# Why Dragonlance's Margaret Weis Left TSR: A Slaying the Dragon Excerpt



## Hussar (Jul 21, 2022)

Just ... wow.  Y'know, This is some really fascinating stuff.


----------



## Ath-kethin (Jul 21, 2022)

Ok! Fine! I'll buy the damn book.

Sheesh.


----------



## schneeland (Jul 21, 2022)

I can also say: the marketing with all these shared charts clearly worked on me  - and even if they didn't, this text would have done the job. I read Game Wizards a while ago and it will be quite interesting to read more about the Williams years now.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 21, 2022)

I await the, "We've misjudged Lorraine Williams because of sexism" crowd.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jul 21, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> I await the, "We've misjudged Lorraine Williams because of sexism" crowd.



Yeah, up until this point we were giving her the benefit of the doubt because she was a woman trying to make it in male-dominated corporate America, so clearly the stories were overblown and misogynist propaganda.

Turns out she actually was a spawn of Demogorgon. Who knew?


----------



## Jimmy Dick (Jul 21, 2022)

I thought it was the old concept about Lorraine lining her pockets with TSR's money for _Buck Rogers,_ but I guess I was wrong. She just sucked at running a business unless one counts running it into the ground as a successful business practice.


----------



## Davies (Jul 21, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> I await the, "We've misjudged Lorraine Williams because of sexism" crowd.



I still think it's regrettable that we're not getting her perspective on these events, however contemptible I think these acts were.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 21, 2022)

Allen Rausch wrote in his GameSpy article on the topic that, "Lorraine Williams was described as having a sense of _noblesse oblige_. While she considered gamers and most of her workers her social inferiors, and held it as a point of pride that she had never played _Dungeons & Dragons_, she nonetheless did have a soft side that came out in various ways during her tenure as the head of TSR..."

Gygax repeated that allegation, "Williams despised gamers, and she stated in his presence that they were not her "social equals"."

Rausch continued that, "Under her management the company began to ruthlessly enforce its own copyrights along with a few it didn't even have (such as a claim that nobody else could use the word "dragon").

It also became incredibly hostile to everyone, especially its fans. As the Internet exploded onto the public consciousness in the early- to mid-90's, _Dungeons & Dragons_ players naturally brought their chosen hobby online. TSR followed them, issuing dozens of cease and desist orders that shut down fan sites. The company even tried to prevent _D&D_ fans from discussing the game in chat rooms and on message boards, earning the derisive nickname: "They Sue Regularly."

The company was hostile to its fans, business partners, and even former associates that didn't have much clout with the company. TSR became infamous for micromanaging its licensing partners..."


----------



## Jer (Jul 21, 2022)

Let's not kid ourselves that TSR suddenly "became hostile" when Williams took over - she took over because TSR was already a hostile company full of backstabbers at the top and a company that treated the rest of the industry as if it was stealing TSR's money.

Just as one example, the SPI acquisition and its aftermath happened long before Williams entered the scene.


----------



## vecna00 (Jul 21, 2022)

This is good!


----------



## NotAYakk (Jul 21, 2022)

This is why they should have forced nom de plume (owned by TSR) on their creative types.

Then they wouldn't have had an asset they could take with them (their name/reputation)!

How dare people think they own any products of their labour.  Modern capitalism can solve this problem.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 21, 2022)

The more I learn about the history of the hobby, the more I realize that D&D survived it's early days more or less despite the people involved in business decisions, rather than because of them.

Unbelievably creative folks.  Fantastically creative people.  But, perhaps, not the greatest levels of business acumen.

Heh.  I was reading somewhere about TSR's foray into comic books.    The list of just mind boggling decisions just never seems to end.


----------



## Ath-kethin (Jul 21, 2022)

Dragonlance was what introduced me to TSR (I literally had no idea what Dungeons & Dragons was when I read the _Chronicles _initially - or for a few years afterwards), so the Weis & Hickman story is of particular interest to me. Like many of us, I became a huge Weis & Hickman fan pretty much immediately, and devoured everything they were involved with for years afterwards.

But given the excerpt above, I'm really curious why/how they were lured back to TSR for the Summer Flame/SAGA years, since Lorraine Williams was still in charge at that point.


----------



## amethal (Jul 21, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> Rausch continued that, "Under her management the company began to ruthlessly enforce its own copyrights along with a few it didn't even have (such as a claim that nobody else could use the word "dragon").




Monte Cook (I assume, accidentally) claimed the name "dragon" was product identity in the Iron Heroes Bestiary. I didn't realise he was following in the proud footsteps of the TSR legal department.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 21, 2022)

amethal said:


> Monte Cook (I assume, accidentally) claimed the name "dragon" was product identity in the Iron Heroes Bestiary. I didn't realise he was following in the proud footsteps of the TSR legal department.




Heh. I remember in the early days of d20. Broken ogl was not uncommon at all with people basically claiming everything from cover to cover was product identity.


----------



## robowieland (Jul 21, 2022)

One of the sad throughlines of the book is how TSR keeps finding amazing creatives, treats them like crap despite the popularity of their work, screws them over for the sake of a buck and then just stumbles across the next one.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Jul 21, 2022)

Great article. I'm glad that Weis would be the kind of person that would worry about Elmore (and presumably vice versa).

I'm actually a little surprised that the awesome book advances were only $30k-then/$75k-now. I mean, I know being an author isn't a great way to become rich (more now even than then), but my notion was that that was because very few of them actually get to be bestseller list authors (and those that do mostly don't do so consistently, and one peak year with a huge payout won't sustain you forever). I thought best-seller list author in the 80s would be something like doctor-level income for that year.



Mistwell said:


> I await the, "We've misjudged Lorraine Williams because of sexism" crowd.



The two are not incompatible. Lorraine Williams can have been an awful boss _and_ people can have been all too ready to side with those disparaging her because of sexism (given that few, if any, of them would have had access to this information, it's not even clear on how this affects that).

It is disheartening that, once again, something like this comes up and people immediately try to frame the discussion as a battle between two sides, rather than we as a whole getting a clearer picture of how this company we all love and hate careened from micro-company working out of someone's home with a niche hit to huge company with a fad-riding product to collapse and bankruptcy over less than a quarter century. There are no sides and we all 'win' by this coming to light.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Jul 21, 2022)

robowieland said:


> One of the sad throughlines of the book is how TSR keeps finding amazing creatives, treats them like crap despite the popularity of their work, screws them over for the sake of a buck and then just stumbles across the next one.



What's amazing to me is that they kept finding them. I mean, obviously it is biased because we only remember the ones that made an impact (while writer X who produced novel or module Z no one likes has fallen off the radar), but it is still impressive. Speaks to how much people really really wanted to be part of the industry/get paid to be elbow deep in what they loved doing.


----------



## ephemeron (Jul 21, 2022)

Hussar said:


> The more I learn about the history of the hobby, the more I realize that D&D survived it's early days more or less despite the people involved in business decisions, rather than because of them.



It really is amazing. I haven't gotten a copy of _Slaying the Dragon_ yet, but my big takeaway from Jon Peterson's _The Game Wizards_ is that nobody at TSR ever learned how to run a business. Nepotism and poorly-thought-out ventures were the norm from the very early days on.


----------



## Staffan (Jul 21, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> What's amazing to me is that they kept finding them. I mean, obviously it is biased because we only remember the ones that made an impact (while writer X who produced novel or module Z no one likes has fallen off the radar), but it is still impressive. Speaks to how much people really really wanted to be part of the industry/get paid to be elbow deep in what they loved doing.



That kind of stuff is still going on. I remember when the Paizo staff were in the process of unionizing, and a lot of tea was spilled regarding how working conditions and salaries were bad because "You should be happy that you get to write for Pathfinder!"


----------



## Ath-kethin (Jul 21, 2022)

Staffan said:


> That kind of stuff is still going on. I remember when the Paizo staff were in the process of unionizing, and a lot of tea was spilled regarding how working conditions and salaries were bad because "You should be happy that you get to write for Pathfinder!"



An argument that would carry some weight if the person saying it was ALSO underpaid, but underpaid folks rarely make such statements IME.


----------



## JLowder (Jul 21, 2022)

NotAYakk said:


> This is why they should have forced nom de plume (owned by TSR) on their creative types.
> 
> Then they wouldn't have had an asset they could take with them (their name/reputation)!
> 
> How dare people think they own any products of their labour.  Modern capitalism can solve this problem.




TSR management tested out the "house name" idea in the late 1980s with Richard Awlinson (All-in-One, get it?!), on the Forgotten Realms Avatar Trilogy. House names for company-owned series are nothing new. The Stratemeyer Syndicate, for example, had been using them with series such as the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew since the early 20th century.

In the Book Department we pushed back against the house name idea in various ways. As Avatar Trilogy editor I managed to include individual author bios inside the Awlinson books. (I am still surprised we managed to pull that off.) When the Avatar books sold well, the company decided to promote the individual authors, partly at the prompting of Random House, and (mostly) connect the writers to the individual works. The three books now have (mostly) correct author names on them. But upper management would continue to toss out the idea of house names for all the series books every couple of years.


----------



## Staffan (Jul 21, 2022)

JLowder said:


> TSR management tested out the "house name" idea in the late 1980s with Richard Awlinson (All-in-One, get it?!), on the Forgotten Realms Avatar Trilogy. House names for company-owned series are nothing new. The Stratemeyer Syndicate, for example, had been using them with series such as the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew since the early 20th century.
> 
> In the Book Department we pushed back against the house name idea in various ways. As Avatar Trilogy editor I managed to include individual author bios inside the Awlinson books. (I am still surprised we managed to pull that off.)



Huh. I was under the impression that using a pseudonym in that case was, at least partially, because it's easier to identify books as belonging together if they have the same author. I guess I was giving TSR management too much credit.


