TSR When Random House Sued TSR For $9.5M

Benjamin Riggs is continuing to talk about his research into the history of TSR. He recounts here a tale of TSR's accounting practices which contributed to their eventual demise.

Benjamin Riggs is continuing to talk about his research into the history of TSR. He recounts here a tale of TSR's accounting practices which contributed to their eventual demise.

Dungeons-and-Dragons-Basic-Set.jpg
Check out Ben's Plot Points podcast

In April of 1996, Random House sued TSR for lack of payment on an $9.5 million loan.

You may ask yourself how TSR came to owe its distributor such a large sum of money. The answer lies in the 1979 distribution agreement between Random House and TSR, in which Random House became TSR's exclusive avenue into the book trade. In that agreement, signed by Gygax himself, Random House agreed to advance TSR 27.3% of the retail value of their product upon receipt. Random House could also return the product to TSR for a refund. All this meant that TSR could produce cash by shipping to Random House instead of waiting for actual customers to purchase their products.

The arrangement seems bizarre, but Jim Fallone, a TSR alum familiar with the agreement, said there may be an excellent reason for it. TSR's books were beautiful, and therefore expensive. Also, TSR had a back catalog that sold well. Sometimes, TSR faced a choice between printing new material, and reprinting old material that sold well, but might take time to make a return on printing costs. The Random House agreement was a way around this problem. TSR could print and ship new copies of the Player's Handbook knowing that they would get paid for it soon, and then also afford to print new material.

According to Fallone, the math on all this works out fine, so long as no more than 20% of TSR's products are returned. But in the 90's, TSR's many forays into creating new game worlds increased their levels of returns to more like 30%. At the same time, TSR began overprinting products. DragonStrike, for example, was a hit game that was driven into the red by overprinting. The game sold 100,000 copies, and had reorders for 50,000 more. Management, however, decided to print 150,000 copies of the game, which never sold.

Also, TSR began to use Random House to generate ready cash. Fallone said that TSR began to “abuse the loan aspect of the contract by shipping product to Random House that there is no actual sales demand for just to generate the advance payment in order to cover printing debts then you pour gasoline on the fire."
These practices helped cause TSR's near bankruptcy in 1997.

Thanks to historian Michael Calleia for providing me with a copy of the 1996 lawsuit and 1979 contract.

If you're interested, I talk to TSR alums Jim Lowder and John Rateliff here about the contract. "A 1979 contract between Random House and TSR would take 18 years to kill the company that started the role-playing game hobby. Thanks to historian Micheal Calleia, Ben has a copy of that very contract, and discusses how it led TSR to near bankruptcy in 1997 with TSR alums James Lowder, Chaosium’s executive editor, and John Rateliff, an internationally renowned Tolkien scholar."
 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad



Beleriphon

Totally Awesome Pirate Brain
In retrospect it reminds me of Coca-Cola releasing New Coke in 1985, where its often been speculated that they did it on purpose knowing itd fail just to make tons more money a few months later with Coke Classic. Again I could be wrong.

To quote the Coca-Cola Company President and COO, Donald Keough at that time, "We're not that dumb, and we're not that smart."

Actually market share and sale showed that New Coke sold as well, if not better, than the original formula. The problem was less about sales and more about marketing. If the formula had been slowly changed to the new one without changing packaging or even telling consumers most people would never have noticed.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Hasbro has had a light touch on WotC management (don't hurt the goose that lays the golden cards!),

I'm not so sure of that considering it's likely Hasbro's core branding issues are part of what set 4e on a course to failure. Moreover, they're the ones who installed Greg Leeds as CEO of Wizards from within Hasbro. My thoughts on that was it was intended to transmit Hasbro corporate culture into Wizards of the Coast.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I'm not so sure of that considering it's likely Hasbro's core branding issues are part of what set 4e on a course to failure. Moreover, they're the ones who installed Greg Leeds as CEO of Wizards from within Hasbro. My thoughts on that was it was intended to transmit Hasbro corporate culture into Wizards of the Coast.

Some have speculated about the "core brand" initiative causing issues, but honestly things were more complicated than that, and most of 4E's problems were unrelated in my experience.

Leeds ended up doing a pretty good job: his leadership allowed WotC the space to do a two year suspension of material and playtest. That's amazing, when you think about it.
 

Hussar

Legend
I'm not sure I agree @Parmandur - you can trace a lot of 4e's design decisions directly back to the notion of "core brand".

For example, why design 4e around the idea of powers with very concrete, discrete effects? Well, it allows for every table to have roughly similar experiences because it somewhat writes off the effect of the individual DM. Which is important if you're going to have this massive influx of new gamers who are in need of that guidance.

I'm not saying that's a correct idea. 5e kinda shows that maybe it wasn't such a great idea really. :D But, the logic is pretty easy to follow. If we're going to have two or three times as many gamers as we have now, and those other 50-66% of gamers have little to no gaming experience, we want them to be able to play with as few hiccups as possible. It's applying the Magic the Gathering (or MMO's if you like) logic to D&D.

So on and so forth. 4e arguably takes so much of the workload off of the DM with the idea that the DM, while the greatest asset to the game, is often also its greatest hinderance. :D
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I'm not sure I agree @Parmandur - you can trace a lot of 4e's design decisions directly back to the notion of "core brand".

For example, why design 4e around the idea of powers with very concrete, discrete effects? Well, it allows for every table to have roughly similar experiences because it somewhat writes off the effect of the individual DM. Which is important if you're going to have this massive influx of new gamers who are in need of that guidance.

I'm not saying that's a correct idea. 5e kinda shows that maybe it wasn't such a great idea really. :D But, the logic is pretty easy to follow. If we're going to have two or three times as many gamers as we have now, and those other 50-66% of gamers have little to no gaming experience, we want them to be able to play with as few hiccups as possible. It's applying the Magic the Gathering (or MMO's if you like) logic to D&D.

So on and so forth. 4e arguably takes so much of the workload off of the DM with the idea that the DM, while the greatest asset to the game, is often also its greatest hinderance. :D

Sure, they made decisions that they judged would be friendly to onramping people into the game: but I think the designers believed they were good decisions that flowed logically from the evolution of 3.5, not something imposed from higher than Rob Heinsoo.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
I am not thinking of 3.5.

Wires crossed, 4E phb says it's D&D for the next decade, Mearls said he considered 5E 2010, design started 2011.

I remember late 2011 a ost claimed on the WotC site they had started work on 5E, claimed to be from the Seattle area.

The got poo pooed and then they announced the playtest not long after.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Sure, they made decisions that they judged would be friendly to onramping people into the game: but I think the designers believed they were good decisions that flowed logically from the evolution of 3.5, not something imposed from higher than Rob Heinsoo.

Always came across as top down designers doing whatever they wanted.

Doesn't take a genius to realize that blowing up the realms and D&D at the same time might not be the best idea.

Bubble design maybe. The correctly identified the problems 3.5 had but came up with the wrong solutions. For example big 6 magic items, side effect of allowing PCs to buy magic items and escalating numbers.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top