TSR Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR

In the winter of 1997, I traveled to Lake Geneva Wisconsin on a secret mission. In the late fall, rumors of TSR's impending bankruptcy had created an opportunity to made a bold gamble that the business could be saved by an infusion of capital or an acquisition with a larger partner.

In the winter of 1997, I traveled to Lake Geneva Wisconsin on a secret mission. In the late fall, rumors of TSR's impending bankruptcy had created an opportunity to made a bold gamble that the business could be saved by an infusion of capital or an acquisition with a larger partner. After a hasty series of phone calls and late night strategy sessions, I found myself standing in the snow outside of 201 Sheridan Springs Road staring at a building bearing a sign that said "TSR, Incorporated".

Inside the building, I found a dead company.

In the halls that had produced the stuff of my childhood fantasies, and had fired my imagination and become unalterably intertwined with my own sense of self, I found echoes, empty desks, and the terrible depression of lost purpose.

The life story of a tree can be read by a careful examination of its rings. The life story of a corporation can be read by a careful examination of its financial records and corporate minutes.

I was granted unprecedented access to those records. I read the TSR corporate log book from the first page penned in haste by Gary Gygax to the most recent terse minutes dictated to a lawyer with no connection to hobby gaming. I was able to trace the meteoric rise of D&D as a business, the terrible failure to control costs that eventually allowed a total outsider to take control away from the founders, the slow and steady progress to rebuild the financial solvency of the company, and the sudden and dramatic failure of that business model. I read the euphoric copyright filings for the books of my lost summers: "Player's Handbook", "Fiend Folio", "Oriental Adventures". I read the contract between Gary and TSR where Gary was severed from contact with the company he had founded and the business he had nurtured and grown. I saw the clause where Gary, forced to the wall by ruthless legal tactics was reduced to insisting to the right to use his own name in future publishing endeavors, and to take and keep control of his personal D&D characters. I read the smudged photocopies produced by the original Dragonlance Team, a group of people who believed in a new idea for gaming that told a story across many different types of products. I saw concept artwork evolve from lizard men with armor to unmistakable draconians. I read Tracy Hickman's one page synopsis of the Dragonlance Story. I held the contract between Tracy and Margaret for the publication of the three Chronicles novels. I read the contract between Ed Greenwood and TSR to buy his own personal game world and transform it into the most developed game setting in history - the most detailed and explored fantasy world ever created.

And I read the details of the Random House distribution agreement; an agreement that TSR had used to support a failing business and hide the fact that TSR was rotten at the core. I read the entangling bank agreements that divided the copyright interests of the company as security against default, and realized that the desperate arrangements made to shore up the company's poor financial picture had so contaminated those rights that it might not be possible to extract Dungeons & Dragons from the clutches of lawyers and bankers and courts for years upon end. I read the severance agreements between the company and departed executives which paid them extraordinary sums for their silence. I noted the clauses, provisions, amendments and agreements that were piling up more debt by the hour in the form of interest charges, fees and penalties. I realized that the money paid in good faith by publishers and attendees for GenCon booths and entrance fees had been squandered and that the show itself could not be funded. I discovered that the cost of the products that company was making in many cases exceeded the price the company was receiving for selling those products. I toured a warehouse packed from floor to 50 foot ceiling with products valued as though they would soon be sold to a distributor with production stamps stretching back to the late 1980s. I was 10 pages in to a thick green bar report of inventory, calculating the true value of the material in that warehouse when I realized that my last 100 entries had all been "$0"'s.

I met staff members who were determined to continue to work, despite the knowledge that they might not get paid, might not even be able to get in to the building each day. I saw people who were working on the same manuscripts they'd been working on six months earlier, never knowing if they'd actually be able to produce the fruits of their labor. In the eyes of those people (many of whom I have come to know as friends and co workers), I saw defeat, desperation, and the certain knowledge that somehow, in some way, they had failed. The force of the human, personal pain in that building was nearly overwhelming - on several occasions I had to retreat to a bathroom to sit and compose myself so that my own tears would not further trouble those already tortured souls.

I ran hundreds of spreadsheets, determined to figure out what had to be done to save the company. I was convinced that if I could just move enough money from column A to column B, that everything would be ok. Surely, a company with such powerful brands and such a legacy of success could not simply cease to exist due to a few errors of judgment and a poor strategic plan?