----------



## JLowder (Jul 21, 2022)

Ath-kethin said:


> But given the excerpt above, I'm really curious why/how they were lured back to TSR for the Summer Flame/SAGA years, since Lorraine Williams was still in charge at that point.




Margaret and Tracy came back to work on Dragonlance fiction starting in the late 1980s, with the Tales anthologies. That was a half-step back to the company, not a full step. Freelance editor Pat McGilligan worked well with Margaret in particular and handled a lot of the liaison efforts on those anthologies, as their direct contact with the company. By then Margaret and Tracy had more clout because of their success in New York, which was helpful because they could demand better treatment, but upper management was still unhappy about their influence on the line. Also, it's important to note that the baseline TSR fiction contracts improved significantly starting around 1989, which helped set the stage for their full step back as writers in the 90s. It took a lot of work to get upper management to agree to the contract changes.

In the larger picture on fiction, it's really about how TSR kept coming up with ways to treat creators badly and drive them away. The authors generally want to continue working on worlds and characters they love and value, and with other talented writers, editors, and artists on the shared worlds they helped create.


----------



## SAVeira (Jul 21, 2022)

Staffan said:


> Huh. I was under the impression that using a pseudonym in that case was, at least partially, because it's easier to identify books as belonging together if they have the same author. I guess I was giving TSR management too much credit.



I thought the same thing originally. Years ago, when I worked in book, they came out and we would have shelved them by author not series.  That did change once I started to see value in keep series together by, I was reading the genre unlike most of my co-workers.

However, I was wondering after I learn about house writers if it was an attempt to avoid creating "star" writers.  Cause if a writer sold well, they might demand more money and when they did not get, take their name to the greater market.


----------



## JLowder (Jul 21, 2022)

Staffan said:


> Huh. I was under the impression that using a pseudonym in that case was, at least partially, because it's easier to identify books as belonging together if they have the same author. I guess I was giving TSR management too much credit.



Getting the books in the trilogy shelved together was one of the reasons management cited for the Awlinson name, which made some sense. But we knew it was a test case. I mean, TSR fiction did not include author names on the spines at the time and the books were already shelved together as a series, so the Avatar Trilogy was going to be shelved in the Realms fiction section and likely together as a trilogy. Because the company leaned heavily on the shelving argument initially, that left me room to argue the actual author bios could appear inside the books. Middle management (in this case Mary Kirchoff and Jim Ward, both authors themselves) were sympathetic to the authors, so they helped push that through with upper management and marketing.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 21, 2022)

SAVeira said:


> I thought the same thing originally. Years ago, when I worked in book, they came out and we would have shelved them by author not series.  That did change once I started to see value in keep series together by, I was reading the genre unlike most of my co-workers.
> 
> However, I was wondering after I learn about house writers if it was an attempt to avoid creating "star" writers.  Cause if a writer sold well, they might demand more money and when they did not get, take their name to the greater market.




Could be either, or both.

A long time ago, I worked for a while in a chain book-store of some renown for a short period of time. And they had a mandate to shelve by author, not by title (even for series). No matter what. Which made for ... curious shelving decisions which people were not allowed to change. So I can understand why a publisher might want to keep a certain continuity.

OTOH, every IP owner, from Marvel on has a vested interest in ensuring that the IP is more important than any individual creator. There is always a push-pull between individual talent, and the IP itself. Viewed cynically, it's because the company wants to make sure that the revenue accrues only to the company, not to the creative talent. Viewed less cynically, it's so that you don't get into a situation where the IP is so tied into a single person that issues with that creator tank or deleteriously effect the IP (.....Potter.....).


----------



## BenRiggs (Jul 21, 2022)

Davies said:


> I still think it's regrettable that we're not getting her perspective on these events, however contemptible I think these acts were.



Author here! I agree with you 100%. Readers have told me they think I've been fair with Lorriane, so I still hold out home she will agree to an interview. 
The book is going to be reviewed in the Washington Post, and it will include a regal drawing of her from the book. That might get her attention...


----------



## BenRiggs (Jul 21, 2022)

And if you were interested in an excerpt from my book about TSR's attempt to start a comic book company...









						The forgotten story of D&D creator TSR’s failed attempt to break into comics and become the next Marvel or DC
					

The Dungeons & Dragons maker tried to take on the creator of Batman - and lost.




					www.dicebreaker.com


----------



## Helena Real (Jul 21, 2022)

Painful to read the mistreatment of people, especially Margaret Weis who's awesome!

Also, ooph! I can only imagine the possibilities of having Thimhallan (the world of the _Darksword_ stories) developed as a D&D setting instead of its own independent thing. It's a great series of novels and I think it could've been a cool fantasy setting: über-high magic with a sprinkle of technology.

Fascinating stuff all around! I think I'll try to get my hands on this books and read it when it comes out


----------



## BenRiggs (Jul 21, 2022)

Helena Real said:


> Painful to read the mistreatment of people, especially Margaret Weis who's awesome!
> 
> Also, ooph! I can only imagine the possibilities of having Thimhallan (the world of the _Darksword_ stories) developed as a D&D setting instead of its own independent thing. It's a great series of novels and I think it could've been a cool fantasy setting: über-high magic with a sprinkle of technology.
> 
> Fascinating stuff all around! I think I'll try to get my hands on this books and read it when it comes out



FYI It came out Tuesday, and you can get it anywhere books are sold!

Ben Riggs


----------



## Helena Real (Jul 21, 2022)

BenRiggs said:


> FYI It came out Tuesday, and you can get it anywhere books are sold!
> 
> Ben Riggs



Oh, I didn't know that! I'll for it then


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 22, 2022)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Turns out she actually was a spawn of Demogorgon. Who knew?



I knew.


----------



## Von Ether (Jul 22, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> Great article. I'm glad that Weis would be the kind of person that would worry about Elmore (and presumably vice versa).
> 
> I'm actually a little surprised that the awesome book advances were only $30k-then/$75k-now. I mean, I know being an author isn't a great way to become rich (more now even than then), but my notion was that that was because very few of them actually get to be bestseller list authors (and those that do mostly don't do so consistently, and one peak year with a huge payout won't sustain you forever). I thought best-seller list author in the 80s would be something like doctor-level income for that year.
> 
> ...



Sadly those days are gone. Harper Collins offered a friend of mine $13k a few years ago.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 22, 2022)

Morrus said:


> This excerpt from Ben Riggs' new book, *Slaying The Dragon: A Secret History of Dungeons and Dragons* describes how _Dragonlance_ changed the course of Margaret Weis' life, and why she left TSR.



As I understand it, Williams really alienated a lot of the creative forces behind D&D.  I'd never heard anything about Weis in particular, but after reading it I can't say I'm particularly shocked.  I've said it once and I expect I'll say it many more times, the more I learn about TSR the more amazed I am they managed to be so successful for as long as they were.  If you strike gold, you can make money hand over fist even if you're a terrible business person (that applies to the whole of TSR not just under Williams' tenure).


----------



## MGibster (Jul 22, 2022)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Yeah, up until this point we were giving her the benefit of the doubt because she was a woman trying to make it in male-dominated corporate America, so clearly the stories were overblown and misogynist propaganda.



Williams certainly deserves a good share of the blame for TSR's business failures under her tenure.  But I do think she doesn't get the credit she deserves for saving TSR in the immediate aftermath of taking it over.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Jul 22, 2022)

Von Ether said:


> Sadly those days are gone. Harper Collins offered a friend of mine $13k a few years ago.



I think you missed my point. If a bestselling author back then was getting $30k then/ $75k adjusted, then my understanding of what they earned then was off. I know based on my profession my view of income is skewed, but I'm also an economics major and I still keep my eye on what $X gets you. $75k is above the national average household income, but it's not huge for an experienced professional. So not _"freight handler or entry level graphic designer"_ as she was previously paid, but graphic designer with 5-10 years experience. If that (again, inflation-adjusted) was what the big NY publishing firms were paying top talent back in the day, in my mind those days never really were there at all.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 22, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> I think you missed my point. If a bestselling author back then was getting $30k then/ $75k adjusted, then my understanding of what they earned then was off. I know based on my profession my view of income is skewed, but I'm also an economics major and I still keep my eye on what $X gets you.



Is the $30k the entirety of the pay though?  Wouldn't Weis get residual payments for each book sold?


----------



## DorkForge (Jul 22, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> I think you missed my point. If a bestselling author back then was getting $30k then/ $75k adjusted, then my understanding of what they earned then was off. I know based on my profession my view of income is skewed, but I'm also an economics major and I still keep my eye on what $X gets you. $75k is above the national average household income, but it's not huge for an experienced professional. So not _"freight handler or entry level graphic designer"_ as she was previously paid, but graphic designer with 5-10 years experience. If that (again, inflation-adjusted) was what the big NY publishing firms were paying top talent back in the day, in my mind those days never really were there at all.



Besides residual payments this also assumes that they're only putting out one book per year, when it was $30k per book. Given the high turn over of fantasy novels, I wouldn't be surprised if they delivered them all in a year for a total of $90k at the time.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Jul 22, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Is the $30k the entirety of the pay though?  Wouldn't Weis get residual payments for each book sold?



An excellent question, and I presume so, but don't really know how much per book or how many books were sold. Obviously I'm not an expert on all this.  


DorkForge said:


> Besides residual payments this also assumes that they're only putting out one book per year, when it was $30k per book. Given the high turn over of fantasy novels, I wouldn't be surprised if they delivered them all in a year for a total of $90k at the time.



It is, and I did mention Stephen King to highlight that volume helps. But, again, unless you are Stephen King (or the like), do you have 2-3 books per year that consistently get such an advance and/or have residuals to match? Looking at Weis' bibliography page on wikipedia, it looks like she's had 68 books (many of which co-authored, so split payments) over the past 38 years. That's ~1.8/year. Assuming (only for simplicity) that each one got the same (adjusted) advance, and that advances are maybe 1/2 the total compensation on average*, that becomes $270k-modern/year once averaged. That shifts it to I guess 'really nice normal folk money'-levels (where I work there are plenty of doctors, lawyers, IT professionals and executives who do better, but factoring in student debt and such maybe it's on par), but less than, say, the surgeon I know. That's just less than I expected (again, huge amount of missing knowledge in this analysis). 
*this is a wild stab in the dark in absence of any information on the subject of residuals, and also how sales of W&H novels have done over time.


