https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/roleplaying-game/news/dungeons-and-dragons-under-monetised-says-executives
Dungeons & Dragons executives think “the brand is really under monetised”
Wizards of the Coast want to create a “recurrent spending environment” around the popular tabletop RPG’s digital front.
by Chase Carter Contributor
Published on Dec. 9, 2022
Globally popular tabletop RPG Dungeons & Dragons has enjoyed an
explosion in popularity and commercial success over the last decade, but
the people in charge of the companies that own it are aiming for even greater financial heights.
During an investor-focused web seminar, Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks and
Wizards of the Coast CEO and president Cynthia Williams, briefly
discussed the future of D&D. The pair are the largest voices when it
comes to deciding its future, and Williams led with a doozy:
“D&D has never been more popular, and we have really great fans and engagement,” Williams began. “But the brand is really under monetised.”
She and Cocks spent the next nine minutes explaining how Wizards of the Coast might solve this corporate conundrum, and much of the initial work apparently rests at the feet of D&D Beyond. Wizards acquired the
company, along with the staff that maintains it, earlier this year. The digital toolkit that players use to reference material on digital
devices and maintain campaign information is also a powerful source of “data-driven insights” for Wizards.
Williams said that D&D Beyond will power the next phase of D&D, most
likely alluding to One D&D - the codenamed system edition is currently planned to drop a trio of rulebooks in 2024, and the designers have
released only three playtest documents with hints at how it might play.
The executives are less worried about design than installing more
on-ramps for players to spend their money. Williams mentioned that while dungeon masters comprise roughly 20% of the D&D player base, they make
up “the largest share of our paying players”. An investment in digital, she posits, will allow Wizards of the Coast to “unlock the type of recurrent spending you see in digital games”.
Neither Williams nor Cocks mention any specific video games as examples,
but it’s not difficult to imagine someone comparing D&D to the revenue model for Fortnite, Minecraft or League of Legends - all are games whose brand has been leveraged to sell anything even remotely related to
players who treat these titles as a lifestyle brand.
To wit, Cocks described a plan to shift D&D into a “4-quadrant brand” similar to Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. While the tabletop game
and its book releases - though how that might change in an increased
digital environment is an open question - will remain one of those
pillars, Wizards expects to invest more into the other three:
entertainment such as the upcoming Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among
Thieves film; “big, AAA video games” akin to Baldur's Gate 3; and an expanded line of toys, collectibles and other merchandise that fans will ostensibly buy because it carries the red, dragon-shaped ampersand on
the tag.
The film sounds like a lynchpin to this plan, creating a bevy of collectibles and toys now that Wizards can tie recognisable names to its roleplaying game. Sorry Elminster, you’ve got nothing on fantasy Chris Pine and Michelle Rodriguez. Unspoken but heavily implied in the conversation was the hope that Honor Among Thieves will act as the foundation for more entertainment, either feature-length films or
television series, a la Marvel.
Keep in mind that this meeting was largely meant to answer investor questions and gas them up for the future, but any players expecting
Wizards of the Coast to see the light and move towards investing more resources in the game design portion of their game will very likely be disappointed in the next five years. Dungeons & Dragons is now a
lifestyle brand with tabletop as a single cog in the money-printing machine.
https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/roleplaying-game/news/dungeons-and-dragons-under-monetised-says-executives?utm_source=social_sharing
Neither Williams nor Cocks mention any specific video games as examples, but it’s not difficult to imagine someone comparing D&D to the revenue model for Fortnite, Minecraft or League of Legends - all are games whose brand has been leveraged to sell anything even remotely related to
players who treat these titles as a lifestyle brand.
https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/roleplaying-game/news/dungeons-and-dragons-under-monetised-says-executives?utm_source=social_sharingSo if I'm reading this correctly, a guy named Cocks is going to screw the entire D&D fandom? The Onion really is redundant.
On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 1:34:03 PM UTC-8, iron...@gmail.com wrote:
Neither Williams nor Cocks mention any specific video games as examples, >> > but its not difficult to imagine someone comparing D&D to the revenue
model for Fortnite, Minecraft or League of Legends - all are games whose >> > brand has been leveraged to sell anything even remotely related to
players who treat these titles as a lifestyle brand.
https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/roleplaying-game/news/dungeons-and-dragons-under-monetised-says-executives?utm_source=social_sharingSo if I'm reading this correctly, a guy named Cocks is going to screw the entire D&D fandom? The Onion really is redundant.
Rent seeking behavior :(
Along with someone named Williams... who screwed Gygax both literally
and figuratively, hated the consumers of D&D and ran it into the ground.
- Justisaur
On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 07:45:41 -0800 (PST), Justisaur
<just...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 1:34:03 PM UTC-8, iron...@gmail.com wrote:
Neither Williams nor Cocks mention any specific video games as examples,
but it’s not difficult to imagine someone comparing D&D to the revenue
model for Fortnite, Minecraft or League of Legends - all are games whose
brand has been leveraged to sell anything even remotely related to
players who treat these titles as a lifestyle brand.
https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/roleplaying-game/news/dungeons-and-dragons-under-monetised-says-executives?utm_source=social_sharingSo if I'm reading this correctly, a guy named Cocks is going to screw the entire D&D fandom? The Onion really is redundant.
Rent seeking behavior :(
Along with someone named Williams... who screwed Gygax both literally
and figuratively, hated the consumers of D&D and ran it into the ground.
- JustisaurWilliams gets a lot of flack - and a good deal of it deserved - but
some of that vitriol is undeserved. The company was in incredibly bad
shape when she got it, the industry itself was changing radically, and
there was a lot of resistance from both the customers and the
employees to her making necessary changes. She was possibly not the
best person to be in charge of that company but I'm not sure anyone
could have managed the TSR into a better position (Wizards succeeded
in turning it around because they had the funds to make the necessary changes; TSR's finances were rarely so stable as to allow this).
