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. 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

 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

Ryan S. Dancey

Ryan S. Dancey

OGL Architect

Parmandur

Book-Friend
That's pretty damn cold comfort. "What they did was perfectly within their rights as a soulless corporation" doesn't exactly inspire friendliness, and "well, guess your desires getting dumped with hardly a word didn't matter 'cause they still made a ton of money" is just such a heartwarming and uplifting message when people repeatedly tell you to your (internet) face things like "there's nothing to not like about 5e" and "5e is the big-tent edition." (And yes, someone literally said that former thing to me once. I...did not respond well.)
Just because not every niche is 100% serviced doesn't mean 5E Ian big tent. Big tent doesn't mean all-inclusive, just broadly inclusive.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
That's pretty damn cold comfort. "What they did was perfectly within their rights as a soulless corporation" doesn't exactly inspire friendliness, and "well, guess your desires getting dumped with hardly a word didn't matter 'cause they still made a ton of money" is just such a heartwarming and uplifting message when people repeatedly tell you to your (internet) face things like "there's nothing to not like about 5e" and "5e is the big-tent edition." (And yes, someone literally said that former thing to me once. I...did not respond well.)
And people are STILL buying the claptrap that they are selling.
 

But, yeah, the tendency to confuse personal taste with objective quality is nearly universal.
Okay, we can do that, let's talk solely personal taste.

What are some 5E games, that aren't Solasta and BG3, that you are think are good? I mean, there aren't many, so it's a short list. I don't know about mobile games - if 5E has some of those and they're good, I'd love to hear about it, but AFAIK aside from mobile games and Solasta/BG3, there are three 5E games, all of which I've played:

1) Sword Coast Legends - Haven't played it because I wasn't paying money for that, watched it streamed though - reviewers were definitely right, it's godawful, with all abilities basically being cooldown-based, and so it's a terrible take on RtwP.

2) Idle Champions of the Forgotten Realms - It's an idle clicker, which is a very specific genre. They're not really good or bad in any conventional sense, but if you like games, like, where you do things, or have a story or stuff, it's not one of those. Basically you sit there whilst your characters kill stuff, very occasionally interacting in some minor way - that's intended with idle clickers, they're not really games in any normal sense.

I don't know how it compares within the genre. I "played" it for a few hours, whilst doing other stuff (as is intended), and it was amusing on a certain level, but, like it's not a good "game", because it's not really a game.

3) The new Dark Alliance - It's terrible. It's slow, it's boring, it's annoying, it's ugly. I've played it for a new hours thanks to Xbox Game Pass, that's all I need.

RtwP is a shortening of "real-time with pause", which is a phrase I believe was used earlier. It describes the late '90s and early '00s D&D video games with an isometric perspective, and which weren't turn-based, but ran in real time with turns beneath the hood, and where you paused to re-issue orders. Games like Pillars of Eternity attempted to resurrect this format, but whilst the Pillars 1 Kickstarter was big, Pillars 2, despite being a better game on every level, and a good game, sold terribly - and a frequent moan was the combat gameplay, which was RtwP - likewise Pathfinder: Kingmaker was RtwP, and whilst it sold okay, it sold vastly less than turn-based CRPGs like the Divinity: Original Sin games, and both Pillars 2 and PF:KM implemented turn-based modes hoping to sell more (there's some evidence this worked). The new Pathfinder game from the same team is going to have turn-based from launch next time, I understand, as they consider it vital.

So anyway, in your personal taste - and I won't argue or critique it, or even comment it, I just want to hear that you've played these games, and what you think - which of these is a good game? Full disclosure, I'm kind of wondering if you've actually played any of these games. But if you have, and liked them, awesome, I'd just like to know which. Also any mobile ones of course.
 

No.

What makes combat in 4e interesting, compared to the relative boringness of combat in AD&D, is that the PCs' actions interact. Players hand one another actions, movement, saving throws, etc.
Sure, but how much of that is interrupts?

Most of that is just in the normal action sequence, or Reactions, and Reactions are fine. It's only Interrupts which would be very hard to handle in any video game.

Can you give some examples of 4E interrupts you think are key to the fun of 4E?
 

