TSR The Dreams in Gary's Basement

[Clint_L]

Yeah, we are. It's what made me finally respond. If you think a pile-on of people Sea Lioning for sources from a documentarian's claim he has sources isn't a form of harassment, I disagree. The ongoing increased level of "name your sources" is in fact a pretty well trod form of online harassment.

John Rateliff is not a "better" or "more extensive" source than the producers of this documentary (Pat Kilbane, James Lowder, Jon Peterson), particularly when John makes a claim about what hundreds of people said without naming names or providing copies of interviews with those people. But the standard applied is not just "name names" but "what exactly did they say" and even then "show me the interviews" for this claim the documentary filmmakers claimed to have multiple sources about a specific aspect of one person. That's exactly what Sea Lion level harassment looks like. It's intended to shut off the conversation with that distraction, particularly when it's done in numbers like it's being done right now.

I don't know what "sea lion level harassment is" but it seems insulting. I don't think I'm doing it, whatever it is. And I don't appreciate the insinuation.

It is not "harassing" to express skepticism of a claim that is not well sourced, particularly when that claim is derogatory, and particularly when there is a history of people making hurtful and misogynist claims about an individual. To me, the story seems fanciful. It seems like the kind of thing that could be just a rumour, or it could be something that was originally said in jest, or it could be an exaggeration. It's impossible to say based on scant evidence, and as it is hurtful I am choosing to ignore it as gossip.

Asking for evidence beyond hearsay is not shutting down conversation. Though I suspect accusing people of being "sea lions," whatever that means, might be an attempt to do so.

I'm not some huge Lorraine Williams fan. She sounds like she was often difficult to work with, I think she made or maintained some bad business decisions at TSR, and I question her judgment regarding her interactions with the fan community and regarding her family's Buck Rogers IP. But she's not some cartoonish supervillain, and I think it is evidently clear that she was better at running a business than Gygax and the Blumes (a VERY low bar). Again, I think it is notable that ex-employees have expressed a preference for working under her.

 

[billd91]

Again, I think it is notable that ex-employees have expressed a preference for working under her.

Though apparently not Frank Mentzer (if Alzrius's memory is correct about the story in the documentary). Of course, that's not a surprise. He left TSR with Gygax's ouster to join him at New Infinities. So, it's not like he had much experience working under her anyway.

Interestingly, Kim Mohan, who also left TSR to join Gygax at New Infinities, apparently didn't significantly object to working under Williams since he went back to TSR after New Infinities went belly up.

 

[Clint_L]

First, as for the claim nobody is trying to rehab her image, I think some people are in fact trying to rehab her image. If you think this OP isn't accurately described as that, I'd sure like to know what your argument is beyond some sort of minor linguistic quibble. He's outright calling her a hero. Not just "not a villain" but she's the hero of that story (using that very word, "hero").

Here is where @Snarf Zagyg used the word hero, in context:

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.

And here is the conclusion of the (IMO) nuanced and balanced OP:

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.

So, yes, the word "hero" was used. But this is hardly a hagiography of St. Lorraine. Snarf was accurately pointing out that, in the particular action for which she is often viciously attacked, ousting Gygax from TSR, Williams was not seen as a villain by the people in the room who weren't Gary Gygax (who, incidentally, had only himself to blame for creating that situation), and moreover saved the company from imminent bankruptcy.

I myself have, in other threads, cited some of the really vicious misogyny that has been directed at Williams.

Edit: here is a link to Jon Peterson's detailed, documented account of that meeting and its context, for those who are interested:

 

[MNblockhead]

I really enjoyed the documentary, was glad I backed it, and it was worth the wait. I think it is interesting to watch along with Secrets of Blackmoor. The former is focused on Gary Gygax and the later is focused on Dave Arneson. The production quality of In Gary's Basement is quite a bit better than the Secrets of Blackmoor but both are worth watching. I would also add Eye of the Beholder--The Art of D&D to a nice day of D&D documentary binge watching.

Of the three, I would think the Dreams in Gary's Basement is the one I could see sitting down and watching with my parents, who have no interest in TTRPGs.

I'll admit, however, that much of the allure of In Gary's Basement for me is nostalgia for the time period and location. I'd be interested in hearing what folks born in the 90s and later, especially those not from the area (US mid-west) feel about it.

It would be great to have a well-researched and excellently produced documentary on the history of D&D for the 50th anniversary. IIRC, Joe Manganiello is directing one, with access to hundreds of hours of archival footage. At much as I personally admire and enjoy learning about the creators of the game, the game is bigger than the founders. I don't feel either the Dreams in Gary's Basement or the Secret of Blackmoor really capture the important D&D has had on the culture.

 

[MNblockhead]

By the way, Eye of the Beholder and Secrets of Blackmoor are both available on Amazon Prime Video. Dreams in Gary's Basement isn't yet, but I expect it eventually will be. Eventually, you should be able to also buy Dreams in Gary's Basement on https://rpghistory.net/, but I'm guessing they are going to wait for a little while until all the backers get their DVDs.