Some of her decisions were questionable (her leveraging of the Buck
Rogers license for her own financial gain is probably the most
egregious). But the foundation of TSRs failure was written long before
she took charge, and I think as much blame needs be put on the Blumes
and Gygax; she was put in charge of a faltering company and the fact
that it lasted as long as it should also be acknowleded. Despite
everything, during her tenure TSR maintained its position in at the
head of the RPG market, and saw significant growth into novels, video
games, comics and magazines. A lot of the most beloved properties of
D&D - Planescape, Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms - were created under her leadership. All this during the worst of the 'Satanic Panic', as new
viable competitors took the stage, and video gaming became ever more prominent.
Lorraine isn't blameless, and I understand a lot of the anger against
her, but I think much of it is spiteful anger at her ousting of Gygax
(even though that was probably for the best), and by angry employees
who didn't agree with her methods or decisions and who might have had
a much narrower view of the overall picture. It just all seems very one-sided to put Williams as solely responsible for TSR's downfall.
She deserves some of the blame... but not all of it.
It also wouldn't shock me if there was just some good old-fashioned misogyny mixed in. Women in gaming at that time were often seen as 'interlopers'. Hell, women in the TTRPG community can still take shit for just being women in the TTRPG community. I've found a whole lot of really conservative dudes in the D&D fandom. Odd seeing as our hobby is pretending to be elves.
On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 17:09:17 -0800 (PST), "iron...@gmail.com" <ironstaff@gmail.com> wrote:
ve found a whole lot of really conservative dudes in the D&D fandom. Odd seeing as our hobby is pretending to be elves.It also wouldn't shock me if there was just some good old-fashioned misogyny mixed in. Women in gaming at that time were often seen as 'interlopers'. Hell, women in the TTRPG community can still take shit for just being women in the TTRPG community. I'
That sadly could be the case, but since there's no evidence to support
it either way I couldn't say. I'd like to say its unlikely -
especially since TSR did have some fantastic women writers working for
them - but given the era? Who knows.
The biggest problem I have is that a lot of the specific complaints
against Williams are very one-sided and usually single-sourced. Many
of the issues brought up may be accurate, but then again they might
not be. I think it's probably fair to say Williams was a difficult
boss to work with, especially in such a free-wheeling industry made up largely of creative types who were as (or more) interested in creating interesting, fun games than making money. Many of her decisions were
suspect (but again, we're lacking the full picture).
I certainly don't want to come across as a Williams-apologist (too
late?), but I think that the scorn heaped on her is neither accurate
nor fair, and tinged as much by the fact that she replaced Gygax as by
the ultimate fate of TSR. And the fact remains, despite TSR's
eventual collapse, she did lead the company through a golden age of creativity and success, yet she is never credited for any of that.
On 18/12/2022 16:18, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 17:09:17 -0800 (PST), "iron...@gmail.com"
<ironstaff@gmail.com> wrote:
It also wouldn't shock me if there was just some good
old-fashioned misogyny mixed in. Women in gaming at that time
were often seen as 'interlopers'. Hell, women in the TTRPG
community can still take shit for just being women in the
TTRPG community. I've found a whole lot of really conservative
dudes in the D&D fandom. Odd seeing as our hobby is pretending
to be elves.
That sadly could be the case, but since there's no evidence to
support it either way I couldn't say. I'd like to say its
unlikely - especially since TSR did have some fantastic women
writers working for them - but given the era? Who knows.
The biggest problem I have is that a lot of the specific
complaints against Williams are very one-sided and usually
single-sourced. Many of the issues brought up may be accurate,
but then again they might not be. I think it's probably fair to
say Williams was a difficult boss to work with, especially in
such a free-wheeling industry made up largely of creative types
who were as (or more) interested in creating interesting, fun
games than making money. Many of her decisions were suspect
(but again, we're lacking the full picture).
I certainly don't want to come across as a Williams-apologist
(too late?), but I think that the scorn heaped on her is
neither accurate nor fair, and tinged as much by the fact that
she replaced Gygax as by the ultimate fate of TSR. And the
fact remains, despite TSR's eventual collapse, she did lead
the company through a golden age of creativity and success, yet
she is never credited for any of that.
The thing I always remember when talking about TSR at the time
is that they sometimes reprinted stuff because their warehousing
was so shitty they couldn't find existing stock anymore. And
that wasn't a Williams problem, that was a problem that came
from TSR being too successful for its own good. DnD propped up
TSR way more than any other company in the hobby. No other
company could have gone that long with such lackluster products
as TSR did, just because they had the mindshare even back then.
And that was a bit the problem, wasn't it? They had people buy
their stuff, no matter what they put out. But they didn't buy
enough, and in the end they couldn't pay their debt anymore.
By the way there was an interesting episode of Dungeon Craft
about that where he goes through "Slaying The Dragon: A Secret
History of Dungeons & Dragons" by Ben Riggs and what did them in
in the end seems to have been a few really bad flops together
with their accounting setup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdiJvqo9Y9s
kyonshi <gmk...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:tnnjqv$109q$1...@dont-email.me:
On 18/12/2022 16:18, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 17:09:17 -0800 (PST), "iron...@gmail.com"
<iron...@gmail.com> wrote:
It also wouldn't shock me if there was just some good
old-fashioned misogyny mixed in. Women in gaming at that time
were often seen as 'interlopers'. Hell, women in the TTRPG
community can still take shit for just being women in the
TTRPG community. I've found a whole lot of really conservative
dudes in the D&D fandom. Odd seeing as our hobby is pretending
to be elves.
That sadly could be the case, but since there's no evidence to
support it either way I couldn't say. I'd like to say its
unlikely - especially since TSR did have some fantastic women
writers working for them - but given the era? Who knows.
The biggest problem I have is that a lot of the specific
complaints against Williams are very one-sided and usually
single-sourced. Many of the issues brought up may be accurate,
but then again they might not be. I think it's probably fair to
say Williams was a difficult boss to work with, especially in
such a free-wheeling industry made up largely of creative types
who were as (or more) interested in creating interesting, fun
games than making money. Many of her decisions were suspect
(but again, we're lacking the full picture).