I made several trips to TSR during the frenzied days of negotiation that resulted in the acquisition of the company by Wizards of the Coast. When I returned home from my first trip, I retreated to my home office; a place filled with bookshelves stacked with Dungeons & Dragons products. From the earliest games to the most recent campaign setting supplements - I owned, had read, and loved those products with a passion and intensity that I devoted to little else in my life. And I knew, despite my best efforts to tell myself otherwise, that the disaster I kept going back to in Wisconsin was the result of the products on those shelves.

When Peter put me in charge of the tabletop RPG business in 1998, he gave me one commission: Find out what went wrong, fix the business, save D&D. Vince also gave me a business condition that was easy to understand and quite direct. "God damnit, Dancey", he thundered at me from across the conference table: "Don't lose any more money!"

That became my core motivation. Save D&D. Don't lose money. Figure out what went wrong. Fix the problem.

Back into those financials I went. I walked again the long threads of decisions made by managers long gone; there are few roadmarks to tell us what was done and why in the years TSR did things like buy a needlepoint distributorship, or establish a west coast office at King Vedor's mansion. Why had a moderate success in collectable dice triggered a million unit order? Why did I still have stacks and stacks of 1st edition rulebooks in the warehouse? Why did TSR create not once, not twice, but nearly a dozen times a variation on the same, Tolkien inspired, eurocentric fantasy theme? Why had it constantly tried to create different games, poured money into marketing those games, only to realize that nobody was buying those games? Why, when it was so desperate for cash, had it invested in a million dollar license for content used by less than 10% of the marketplace? Why had a successful game line like Dragonlance been forcibly uprooted from its natural home in the D&D game and transplanted to a foreign and untested new game system? Why had the company funded the development of a science fiction game modeled on D&D - then not used the D&D game rules?

In all my research into TSR's business, across all the ledgers, notebooks, computer files, and other sources of data, there was one thing I never found - one gaping hole in the mass of data we had available.

No customer profiling information. No feedback. No surveys. No "voice of the customer". TSR, it seems, knew nothing about the people who kept it alive. The management of the company made decisions based on instinct and gut feelings; not data. They didn't know how to listen - as an institution, listening to customers was considered something that other companies had to do - TSR lead, everyone else followed.

In today's hypercompetitive market, that's an impossible mentality. At Wizards of the Coast, we pay close attention to the voice of the customer. We ask questions. We listen. We react. So, we spent a whole lot of time and money on a variety of surveys and studies to learn about the people who play role playing games. And, at every turn, we learned things that were not only surprising, they flew in the face of all the conventional wisdom we'd absorbed through years of professional game publishing.

We heard some things that are very, very hard for a company to hear. We heard that our customers felt like we didn't trust them. We heard that we produced material they felt was substandard, irrelevant, and broken. We heard that our stories were boring or out of date, or simply uninteresting. We heard the people felt that >we< were irrelevant.

I know now what killed TSR. It wasn't trading card games. It wasn't Dragon Dice. It wasn't the success of other companies. It was a near total inability to listen to its customers, hear what they were saying, and make changes to make those customers happy. TSR died because it was deaf.

Amazingly, despite all those problems, and despite years of neglect, the D&D game itself remained, at the core, a viable business. Damaged; certainly. Ailing; certainly. But savable? Absolutely.

Our customers were telling us that 2e was too restrictive, limited their creativity, and wasn't "fun to play'? We can fix that. We can update the core rules to enable the expression of that creativity. We can demonstrate a commitment to supporting >your< stories. >Your< worlds. And we can make the game fun again.

Our customers were telling us that we produced too many products, and that the stuff we produced was of inferior quality? We can fix that. We can cut back on the number of products we release, and work hard to make sure that each and every book we publish is useful, interesting, and of high quality.

Our customers were telling us that we spent too much time on our own worlds, and not enough time on theirs? Ok - we can fix that. We can re-orient the business towards tools, towards examples, towards universal systems and rules that aren't dependent on owning a thousand dollars of unnecessary materials first.

Our customers were telling us that they prefer playing D&D nearly 2:1 over the next most popular game option? That's an important point of distinction. We can leverage that desire to help get them more people to play >with< by reducing the barriers to compatibility between the material we produce, and the material created by other companies.

Our customers told us they wanted a better support organization? We can pour money and resources into the RPGA and get it growing and supporting players like never before in the club's history. (10,000 paid members and rising, nearly 50,000 unpaid members - numbers currently skyrocketing).