Hussar

Legend
@Ruin Explorer, I so rarely play video games I couldn't even begin to comment. So, I'll freely cop to my complete ignorance on the topic. Just from prior experience and whatnot, I'd say that when someone broadly calls a bunch of stuff "crap", it's saying far, far more about their personal tastes than anything about what the subject of their critique is.

But, again, just going from your rather one sided POV about how WotC's success is all "luck" and that they have done nothing to make it happen, it sounds to me like you've got a rather large axe to grind with WotC, rather than being interesting in things like actual facts. People have pointed all manner of things out to you showing how the current wave of WotC's success is due, in a very large part to the efforts of WotC itself. They've been laying the groundwork for this for over a decade and it's paying off.

Is there an element of chance here? Oh, of course. But, then, pointing to the "rise of nerdism" doesn't mean much when Harry Potter movies were over twenty years ago now, LotR was about the same, and the Marvel stuff started about twenty years ago as well. It's not like the "rise of nerdy stuff" is anything new. It's been a trend for a very long time.
 

Is there an element of chance here? Oh, of course. But, then, pointing to the "rise of nerdism" doesn't mean much when Harry Potter movies were over twenty years ago now, LotR was about the same, and the Marvel stuff started about twenty years ago as well. It's not like the "rise of nerdy stuff" is anything new. It's been a trend for a very long time.
Errrrrr are you confusing/conflating my posts with those of someone else?

I don't think I've talked about that at all. I don't think it's right, either. Nerdism has been around for decades. The specific CR-and-streaming-related wave which has helped 5E so much is maybe distantly related to that, or could only happen after, but that's not the same thing at all. Nerdism helped 3E, for god's sake. Arguably 4E. But neither could have benefited from the CR/streaming deal. It's kind of ironic for you to critique my argument whilst attributing an entirely different one to me. Oh well.
@Ruin Explorer, I so rarely play video games I couldn't even begin to comment. So, I'll freely cop to my complete ignorance on the topic. Just from prior experience and whatnot, I'd say that when someone broadly calls a bunch of stuff "crap", it's saying far, far more about their personal tastes than anything about what the subject of their critique is.
And you'd be flatly wrong to believe that here. Maybe in future, if you're knowingly ignorant about something (known unknowns vs unknown unknowns lol), don't comment on that specific thing, just because of your prejudice ("prior experience and whatnot" - i.e. prejudice)? Just a suggestion. I don't comment on stuff I know nothing about, just because of prejudice, or if I do, I'm very clear to outline my prejudice and why I'm saying it. Or at least say "I don't know anything about this but...", and save me the trouble of providing examples and so on.

I mean, sheesh, should I start talking smack about bicycles or something I don't know anything about?
 
Last edited:

Hussar

Legend
Huh, so this isn't you?

/snip 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.

/snip
The level of success they have though is absolutely luck./snip

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.
/snip

And denying luck is involved in the level of success 5E has had is laughable.

Funny, that looks like you.
 

Huh, so this isn't you?




Funny, that looks like you.
Yup, and I'm talking about the CR/streaming stuff, not the rise of nerdism.

Why would I possibly be talking about the rise of nerdism? It doesn't make any sense. You even illustrated how it didn't make sense lol! That would have applied to 3E and 4E as well. This is just bizarre. I'm disengaging as suggested by Snarf, because this is just nonsensical, and not an argument, and you yourself know that, you pointed out the rise of nerdism makes no sense in this context, yet attributed it to me. Bizarre.
 

Hussar

Legend
Yup, and I'm talking about the CR/streaming stuff, not the rise of nerdism.

Why would I possibly be talking about the rise of nerdism? It doesn't make any sense. You even illustrated how it didn't make sense lol! That would have applied to 3E and 4E as well. This is just bizarre. I'm disengaging as suggested by Snarf, because this is just nonsensical, and not an argument, and you yourself know that, you pointed out the rise of nerdism makes no sense in this context, yet attributed it to me. Bizarre.
But, again, CR didn't start until 2015 and didn't really take off until a year or two later. D&D had already increased 400% by this point.

And, it was WotC that started the who gaming streaming thing and popularized it.

But, it was entirely luck that streaming helped them be more successful? :erm:
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top