I certainly don't want to come across as a Williams-apologist
(too late?), but I think that the scorn heaped on her is
neither accurate nor fair, and tinged as much by the fact that
she replaced Gygax as by the ultimate fate of TSR. And the
fact remains, despite TSR's eventual collapse, she did lead
the company through a golden age of creativity and success, yet
she is never credited for any of that.
The thing I always remember when talking about TSR at the time
is that they sometimes reprinted stuff because their warehousing
was so shitty they couldn't find existing stock anymore. And
that wasn't a Williams problem, that was a problem that came
from TSR being too successful for its own good. DnD propped up
TSR way more than any other company in the hobby. No other
company could have gone that long with such lackluster products
as TSR did, just because they had the mindshare even back then.
And that was a bit the problem, wasn't it? They had people buy
their stuff, no matter what they put out. But they didn't buy
enough, and in the end they couldn't pay their debt anymore.
By the way there was an interesting episode of Dungeon Craft
about that where he goes through "Slaying The Dragon: A Secret
History of Dungeons & Dragons" by Ben Riggs and what did them in
in the end seems to have been a few really bad flops together
with their accounting setup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdiJvqo9Y9s
There was a *lot* more to it than that. What did them in was
basically every decision Gygax made for years. The last few bad
decisions (like trying to get into the movie business) were just
the straw that broken the camel's back.
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 11:08:00 AM UTC-8, Ninapenda
Jibini wrote:
kyonshi <gmk...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:tnnjqv$109q$1...@dont-email.me:
On 18/12/2022 16:18, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:There was a *lot* more to it than that. What did them in was
On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 17:09:17 -0800 (PST),
"iron...@gmail.com" <iron...@gmail.com> wrote:
It also wouldn't shock me if there was just some good
old-fashioned misogyny mixed in. Women in gaming at that
time were often seen as 'interlopers'. Hell, women in the
TTRPG community can still take shit for just being women in
the TTRPG community. I've found a whole lot of really
conservative dudes in the D&D fandom. Odd seeing as our
hobby is pretending to be elves.
That sadly could be the case, but since there's no evidence
to support it either way I couldn't say. I'd like to say its
unlikely - especially since TSR did have some fantastic
women writers working for them - but given the era? Who
knows.
The biggest problem I have is that a lot of the specific
complaints against Williams are very one-sided and usually
single-sourced. Many of the issues brought up may be
accurate, but then again they might not be. I think it's
probably fair to say Williams was a difficult boss to work
with, especially in such a free-wheeling industry made up
largely of creative types who were as (or more) interested
in creating interesting, fun games than making money. Many
of her decisions were suspect (but again, we're lacking the
full picture).
I certainly don't want to come across as a
Williams-apologist (too late?), but I think that the scorn
heaped on her is neither accurate nor fair, and tinged as
much by the fact that she replaced Gygax as by the ultimate
fate of TSR. And the fact remains, despite TSR's eventual
collapse, she did lead the company through a golden age of
creativity and success, yet she is never credited for any of
that.
The thing I always remember when talking about TSR at the
time is that they sometimes reprinted stuff because their
warehousing was so shitty they couldn't find existing stock
anymore. And that wasn't a Williams problem, that was a
problem that came from TSR being too successful for its own
good. DnD propped up TSR way more than any other company in
the hobby. No other company could have gone that long with
such lackluster products as TSR did, just because they had
the mindshare even back then. And that was a bit the problem,
wasn't it? They had people buy their stuff, no matter what
they put out. But they didn't buy enough, and in the end they
couldn't pay their debt anymore.
By the way there was an interesting episode of Dungeon Craft
about that where he goes through "Slaying The Dragon: A
Secret History of Dungeons & Dragons" by Ben Riggs and what
did them in in the end seems to have been a few really bad
flops together with their accounting setup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdiJvqo9Y9s
basically every decision Gygax made for years. The last few bad
decisions (like trying to get into the movie business) were
just the straw that broken the camel's back.
Hindsight 20/20 It makes sense to branch out and use the
brand recognition. It just didn't work out.
Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote in news:d8fb4dc0-865d-4a7b-a47c-e0420d9137aan@googlegroups.com:
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 11:08:00 AM UTC-8, NinapendaThat accounts for a lot of it, but trying to get into movies was
Jibini wrote:
kyonshi <gmk...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:tnnjqv$109q$1...@dont-email.me:
On 18/12/2022 16:18, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:There was a *lot* more to it than that. What did them in was
On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 17:09:17 -0800 (PST),
"iron...@gmail.com" <iron...@gmail.com> wrote:
It also wouldn't shock me if there was just some good
old-fashioned misogyny mixed in. Women in gaming at that
time were often seen as 'interlopers'. Hell, women in the
TTRPG community can still take shit for just being women in
the TTRPG community. I've found a whole lot of really
conservative dudes in the D&D fandom. Odd seeing as our
hobby is pretending to be elves.
That sadly could be the case, but since there's no evidence
to support it either way I couldn't say. I'd like to say its
unlikely - especially since TSR did have some fantastic
women writers working for them - but given the era? Who
knows.
The biggest problem I have is that a lot of the specific
complaints against Williams are very one-sided and usually
single-sourced. Many of the issues brought up may be
accurate, but then again they might not be. I think it's
probably fair to say Williams was a difficult boss to work
with, especially in such a free-wheeling industry made up
largely of creative types who were as (or more) interested
in creating interesting, fun games than making money. Many
of her decisions were suspect (but again, we're lacking the
full picture).
I certainly don't want to come across as a
Williams-apologist (too late?), but I think that the scorn
heaped on her is neither accurate nor fair, and tinged as
much by the fact that she replaced Gygax as by the ultimate
fate of TSR. And the fact remains, despite TSR's eventual
collapse, she did lead the company through a golden age of
creativity and success, yet she is never credited for any of
that.
