Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GreyLord" data-source="post: 8692920" data-attributes="member: 4348">No, I didn't say that.  What part of graphs from the 70s and when TSR was first beginning do you NOT understand in my comments.  How much more plain do I have to be about that?On the otherhand, you have NO idea how much of a mess the departments actually were to some degree.  It's not asking them questions, it's asking for the documents they may or may not have.  Direct paperwork.  Look, I worked with this type of paperwork...and I WORKED on several things regarding what we are discussing.  As I stated above, there is SOME paperwork that existed at one time, I know who had it, where it was.  I still know some of them, and they have NOT been asked about that paperwork.  Why not? NOW...I don't know if they even STILL HAVE the paperwork...to be honest.  It was years (actually decades) ago, and I've barely know what they are up to these days except for maybe an annual contact or two.  But, I haven't heard them being interviewed or asked for paperwork (not that I'd ask them either...TBH).I have nothing against Jon, and this isn't EVEN ABOUT him, it's about the more recent graphs that were posted on this site and asking...Where did that information come from.  It goes back to the 70s, and some of it covers time periods which we have very little paperwork on...even your favorite guy to bring up (Which really has NOTHING to do with this...AT ALL, so don't know why you keep bringing him up as it isn't his graphs we are even talking about), Jon, mentions this in the article you posted. One thing that burned me was that WotC (or more specifically Dancey) made claims that I KNOW they didn't have a lot to back up, but no one really asked to see what they based those comments on.  For example, the core books of D&D ALWAYS made a profit.  It wasn't D&D that was doing so badly that caused TSR to go bankrupt.  It wasn't even necessarily the different campaign worlds that caused the problem.  Yet, that is what people always try to point it to being.  What caused it were some basic, inept, financial decisions (like investing a ton of money into something that had no chance of making that money back, and ignoring financial paperwork which would mysteriously disappear so that they COULD ignore such concerns, and making ridiculous decisions in regards to finances and such).   It was some very basic financial decisions that would have caused problems at any business...not just an RPG business.  However, the main  (individual) proponent of WotC's story of TSR splitting the lines and that being the cause of it's problems has shown themselves to exaggerate in other areas and financially sink their own item (without even splitting the lines in that online engagement, I might add)...which brings a tiny bit of justice in the world...It is obvious he went through some of the paperwork, or whatever was left from TSR, but not all of it.  It COULD have been interpreted how he said it, but it was more that they spent money on various products that if they had spent less, could have turned a profit on them anyways.Because, if I understand right, they only needed to keep them onsite for 7 years.  Because some of it wasn't directly kept with the company.  Because some of it...well...some of it...no one knows what happened to it (Actually, I'm pretty certain someone knows...but I don't know who.  I have some guesses, but personally, I don't know). I mean WotC could have gotten the paperwork, but from what they said (or more specifically Dancey) it sure sounds like they Didn't, or they wouldn't have said what they stated.  "Splitting" the lines is NOT what caused them to go bankrupt...such a statement would have been seen as really foolish (though, if you look at what WotC did...they also split the line almost immediately between FR, GH and Eberron, and later with DL, GW, and Modern and SW...so maybe they were saying one thing while faking it and doing the same thing at the same time and did have access...but their statements sure made it seem like they didn't).He could have.  But then there would not be the discrepancies I see in some areas.  There are others he could have talked to which you've actually gotten very close to in figuring out (but it's not my place to talk about it either...really.  Drives me nutty at times...if you couldn't tell), almost to a step or two away from who may have the later paperwork, but as I said, ethically, they can't give out that information.  They didn't have to give it to WotC either because of their position between them and the original clients.  At least, UNLESS they get an okay to give out the information or a court order directed to them specifically to do so.   Considering court cases that have already gone on, it is probably doubtful that they would be currently asked to do so.  Sometimes it is better to keep things confidential than to let out a LOT of dirty laundry...BUT...IN MY OPINION, I feel there are other ways to get that information, it just takes a LOT of work to do so.  That's true.  You mentioned he didn't have complete information already, which I said made sense looking at the numbers.  He had the general ideas with the graphs, I just am not sure posting something with incomplete information is the best idea.  It's a difficult position.  If all you want to do is sell books, then hey, you do what he did.  If you want something that is historically accurate...that's a harder call.It's like the Battle of Gettysburg, if you were missing half a day's events and missing some of the of the movements and main motivations of the armies prior to the battle and had to guess what happened, would you publish a book doing an indepth analysis of the Battle or not?  You are missing a LOT of information.  On the otherhand, if there wasn't anything out on it, it could be a ground breaking book!  There are books published on that type of information that set the standard of how history viewed that event for decades afterwards.If someone else got more complete information later, it may be discovered that many guesses were wrong though.  It's like a lot of the History that was written in the 1800s (and were closer to the events even) on Thomas Jefferson have had theories in them completely overturned in the past several decades with modern history and science.  For someone wanting money, it's a no brainer on whether to publish the book or not.  For others, I think it's not such a clear picture on whether it's a good idea to go to print on it or not.  Hard call.</blockquote>

Verification