----------



## DorkForge (Jul 22, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> An excellent question, and I presume so, but don't really know how much per book or how many books were sold. Obviously I'm not an expert on all this.
> 
> It is, and I did mention Stephen King to highlight that volume helps. But, again, unless you are Stephen King (or the like), do you have 2-3 books per year that consistently get such an advance and/or have residuals to match? Looking at Weis' bibliography page on wikipedia, it looks like she's had 68 books (many of which co-authored, so split payments) over the past 38 years. That's ~1.8/year. Assuming (only for simplicity) that each one got the same (adjusted) advance, and that advances are maybe 1/2 the total compensation on average*, that becomes $270k-modern/year once averaged. That shifts it to I guess 'really nice normal folk money'-levels (where I work there are plenty of doctors, lawyers, IT professionals and executives who do better, but factoring in student debt and such maybe it's on par), but less than, say, the surgeon I know. That's just less than I expected (again, huge amount of missing knowledge in this analysis).
> *this is a wild stab in the dark in absence of any information on the subject of residuals, and also how sales of W&H novels have done over time.



I'd wager that it was enough money to live very well off of, but that any author that's actually worth a lot of money makes it through alternative revenue streams:


Paid signings and readings
Merch
Movies and games

JK Rowling isn't a billionaire because the books sold well, for example.

I just don't think there's the kind of money in books to pay authors the kind of sums you were thinking of after production and every taking their cut.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Jul 22, 2022)

DorkForge said:


> I just don't think there's the kind of money in books to pay authors the kind of sums you were thinking of after production and every taking their cut.



Just to clarify -- I was very aware that, on average, being an author is not a great way to make a living. I just thought it was more similar to actors and musicians -- 99-99.99% of people do not make it big, but the people I can name off the top of my head make far and away more than my work peers and I. I just thought that the Weis and Hickmans of the worlds, while not Mick Jaggers and Meryl Streep's, would have been like maybe Zach Braff and Peter Cetera. Perhaps I'm adding a 0 or two to how many units sold being on the bestseller list implies (since you are right, there are about 5-6 cuts taken out of $5-20 books before they get back to the author).


----------



## Staffan (Jul 22, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Is the $30k the entirety of the pay though?  Wouldn't Weis get residual payments for each book sold?



My understanding (which could be utterly wrong) is that publishers usually have a standard royalty rate (X% or Y dollars/cents per copy sold), and don't vary that much. You get that rate whether you are Stephen King or a nobody. However, high profile authors can usually negotiate a higher (non-refundable) advance, which can often be so high that the publisher doesn't really expect it to pay off. This then becomes a stealth method of effectively paying high-profile authors higher royalties without changing the contracted numbers.


----------



## Von Ether (Jul 22, 2022)

MGibster said:


> As I understand it, Williams really alienated a lot of the creative forces behind D&D.  I'd never heard anything about Weis in particular, but after reading it I can't say I'm particularly shocked.  I've said it once and I expect I'll say it many more times, the more I learn about TSR the more amazed I am they managed to be so successful for as long as they were.  If you strike gold, you can make money hand over fist even if you're a terrible business person (that applies to the whole of TSR not just under Williams' tenure).



And they have proven that psychologically, many such lucky people will eventually justify their windfall to their own attributes and supposed acumen. Or worse yet, assume that others must be dumber for not making their own fortunes so easily.


----------



## Von Ether (Jul 22, 2022)

DorkForge said:


> I'd wager that it was enough money to live very well off of, but that any author that's actually worth a lot of money makes it through alternative revenue streams:
> 
> 
> Paid signings and readings
> ...



Funny story, the writer for First Blood though his agent was crazy for haggling over the rights on action figures for a dark novel about 'Nam vet hiding out in the woods. 

The movie based on that book took the title from the protagonist, _Rambo_.


----------



## GreyLord (Jul 22, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Is the $30k the entirety of the pay though?  Wouldn't Weis get residual payments for each book sold?




Probably (in otherwords, yes, she would probably get royalties off of each book sold).  They get an advance (or normally, that was how it worked) on the book.  This was an advance on the royalties expected. 

The publisher estimated how much money a book might make, then made a safe proposal on how much they would pay the author in advance for the book.  It would be assumed the book would make FAR more for the publisher than that  amount.

The author also would normally make money from royalties as well, assuming the book made enough to get to the point that royalties were more than what the advance was.


----------



## SAVeira (Jul 22, 2022)

Von Ether said:


> Funny story, the writer for First Blood though his agent was crazy for haggling over the rights on action figures for a dark novel about 'Nam vet hiding out in the woods.
> 
> The movie based on that book took the title from the protagonist, _Rambo_.



Given the amount of toys I have seen for Rambo, it was a smart move.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 22, 2022)

Von Ether said:


> Funny story, the writer for First Blood though his agent was crazy for haggling over the rights on action figures for a dark novel about 'Nam vet hiding out in the woods.
> 
> The movie based on that book took the title from the protagonist, _Rambo_.



The original movie, before the sequels, was also called First Blood.


----------



## Jer (Jul 22, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> The original movie, before the sequels, was also called First Blood.



It still surprises me a bit that the story of a Vietnam vet dealing with PTSD and abusive cops turned into an action movie franchise.  The 80s were weird man.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 22, 2022)

Jer said:


> It still surprises me a bit that the story of a Vietnam vet dealing with PTSD and abusive cops turned into an action movie franchise.  The 80s were weird man.



Well, it helps that Stallone extensively re-wrote the script so that Rambo never deliberately kills any of the cops or soldiers who go after him, no matter how sadistic or aggressive they are.  The worst of them die in poetic justice quasi-accidents due to their own recklessness.

This tones down the darkness of the original book and the several screenplays based on it that people had tried to do prior.  The earlier versions of the story made Rambo less sympathetic, or where they did make him sympathetic, were critical of the Vietnam war and the government.

The final version of the movie avoids making Rambo a murderer, and almost completely avoids actually criticizing the US government.  This leaves the way open for him to be "rehabilitated" as a heroic soldier working for the authorities.  :/

But yeah, that first movie still shows some of the original darkness and nuance, that were completely abandoned to make it an action franchise.  The action figures and toys still weirded me out, though, even as a kid.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 22, 2022)

Jer said:


> It still surprises me a bit that the story of a Vietnam vet dealing with PTSD and abusive cops turned into an action movie franchise.  The 80s were weird man.




_So I have an idea for a film!_

Sure, what is it?

_Well, how about we get comedian Andy Kaufman for a rom-com. You might know him for his anti-humor and cringe comedy?_

Loving it already! Who is the love interest?

_Star of Broadway .... BERNADETTE PETERS!_

I'm loving it! Those are two face America loves.

_Oh, no. You don't want their faces. They will be .... ROBOTS. Robots with a child!_

You had me at ROBOT! So, who do we get to voice the child-bot?

_Who else? Beloved stoner icon Jerry Garcia! _

BOX OFFICE! 

And this is how Heartbeeps came to be. THE 80s!


----------



## Jer (Jul 22, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> But yeah, that first movie still shows some of the original darkness and nuance, that were completely abandoned to make it an action franchise.  The action figures and toys still weirded me out, though, even as a kid.



They made a kids cartoon!  I was a young teen when it came out (I think I was 13-14) but I remember thinking "that doesn't seem right".

(Speaking of Stallone - I don't know if the Rambo cartoon was weirder or less weird than the fact that they wanted to put Rocky Balboa into the GI Joe toy line. I even owned the comic book where they wrote him up as a member of GI Joe before the deal fell through.  The 80s were so weird.)


----------



## Jer (Jul 22, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> And this is how Heartbeeps came to be. THE 80s!



True story - for a good solid decade I thought I had imagined the existence of Heartbeeps. Nobody I knew ever heard of it and my descriptions of it made it sound like a fever dream.

When the Internet reached the point where it could confirm the existence of Heartbeeps for me it was a good day for my mental health, but a bad day for my belief in humanity.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 22, 2022)

Jer said:


> True story - for a good solid decade I thought I had imagined the existence of Heartbeeps. Nobody I knew ever heard of it and my descriptions of it made it sound like a fever dream.
> 
> When the Internet reached the point where it could confirm the existence of Heartbeeps for me it was a good day for my mental health, but a bad day for my belief in humanity.




If you want to understand the movies of the 80s, I find that this anecdote from Paul Schrader (about his experience directing _Cat People*_) is very helpful:

_One day, I had been doing some coke in my trailer, I didn’t want to come out. My AD [assistant director] came in to get me. He started doing drugs. The second AD came in to try and get us both out. Then the three of us were there doing coke… Somebody said, "How are we gonna get anybody to direct this movie?"_



*The next time someone tells you that the movie _Cats _was messed up, tell them to watch the 1982 _Cat People _and get back to you.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 22, 2022)

Jer said:


> It still surprises me a bit that the story of a Vietnam vet dealing with PTSD and abusive cops turned into an action movie franchise. The 80s were weird man.



With the runaway success of Star Wars action figures in the 1970s, everyone wanted a piece of that action.  You think Rambo is weird?  They made action figures for children based on the movie _Alien_.


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Jul 22, 2022)

Ath-kethin said:


> Ok! Fine! I'll buy the damn book.
> 
> Sheesh.



All these excerpts have definitely had that effect on me too. I know that’s their purpose, but damn has Ben Riggs really been able to show what was really happening behind the curtain with D&D like no other book I’ve heard of.