The thing I always remember when talking about TSR at the
time is that they sometimes reprinted stuff because their
warehousing was so shitty they couldn't find existing stock
anymore. And that wasn't a Williams problem, that was a
problem that came from TSR being too successful for its own
good. DnD propped up TSR way more than any other company in
the hobby. No other company could have gone that long with
such lackluster products as TSR did, just because they had
the mindshare even back then. And that was a bit the problem,
wasn't it? They had people buy their stuff, no matter what
they put out. But they didn't buy enough, and in the end they
couldn't pay their debt anymore.
By the way there was an interesting episode of Dungeon Craft
about that where he goes through "Slaying The Dragon: A
Secret History of Dungeons & Dragons" by Ben Riggs and what
did them in in the end seems to have been a few really bad
flops together with their accounting setup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdiJvqo9Y9s
basically every decision Gygax made for years. The last few bad
decisions (like trying to get into the movie business) were
just the straw that broken the camel's back.
Hindsight 20/20 It makes sense to branch out and use the
brand recognition. It just didn't work out.
just *stupidity*, driven by ego and arrogance.
On 20/12/2022 04:13, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote in news:d8fb4dc0-865d-4a7b...@googlegroups.com:
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 11:08:00 AM UTC-8, NinapendaThat accounts for a lot of it, but trying to get into movies was
Jibini wrote:
kyonshi <gmk...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:tnnjqv$109q$1...@dont-email.me:
On 18/12/2022 16:18, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:There was a *lot* more to it than that. What did them in was
On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 17:09:17 -0800 (PST),
"iron...@gmail.com" <iron...@gmail.com> wrote:
It also wouldn't shock me if there was just some good
old-fashioned misogyny mixed in. Women in gaming at that
time were often seen as 'interlopers'. Hell, women in the
TTRPG community can still take shit for just being women in
the TTRPG community. I've found a whole lot of really
conservative dudes in the D&D fandom. Odd seeing as our
hobby is pretending to be elves.
That sadly could be the case, but since there's no evidence
to support it either way I couldn't say. I'd like to say its
unlikely - especially since TSR did have some fantastic
women writers working for them - but given the era? Who
knows.
The biggest problem I have is that a lot of the specific
complaints against Williams are very one-sided and usually
single-sourced. Many of the issues brought up may be
accurate, but then again they might not be. I think it's
probably fair to say Williams was a difficult boss to work
with, especially in such a free-wheeling industry made up
largely of creative types who were as (or more) interested
in creating interesting, fun games than making money. Many
of her decisions were suspect (but again, we're lacking the
full picture).
I certainly don't want to come across as a
Williams-apologist (too late?), but I think that the scorn
heaped on her is neither accurate nor fair, and tinged as
much by the fact that she replaced Gygax as by the ultimate
fate of TSR. And the fact remains, despite TSR's eventual
collapse, she did lead the company through a golden age of
creativity and success, yet she is never credited for any of
that.
The thing I always remember when talking about TSR at the
time is that they sometimes reprinted stuff because their
warehousing was so shitty they couldn't find existing stock
anymore. And that wasn't a Williams problem, that was a
problem that came from TSR being too successful for its own
good. DnD propped up TSR way more than any other company in
the hobby. No other company could have gone that long with
such lackluster products as TSR did, just because they had
the mindshare even back then. And that was a bit the problem,
wasn't it? They had people buy their stuff, no matter what
they put out. But they didn't buy enough, and in the end they
couldn't pay their debt anymore.
By the way there was an interesting episode of Dungeon Craft
about that where he goes through "Slaying The Dragon: A
Secret History of Dungeons & Dragons" by Ben Riggs and what
did them in in the end seems to have been a few really bad
flops together with their accounting setup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdiJvqo9Y9s
basically every decision Gygax made for years. The last few bad
decisions (like trying to get into the movie business) were
just the straw that broken the camel's back.
Hindsight 20/20 It makes sense to branch out and use the
brand recognition. It just didn't work out.
just *stupidity*, driven by ego and arrogance.
I don't know. They were tyring to do what Hasbro is trying to do right
now: build DnD into a media brand. I think this could work if they do it right (meaning: if they manage to make a movie that's fun and doesn't
suck). The problem before was that they really didn't know how to make
movies and the studios didn't know how to handle a gaming property.
By now I think this is much easier to do because geek properties have
been a successful staple of filmmaking for decades now.
https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/roleplaying-game/news/dungeons-and-dragons-under-monetised-says-executives
Dungeons & Dragons executives think “the brand is really under monetised”
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 4:21:53 AM UTC-8,
gmk...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/12/2022 04:13, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote inI don't know. They were tyring to do what Hasbro is trying to
news:d8fb4dc0-865d-4a7b...@googlegroups.com:
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 11:08:00 AM UTC-8, NinapendaThat accounts for a lot of it, but trying to get into movies
Jibini wrote:
kyonshi <gmk...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:tnnjqv$109q$1...@dont-email.me:
On 18/12/2022 16:18, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:There was a *lot* more to it than that. What did them in
On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 17:09:17 -0800 (PST),
"iron...@gmail.com" <iron...@gmail.com> wrote:
It also wouldn't shock me if there was just some good
old-fashioned misogyny mixed in. Women in gaming at that
time were often seen as 'interlopers'. Hell, women in
the TTRPG community can still take shit for just being
women in the TTRPG community. I've found a whole lot of
really conservative dudes in the D&D fandom. Odd seeing
as our hobby is pretending to be elves.
That sadly could be the case, but since there's no
evidence to support it either way I couldn't say. I'd
like to say its unlikely - especially since TSR did have
some fantastic women writers working for them - but given
the era? Who knows.