BTW, if you were a backer and didn't get your rpghistory.net code/password yet, contact Dukes of York through Kickstarter.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I’ll add, I was literally in the room with Ben, Pat, and other historians a few years ago at Gary con before Ben released his book. Lorraine never gave her side. She’s always remained silent. So the only story we heard for the past 40 years was Gary’s side, by Gary loyalists and others who felt personally slighted by Lorraine. We only got one side, and as each year went by, the legend of the evil Lorraine grew. To this day, on nearly a daily basis, I see people comment about how she ruined D&D and if only Gary was still in charge.

That point shouldn’t be lost. We’ve been told for decades how the ambush was a dirty trick that robbed Gary. Knowing what I know now, I don’t think there could have been any other way. Knowing how Gary attacked Rob Kuntz in front of everyone—a person who was like an adopted kid, knowing how Gary treated people he felt slighted him, and I don’t think that ambush could have been different. They couldn’t have given him a heads up or warning, because they knew he’d lose his…composure. Which he did anyway. Which is unfortunate.

I don’t know why it’s so controversial to say Gary brought this wonderful game to all of us, made some really great creative decisions, and also was an ego maniac who made disastrous business decisions that drove the company into the ground. A guy who was fiercely loyal to those he got along with, and spiteful to those who he didn’t. And Lorraine saved the company for years, paid the employees, and worked for them while also being abrasive, and having no clue how the hobby worked or what made it special. They both had huge egos (you have to, to be a CEO). They both did good things, they both did bad things. They were people. Not a god, not a villain.

 

[humble minion]

So the only story we heard for the past 40 years was Gary’s side, by Gary loyalists and others who felt personally slighted by Lorraine. We only got one side, and as each year went by, the legend of the evil Lorraine grew.

That's not quite true, at least for those portions of Williams' tenure at TSR which are post-Gary. The narrative of the events leading up to Gary's ouster from TSR certainly are largely based on he-said-she-didn't-say, but that's not the be-all and end-all of Williams' tenure.

There's been quite a lot of people who've reminisced one way or the other about TSR post-Gary. And sure, a bunch of them have not been always particularly complimentary about Williams. But there's been nothing stopping those people who were happy under Williams from giving their side of the story.

 

[billd91]

But there's been nothing stopping those people who were happy under Williams from giving their side of the story.

And I’m sure a lot of them have… and got completely drowned out by the Gygax loyalists. It’s not surprising. We generally lionize creatives and sneer at corporates when their narratives are in opposition, even when those creatives are kind of conniving bastards like Gygax. I can say I had NEVER heard much positive about Williams before Ben Riggs’s book. It certainly got around the convention scuttlebutt circuit much less than Gygax’s side of the story.

 

[Mistwell]

See, the thing here is I was able to produce a name right away for people to go to while you were just casting vague aspersions about the more measured view of Lorraine Williams until your very last post when you finally pulled some concrete names up (though at the same level as Ben Riggs not as drilled in as John Rateliff).
So if you feel raw about any of this, maybe you should consider how YOU set the tone.

It's a thread about the documentary. I assumed you knew who they were. I didn't think I needed to name names to make a point about a professionally made documentary.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't know what "sea lion level harassment is" but it seems insulting. I don't think I'm doing it, whatever it is. And I don't appreciate the insinuation.

You don't know what it is but you're insulted anyway?

Clint, Google is your friend. Morrus has called it out specifically in many many threads here himself. This is not an uncommon term.

It is not "harassing" to express skepticism of a claim that is not well sourced

No the harassment is demanding more and more proof and sourcing each time people get a response, not expressing skepticism. Which I think I made real clear and that was a strawman.

Again, this would be an easier conversation if you looked up Sealioning.

, particularly when that claim is derogatory, and particularly when there is a history of people making hurtful and misogynist claims about an individual. To me, the story seems fanciful. It seems like the kind of thing that could be just a rumour, or it could be something that was originally said in jest, or it could be an exaggeration. It's impossible to say based on scant evidence, and as it is hurtful I am choosing to ignore it as gossip.

Asking for evidence beyond hearsay is not shutting down conversation.

Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay. Three known documentarians, which is a fact finding artform, say they have direct sources as in multiple. You don't have to take it as gospel but it's not fair to dismiss it out of hand while taking another claim as gospel which has even less support for it because it happens to comport with your perspective of the good guy and bad guy in this. If it's not convincing evidence to you that's fine but it's not the same as the continual statement that others should be as skeptical and unconvinced as you with the implication it shouldn't even be discussed without essentially names and transcripts while you're all gung ho about an off-hand comment from one guy claiming hundreds of employees said something with zero other support for that claim.

Though I suspect accusing people of being "sea lions," whatever that means, might be an attempt to do so.

Dude, it is NOT my fault you don't know that term. It's not new, it's not rare, it's a common Internet term, it's been used right here many times with many users, and you acting like I am burdening you by even using that phrase is weird. Look it up or let it go but don't put your ignorance on me.