Can someone fill me in on the history of the late TSR/early WotC/3e period?

[King_Stannis]

Very clear and informative post. Thanks.

I'm by no means an accountant, but my guess is that companies are required to destroy goods in order to write them off as a loss because if they were allowed to give them away and then write them off, large corporations would find a way to abuse that big time.

Well, I am an accountant, though mostly a tax accountant these days.

Generally speaking, Inventory looks good on your books - as it is an asset. In fact, as an auditor, one thing you are trained to look for is obsolete or slow moving inventory.

For tax purposes, an "adjustment on the valuation on a reasonable basis, not less than scrap value, is permitted in the case of unsalable or unusable raw materials or partly finished goods"(IRS Regs 1.471-2(c)). So it would be to a tax benefit to writedown slow moving and unsalable goods, as it would lower taxable income. However, there are plenty of companies that are resistent to doing this because having slow moving inventory on their books overinflates their assets - which looks good if you are dealing with banks or potential buyers.

Hope that helps.

 

[AaronLoeb]

Right! I'd forgotten about the asset part of the equation.

But why is it the case that, once you've declared the asset a "loss" you have to completely destroy it and not, say, give it to charity or give it away in some other way? I'm sure this is a very naive question -- I just love hearing tax law explained, though, so I can't resist asking.

 

[DanMcS]

But why is it the case that, once you've declared the asset a "loss" you have to completely destroy it and not, say, give it to charity or give it away in some other way? I'm sure this is a very naive question -- I just love hearing tax law explained, though, so I can't resist asking.

It's probably a bigger writeoff to have them crunched. If you give them away, you'd have to count that as a face-value charity donation. Or some other arcane tax-law nonsense. And people say physics is hard. Piffle.

 

[King_Stannis]

Right! I'd forgotten about the asset part of the equation.

But why is it the case that, once you've declared the asset a "loss" you have to completely destroy it and not, say, give it to charity or give it away in some other way? I'm sure this is a very naive question -- I just love hearing tax law explained, though, so I can't resist asking.

Donating goods to charity is a little tricky. When you donate goods over a certain amount, there is some bookkeeping that needs to be done. You need to ascertain the fair market value of the goods - which is not the cost it took you to make it. All other things aside, the value of a bunch of 1st edition rulebooks, for example, is not very high. It's the price a willing buyer and a willing seller will agree upon in an arms length transaction. Considering the relatively small market segment that this would appeal to for, say those 1st edition rulebooks, you can see where the donation can get to be more effort than its worth.

Charitable donations are also limited in loss years for corporations. That means that they may have to wait to take their hit against taxable income - something that, generally, you try not to do when it comes to taxes. You want to postpone paying taxes for as long as possible, which means trying to get as many currently deductible expenses as possible against the current year's tax. As I said, that's generally the rule. There are always tax planning exceptions to fit individual cases.

So having a relatively small charitable donation that may or may not be deductible in the current year (depending on the company's overall tax position) for which you've had to assess a fair market value and arrange for pickup/delivery is not often worth the time. Often it's just easier to scrap it. That's why most corporations give via cash, which is better (generally) for everyone involved.

As for just "giving it away", I'm not sure where the tax law fits in. I don't think there's anything against it, per say, it just may not make sense business-wise. I think I've heard John Nephew say as much on these boards, in regards to a bunch of unmovable 3e books Atlas had. It would have cost him more to give away then to just liquidate.

Hope that helps.

 

[Mean Eyed Cat]

I know most of us know the history of WotC, but I thought I would post the link to help round out the history found on this thread:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=company/whatis

 

[Alzrius]

On the subject of the "Apocalypse Adventures":

Near the end of 2E, WotC began promoting a set of adventures purportedly designed with the sole purpose of destroying your game world in mind. In actuality, what was understood (but never said) was that these adventures would be what you used to end Second Edition and begin Third Edition in your campaign.

The Apocalypse Stone was meant for any homebrew worlds. It was careful to be vague in referring to gods, and the locations were easy to insert as being somewhere remote and unexplored. There were some connections to other products (for example, talking about Grand Duke Moloch and the Reckoning of Hell, from Guide to Hell), but by-and-large it could be used in any non-specific world. Looking at the end of the product, it's quite obvious that it's laying the groundwork for 3E, since it talks about how the aftershocks of the adventure being the cause of half-orcs, monks, barbarians, and sorcerers all becoming prevalent.

Die Vecna Die was the flip-side to The Apocalypse Stone. Whereas The Apocalypse Stone was meant to be used for a generic campaign workd, Die Vecna Die was meant to be used in the holistic 2E multiverse. The adventure began on Oerth (the World of Greyhawk), went to Ravenloft, and then ended in Sigil (the main setting for the Planescape campaign). The end of the adventure ends in all reality (in all space and time) being restructed, hence why the current campaigns (Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, etc.) are now in 3E and not 2E. In effect, Die Vecna Die is the reason everything the multiverse switched editions.

It's worth noting that some advertizements listed there as being three Apocalypse Adventures. The Apocalypse Stone and Die Vecna Die were usually displayed the most prominently, but in smaller print there was a mention of Reverse Dungeon, and replacing that later on was The Dungeon of Death. Neither of these actually did anything "apocalyptic" to your campaign however. Reverse Dungeon was something of a set of adventures (almost a mini-campaign) where you played monsters on various levels of a dungeon (goblins on the first level, classic "aberration-style" D&D monsters on the second level (beholder, mind flayer, doppelganger, etc.), and undead and demons on the third level) defending your abode from invading adventurers. The Dungeon of Death was a Forgotten Realms adventure, a dungeon-crawl through the dungeon of the same name.

 

[Henry]

Dragon Dice: Wow. I must have been looking the other way that day I had no idea it sold like that.

If I recall correctly, part of those first six months was the Gencon of 1995, which I attended. It had people who had already been into magic for a year and a half talking big-time, and enjoying it. Next year - PFFT. I never heard another word - except through articles in Dragon. Magic was back to being all the rage.

 

[johnsemlak]

One more question on the TSR/WotC changeover--Why did WotC drop the TSR logo from D&D stuff? I noticed that at first WotC kept the TSR logo, and called TSR their D&D division.

Wasn't the TSR brand name worth keeping (T$R jokes aside)?

 

[Zappo]

Wasn't the TSR brand name worth keeping (T$R jokes aside)?

Don't underestimate the power of a T$R joke. WotC decided that the TSR brand name was so poisoned by years over years of evident bad management that they dropped it for 3E, so as to convey the intention of not repeating the same mistakes.

 

[Lawrence of Arabica]

What's the Million Dollar license that Ryan mentions in that article? Blizzard (starcraft/Diablo)? Less recent, was it Buck Rogers?

Turns out that Buck Rogers was created by Lorraine Williams' grandfather (or so various places I found via google claim.) Dunno if that makes it more or less likely as the license.