The biggest problem I have is that a lot of the specific
complaints against Williams are very one-sided and
usually single-sourced. Many of the issues brought up may
be accurate, but then again they might not be. I think
it's probably fair to say Williams was a difficult boss
to work with, especially in such a free-wheeling industry
made up largely of creative types who were as (or more)
interested in creating interesting, fun games than making
money. Many of her decisions were suspect (but again,
we're lacking the full picture).
I certainly don't want to come across as a
Williams-apologist (too late?), but I think that the
scorn heaped on her is neither accurate nor fair, and
tinged as much by the fact that she replaced Gygax as by
the ultimate fate of TSR. And the fact remains, despite
TSR's eventual collapse, she did lead the company through
a golden age of creativity and success, yet she is never
credited for any of that.
The thing I always remember when talking about TSR at the
time is that they sometimes reprinted stuff because their
warehousing was so shitty they couldn't find existing
stock anymore. And that wasn't a Williams problem, that
was a problem that came from TSR being too successful for
its own good. DnD propped up TSR way more than any other
company in the hobby. No other company could have gone
that long with such lackluster products as TSR did, just
because they had the mindshare even back then. And that
was a bit the problem, wasn't it? They had people buy
their stuff, no matter what they put out. But they didn't
buy enough, and in the end they couldn't pay their debt
anymore.
By the way there was an interesting episode of Dungeon
Craft about that where he goes through "Slaying The
Dragon: A Secret History of Dungeons & Dragons" by Ben
Riggs and what did them in in the end seems to have been a
few really bad flops together with their accounting setup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdiJvqo9Y9s
was basically every decision Gygax made for years. The last
few bad decisions (like trying to get into the movie
business) were just the straw that broken the camel's back.
Hindsight 20/20 It makes sense to branch out and use the
brand recognition. It just didn't work out.
was just *stupidity*, driven by ego and arrogance.
do right now: build DnD into a media brand. I think this could
work if they do it right (meaning: if they manage to make a
movie that's fun and doesn't suck). The problem before was that
they really didn't know how to make movies and the studios
didn't know how to handle a gaming property. By now I think
this is much easier to do because geek properties have been a
successful staple of filmmaking for decades now.
There was a lot of sword and sorcery films around that time.
Yes many weren't great, but many were good enough and made
money. Gary wanted to make the SW of D&D films, but that's a
really high bar.
On 20/12/2022 04:13, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote in
news:d8fb4dc0-865d-4a7b-a47c-e0420d9137aan@googlegroups.com:
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 11:08:00 AM UTC-8, NinapendaThat accounts for a lot of it, but trying to get into movies
Jibini wrote:
kyonshi <gmk...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:tnnjqv$109q$1...@dont-email.me:
On 18/12/2022 16:18, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:There was a *lot* more to it than that. What did them in was
On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 17:09:17 -0800 (PST),
"iron...@gmail.com" <iron...@gmail.com> wrote:
It also wouldn't shock me if there was just some good
old-fashioned misogyny mixed in. Women in gaming at that
time were often seen as 'interlopers'. Hell, women in the
TTRPG community can still take shit for just being women
in the TTRPG community. I've found a whole lot of really
conservative dudes in the D&D fandom. Odd seeing as our
hobby is pretending to be elves.
That sadly could be the case, but since there's no evidence
to support it either way I couldn't say. I'd like to say
its unlikely - especially since TSR did have some fantastic
women writers working for them - but given the era? Who
knows.
The biggest problem I have is that a lot of the specific
complaints against Williams are very one-sided and usually
single-sourced. Many of the issues brought up may be
accurate, but then again they might not be. I think it's
probably fair to say Williams was a difficult boss to work
with, especially in such a free-wheeling industry made up
largely of creative types who were as (or more) interested
in creating interesting, fun games than making money. Many
of her decisions were suspect (but again, we're lacking the
full picture).
I certainly don't want to come across as a
Williams-apologist (too late?), but I think that the scorn
heaped on her is neither accurate nor fair, and tinged as
much by the fact that she replaced Gygax as by the ultimate
fate of TSR. And the fact remains, despite TSR's eventual
collapse, she did lead the company through a golden age of
creativity and success, yet she is never credited for any
of that.
The thing I always remember when talking about TSR at the
time is that they sometimes reprinted stuff because their
warehousing was so shitty they couldn't find existing stock
anymore. And that wasn't a Williams problem, that was a
problem that came from TSR being too successful for its own
good. DnD propped up TSR way more than any other company in
the hobby. No other company could have gone that long with
such lackluster products as TSR did, just because they had
the mindshare even back then. And that was a bit the
problem, wasn't it? They had people buy their stuff, no
matter what they put out. But they didn't buy enough, and in
the end they couldn't pay their debt anymore.
By the way there was an interesting episode of Dungeon Craft
about that where he goes through "Slaying The Dragon: A
Secret History of Dungeons & Dragons" by Ben Riggs and what
did them in in the end seems to have been a few really bad
flops together with their accounting setup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdiJvqo9Y9s
basically every decision Gygax made for years. The last few
bad decisions (like trying to get into the movie business)
were just the straw that broken the camel's back.
Hindsight 20/20 It makes sense to branch out and use the
brand recognition. It just didn't work out.
was just *stupidity*, driven by ego and arrogance.
I don't know. They were tyring to do what Hasbro is trying to do
right now: build DnD into a media brand. I think this could work
if they do it right
(meaning: if they manage to make a movie
that's fun and doesn't suck).
The problem before was that they
really didn't know how to make movies and the studios didn't
know how to handle a gaming property.
By now I think this is
much easier to do because geek properties have been a successful
staple of filmmaking for decades now.
Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote in news:eed7fcbd-44bb-490e...@googlegroups.com:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 4:21:53 AM UTC-8,
gmk...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/12/2022 04:13, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote inI don't know. They were tyring to do what Hasbro is trying to
news:d8fb4dc0-865d-4a7b...@googlegroups.com:
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 11:08:00 AM UTC-8, NinapendaThat accounts for a lot of it, but trying to get into movies
Jibini wrote:
kyonshi <gmk...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:tnnjqv$109q$1...@dont-email.me:
On 18/12/2022 16:18, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:There was a *lot* more to it than that. What did them in
On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 17:09:17 -0800 (PST),
"iron...@gmail.com" <iron...@gmail.com> wrote:
It also wouldn't shock me if there was just some good
old-fashioned misogyny mixed in. Women in gaming at that
time were often seen as 'interlopers'. Hell, women in
the TTRPG community can still take shit for just being
women in the TTRPG community. I've found a whole lot of
really conservative dudes in the D&D fandom. Odd seeing
as our hobby is pretending to be elves.
That sadly could be the case, but since there's no
evidence to support it either way I couldn't say. I'd
like to say its unlikely - especially since TSR did have
some fantastic women writers working for them - but given
the era? Who knows.
The biggest problem I have is that a lot of the specific
complaints against Williams are very one-sided and
usually single-sourced. Many of the issues brought up may
be accurate, but then again they might not be. I think
it's probably fair to say Williams was a difficult boss
to work with, especially in such a free-wheeling industry
made up largely of creative types who were as (or more)
interested in creating interesting, fun games than making
money. Many of her decisions were suspect (but again,
we're lacking the full picture).
I certainly don't want to come across as a
Williams-apologist (too late?), but I think that the
scorn heaped on her is neither accurate nor fair, and
tinged as much by the fact that she replaced Gygax as by
the ultimate fate of TSR. And the fact remains, despite
TSR's eventual collapse, she did lead the company through
a golden age of creativity and success, yet she is never
credited for any of that.
The thing I always remember when talking about TSR at the
time is that they sometimes reprinted stuff because their
warehousing was so shitty they couldn't find existing
stock anymore. And that wasn't a Williams problem, that
was a problem that came from TSR being too successful for
its own good. DnD propped up TSR way more than any other
company in the hobby. No other company could have gone
that long with such lackluster products as TSR did, just
because they had the mindshare even back then. And that
was a bit the problem, wasn't it? They had people buy
their stuff, no matter what they put out. But they didn't
buy enough, and in the end they couldn't pay their debt
anymore.
By the way there was an interesting episode of Dungeon
Craft about that where he goes through "Slaying The
Dragon: A Secret History of Dungeons & Dragons" by Ben
Riggs and what did them in in the end seems to have been a
few really bad flops together with their accounting setup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdiJvqo9Y9s
was basically every decision Gygax made for years. The last
few bad decisions (like trying to get into the movie
business) were just the straw that broken the camel's back.
Hindsight 20/20 It makes sense to branch out and use the
brand recognition. It just didn't work out.
was just *stupidity*, driven by ego and arrogance.
do right now: build DnD into a media brand. I think this could
work if they do it right (meaning: if they manage to make a
movie that's fun and doesn't suck). The problem before was that
they really didn't know how to make movies and the studios
didn't know how to handle a gaming property. By now I think
this is much easier to do because geek properties have been a
successful staple of filmmaking for decades now.
There was a lot of sword and sorcery films around that time.
Yes many weren't great, but many were good enough and made
money. Gary wanted to make the SW of D&D films, but that's a
really high bar.
Especially since anything that qualifies as "sword and sorcery" and
isn't goofy the the point of being riduculous would, almost by
definition, *not* be a D&D movie. The things that make a game good
will make a movie *bad*. As we have seen, more than once.
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 9:26:49 PM UTC-8, Ninapenda
Jibini wrote:
Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:eed7fcbd-44bb-490e...@googlegroups.com:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 4:21:53 AM UTC-8,Especially since anything that qualifies as "sword and sorcery"
gmk...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/12/2022 04:13, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote inI don't know. They were tyring to do what Hasbro is trying
news:d8fb4dc0-865d-4a7b...@googlegroups.com:
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 11:08:00 AM UTC-8,That accounts for a lot of it, but trying to get into
Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
kyonshi <gmk...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:tnnjqv$109q$1...@dont-email.me:
On 18/12/2022 16:18, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:There was a *lot* more to it than that. What did them in
On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 17:09:17 -0800 (PST),
"iron...@gmail.com" <iron...@gmail.com> wrote:
It also wouldn't shock me if there was just some good
old-fashioned misogyny mixed in. Women in gaming at
that time were often seen as 'interlopers'. Hell,
women in the TTRPG community can still take shit for
just being women in the TTRPG community. I've found a
whole lot of really conservative dudes in the D&D
fandom. Odd seeing as our hobby is pretending to be
elves.
That sadly could be the case, but since there's no
evidence to support it either way I couldn't say. I'd
like to say its unlikely - especially since TSR did
have some fantastic women writers working for them -
but given the era? Who knows.
The biggest problem I have is that a lot of the
specific complaints against Williams are very
one-sided and usually single-sourced. Many of the
issues brought up may be accurate, but then again they
might not be. I think it's probably fair to say
Williams was a difficult boss to work with, especially
in such a free-wheeling industry made up largely of
creative types who were as (or more) interested in
creating interesting, fun games than making
money. Many of her decisions were suspect (but again,
we're lacking the full picture).
I certainly don't want to come across as a
Williams-apologist (too late?), but I think that the
scorn heaped on her is neither accurate nor fair, and
tinged as much by the fact that she replaced Gygax as
by the ultimate fate of TSR. And the fact remains,
despite TSR's eventual collapse, she did lead the
company through a golden age of creativity and
success, yet she is never credited for any of that.
The thing I always remember when talking about TSR at
the time is that they sometimes reprinted stuff because
their warehousing was so shitty they couldn't find
existing stock anymore. And that wasn't a Williams
problem, that was a problem that came from TSR being
too successful for its own good. DnD propped up TSR way
more than any other company in the hobby. No other
company could have gone that long with such lackluster
products as TSR did, just because they had the
mindshare even back then. And that was a bit the
problem, wasn't it? They had people buy their stuff, no
matter what they put out. But they didn't buy enough,
and in the end they couldn't pay their debt
anymore.
