Slaying the Dragon: The Secret History of Dungeons & Dragons Review

Slaying the Dragon: The Secret History of Dungeons & Dragons by Ben Riggs focuses on the creation, rise, and downfall of TSR. It's a compelling, page-turner instead of the boring business book it could have been. It's also going to make some people angry.

Slaying the Dragon2.jpg

Gamers are drawn to clear good-versus-evil stories. The book starts with Jim Ward's version of TSR's success and eventual sale to Wizards of the Coast fits that narrative, but it's wrong. Ward wasn't lying. Instead, TSR's management, no matter the president, hid both the company's mistakes and valuable information the creative team could have used to be successful.

For example, the development team had no idea what the sales numbers were so they often continued making products for lines that weren't selling. Worse, some products, like the Encyclopedia Magica, had such high production costs that TSR made no money on them and the Dark Sun spiral bound flipbooks lost money.

Riggs' meticulous research, which includes sales material and business contracts unavailable to prior chroniclers of D&D's history, places the commonly known story in greater context , adding nuance. It shows the terrible decisions made by beloved figures that could have destroyed the company earlier, and the usual villain of TSR's story, while still vindictive, extended the company's lifespan and is revealed as having done the right thing a few times. It makes for a fascinating story filled with human foibles and avoidable mistakes that doomed TSR despite talent and hard work.

Other books have chronicled the creation of Dungeons & Dragons, the life of Gary Gygax, and the evolution of war games into role-playing games. Slaying the Dragon focuses on TSR itself, which is why Riggs' access to everything from sales figures to extensive interviews, makes such a difference. He even got a copy of the Random House contract that was TSR's golden goose for a time and then became an anchor pulling it toward bankruptcy.

But Riggs also has a great way of setting a scene and turning a phrase that makes the facts and interviews as compelling as any novel. Early on he tries to explain why winters in Wisconsin were a fertile ground for the creation of D&D. He writes:

“The winters are so frigid that Lake Michigan steams, sending great gouts of silver billowing skyward, girding the horizon from north to south....In winter, the world recedes to the circle of warmth around a fire, a heater, or the side of a loved one. Or the basement. It's always warm. The furnace is down there, after all. There might be games, too. Might as well play. What else are you going to do during the endless white-gloom nightmare that reigns between the fall of the last yellow leaf and the spring thaw?”

Riggs talked to everyone involved who is still alive, except Lorraine Williams, who declined. For those he couldn't interview, Riggs used a mix of existing interviews combined with comments from those who knew them best. This means that people such as Brian Thomsen, who could have been a cartoonish villain in another telling, is depicted as a complex person who made bad decisions for the company.

It's also amazing how many questions and challenges TSR wrestled with that are still plaguing the game industry today. The RPG consumption problem is a big one that troubles most game companies. When to create a new edition, when to announce it, and how to maintain sales in the meantime. How many settings are too many? Is the fish bait strategy worthwhile and if so, for how long?

But the biggest problem was that TSR, according to those involved and those who studied its finances, repeatedly made foolish mistakes over and over. Whether it was buying a needlepoint company (yes, that happened under the Blumes), Gygax partying in a Hollywood mansion, or driving away talent, TSR's management was the architect of its eventual demise.

It didn't have to be that way. TSR could have been a multimedia fantasy juggernaut long before there was an MCU. A potentially viable plan was even created for TSR West (which is different than Gygax's Hollywood escapades) before it became another expensive, failed venture. Mary Kirchoff and James Lowder built the book department into a greater commercial success than the games department. TSR discovered Tracy Hickman and Margaret Weis, R.A. Salvatore, Elaine Cunningham, Mary Herbert, etc.—and then Brian Thomsen's strategies threw it all away.

Because at TSR, why make a mistake once when you can repeat it over and over? That's TSR's ultimate tragedy, and Riggs has the evidence to document TSR's successes and failures in a scope and detail previously not seen. If you want to see the actual sales numbers, Riggs has been posting them on his Twitter account, but Slaying the Dragon makes the story of TSR as dramatic as any Drizzt novel. It's worth reading for fun, to learn the true history of D&D, and to learn what not to do when running a game company.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

Beth Rimmels

Beth Rimmels

darjr

I crit!
TSR had to die so that D&D could live. If TSR was a better run company, particularly if it didn’t create all those unprofitable campaign settings, D&D would not be even remotely as loved and popular as it is today.

Someone had to go out of business showing the world that D&D was truly infinite. There’s no world in which TSR survives and operates profitably while D&D also comes even close to its present popularity.
Pure speculation. I mean if you’re going to go this far out on a limb what prevents a successful TSR and D&D?
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Someone had to go out of business showing the world that D&D was truly infinite. There’s no world in which TSR survives and operates profitably while D&D also comes even close to its present popularity.
There is zero basis for any of these claims. Wizards "saved" D&D by being a competent gaming company, who made decisions using data and analysis. The very same decisions could have been made by TSR if they were only more competent.
 

Iosue

Legend
I'll also point out that when TSR was at its most profligate with settings was also the time the World of Darkness books, particularly Vampire: The Masquerade, were vying with it for shelf space.

Also, I'm not entirely sure the majority of current 5e players even remember 90s TSR, if they were actually born at the time.
 