----------



## Ath-kethin (Jul 22, 2022)

Olaf the Stout said:


> All these excerpts have definitely had that effect on me too. I know that’s their purpose, but damn has Ben Riggs really been able to show what was really happening behind the curtain with D&D like no other book I’ve heard of.



Exactly!

I was gonna end up buying it anyway, just not, you know, _today_.


----------



## Mull Ponders (Jul 22, 2022)

I got the book 2 days ago, finished reading it yesterday. The whole book is like this excerpt. Buy it now.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 23, 2022)

MGibster said:


> But I do think she doesn't get the credit she deserves for saving TSR in the immediate aftermath of taking it over.



Nope. She just brought the cash the Blume Brothers needed to oust Gygax.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 23, 2022)

Ranger REG said:


> Nope. She just brought the cash the Blume Brothers needed to oust Gygax.



TSR was not in good shape when Gygax was ousted.  According to Jeff Grub, "When she came on board, we were about two paychecks away from closing the doors....We were all on pay deferments" and describes her as the "grown-up" who knew how to talk with the banks.  She even made sure the staff was paid all the money they were owed with interest.  John Rateliff said, "Every single person I talked to who worked under Gary and the Blumes and then worked under Lorraine preferred working under Lorraine."  This is from _Slaying the Dragon:  A Secret History of Dungeons & Dragons_ by Ben Riggs.


----------



## DarkCrisis (Jul 23, 2022)

The DL trilogy introduced me to the fantasy genre.  If it wasn’t for those novels I might never have gotten into D&D and I’d be a totally different man today


----------



## QuentinGeorge (Jul 23, 2022)

MGibster said:


> TSR was not in good shape when Gygax was ousted.  According to Jeff Grub, "When she came on board, we were about two paychecks away from closing the doors....We were all on pay deferments" and describes her as the "grown-up" who knew how to talk with the banks.  She even made sure the staff was paid all the money they were owed with interest.  John Rateliff said, "Every single person I talked to who worked under Gary and the Blumes and then worked under Lorraine preferred working under Lorraine."  This is from _Slaying the Dragon:  A Secret History of Dungeons & Dragons_ by Ben Riggs.



Yeah I think everyone’s forgetting TSR really didn’t have great management until WoTC bought it out.


----------



## Orius (Jul 23, 2022)

If you really want to damn with faint praise, I suppose you could say that Williams kept TSR afloat long enough for WotC to buy it.


----------



## fikuvino (Jul 23, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> Just to clarify -- I was very aware that, on average, being an author is not a great way to make a living. I just thought it was more similar to actors and musicians -- 99-99.99% of people do not make it big, but the people I can name off the top of my head make far and away more than my work peers and I. I just thought that the Weis and Hickmans of the worlds, while not Mick Jaggers and Meryl Streep's, would have been like maybe Zach Braff and Peter Cetera. Perhaps I'm adding a 0 or two to how many units sold being on the bestseller list implies (since you are right, there are about 5-6 cuts taken out of $5-20 books before they get back to the author).




The publishing business is unlike most others.  You might be surprised at how little many well-known fiction authors make.  It isn't unusual for people with fairly extensive writing credits and names that people would tend to recognize (within genre circles, at least) to have a "day job" or to rely heavily on a spouse who has one.   It can also be a lot more lucrative to write for certain genres (particularly romance) versus others (like horror).

Keep in mind that "bestseller lists" often don't accurately reflect how well certain books are selling versus similar ones.  They are easily manipulated, using a variety of techniques, and frequently are.  The sales numbers can be fudged in a number of ways (ex. double-counting books when they go through wholesalers and then again through retail establishments).  Even the big lists, like the ones from the New York Times, don't tell you much beyond the fact that the publishers are really working hard to push certain titles.  As a librarian, I can also testify to the fact that many "bestseller list" titles get a brief surge of interest, but have little in the way of lasting appeal.

Back in the 1960s (and earlier), some fiction writers could make a living just doing short stories for magazines.  There were fewer channels on TV and fewer multiplex movie theaters, so people tended to read for entertainment more extensively.  By the 1980s, though, the situation was very different.  Being a fiction writer was no longer nearly as lucrative.  The financial benefits of being a fiction writer just continued to drop over the years.

(Note that I kept saying "fiction writer."  Things are a little different for non-fiction writers.)


----------



## JLowder (Jul 23, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Is the $30k the entirety of the pay though?  Wouldn't Weis get residual payments for each book sold?




Fiction publishing deals generally include an advance and then royalties, which you get if the book sells well enough to earn back the advance. The royalty rates TSR paid the fiction authors improved significantly in the late 80s, well after the original six-book Dragonlance deal, but even then the royalty rates could be on the low end for what New York houses paid, especially for bestselling authors. The TSR fiction contract in the late 80s also gave authors a cut of translations, but I don't know if that was part of the earlier contracts. The standard contracts did not include payments for other subsidiary uses of the novels, like comics or movies or toys.


----------



## JLowder (Jul 23, 2022)

DorkForge said:


> Besides residual payments this also assumes that they're only putting out one book per year, when it was $30k per book. Given the high turn over of fantasy novels, I wouldn't be surprised if they delivered them all in a year for a total of $90k at the time.




A typical TSR novel in the 80s and 90s was 90,000 to 100,000 words. Writing a novel a year is a very good pace for an author. Each book requires not just the time to write it (four to six months for the first draft if you are fast), but the time required for multiple revision passes based on editorial input (a month or two each pass, at minimum). If the author is not writing fulltime--and most authors do not--that work gets done on nights and weekends, around a day job.


----------



## DorkForge (Jul 23, 2022)

JLowder said:


> A typical TSR novel in the 80s and 90s was 90,000 to 100,000 words. Writing a novel a year is a very good pace for an author. Each book requires not just the time to write it (four to six months for the first draft if you are fast), but the time required for multiple revision passes based on editorial input (a month or two each pass, at minimum). If the author is not writing fulltime--and most authors do not--that work gets done on nights and weekends, around a day job.



This varies from author to author, and these books are written by two people.

Wikipedia lists four books in the book series being talked about. The first was published in 1987, the subsequent three were all published in 1988. So either the publisher sat on the initial books for years, which would be a very odd decision financially, or they produced 4 books in less than two years, likely three within 12 months.

Given the release pace of a lot of fantasy novels I find your timeline a stretch (and as someone that writes by the word for a living, writing that much certainly isn't impossible or even unlikely, Brandon Sanderson wrote multiple novels just in the increased downtime the Pandemic created for example).


----------



## Dioltach (Jul 23, 2022)

I just want to express my appreciation not only for the various Weiss & Hickman series in the 1980s (DL Chronicles and Legends, Darksword and Rose of the Prophet), but also for the insights provided in this thread about publishing in general and at TSR in particular.


----------



## Waller (Jul 23, 2022)

DorkForge said:


> This varies from author to author, and these books are written by two people.
> 
> Wikipedia lists four books in the book series being talked about. The first was published in 1987, the subsequent three were all published in 1988. So either the publisher sat on the initial books for years, which would be a very odd decision financially, or they produced 4 books in less than two years, likely three within 12 months.
> 
> Given the release pace of a lot of fantasy novels I find your timeline a stretch (and as someone that writes by the word for a living, writing that much certainly isn't impossible or even unlikely, Brandon Sanderson wrote multiple novels just in the increased downtime the Pandemic created for example).



You’re replying to James Lowder, who wrote numerous TSR novels and ran the TSR books department.


----------



## Blue Orange (Jul 23, 2022)

Waller said:


> You’re replying to James Lowder, who wrote numerous TSR novels and ran the TSR books department.




Scene somewhere up above:

"So, you see, there's this game I used to play back on earth, you know? You could play a character, and you rolled it up with these dice. Funny dice, not just with six sides, they could have up to 20. Yeah, neat right? 20-sided die, rolled around a lot. You had to color in the numbers yourself, eventually they got ones with the numbers colored in. So anyway, you could make characters, and you'd go through this big underground complex-type thing, and try to get the treasure without running into monsters. And they had all kinds of monsters, from mythology around the world, they had like a rakshasa from India and medusas from Greek mythology and stuff. And if you got enough treasure and killed enough monsters, you'd go up in levels, which meant you got tougher and you could have more spells if you were, you know, a wizard or something. It was a really awesome game! I think you might like, it, Gary...what did you say your last name was?"


----------



## DorkForge (Jul 23, 2022)

Waller said:


> You’re replying to James Lowder, who wrote numerous TSR novels and ran the TSR books department.



And yet what he said directly conflicts with the release dates of the books being discussed?

R.A. Salvatore also frequently had multiple books released in the same year. So when a post presents that kind of pace as unrealistic, which is what it seemed to do, it doesn't line up with what actually happened.

If the intent was different then how I took it, then fair enough, but it seemed to be pushing back against delivering 2-3 books in a year, when they actually published 3 in the same year and one in the year prior.

And looking at Margaret Weis' bibliography in general seems to support that pacing, with the three Dragonlance Legends books all being released in 1986, four titles down for 1988 and so on. Multiple books in a year seemed to be the default?


----------



## JLowder (Jul 23, 2022)

DorkForge said:


> This varies from author to author, and these books are written by two people.
> 
> Wikipedia lists four books in the book series being talked about. The first was published in 1987, the subsequent three were all published in 1988. So either the publisher sat on the initial books for years, which would be a very odd decision financially, or they produced 4 books in less than two years, likely three within 12 months.
> 
> Given the release pace of a lot of fantasy novels I find your timeline a stretch (and as someone that writes by the word for a living, writing that much certainly isn't impossible or even unlikely, Brandon Sanderson wrote multiple novels just in the increased downtime the Pandemic created for example).




Fiction authors are considered above average in speed if they produce one 100,000-word book a year, year after year. A really fast pace is two books in one year. That pace tends to be unsustainable for more than a few years. Sanderson is the exception as a single author, not the rule, and he is successful enough that he has a team to support him doing the day to day business stuff that authors normally have to cover themselves. For the two original Dragonlance trilogies, Margaret and Tracy had one book in 84, two in 85, with the three coming in 86. (Six books in three years breaks down to two books a year.) But there are two of them, and even then, three books in one year is not common, even for a team.