By the way there was an interesting episode of Dungeon
Craft about that where he goes through "Slaying The
Dragon: A Secret History of Dungeons & Dragons" by Ben
Riggs and what did them in in the end seems to have
been a few really bad flops together with their
accounting setup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdiJvqo9Y9s
was basically every decision Gygax made for years. The
last few bad decisions (like trying to get into the
movie business) were just the straw that broken the
camel's back.
Hindsight 20/20 It makes sense to branch out and use the
brand recognition. It just didn't work out.
movies was just *stupidity*, driven by ego and arrogance.
to do right now: build DnD into a media brand. I think this
could work if they do it right (meaning: if they manage to
make a movie that's fun and doesn't suck). The problem
before was that they really didn't know how to make movies
and the studios didn't know how to handle a gaming property.
By now I think this is much easier to do because geek
properties have been a successful staple of filmmaking for
decades now.
There was a lot of sword and sorcery films around that time.
Yes many weren't great, but many were good enough and made
money. Gary wanted to make the SW of D&D films, but that's a
really high bar.
and isn't goofy the the point of being riduculous would, almost
by definition, *not* be a D&D movie. The things that make a
game good will make a movie *bad*. As we have seen, more than
once.
I'm one of the few that actually enjoyed the first D&D movie,
but I also saw it was objectively bad, and extremely cringe as a
D&D player. Frankly the cringe is probably what turned most
D&D players off, and really D&D can be pretty cringe too, and
most D&D players appreciate a bad fantasy movie (Hawk
the Slayer anyone?) It's just when it has the D&D label on it
they cry out in shame and anguish and say "That's not D&D!!!"
I'm not sure any of those movies would make a good D&D
game, It might be an average game though, I've certainly
been in far worse D&D games (especially if you count more
boring as worse in these 5e times.)
Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote in news:6e02533f-9a20-4ef8-848a-21938ccbf2adn@googlegroups.com:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 9:26:49 PM UTC-8, NinapendaTo be honest, I've never seen more than a few minutes of any of
Jibini wrote:
Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:eed7fcbd-44bb-490e...@googlegroups.com:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 4:21:53 AM UTC-8,Especially since anything that qualifies as "sword and sorcery"
gmk...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/12/2022 04:13, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote inI don't know. They were tyring to do what Hasbro is trying
news:d8fb4dc0-865d-4a7b...@googlegroups.com:
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 11:08:00 AM UTC-8,That accounts for a lot of it, but trying to get into
Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
kyonshi <gmk...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:tnnjqv$109q$1...@dont-email.me:
On 18/12/2022 16:18, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:There was a *lot* more to it than that. What did them in
On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 17:09:17 -0800 (PST),
"iron...@gmail.com" <iron...@gmail.com> wrote:
It also wouldn't shock me if there was just some good
old-fashioned misogyny mixed in. Women in gaming at
that time were often seen as 'interlopers'. Hell,
women in the TTRPG community can still take shit for
just being women in the TTRPG community. I've found a
whole lot of really conservative dudes in the D&D
fandom. Odd seeing as our hobby is pretending to be
elves.
That sadly could be the case, but since there's no
evidence to support it either way I couldn't say. I'd
like to say its unlikely - especially since TSR did
have some fantastic women writers working for them -
but given the era? Who knows.
The biggest problem I have is that a lot of the
specific complaints against Williams are very
one-sided and usually single-sourced. Many of the
issues brought up may be accurate, but then again they
might not be. I think it's probably fair to say
Williams was a difficult boss to work with, especially
in such a free-wheeling industry made up largely of
creative types who were as (or more) interested in
creating interesting, fun games than making
money. Many of her decisions were suspect (but again,
we're lacking the full picture).
I certainly don't want to come across as a
Williams-apologist (too late?), but I think that the
scorn heaped on her is neither accurate nor fair, and
tinged as much by the fact that she replaced Gygax as
by the ultimate fate of TSR. And the fact remains,
despite TSR's eventual collapse, she did lead the
company through a golden age of creativity and
success, yet she is never credited for any of that.
The thing I always remember when talking about TSR at
the time is that they sometimes reprinted stuff because
their warehousing was so shitty they couldn't find
existing stock anymore. And that wasn't a Williams
problem, that was a problem that came from TSR being
too successful for its own good. DnD propped up TSR way
more than any other company in the hobby. No other
company could have gone that long with such lackluster
products as TSR did, just because they had the
mindshare even back then. And that was a bit the
problem, wasn't it? They had people buy their stuff, no
matter what they put out. But they didn't buy enough,
and in the end they couldn't pay their debt
anymore.
By the way there was an interesting episode of Dungeon
Craft about that where he goes through "Slaying The
Dragon: A Secret History of Dungeons & Dragons" by Ben
Riggs and what did them in in the end seems to have
been a few really bad flops together with their
accounting setup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdiJvqo9Y9s
was basically every decision Gygax made for years. The
last few bad decisions (like trying to get into the
movie business) were just the straw that broken the
camel's back.
Hindsight 20/20 It makes sense to branch out and use the
brand recognition. It just didn't work out.
movies was just *stupidity*, driven by ego and arrogance.
to do right now: build DnD into a media brand. I think this
could work if they do it right (meaning: if they manage to
make a movie that's fun and doesn't suck). The problem
before was that they really didn't know how to make movies
and the studios didn't know how to handle a gaming property.
By now I think this is much easier to do because geek
properties have been a successful staple of filmmaking for
decades now.
There was a lot of sword and sorcery films around that time.
Yes many weren't great, but many were good enough and made
money. Gary wanted to make the SW of D&D films, but that's a
really high bar.
and isn't goofy the the point of being riduculous would, almost
by definition, *not* be a D&D movie. The things that make a
game good will make a movie *bad*. As we have seen, more than
once.