Hussar

Legend
And, given the sales data we have for these settings from the book and from stuff Ben has posted here and elsewhere, I'm not sure that most of those settings have even been more than glanced at by the overwhelming majority of gamers even from those days. How many people ACTUALLY read a Spelljammer book? I know I didn't. I heard about it. Saw a few bits and bobs in Dragon and maybe a Monster Manual entry or two, but, actually see anything from the setting? Nope.

For me, settings have never really defined D&D. I was a homebrewer until 3e. Dark Sun? Never picked up a book. Ravenloft? Played the old original module when it came out, never looked at it again. Mystara? Only knew about it from the Voyages of the Princess Ark stories in Dragon. So on and so forth.
 

Michael Linke

Adventurer
Pure speculation. I mean if you’re going to go this far out on a limb what prevents a successful TSR and D&D?
For TSR to have been successful, it must not have produced any of the campaign settings we loved them for beyond a single flagship line. For TSR to have been successful, it must not have supported D&D and AD&D in parallel, with vastly different tone and scope between the two variants. The cost/price balance of individual products was way out of whack. The products a successful TSR would have put out would have been far more expensive, or had far poorer production values than we remembered.

D&D's legacy was forged by suicidal adherence to an unsustainable business plan. I don't think any sustainable business plan would have created a D&D nearly as memorable and culturally significant as what we got leading up to the late 90s. D&D would not have been the brand that it is if those mistakes weren't made.
 
Last edited:

Michael Linke

Adventurer
I'll also point out that when TSR was at its most profligate with settings was also the time the World of Darkness books, particularly Vampire: The Masquerade, were vying with it for shelf space.

Also, I'm not entirely sure the majority of current 5e players even remember 90s TSR, if they were actually born at the time.
They may not remember, but their understanding of 5e is definitely helped by the wealth of Greyhawk and FR material from that era, not to mention the recent and upcoming revivals of Spelljammer and Dragonlance.

All of this is just, like, my opinion, man.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
And, given the sales data we have for these settings from the book and from stuff Ben has posted here and elsewhere, I'm not sure that most of those settings have even been more than glanced at by the overwhelming majority of gamers even from those days. How many people ACTUALLY read a Spelljammer book? I know I didn't. I heard about it. Saw a few bits and bobs in Dragon and maybe a Monster Manual entry or two, but, actually see anything from the setting? Nope.

For me, settings have never really defined D&D. I was a homebrewer until 3e. Dark Sun? Never picked up a book. Ravenloft? Played the old original module when it came out, never looked at it again. Mystara? Only knew about it from the Voyages of the Princess Ark stories in Dragon. So on and so forth.
I continue to be fascinated by how opposite our gaming histories have been, despite starting in a similar time frame. Big tent indeed.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
For TSR to have been successful, it must not have produced any of the campaign settings we loved them for beyond a single flagship line. For TSR to have been successful, it must not have supported D&D and AD&D in parallel, with vastly different tone and scope between the two variants. The cost/price balance of individual products was way out of whack. The products a successful TSR would have put out would have been far more expensive, or had far poorer production values than we remembered.

D&D's legacy was forged by suicidal adherence to an unsustainable business plan. I don't think any sustainable business plan would have created a D&D nearly as memorable and culturally significant as what we got leading up to the late 90s. D&D would not have been the brand that it is if those mistakes weren't made.
And that's why I loved them.
 

Michael Linke

Adventurer
And, given the sales data we have for these settings from the book and from stuff Ben has posted here and elsewhere, I'm not sure that most of those settings have even been more than glanced at by the overwhelming majority of gamers even from those days. How many people ACTUALLY read a Spelljammer book? I know I didn't. I heard about it. Saw a few bits and bobs in Dragon and maybe a Monster Manual entry or two, but, actually see anything from the setting? Nope.

For me, settings have never really defined D&D. I was a homebrewer until 3e. Dark Sun? Never picked up a book. Ravenloft? Played the old original module when it came out, never looked at it again. Mystara? Only knew about it from the Voyages of the Princess Ark stories in Dragon. So on and so forth.
My first D&D product was the Troy Denning Black Box. A few years later, someone gave my the Yellow AD&D starter set, with the dragon art reused from the Denning box. From there, i purchased 3! campaign settings (Forgotten Realms, Planescape, Revised Dark Sun) before moving on to purchase a single AD&D rulebook. The rules were interesting, but they didn't capture the imagination. The assurance that you could do anything with them was interesting, but it took seeing Planescape, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun and Ravenfloft side by side on a shelf to realize "Oh, wait, they don't mean 'from Tolkien to Greek Mythology', they mean like everything everything."

The post mortem on the campaign settings in Slaying the Dragon wasn't that nobody bought them, or that nobody cared about them, just that they weren't broadening the customer base. For me, at least, I wasn't a single genre person who would say "Wow. Ravenloft. I MUST play D&D so that I can use this Ravenloft stuff." The breadth of settings available was THE selling point for me.
 
Last edited:

Okay, looking back through it, 30 Years of Adventure does indeed go into greater detail. Starting on page 214:
Yeah, this is pretty much how I remember it, VERY soon after TSR went under it was known that they had been doing SOME sort of deal with Random House. I'm not even sure it was really exactly a big secret back in the days when they were doing well. Companies like Random House do this stuff, they pay to have books produced all the time. It just isn't that weird at all.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top