Our customers were telling us that they want to create and distribute content based on our game? Fine - we can accommodate that interest and desire in a way that keeps both our customers and our lawyers happy.

Are we still listening? Yes, we absolutely are. If we hear you asking us for something we're not delivering, we'll deliver it. But we're not going to cater to the specific and unique needs of a minority if doing so will cause hardship to the majority. We're going to try and be responsible shepards of the D&D business, and that means saying "no" to things that we have shown to be damaging to the business and that aren't wanted or needed by most of our customers.

We listened when the customers told us that Alternity wasn't what they wanted in a science fiction game. We listened when customers told us that they didn't want the confusing, jargon filled world of Planescape. We listened when people told us that the Ravenloft concept was overshadowed by the products of a competitor. We listened to customers who told us that they want core materials, not world materials. That they buy DUNGEON magazine every two months at a rate twice that of our best selling stand-alone adventures.

We're not telling anyone what game to play. We are telling the market that we're going to actively encourage our players to stand up and demand that they be listened to, and that they become the center of the gaming industry - rather than the current publisher-centric model. Through the RPGA, the Open Gaming movement, the pages of Dragon Magazine, and all other venues available, we want to empower our customers to do what >they< want, to force us and our competitors to bend to >their< will, to make the products >they< want made.

I want to be judged on results, not rhetoric. I want to look back at my time at the helm of this business and feel that things got better, not worse. I want to know that my team made certain that the mistakes of the past wouldn't be the mistakes of the future. I want to know that we figured out what went wrong. That we fixed it. That we saved D&D. And that god damnit, we didn't lose money.

Thank you for listening,
Sincerely,
Ryan S. Dancey
VP, Wizards of the Coast
Brand Manager, Dungeons & Dragons

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ryan S. Dancey

Ryan S. Dancey

OGL Architect

log in or register to remove this ad


Jaeger

That someone better
Mm-hmm. 5E took off like a rocket out of the gate--before Critical Role, before the pop culture boom, before any of it--and has been going strong for (checks watch) seven years. And they've been doing these surveys right along.

But I'm sure it's all going to fall apart any day now
Yes, it took off like a rocket.

It wasn't 4e.

The D&D fanbase that settled for pathfinder, and slogged through 4e combats, was itching for a reason to fully embrace D&D again.

As much as 4e has its supporters - it was outsold by a clone of the previous edition. For various reasons it just was not a popular edition.

5e's issues are well known now. It is far from perfect. But at the time it came out it was certainly good enough!

And for all its surveys - they have done nothing that has in any way changed the baseline game. The games direction was all set at release and they had no idea at the time how it would turn out.

And it is not falling apart anytime soon at all.

They have far too much momentum for any of that nonsense!!

It will be years down the line when the current pop culture wave has crested that we'll see the long term effects of catering to the market segment that responded to their newer surveys has. Because IMHO their latest round of surveys is catering to a different market segment than 5e was aimed at on release.

Which does make some sense as the userbase is many times bigger for D&D than it was several years ago.


@Jaeger Apologies for my posting style. I'm a bit punch drunk at the moment. I do not mean to be antagonistic. If you find fault in that direction with my posts please let me know.

Not at all.

The written word on the internet fora is not the best at capturing ones inflection and tone. So unless someone is being brazenly condescending I err on the side of reading things as neutrally as possible.

Especially since we are all just shooting off the cuff comments about elfgames here.


They had control. Lots of it. To their credit they didn't foul it up. They so easily could have.

The difference between us is I see it as a situation where they simply had the wherewithal to avoid scoring a series of own goals on themselves.

And yes, they did otherwise make a few smart business moves...

On would certainly hope after the way 4e was handled that they had learnt a few lessons!
 

Hussar

Legend
Anyone who thinks that WotC's success is pure luck is not paying attention. WotC spent all of 4e building up all sorts of very public presence. Remember shows like Big Bang Theory? Yeah, they were playing 4e. Those were 4e books sitting on the table. When 4e came along you started seeing all sorts of D&D press in mainstream media. Do you seriously think that was a coincidence?

Then they spend 2 years doing one of the best marketing jobs you could possibly do and calling it an Open Playtest. Sure, part of the playtest was to make sure that the mechanics were solid, but, the main part of the playtest was to build up gobs and gobs of goodwill and mountains of advertising before 5e released. They borrowed a page from Paizo who are also very, very good at this sort of thing. They built massive communities - shut down negative avenues like the WotC message boards and very, VERY carefully controlled every single whisper that came out of the company. Something they spectacularly failed to do during 4e.