I scheduled fiction as part of TSR's Book Department for several years and have done the same for many other publishers. I've written several novels myself. The standard schedule for a novel at TSR circa 1990 was 6 to 9 months for creation, then time for editing, revisions, and production. Around a year from contract to print on the quick plan, and that was fast for the industry. The shortest deadlines for first drafts around that time might be three to four months, but those deadlines tended to lead to heavy revisions and delays at that stage, so the schedules were slowed to give the writers more time. (To be more specific: I signed the contract for the Realms novel Prince of Lies in March 1992, with the first draft due on November 1. A couple additional months were scheduled for revisions as part of the contract. Target publication date was July 1993. This was a fairly typical schedule.)

Yes, there were people who could write faster, but they were the exceptions, not the rule. TSR started creating and scheduling multi-author trilogies and series because they wanted to release a new book in a line every four to six months (four for the really successful series, six for the smaller series) and individual authors could not keep up that pace.


----------



## JLowder (Jul 23, 2022)

DorkForge said:


> R.A. Salvatore also frequently had multiple books released in the same year. So when a post presents that kind of pace as unrealistic, which is what it seemed to do, it doesn't line up with what actually happened.




Bob is one of the rare authors who is comfortable producing two quality books a year, and has done so for a long time. For most authors that pace is unrealistic. There are other authors who are even faster than Bob. Dan Parkinson, who wrote some later Dragonlance novels, was a machine. His output was daunting. Troy Denning had a few years of multi-book quality output, too. But he has not maintained that pace. To get the sense of the average speed at TSR, though, you need to look at all the writers in the roster or in the market.

Here's a piece from Writer's Digest that gives a fairly standard breakdown of novel composition time. The TSR books were produced more quickly. How Long Does It Take To Write A Novel?


----------



## DorkForge (Jul 24, 2022)

JLowder said:


> Fiction authors are considered above average in speed if they produce one 100,000-word book a year, year after year. A really fast pace is two books in one year. That pace tends to be unsustainable for more than a few years. Sanderson is the exception as a single author, not the rule, and he is successful enough that he has a team to support him doing the day to day business stuff that authors normally have to cover themselves. For the two original Dragonlance trilogies, Margaret and Tracy had one book in 84, two in 85, with the three coming in 86. (Six books in three years breaks down to two books a year.) But there are two of them, and even then, three books in one year is not common, even for a team.
> 
> I scheduled fiction as part of TSR's Book Department for several years and have done the same for many other publishers. I've written several novels myself. The standard schedule for a novel at TSR circa 1990 was 6 to 9 months for creation, then time for editing, revisions, and production. Around a year from contract to print on the quick plan, and that was fast for the industry. The shortest deadlines for first drafts around that time might be three to four months, but those deadlines tended to lead to heavy revisions and delays at that stage, so the schedules were slowed to give the writers more time. (To be more specific: I signed the contract for the Realms novel Prince of Lies in March 1992, with the first draft due on November 1. A couple additional months were scheduled for revisions as part of the contract. Target publication date was July 1993. This was a fairly typical schedule.)
> 
> Yes, there were people who could write faster, but they were the exceptions, not the rule. TSR started creating and scheduling multi-author trilogies and series because they wanted to release a new book in a line every four to six months (four for the really successful series, six for the smaller series) and individual authors could not keep up that pace.



I really don't understand what the point you're trying to make here is. You replied to a conversation about Margaret Weis. You then go on about the standard pace for writing and how most people aren't like that, pointing at her (and others) as exceptions to the rule.


...What does the rule matter when we're talking explicitly about the exception? Most people can't run a sub 10 second 100m dash, but if we're talking about Usain Bolt that isn't really relevant, is it?

Most writers would not have turned in two or three books in a single year, yet she (and Tracy Hickman) has, multiple times apparently.

Entirely separately, if they signed on for a trilogy it's not out of the realms of possibility that they got an advance on the series, rather than on a book-by-book submission anyway.


----------



## JLowder (Jul 24, 2022)

DorkForge said:


> I really don't understand what the point you're trying to make here is. You replied to a conversation about Margaret Weis. You then go on about the standard pace for writing and how most people aren't like that, pointing at her (and others) as exceptions to the rule.




You were the one who quoted me and then challenged my comments about the typical timeline. Typical. Margaret and Tracy are exceptions. Attempts to cast them as somehow typical for TSR or fantasy in general are misplaced and simply, factually wrong.

Your point now seems to be Margaret and Tracy wrote as quickly as Margaret and Tracy wrote.

Well, yes. Of course they did.


----------



## JLowder (Jul 24, 2022)

DorkForge said:


> Entirely separately, if they signed on for a trilogy it's not out of the realms of possibility that they got an advance on the series, rather than on a book-by-book submission anyway.




Book royalties are typically tracked by individual book, and that was the standard practice at TSR by 88. An advance is assigned to a specific book, even in a series, with subsequent sales of the individual book tallied against that advance. The alternative is to basket the three books in a trilogy for accounting purposes, consider it as a single book. Possible, but not standard practice.

As far as the speculation on advances, TSR policy was to pay staff writing novels minimal or even no advances. The management reasoning was that you didn't need the advance because you had your salary to live on while writing the book. Even after payment terms for the novels improved, after Margaret and Tracy left, advances paid to staff for novels were miserable. My advances for the novels I wrote while a TSR staffer were precisely $0 per book.


----------



## Blue Orange (Jul 24, 2022)

So there was this idea when I took econ of 'compensating differentials'--basically, if the job is more interesting/exciting/whatever, it'll pay less. Garbage collectors actually make a pretty good living in many places because their jobs are smelly and dangerous, so you have to pay people more to take the job. Creative people are often passionate about what they do, which makes them easier to exploit. Given the number of people willing to produce game material for free, this puts a huge downward pressure on those who try to make a living doing it.


----------



## DorkForge (Jul 24, 2022)

JLowder said:


> You were the one who quoted me and then challenged my comments about the typical timeline. Typical. Margaret and Tracy are exceptions. Attempts to cast them as somehow typical for TSR or fantasy in general are misplaced and simply, factually wrong.
> 
> Your point now seems to be Margaret and Tracy wrote as quickly as Margaret and Tracy wrote.
> 
> Well, yes. Of course they did.



I have no idea if you posted in the thread earlier, but at the very least on this page you replied quoting to another user and myself. 

I did not start this exchange, you did.

You did so by quoting when I said "Given the high turn over of fantasy novels, I wouldn't be surprised if they delivered them all in a year for a total of $90k at the time." And then proceeded to harp on about the writing pace of nameless fantasy authors not being discussed.

Fantasy novels _do _have a reputation for high quantity, precisely because of largely visible names like Margaret Weis, Tracy Hickman, R.A. Salvator etc. 

So when I reference that reputation and say I wouldn't be surprised that they wrote that fast, you seem to be surprised when my position is that they wrote that fast. It has been my position all along. You seem to have taken from what I wrote that it's normal for all authors to write at that pace, if that is what you took from the post, let me correct that: I am not under that illusion. Most writers don't succeed, the conversation wasn't about them, or writers that peak at one book a year. Which is why I didn't agree with your replies, which seemed to be pointing towards her (them) not writing that fast, which is factually incorrect.

Hopefully that has cleared this up.


----------



## GreyLord (Jul 24, 2022)

JLowder said:


> Book royalties are typically tracked by individual book, and that was the standard practice at TSR by 88. An advance is assigned to a specific book, even in a series, with subsequent sales of the individual book tallied against that advance. The alternative is to basket the three books in a trilogy for accounting purposes, consider it as a single book. Possible, but not standard practice.
> 
> As far as the speculation on advances, TSR policy was to pay staff writing novels minimal or even no advances. The management reasoning was that you didn't need the advance because you had your salary to live on while writing the book. Even after payment terms for the novels improved, after Margaret and Tracy left, advances paid to staff for novels were miserable. My advances for the novels I wrote while a TSR staffer were precisely $0 per book.




Thanks for the comments (I think I ninja'd your first on the advance/royalties some posts back, but I didn't write about everything else).

A thought in regards to this...I'm not sure, but it could apply???

I think the above may apply to Dragonlance??  At least Chronicles and Legends?  At first, it was probably the royalties, but later they published the omnibuses which would have probably been the basket case for them?

At least for the Omnibus editions?

You may be able to clarify, especially what the terms were if that happened with the Omnibuses in relation to the later printings of the individual novels (or when they were printed both at the same time, that may have happened after you though).


----------



## JLowder (Jul 24, 2022)

Blue Orange said:


> So there was this idea when I took econ of 'compensating differentials'--basically, if the job is more interesting/exciting/whatever, it'll pay less. Garbage collectors actually make a pretty good living in many places because their jobs are smelly and dangerous, so you have to pay people more to take the job. Creative people are often passionate about what they do, which makes them easier to exploit. Given the number of people willing to produce game material for free, this puts a huge downward pressure on those who try to make a living doing it.




Absolutely. And many publishers and IP holders exploit this enthusiasm. The rise of social media has made that exploitation more difficult or at least more visible. It's harder to hide the inequity of a studio raking in billions in box office and a comics creator upon whose work the lucrative media is built running a GoFundMe to stop from being evicted.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 24, 2022)

This thread took a weird and surreal turn.


----------



## JLowder (Jul 24, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> Thanks for the comments (I think I ninja'd your first on the advance/royalties some posts back, but I didn't write about everything else).
> 
> A thought in regards to this...I'm not sure, but it could apply???
> 
> ...




How the omnibuses of a work-for-hire series or trilogy are handled would be dictated by the individual contracts. New contracts for authors whose work the IP owner is likely to release in omnibus (Margaret and Tracy, Bob Salvatore, etc) will contain specific terms for omnibus editions, if the person negotiating the contract is doing their job.

