What did TSR do wrong?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'm just curious, I'm seeing a lot of comments surfacing with the whole Dragon issue that "WotC are becoming as bas as latter day TSR".

As someone who was temporarily out of the hobby when TSR eventually went belly up, what did they do that has earned them this general level of animaosity? Was it marketing practices, poor quality products?

I am genuinely curious. I used to be a huge supporter of TSR and was generally quite happy with them. My D&D group went into hiatus towards the end of 2E, and only regualrly restarted about 2 years ago.

Many thanks - T

The explosion of splatbooks is pretty similar. I do think there's a lot of fairly poor quality or uninteresting products out there, which isn't that different from the TSR days of lots of poor quality gamebook products.

I wasn't a very active buyer in those days, and while I was subjected to lots of terrible books in games I was in, it was mainly because most of the DMs I had available to me weren't capable of treating a game seriously. Even the good ones

 

[bbarrington]

Henrix, I fixed your quote.

I know now what killed D&D at WOTC. It wasn't the OGL. It wasn't Paizo's outstanding work. It wasn't the success of 3rd party 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. D&D at WOTC died because they were deaf.

 

[LoneWolf23]

I'd like to quote a small part of that letter:

Originally Posted by Dancey's letter
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.

...Now I know why Steve Jackson Games has lasted this long. Listening to their customers is one thing they do very well. Heck, listening to their customers is what allowed them to give GURPS 4th edition's covers their now distinctive mosaic look, rather then the horribly generic style they were originally going to go with.

Let that be a lesson to gaming companies... Customer feedback is important.

Folks at Palladium, take note.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Yes, I'm more looking for what caused the ill will amongst the gaming community, rather than specifically their financial/business failings.

Well, the online hate for the Lorraine Williams era at TSR has its genesis in the threats to fan sites under her watch. It was a profoundly arrogant treatment of fans who posed no threat to TSR or its products whatsoever. This was early days in the internet mind you - and TSR was hardly alone in fumbling the ball. I think they got poor legal advice.

But it had tones of RIAA sabre-rattling in its day.

Sure - there's lots of pointing out that under her the company ultimately floundered - and her treatment of Gygax has since become legendary.

But at the time, these things were not well know (if known at all) and were not, therefore, the things that earned the animosity. Threatening fan websites with litigation and this whole "online trademark" policy was a very great part of what had the fan-on-the-street pissed off at Lorraine Williams.

I guess the Greyhawk fans felt poorly treated by TSR in its late 2e stage and attributed that to Lorraine Williams. I'm not so sure on that part, as my recollection of those events is a little foggy - and too colored by what is said now (as opposed as to what was said then).

Similarly, I suppose the reboot of Dragonlance under the SAGA rules had those fans pissed too. *shrug*

 

[M.L. Martin]

Similarly, I suppose the reboot of Dragonlance under the SAGA rules had those fans pissed too. *shrug*

Actually, from what I recall, the real antipathy on that front didn't start until after WotC had picked up TSR again. I think it's a combination of disappointment with Jean Rabe's novels (especially The Eve of the Maelstrom--the title certainly reflected what it was for the online fan community ) and the announcement that W&H were coming back to 'save' DL.

 

[teitan]

Yeah, I think the fracturing of the fanbase by the multiple settings is misrepresentation. Some people came to D&D strictly for a particular setting. Yes, they released a lot of supplements for settings but that would have only added to their profits in theory. Now I can see the continuation of unprofitable settings being an issue here but having several settings doesn't seem to have hurt other companies.

WOTC is HARDLY as bad as TSR was in the last few years of their existence. WOTC isn't attacking their fanbase and threatening to sue them for having a fansite and wanting to share fan created material and interesting house rules for example. WOTC does listen to the fanbase but something a lot of net posters fail to realize, or forget, is that we are a vocal minority. In the case of Dragon and Dungeon, I don't know for sure but I know at the store I run that both magazines had slipped off our racks without anybody saying a word to us and that subscription went to zero in our store as well. It could have been a losing venture for WOTC at this point even if the magazine was profitable. The majority of D&D gamers simply do not read Dragon or Dungeon.

