kicking the can down the road, always looking for the next big score to right the ship. It bought the company another decade, but absent that big score - another hit on the scale of 1e from 79-82 - TSR was probably doomed as an independent company from 1983 onwards.

The main problem that TSR had, and that Williams inherited when she bought the company, is that book publishing is a tough racket, especially when your core product is still fairly niche by publishing standards. It's actually the same problem that Hasbro has with D&D today. It's a globally recognized brand that doesn't make a ton of money (by the standards of globally recognized brands, and particularly compared to Magic: the Gathering) because it still makes most of its money off books, and there is a limited upside to that.

 

[Clint_L]

And oh look, Snarf created THIS EXACT SAME TOPIC PREVIOUSLY, MAKING THE SAME ARGUMENT THEN!

Did you read the first paragraph of the OP? Did you listen to the comprehensive podcast on TSR that just came out?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Did you read the first paragraph of the OP?

Or, you know, when this was already reiterated in the thread?

D&D General - Not the Wicked Witch: Revisiting the Legacy of Lorraine Williams

Huh? My employer hires employee and employee family businesses whenever they can! It helps support the staff and there's usually a discount, so it's win-win. There's nothing remotely unethical about it. It's a very normal practice and perfectly ethical. There is a very blurry line between...

www.enworld.org

But yes. After listening to the podcast, I went back and reworked the prior essay, updated it, and expanded on it. Which ... I said. Even put it at the beginning. As always, my posts are like the DMG; no one reads them.

 

[Mistwell]

Or, you know, when this was already reiterated in the thread?

D&D General - Not the Wicked Witch: Revisiting the Legacy of Lorraine Williams

Huh? My employer hires employee and employee family businesses whenever they can! It helps support the staff and there's usually a discount, so it's win-win. There's nothing remotely unethical about it. It's a very normal practice and perfectly ethical. There is a very blurry line between...

www.enworld.org

Right. Why? Why didn't you bump the old thread, since you're revisiting your thoughts on that thread? A thread which was also discussed last season, and the season before that? You know, since the old thread had responses you still ignore, facts you leave out, I'd think if you really wanted to re-evaluate things you'd include the people who refuted your points last time rather than starting fresh as if your prior arguments didn't get beat on pretty hard with counter arguments and contrary facts.

 

[Mannahnin]

Game Wizards doesn't discuss the Williams years much at all - it basically concludes with Gygax losing control of TSR.

Hence the "and elsewhere".

Anything you read about poor financials in Game Wizards is from the Gygax/Blumes era. The Random House deal started becoming a problem-in-waiting for TSR after their sales projections started exceeding their actual sales by a significant degree in the early 80s.

TSR was all but insolvent when Williams took over. That's well documented in Game Wizards and elsewhere, and made very clear in the podcast. I agree that part of her strategy to stabilize the company seemed to revolve around using Random House deal as something like a line of credit to keep kicking the can down the road, always looking for the next big score to right the ship. It bought the company another decade, but absent that big score - another hit on the scale of 1e from 79-82 - TSR was probably doomed as an independent company from 1983 onwards.

In practice the Random House distribution agreement was a useful tool to allow TSR to finance books which were actually selling about as fast as they could print them, during the boom years. As far as the histories we have show, while Gary and the Blumes made PLENTY of mistakes of their own, it apparently wasn't until the Williams regime that the RH agreement actually got misused.

I think you're actually overemphasizing the role of the RHDA a little here and giving Williams too little credit. As far as I recall from Slaying the Dragon and elsewhere, it wasn't just the misuse of the RHDA that bought the company another decade, but some genuinely good and successful business moves like really growing the fantasy fiction side of the business, as @JLowder has talked about on these forums, as well.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Right. Why? Why didn't you bump the old thread, since you're revisiting your thoughts on that thread?

Well, I explained why. As much as I appreciate your ... constructive criticism, I realized that after I linked to that thread in the podcast thread, I wanted to re-visit the issue. Especially because the prior thread is three years old.

The podcast had a voice actor re-enact Lorraine Williams' testimony, and it reinforced my earlier misgivings. That's why I decided to revisit the issue and significantly expand and update what I wrote before. Three years ago.

Given I am not a big fan of people telling me what I can post (other than the moderators), I don't think further conversation will be fruitful.

 

[Mannahnin]

And oh look, Snarf created THIS EXACT SAME TOPIC PREVIOUSLY, MAKING THE SAME ARGUMENT THEN!

Perhaps I should put a request in to merge the threads?

It's been three years and we've got new info. Sure, linking to the prior discussion makes sense too.

 

[MGibster]

Well, I explained why. As much as I appreciate your ... constructive criticism, I realized that after I linked to that thread in the podcast thread, I wanted to re-visit the issue. Especially because the prior thread is three years old.

I bet you don't even look anything like your avatar. What are you trying to hide?

There are two things I've picked up from this thread.

1. People really, really hate Lorraine Williams still. Like on a personal visceral level I find quite surprising.

2. When I opened this thread I thought it was going to be about Robertta Willaims of Sierra fame. I'm still a little disappointed.