But 5e's success is built in part on the outreach that was done in the 4e days when D&D was just starting to get some air time in the public eye. I knew that something was in the air when I saw D&D branded Lego (or Lockblocks? Whatever that was) in an airport in Taipei. They spent a fortune on building the brand. Now, we're seeing that investment paying off in spades.

All this kvetching about the mechanics? GUess what? Nobody really cares that much. It's just not an issue for most tables. The game works and it works pretty well. Which, frankly, is good enough.
 


EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
Wow! The largest most open playtest with the most free content ever in the history of RPG's that also produced a smash hit RPG (so much so it's success out of the door baffled and even frightened its creators) is now a failure?

That's funny.
What's even funnier is people putting words into one's mouth.

Wait, no, that's not funny. Annoying. That's what it is.

I never said it was a failure. Financially, it's clearly been successful. That doesn't mean it was perfect, nor that the way it did things was what caused its success. It is quite possible to stumble butt-first into success. I am not saying that that DID happen. But it's pretty blatantly obvious that the polls and surveys they put out were NOT designed by someone trying to collect unbiased data. Leading questions and selective answers abounded. I distinctly remember at least one poll during the playtest where there was no answer that was actually opposed; you could choose enthusiastic approval, measured approval, partial approval, or being noncommittal. Plenty of others, the "yes" answers were highly enthusiastic while the "no" answers were not. Yet these were the data points used to shape the design of the game.

Again, NOT saying 5e "is now a failure," and I challenge you to point out a single statement I made where that is even a remotely valid paraphrase. I said the playtest was "riddled with problems," and that you can see that it was by looking at the final product--lots of good ideas mixed with plenty of really rough ones. And that alongside things like the developers swearing up and down that the "tactical combat module" would appeal to 4e fans when....it was basically vaporware, or Mearls being genuinely pretty strident about including martial healing (he even tweeted explicitly to the effect of "if you don't like it, you don't have to permit it in your game!") and then it getting quietly dropped when the Specialties subsystem got the boot.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I knew that something was in the air when I saw D&D branded Lego (or Lockblocks? Whatever that was) in an airport in Taipei.
Kreo, and that wasn't licensed because that was a Hasbro product trying to replicate Lego's success. Overall kind if a failure of a toy line, but the commercials are what reminded me that D&D existed in early 2014 (theatrical toy ad before the Lego Movie), which tuned me back into playing RPGs after an absence of several years.
 

Hussar

Legend
Kreo, and that wasn't licensed because that was a Hasbro product trying to replicate Lego's success. Overall kind if a failure of a toy line, but the commercials are what reminded me that D&D existed in early 2014 (theatrical toy ad before the Lego Movie), which tuned me back into playing RPGs after an absence of several years.
Kreo, that's it. I knew it had a funny name. But, sure, it was still D&D Branded (sorry you're right, I said licensed) knock off Lego in an airport in TAIPEI! That gives you an idea of just how much money Hasbro was pouring into marketing at the time.
 

"Failed" all the way to the bank.
Oh sure! But the trouble is that happens all the time when the conditions are right. 5E has two big things going for it - it's surprisingly accessible, because whatever else they did, they made it easy to get started with, and whilst it was unintended, the timing was perfect, culturally.

@darjr WotC got essentially one thing dead right about 5E on purpose, which is accessibility. Actually arguably two, because the slow initial release schedule really helped avoid scaring people off (but the kept it too slow for too long). The level of success they have though is absolutely luck. It's extremely clear WotC didn't see the culture-wave coming and they weren't particularly well-prepared for it. So they made a small amount of luck and then were gifted a huge amount. They're not lottery winners, they're more akin to one of those companies who makes a seemingly niche but decent product then gets suddenly bought for billions by a big tech company as their product is an unexpected hit. But like one of the early one which did not see that coming, not the bait companies you see now.

So we should credit them for designing for accessibility, but "make your own luck" is a weak aphorism which occludes more than enlightens, and laughable in many ways here.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Given that perfection is a goal, but not an achievable destination, you then get nothing ever published.
Like I said in the bit you didn't quote, something like an RPG can be covered off with guidelines disclaimers.

But something mechanical - a car was an earlier example - had better be as close to perfect as it possibly can be before going to market, 'cause people could (and do) die if (when) it isn't.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top