If the original work-for-hire contracts did not include terms or clauses that would cover the omnibus publication, the publisher or IP owner might go back to the author or their agent with an offer--we'll pay $X for an advance against Y% of cover price for print royalties and Z% of net for audiobooks and ebooks and translations. That's if the IP owner wants to be collaborative. If all three books in the trilogy paid the same royalty originally and the IP owner or the publisher just wanted to move ahead without negotiating, they might apply that rate to the omnibus and maybe offer a new advance, maybe not. It all depends upon how hardline and confrontational they wanted to be. 

If the IP owner is being openly hostile, they may try to jam the omnibus into the lowest-paying clause in the contract and dare the authors to challenge them. Or they might try to claim the contract did not specify any author payment for an omnibus, so the author gets nothing for that. They just get paid for the individual books.

With work-for-hire--which is the type of contract used for all the TSR shared-world novels--the IP owner holds all the rights, so they have a lot of power. The author only gets payments for the things specified in the agreement.

For accounting, the omnibus likely would be treated as a separate item from the individual books, with the omnibus sales accruing to that line item, not the individual books. From a practical publishing perspective, the publisher needs to keep track of the omnibus sales to see if releasing it was worth the cost and effort. (Ebooks and audiobooks of a single work are tracked as separate line items, as well, though they might be tallied against the original advance for the book, which also covered individual print.)

These are issues with work-for-hire contracts, when the publisher holds all the rights to the work and the author only gets what the publisher agrees to get them. Many work-for-hire fiction projects pay flat fee advances and do not pay royalties or a cut of translations or a cut of audiobooks. The TSR/WotC novels are, overall, okay deals that way.

With a creator-owned novel trilogy, the omnibus question will require a lot less thought. If an omnibus edition was not covered in the original contract, most legit publishers will have to go back to the author or their agent with an offer. That's because the baseline rights for the work belong to the author (not another IP owner) and the contract probably includes some variation of of the line "all rights not specifically covered in this agreement remain with the author."

In other words, if the deal does not include an omnibus and spell out what the author is paid for one, the publisher can't do an omnibus without securing the author's explicit permission.


----------



## JLowder (Jul 24, 2022)

DorkForge said:


> Fantasy novels _do _have a reputation for high quantity, precisely because of largely visible names like Margaret Weis, Tracy Hickman, R.A. Salvator etc.




That is a false impression of the market. Because a small number of authors can publish more than a book a year, that does not make that output the standard or worth noting as more than an aberration. At TSR, there were some authors through the early 90s who wrote quickly, but the pace wore on them and caused conflict with the company over the working conditions and pay--including all three of the authors you list. Bob Salvatore clashed with the company in the mid-90s specifically because they wanted him to write even more quickly, or use what amounted to ghosts to make it look like he was writing more quickly, and he said no.



> I find your timeline a stretch (and as someone that writes by the word for a living, writing that much certainly isn't impossible or even unlikely,




The timeline I quoted for the average TSR novel was not my opinion. That's what the typical novel creation timeline was in the late 80s through the mid-90s at TSR. It's been pretty much the same at every fiction publisher I've worked with over the years, for the typical novel-length project. I provided a link to a Writer's Digest article covering that same sort of timeline. This is not speculation.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 24, 2022)

Let's not forget the time as well.

If you're writing in the 80's, it's entirely possible to be writing on a typewriter.  Or, a very, very early version of a word processor.  Layout and all that good stuff was done by hand a lot of the times.  Editing is a LOT harder when you're doing it through hardcopy and email isn't really a thing yet.  All that is going to play into how fast you can bang out another book.  Imagine what it's like when your editor has to snail mail you revisions.  

Comparing writing in the 80's and even the 90's with writing now just isn't a realistic comparison.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jul 24, 2022)

DorkForge said:


> I have no idea if you posted in the thread earlier, but at the very least on this page you replied quoting to another user and myself.
> 
> I did not start this exchange, you did.
> 
> ...



Dude. Why so hostile?


----------



## JLowder (Jul 24, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Let's not forget the time as well.
> 
> If you're writing in the 80's, it's entirely possible to be writing on a typewriter.  Or, a very, very early version of a word processor.  Layout and all that good stuff was done by hand a lot of the times.  Editing is a LOT harder when you're doing it through hardcopy and email isn't really a thing yet.  All that is going to play into how fast you can bang out another book.  Imagine what it's like when your editor has to snail mail you revisions.
> 
> Comparing writing in the 80's and even the 90's with writing now just isn't a realistic comparison.




Great point.

Most of the fiction manuscripts we got at TSR were paper copies up until the early 90s, at which point we required both printed manuscripts and discs, from those who could provide them. Editing notes were indeed sent back to writers as handwritten notes on the 400-page physical manuscripts, with some general notes typed and printed on a dot matrix printer unless it was important enough to use the one laser printer in our area of the building. Lots of manuscripts and editing notes and page proofs heading around the country via the post, or with Ed Greenwood, international post to Canada. Occasionally editors did phone reviews, once the authors got the edited manuscripts in hand, but most of the communication was written and sent via snail mail. (This was the state of publishing into the 2000s.)

Some authors worked on computers in the late 80s, but even then, with TSR you had to type the formatting codes into the manuscript (<bi> for begin italics, </ei> for end italics, and so on), and there were file formats TSR could not translate into the line editor program we were using circa 1989 for final editing (yes, whole 100,000-word books edited one line at a time). It was easier and cheaper for TSR to have a typist retype an entire 400-page printed manuscript onto a disc in a format we could use than pay to translate, say, a TRS-80 file. And TSR was actually years ahead of many of the publishers in New York, when it came to computer use. 

(Even then, not without screw-ups. The TSR mainframe was, I think, a VAX, but at one point in late 88 or early 89, upper management all got brand new Apple II-somethings, which could not produce files that could be used anywhere else in the building. I ended up writing a file translation program we used around the office for a bit. I am not a computer guy and was not on any tech team; that says a lot about how seat-of-the-pants it all was.)

So, yes, all this added weeks to every book schedule with the writers and the publisher, sometimes months if the project was complicated enough.


----------



## Dioltach (Jul 24, 2022)

DorkForge said:


> Fantasy novels _do _have a reputation for high quantity, precisely because of largely visible names like Margaret Weis, Tracy Hickman, R.A. Salvator etc.



But at the same time I've also been waiting 9 years for the _Thorn of Emberlain_, and 11 years for _The Doors of Stone_ and _The Winds of Winter_ both.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 24, 2022)

Dioltach said:


> But at the same time I've also been waiting 9 years for the _Thorn of Emberlain_, and 11 years for _The Doors of Stone_ and _The Winds of Winter_ both.



*cough* George R. R. Martin *Cough*


----------



## Dioltach (Jul 24, 2022)

Hussar said:


> *cough* George R. R. Martin *Cough*



Like I said, 11 years of waiting for _The Winds of Winter_. But Rothfuss (_The Doors of Stone_) has proven to be just as bad, and Scott Lynch (_The Thorn of Emberlain_) is getting there.


----------



## Ath-kethin (Jul 24, 2022)

Ath-kethin said:


> Ok! Fine! I'll buy the damn book.
> 
> Sheesh.



And now I'm reading about other people reading the book and I REALLY want to read it myself, but I had to special order it from my local bookstore (they don't stock it) and of course it will arrive while I'm away at Gen Con.

Truly, my life is one of endless torment.


----------



## Richards (Jul 24, 2022)

Ah, but now you have something to look forward to after GenCon....

Johnathan


----------



## Blue Orange (Jul 24, 2022)

Hussar said:


> *cough* George R. R. Martin *Cough*



I kind of wonder if Martin's seen all the flamewars around the TV version of his epic and and decided to avoid releasing the end of his series.


----------



## GreyLord (Jul 24, 2022)

Blue Orange said:


> I kind of wonder if Martin's seen all the flamewars around the TV version of his epic and and decided to avoid releasing the end of his series.




I have a feeling it ended as he was wanting it, with the ending following a VERY rough outline of what he actually intended (but as it was not actually written, and probably very brief, so a LOT of it except for the most important point being written by D&D instead).

I'm not sure how he has reacted in regards to how people reacted to the end of the series (having to go back and rewrite causing further delay?  Choosing just to ignore getting there and not publishing it?)


----------



## Staffan (Jul 24, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> I have a feeling it ended as he was wanting it, with the ending following a VERY rough outline of what he actually intended (but as it was not actually written, and probably very brief, so a LOT of it except for the most important point being written by D&D instead).
> 
> I'm not sure how he has reacted in regards to how people reacted to the end of the series (having to go back and rewrite causing further delay?  Choosing just to ignore getting there and not publishing it?)



The overall direction, I can see: Danaerys becoming more and more fanatic about her own right to rule and willing to go to any lengths to put her own butt on the Iron Throne, leading to Jon having to put her down as he realizes she has turned into the grandfather his stepfather rebelled against.

The process leading up to that point? Ye gods, no.


----------



## DarkCrisis (Jul 24, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Could be either, or both.
> 
> A long time ago, I worked for a while in a chain book-store of some renown for a short period of time. And they had a mandate to shelve by author, not by title (even for series). No matter what. Which made for ... curious shelving decisions which people were not allowed to change. So I can understand why a publisher might want to keep a certain continuity.
> 
> OTOH, every IP owner, from Marvel on has a vested interest in ensuring that the IP is more important than any individual creator. There is always a push-pull between individual talent, and the IP itself. Viewed cynically, it's because the company wants to make sure that the revenue accrues only to the company, not to the creative talent. Viewed less cynically, it's so that you don't get into a situation where the IP is so tied into a single person that issues with that creator tank or deleteriously effect the IP (.....Potter.....).



It’s honestly shocking how mask off JK became and has done her part to tarnish the brand.  Also doesn’t help that the FBeasts films aren’t to good.