I'm one of the few that actually enjoyed the first D&D movie,
but I also saw it was objectively bad, and extremely cringe as a
D&D player. Frankly the cringe is probably what turned most
D&D players off, and really D&D can be pretty cringe too, and
most D&D players appreciate a bad fantasy movie (Hawk
the Slayer anyone?) It's just when it has the D&D label on it
they cry out in shame and anguish and say "That's not D&D!!!"
I'm not sure any of those movies would make a good D&D
game, It might be an average game though, I've certainly
been in far worse D&D games (especially if you count more
boring as worse in these 5e times.)
them (and none at all of most). That's all I could stomach, and I
*like* bad movies. There's a realm beyond "so bad it's good" that's
just *bad*.
On 22/12/2022 05:04, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6e02533f-9a20-4ef8-848a-21938ccbf2adn@googlegroups.com:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 9:26:49 PM UTC-8, NinapendaTo be honest, I've never seen more than a few minutes of any of
Jibini wrote:
Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:eed7fcbd-44bb-490e...@googlegroups.com:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 4:21:53 AM UTC-8,Especially since anything that qualifies as "sword and
gmk...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/12/2022 04:13, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote inI don't know. They were tyring to do what Hasbro is trying
news:d8fb4dc0-865d-4a7b...@googlegroups.com:
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 11:08:00 AM UTC-8,That accounts for a lot of it, but trying to get into
Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
kyonshi <gmk...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:tnnjqv$109q$1...@dont-email.me:
On 18/12/2022 16:18, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:There was a *lot* more to it than that. What did them in
On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 17:09:17 -0800 (PST),
"iron...@gmail.com" <iron...@gmail.com> wrote:
It also wouldn't shock me if there was just some good
old-fashioned misogyny mixed in. Women in gaming at
that time were often seen as 'interlopers'. Hell,
women in the TTRPG community can still take shit for
just being women in the TTRPG community. I've found a
whole lot of really conservative dudes in the D&D
fandom. Odd seeing as our hobby is pretending to be
elves.
That sadly could be the case, but since there's no
evidence to support it either way I couldn't say. I'd
like to say its unlikely - especially since TSR did
have some fantastic women writers working for them -
but given the era? Who knows.
The biggest problem I have is that a lot of the
specific complaints against Williams are very
one-sided and usually single-sourced. Many of the
issues brought up may be accurate, but then again they
might not be. I think it's probably fair to say
Williams was a difficult boss to work with, especially
in such a free-wheeling industry made up largely of
creative types who were as (or more) interested in
creating interesting, fun games than making
money. Many of her decisions were suspect (but again,
we're lacking the full picture).
I certainly don't want to come across as a
Williams-apologist (too late?), but I think that the
scorn heaped on her is neither accurate nor fair, and
tinged as much by the fact that she replaced Gygax as
by the ultimate fate of TSR. And the fact remains,
despite TSR's eventual collapse, she did lead the
company through a golden age of creativity and
success, yet she is never credited for any of that.
The thing I always remember when talking about TSR at
the time is that they sometimes reprinted stuff because
their warehousing was so shitty they couldn't find
existing stock anymore. And that wasn't a Williams
problem, that was a problem that came from TSR being
too successful for its own good. DnD propped up TSR way
more than any other company in the hobby. No other
company could have gone that long with such lackluster
products as TSR did, just because they had the
mindshare even back then. And that was a bit the
problem, wasn't it? They had people buy their stuff, no
matter what they put out. But they didn't buy enough,
and in the end they couldn't pay their debt
anymore.
By the way there was an interesting episode of Dungeon
Craft about that where he goes through "Slaying The
Dragon: A Secret History of Dungeons & Dragons" by Ben
Riggs and what did them in in the end seems to have
been a few really bad flops together with their
accounting setup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdiJvqo9Y9s
was basically every decision Gygax made for years. The
last few bad decisions (like trying to get into the
movie business) were just the straw that broken the
camel's back.
Hindsight 20/20 It makes sense to branch out and use the
brand recognition. It just didn't work out.
movies was just *stupidity*, driven by ego and arrogance.
to do right now: build DnD into a media brand. I think this
could work if they do it right (meaning: if they manage to
make a movie that's fun and doesn't suck). The problem
before was that they really didn't know how to make movies
and the studios didn't know how to handle a gaming
property. By now I think this is much easier to do because
geek properties have been a successful staple of filmmaking
for decades now.
There was a lot of sword and sorcery films around that time.
Yes many weren't great, but many were good enough and made
money. Gary wanted to make the SW of D&D films, but that's a
really high bar.
sorcery" and isn't goofy the the point of being riduculous
would, almost by definition, *not* be a D&D movie. The things
that make a game good will make a movie *bad*. As we have
seen, more than once.
I'm one of the few that actually enjoyed the first D&D movie,
but I also saw it was objectively bad, and extremely cringe as
a D&D player. Frankly the cringe is probably what turned most
D&D players off, and really D&D can be pretty cringe too, and
most D&D players appreciate a bad fantasy movie (Hawk
the Slayer anyone?) It's just when it has the D&D label on it
they cry out in shame and anguish and say "That's not D&D!!!"
I'm not sure any of those movies would make a good D&D
game, It might be an average game though, I've certainly
been in far worse D&D games (especially if you count more
boring as worse in these 5e times.)
them (and none at all of most). That's all I could stomach, and
I *like* bad movies. There's a realm beyond "so bad it's good"
that's just *bad*.
I couldn't stomach the second or third movie, but the first DnD
movie was watchable, but deeply flawed. In a way it was the
perfect DnD experience: it clearly wanted to be an epic
adventure, but was hampered by the players' skill and the DM's
lackluster worldbuilding.
This extends to stuff like Tom Baker playing an Elvish healer.
Clearly the GM needed to model his NPC after something, but the
only thing he came up when thinking "Doctor" was "Doctor Who".
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 218:00:58 |
| Calls: | 6,621 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,171 |
| Messages: | 5,317,713 |