But to say WOTC is out of touch or as bad as TSR is a loooooong stretch. No, they aren't what they used to be when 3e first launched but they aren't so bad either.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Actually, from what I recall, the real antipathy on that front didn't start until after WotC had picked up TSR again. I think it's a combination of disappointment with Jean Rabe's novels (especially The Eve of the Maelstrom--the title certainly reflected what it was for the online fan community ) and the announcement that W&H were coming back to 'save' DL.

The introduction of the SAGA rules for Dragonlance coupled with the sudden time jump and the massive world changes were a blow to Dragonlance. It isn't that all of this was bad, per se, but that it happened so suddenly without easing fans into it.

I remember once hearing Peter Adkison talking about how TSR had all these great worlds, but the people who made them great had moved on. He sought to bring them back in. That's a large part of what brough Weis and Hickman back to Dragonlance.

It is my belief that Weis and Hickman did their part to save Dragonlance, and that they were successful. The end of War of Souls led to a revised setting where Paladine and Takhisis weren't stealing the spotlight, and where elements of the 4th and 5th ages could co-exist in a single whole. It was an exciting time, with wizards and sorcerers in conflict, mystics and clerics in conflict, and a world trying to rebuild.

Likewise, the fan movement to keep the DL game alive and the subsequent licensing of Dragonlance to Sovereign Press using the d20 rules brought new life to Dragonlance gaming. What a wonderful ride that's been!

 

[Glyfair]

But at the time, these things were not well know (if known at all) and were not, therefore, the things that earned the animosity. Threatening fan websites with litigation and this whole "online trademark" policy was a very great part of what had the fan-on-the-street pissed off at Lorraine Williams.

I don't think so. It's what had the online fans ticked off at her, but that was likely a very small minority of the D&D players in those days. '

Even today Erik Mona has stated that there are large numbers of Paizo subscribers who don't or won't deal with the internet (at least for their gaming uses). Going back a decade or more and you'll find the percentages even lower.

Now the reputation has lingered with the internet. Gamers who weren't on the internet then are hearing stories about how bad it was and remembering those stories. However, those who actually experienced them....

I think TSR's bad reputation is caused by a number of things that might vary from person to person. Some might be colored by stories they've heard but didn't experience. For example, I had no clue about Lorraine Williams except what I've found out in the last few years.

 

[trancejeremy]

TSR wasn't a very fan friendly company in its later days. Most notably, they didn't really allow fan sites, they wanted to restrict any fan D&D material to certain TSR controlled sites. It wasn't just the litigation that they threatened people with, it was the viciousness with how they went about it, and how they defended their actions via their netrep. To this day, I have a grudge against the guy who did all of this (who is now a prominent d20 designer, actually). The only reason I ever came back to D&D was because his replacement (Jim Butler) was super-nice

We're already starting to see some of that behavior with WOTC these days. For instance, someone's D&D/M:TG conversion was apparently removed from the net. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a matter of time before we see all D&D fansite removed from the net. While certainly within WOTC's legal rights, since they are derivative works of their owned material, 99% of companies don't care as long as its just fan stuff, not commercial stuff, since happy fans tend to buy stuff. The only other company that cares is Palladium.

There was some disappointment after WOTC bought out TSR and didn't save those worlds or whatever that were favorites of TSR fans (like say, Birthright), but it was their net policy that really caused the anger. And oh yeah, when TSR had their money troubles, they refused to admit anything other than "printer problems".

I would guess that google's usenet archives (formerly Deja Vu) goes back that far, if you are really interested and want to pick through things.

 

[S'mon]

TSR's anti-Internet policy certainly drove me away from buying TSR products from the mid '90s up until the release of 3e several years after WoTC had bought the company. I remember debating it with TSR in-house lawyers online. I expect only a minority of potential customers had direct knowledge of it, but it created a terrible atmosphere. It was not comparable to RIAA suing people for sharing MP3 files; TSR was threatening people just for using terms like "AC" and "hit points" in adventures etc posted online. They had no legal basis for this and their lawyers didn't seem to understand (a) the difference between copyright & trademarks, (b) the difference between commercial and non-commercial use of trade marks.