I mean Jeeze, there’s even a theme park!


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 24, 2022)

DarkCrisis said:


> It’s honestly shocking how mask off JK became and has done her part to tarnish the brand.  Also doesn’t help that the FBeasts films aren’t to good.
> 
> I mean Jeeze, there’s even a theme park!




The sad thing is … the theme park is actually quite good.

Eh … no, the sad thing is the damage Rowling does to others. But still … 

(And they are building more Potter-adjacent stuff at the massive Universal Park expansion - Epic Universe- as well, which normally I’d be stoked to go to, but I don’t want my money going to her.)


----------



## DarkCrisis (Jul 24, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> The sad thing is … the theme park is actually quite good.
> 
> Eh … no, the sad thing is the damage Rowling does to others. But still …
> 
> (And they are building more Potter-adjacent stuff at the massive Universal Park expansion - Epic Universe- as well, which normally I’d be stoked to go to, but I don’t want my money going to her.)



Very true.

Yeah ill still re-read/watch the old stuff I own but I’m not giving them any more cash.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 25, 2022)

JLowder said:


> The timeline I quoted for the average TSR novel was not my opinion. That's what the typical novel creation timeline was in the late 80s through the mid-90s at TSR. It's been pretty much the same at every fiction publisher I've worked with over the years, for the typical novel-length project. I provided a link to a Writer's Digest article covering that same sort of timeline. This is not speculation.



I'll note that the stuff Jim has been writing in here is very much consistent with the details in _Slaying the Dragon_.  The whole story of Bob Salvatore finally getting overwhelmed and quitting when TSR management insisted he write even faster for them and not write for another publisher is told in there.

Jim, thanks very much for contributing here and these additional details.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 25, 2022)

Hussar said:


> *cough* George R. R. Martin *Cough*



I've been waiting for _The City in Stone _by *Phyllis Eisenstein* since 1988. Darn thing is written, ready to publish, but will apparently never be published because the publisher went bankrupt and nobody else took it up before the author died.


----------



## Dioltach (Jul 25, 2022)

I've given up any hope of Geoffrey Chaucer ever finishing _The Legend of Good Women_.


----------



## darjr (Jul 25, 2022)

Oy.
If you want to come to a better understanding of the misogyny that Lorraine faced all you have to do is read Bens book.

It’s entirely possible for her to be horrible and good to some and face horrible misogyny. To have saved TSR and driven it to near bankruptcy later.

In fact Bens book is about this very thing.


----------



## QuentinGeorge (Jul 26, 2022)

darjr said:


> Oy.
> If you want to come to a better understanding of the misogyny that Lorraine faced all you have to do is read Bens book.
> 
> It’s entirely possible for her to be horrible and good to some and face horrible misogyny. To have saved TSR and driven it to near bankruptcy later.
> ...



I think TSRs problem was that everyone knew Lorraines methods weren’t working. But no one knew what method would work. Even WotC took a while to make D&D profitable again.

So yeah, she failed. As did Blume, Gygax and the rest. Turns out the “one simple trick” was as elusive as ever.


----------



## JLowder (Jul 27, 2022)

QuentinGeorge said:


> I think TSRs problem was that everyone knew Lorraines methods weren’t working. But no one knew what method would work. Even WotC took a while to make D&D profitable again.
> 
> So yeah, she failed. As did Blume, Gygax and the rest. Turns out the “one simple trick” was as elusive as ever.




People in house tried to tell upper management, including Lorraine, where at least some of the problems were cropping up. They were ignored or contradicted, especially by some of the VPs. I had a couple firsthand experiences raising red flags with upper management. The outcomes were depressingly uniform.

On Lorraine, it is possible to seize control of the bus and steer it away from a cliff, then run it off a different cliff. You should get credit for averting the first disaster.

Ben did a good job in the book talking to people with different takes on Lorraine. Her role is complicated. My experiences with her and the general management of the company were, on the whole, negative or baffling (frequently both), but I also became aware of the good Lorraine had personally done my friend Bill Connors and his family. From talking with employees of longer tenure, I knew that TSR was in dreadful shape before she took over. Credit where credit is due for keeping the lights on for more than a decade. Those years saw a lot of great work published, games and worlds and characters that are worthy in themselves but also provide key elements for the current D&D media renaissance.


----------



## Ath-kethin (Jul 29, 2022)

Given the option between levying tribute to Jeff Bezos (ordering through Amazon) and waiting a few days for my local bookstore to get the book for me, I chose the latter.

It was a rough wait, but the good news is I have some great reading just in time for the weekend!


----------



## Kestrel (Aug 1, 2022)

Just finished reading this.  Good book, well-written!


----------



## David Howery (Aug 16, 2022)

finished this book yesterday; sad how many of TSR's people (Weis was one of many) were treated so distantly there and left as a result.
I'm reminded that I was introduced to Weis at Gencon 1992.  I was at one of TSR's booths, talking to Roger Moore about something, and Weis came by carrying a bunch of t-shirts.  Roger introduced me to her... of course, she didn't have the foggiest idea who I was beyond "One of the vast horde of people who wrote for Dragon."  Still, she was a pretty nice person, and gave me one the t-shirts.  Which I still have.  It says "Weis & Hickman Traveling Road Show World Tour 1992" on the front; the back says "Featuring Fizban the Fabulous and his Gully Dward Orchestra..."A one and a two, and a two, and a two..."


----------



## Orius (Aug 18, 2022)

One of the vast horde?  You're one  of the more recognizable names from the late 80s to early 90s.  

But she might not have been a big reader of Dragon either.


----------



## glass (Aug 23, 2022)

Blue Orange said:


> I kind of wonder if Martin's seen all the flamewars around the TV version of his epic and and decided to avoid releasing the end of his series.



If Wikipedia is to be believed, it was six years between _A Feast for Crows_ and _A Dance With Dragons,_ and five years between _A Storm of Swords_ and _A Feast for Crows_ (compared with two-ish years between the first two volumes). Martin had slowed down significantly before the TV series even started. Although the poor reaction to certain elements of the TV series has probably not made finishing it any easier.


----------



## Mannahnin (Aug 23, 2022)

glass said:


> If Wikipedia is to be believed, it was six years between _A Feast for Crows_ and _A Dance With Dragons,_ and five years between _A Storm of Swords_ and _A Feast for Crows_ (compared with two-ish years between the first two volumes). Martin had slowed down significantly before the TV series even started. Although the poor reaction to certain elements of the TV series has probably not made finishing it any easier.



Yep.  I read the first three, waited five years for the next one, re-read the whole thing to get reacquainted with and immersed in all the characters and plotlines again, then waited ANOTHER five years.  And wrote it off rather than bother reading more.  There's a LOT of good stuff in those books, but it simply wasn't good enough to hold in my memory well enough for that second five years, or to invest the time in another re-read.


----------



## Dire Bare (Aug 24, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Yep.  I read the first three, waited five years for the next one, re-read the whole thing to get reacquainted with and immersed in all the characters and plotlines again, then waited ANOTHER five years.  And wrote it off rather than bother reading more.  There's a LOT of good stuff in those books, but it simply wasn't good enough to hold in my memory well enough for that second five years, or to invest the time in another re-read.



I've got no problem with Martin taking so long to finish A Song of Ice and Fire, but . . . . I'm waiting until he completely finishes the series, or his ghost writer does after he passes, before I dive back into those books. Someday.


----------



## Eltab (Aug 28, 2022)

Just finished reading the book (borrowed from library).

As noted previously, one of TSR's biggest problems was kicking high-quality talent out the door, or treating them so badly (usually over money) that they left on their own.  

What _could have been_, if TSR had recognized what generated the money in the first place.  Sigh.


----------



## Iosue (Aug 30, 2022)

Eltab said:


> Just finished reading the book (borrowed from library).
> 
> As noted previously, one of TSR's biggest problems was kicking high-quality talent out the door, or treating them so badly (usually over money) that they left on their own.
> 
> What _could have been_, if TSR had recognized what generated the money in the first place.  Sigh.



It’s just so crazy. Lorraine Williams had a meeting with _Christopher Tolkien_ that went like this:

Tolkien Estate: So we hear you would like the Lord of the Rings role-playing game license. This seems very possible.
TSR: Yes, and in addition to the role-playing game, we want to publish new LOTR fiction.
TE: Oh. We’re afraid new fiction is not on the table.
TSR: Fine, then we won’t do the role-playing game, then.


----------



## Mannahnin (Aug 31, 2022)

murrayjestin said:


> I guess I was wrong. She just sucked at running a business unless one counts running it into the ground as a successful business practice.
> Speed Test



For perspective, based on the book and what the ex-TSR employees who've commented on it here have said, she was much better at it than Gygax and the Blumes.  And nearly everyone who worked under both management regimes preferred her, damning with faint praise though that might be. 

She literally saved the company from bankruptcy when she took it over.  It took more than another ten years for her own errors to eventually run it into the ground again.  

James Lowder's comments up-thread are particularly illuminating.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 31, 2022)

I'm interested in this book, but when I read a line like "_You couldn’t swing a vorpal sword in the company offices without beheading a genius. Every department was thick with them, women and men whose minds sparkled like obsidian in firelight_" It makes me VERY leery of the objectivity of the author.

Can anyone who's read the book shed any light on whether this sort of verbiage is common, or if it's more of a one-off?


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 31, 2022)

Fifth Element said:


> I'm interested in this book, but when I read a line like "_You couldn’t swing a vorpal sword in the company offices without beheading a genius. Every department was thick with them, women and men whose minds sparkled like obsidian in firelight_" It makes me VERY leery of the objectivity of the author.
> 
> Can anyone who's read the book shed any light on whether this sort of verbiage is common, or if it's more of a one-off?



While it's not quite _that_ egregious most of the time, this type of language is common throughout the book. For instance, I was quite off-put by how Riggs repeatedly referred to Gary Gygax as "Saint Gary" in what was very clearly a sarcastic tone, as that came across as petty and mean-spirited.


----------



## David Howery (Sep 1, 2022)

murrayjestin said:


> I guess I was wrong. She just sucked at running a business unless one counts running it into the ground as a successful business practice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OTOH... she went out of her way to help Bill Connors when he was going through a really bad time, keeping him on the payroll when he wasn't able to really do his job.  And, regardless of the lack of financial success in the end, she was in charge when TSR was putting out scads of gorgeous settings.  Reading "Slaying the Dragon", you get the idea that what really sunk the company was that rather odd contract with Random House....


----------



## Alzrius (Sep 1, 2022)

David Howery said:


> Reading "Slaying the Dragon", you get the idea that what really sunk the company was that rather odd contract with Random House....



And their use of factoring their product line at the beginning of each year, which left them with zero flexibility with regard to things that happened over the next twelve months.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 1, 2022)

Fifth Element said:


> I'm interested in this book, but when I read a line like "_You couldn’t swing a vorpal sword in the company offices without beheading a genius. Every department was thick with them, women and men whose minds sparkled like obsidian in firelight_" It makes me VERY leery of the objectivity of the author.
> 
> Can anyone who's read the book shed any light on whether this sort of verbiage is common, or if it's more of a one-off?



Let's just say the book is very clear on who Riggs likes and who he doesn't.  Several times I was wondering if some of those people were paying him to say those things lol.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 1, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> While it's not quite _that_ egregious most of the time, this type of language is common throughout the book. For instance, I was quite off-put by how Riggs repeatedly referred to Gary Gygax as "Saint Gary" in what was very clearly a sarcastic tone, as that came across as petty and mean-spirited.






Sacrosanct said:


> Let's just say the book is very clear on who Riggs likes and who he doesn't.  Several times I was wondering if some of those people were paying him to say those things lol.




Thanks to you both for the responses.


----------



## Mannahnin (Sep 1, 2022)

Fifth Element said:


> Thanks to you both for the responses.



I'll third the confirmation that it's not an objective authorial voice, but TBH after reading (and quite enjoying) three books of Jon Peterson's, picking up an author with a, let's say, less _understated _opinion was actually kind of welcome.

Riggs' prose gets a little purple in spots, and he's definitely not trying to be really objective or pretend to be.  I've complained about his profligate use of the term "genius" before.  But overall he has an engaging voice and his bias is sympathetic to nearly every party he talks about.  It's a very human, enthusiast's, tone.

If I had to choose one or the other I'd go with Jon.  His rigor and detail are second to none, his understatement is scrupulous and sometimes genuinely funny, and he never gets florid.  But he hasn't written a book about the post-Gary period yet, and may not.  Riggs has come up with some really interesting facts, details, and stories I haven't seen anywhere else, and writes about them with some passion and dedication.  I was happy to read it and am happy to have read it, a few cringes at points in the prose though there might have been.

If your first priority is objectivity maybe it'll be off-putting for you.  If you're passionate about and interested in the history, it definitely helps fill in more of the picture in useful and sometimes moving ways, even if he oversells some stuff.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 1, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> I'll third the confirmation that it's not an objective authorial voice, but TBH after reading (and quite enjoying) three books of Jon Peterson's, picking up an author with a, let's say, less _understated _opinion was actually kind of welcome.
> 
> Riggs' prose gets a little purple in spots, and he's definitely not trying to be really objective or pretend to be.  I've complained about his profligate use of the term "genius" before.  But overall he has an engaging voice and his bias is sympathetic to nearly every party he talks about.  It's a very human, enthusiast's, tone.
> 
> ...



Yeah, there is *a lot *of great info in Rigg's book.  But it's clearly written by a fan.  Everyone he talks about is clearly dumped into a villain or hero or role.  I made the joke earlier, but I did wonder if Bruce Nesmith paid Riggs, because it's mentioned a lot about what an underappreciated genius he is  I think he mentions it more often than he says "Massachusetts Man" (which is also a lot, btw).

I'm giving Riggs a bit of a hard time, but honestly, it's OK that he's a fan with biases.  The book is still full of great info and worth the read.


----------



## Alzrius (Sep 1, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> The book is still full of great info and worth the read.



I'll third this (to borrow a term). The author made little effort to be unbiased, but there was still a lot of good information here if you're interested in the history of the hobby.


----------



## Iosue (Sep 2, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> Yeah, there is *a lot *of great info in Rigg's book. But it's clearly written by a fan. Everyone he talks about is clearly dumped into a villain or hero or role. I made the joke earlier, but I did wonder if Bruce Nesmith paid Riggs, because it's mentioned a lot about what an underappreciated genius he is  I think he mentions it more often than he says "Massachusetts Man" (which is also a lot, btw).
> 
> I'm giving Riggs a bit of a hard time, but honestly, it's OK that he's a fan with biases.  The book is still full of great info and worth the read.



Well, I don't know if Riggs was aware of it when he started his research, but I imagine he was floored to find that Nesmith not only had a hand in Dragonlance, and wrote the Ravenloft campaign setting, but also went on to be the lead designer for freaking _Skyrim_. Nesmith doesn't have the name recognition of Zeb Cook or Tracy Hickman, but he has one hell of a resume.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 2, 2022)

Iosue said:


> Well, I don't know if Riggs was aware of it when he started his research, but I imagine he was floored to find that Nesmith not only had a hand in Dragonlance, and wrote the Ravenloft campaign setting, but also went on to be the lead designer for freaking _Skyrim_. Nesmith doesn't have the name recognition of Zeb Cook or Tracy Hickman, but he has one hell of a resume.



Oh sure, but I suppose the point is, is that every time you bring someone up in a book, you don't have to keep saying what a genius they are.  We got it the first few times


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 3, 2022)

Fifth Element said:


> I'm interested in this book, but when I read a line like "_You couldn’t swing a vorpal sword in the company offices without beheading a genius. Every department was thick with them, women and men whose minds sparkled like obsidian in firelight_" It makes me VERY leery of the objectivity of the author.
> 
> Can anyone who's read the book shed any light on whether this sort of verbiage is common, or if it's more of a one-off?



It is. And it put me off in the beginning. But it also makes the book highly readable. It doesn't come off as dry history. The author does not attempt to be neutral in every statement, but is fair overall. He shares is opinions openly. It is more like having a conversation with a game historian than reading a game history. And that actually makes it a refreshing read.  

Also, he openly calls out and questions his biases at several points in the book.  He points out where the information he has is one sided.  This is particularly the case when talking about the Lorraine Williams. He points out that she wouldn't accept to be interviewed by him and that makes one-sided much of the story that involves her. He makes efforts to find reasonable explanations for some of her actions and decisions that do not, at first look, cast her in a good light. He highlights a lot of the good things she did as a businesswoman and a person. In doing so, he humanizes her in a way that a more dry, academic, disciplined neutral treatment would not. 

He does the same with Gygax and Arneson as well. Yes, he'll use sarcasm and joke about certain failings, but he also shares his appreciation for what these people still accomplished and makes meaningful efforts to let those who knew them speak in their defense. 

I really like the very humanizing treatment of the history that the book delivers. In my opinion, this book and the illustrated novel "The Rise of the Dungeon Master" are the two best biographical novels related to the hobby (the later more in terms of its treatment of Gygax and Arneson and their relationship--not Lorraine Williams).  This is definitely the most humanizing treatment of Lorraine Williams I've read.


----------



## Alzrius (Sep 3, 2022)

MNblockhead said:


> In my opinion, this book and the illustrated novel "The Rise of the Dungeon Master" are the two best biographical novels related to the hobby (the later more in terms of its treatment of Gygax and Arneson and their relationship--not Lorraine Williams).



As a note, Shannon Appelcline (author of _Designers & Dragons_) wrote a piece on RPG.net about _Rise of the Dungeon Master_, and pointed out that there were several things in it that were wrong, incomplete, or misleading.


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 3, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> As a note, Shannon Appelcline (author of _Designers & Dragons_) wrote a piece on RPG.net about _Rise of the Dungeon Master_, and pointed out that there were several things in it that were wrong, incomplete, or misleading.



Thanks for sharing that. Interesting and good to know about some of the historical facts being wrong it that book. But what I really like about the book was the humanizing of Gary and Arneson and showing how their relationship fractured and somewhat healed with time. I still think it is a beautiful book and worth reading, but I'm certainly not surprised that it doesn't have the academic discipline of _Designers and Dragons_.  Disapointing that more fact checking wasn't done, especially given that it was written by a journalist, but it seems to have gotten the broad strokes right.


----------



## el-remmen (Sep 3, 2022)

I am about 3/5s through the book and finding it meh. 

The info is great, but the writing is actually making me wish for Jon Peterson's drier style (something I did not expect was possible). It reads like it wants to be something like Sean Howe's amazing (and highly recommended) _Marvel: The Untold  Story _but falls short.


----------



## jeffh (Sep 9, 2022)

Iosue said:


> It’s just so crazy. Lorraine Williams had a meeting with _Christopher Tolkien_ that went like this:
> 
> Tolkien Estate: So we hear you would like the Lord of the Rings role-playing game license. This seems very possible.
> TSR: Yes, and in addition to the role-playing game, we want to publish new LOTR fiction.
> ...



It wasn't quite that simple. The licenses for movies and for the books were held by different entities and somehow the RPG rights fell into the movie rights bucket. That entity, they had no immediately obvious problems working with, and so for a while it looked like a TSR Middle Earth setting, probably for D&D, was a go. But Williams/TSR also wanted to do new Middle Earth fiction. That fell into the book rights bucket, held directly by the Tolkien estate. John Rateliff (not Williams) met with Christopher Tolkien, and though they got along decently, the answer regarding new fiction was a firm and decisive "no". Upon hearing that, Williams or in any case TSR upper management responded as you describe.

(Source: Just read that part of the book less than 48 hours ago.)


----------

