TSR TSR (2) Confirms TSR (3)'s Acquisition of Trademark (Updated!)

Jayson Elliot registered the TSR trademark back in 2011 and used it to launch Gygax Magazine along with Ernie and Luke Gygax. The two Gygax's left the company a few years later after Gary Gygax's (co-founder of TSR (1) back in the 1970s) widow, Gail Gygax, forced the closure of Gygax Magazine. Then, earlier this year, TSR (3) swooped in on the TSR trademark, after Jayson Elliot accidentally let it lapse, as TSR (2) confirms:

We have owned the TSR trademark since 2011. Last year, we missed a filing date, and another company registered it, though we are still using it in commerce. While we could win a lawsuit, we frankly don't have the money to litigate. So, we're licensing it back from them.

As a result, there are two companies now using the name TSR. You can tell when it's us because we're the only ones using the new logo.

They're opening a museum in Lake Geneva at the old TSR house, and we wish them success with it, it's important to celebrate the legacy that Gary Gygax created.

Ernie Gygax, formerly of TSR (1) under Gary Gygax, then working with Jayson Elliot as part of TSR (2), is one of the founders of of TSR (3), and confirmed in his (now infamous) interview --

The other TSR is a licensee because [Jayson Elliot] let it lapse. But he had absolutely ... love for the game and the products. There was no reason to say 'oh you've screwed up, oh it's all ours, ha ha ha ha!' Instead, Justin [LaNasa] came to him and said ... we love that you're doing Top Secret things, we have a much broader goal for the whole thing. But there's no reason for you to stop or even have any troubles. Justin said, I'll take care of the paperwork, you just give me $10 a year, and you put out all this love for old school gaming that you can. And we appreciate that you were there to try and pick up things, and you produced Gygax Magazine, for in its time that you're also working on a game that you love to play ... because Top Secret was Jayson's love, as a young man.

TSR (2), still run by Jayson Elliot, publishes Top Secret, and is not connected to TSR (3) other than now having to license it’s own name from them. TSR (3) has also registered the trademark to Star Frontiers, a game owned by and still currently sold by D&D-owner WotC.

In other news the GYGAX trademark appears to have lapsed.

UPDATE! TSR (2) has decided NOT to license its own name from TSR (3):

Update to our earlier tweet - we will NOT be licensing anything from the new company claiming rights to the TSR logos. We are not working with them in any fashion.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

What I find most amazing is just how much incompetence is on display here... If Ernie just wanted to make a new TSR to make some money, it wouldn't really be that hard. He already had a Giantlands game and some artists and designers happy to work with him, and one could get a lot of mileage from "continuing my father's legacy". If he just worked that angle and didn't pull out the bigotry and false persecution claims, he could probably make some decent money.

I think a lot of the old gamer types just don't get that being openly anti LGBT is a lot like being openly racist in the 80s. There are still a significant number of people that embrace that bigotry, but there are a lot of people who find sneering at trans and queer people "something they don't want to be party to" even if they don't know any openly queer or trans people. You can just ignore it in a game (I don't think a 2e style game that ditched sex-based limits and didn't even mention what's allowed to be in the "gender" box would get pushback), and get no real pushback, but you can't go full bigot about it.

Even minor things have been handled badly. While it doesn't hit the tire fire part of the situation and is barely noticeable on that context, I think opening up New TSR by selling generic cheap dice with the logo on the packaging was a really poor start. I'm guessing they needed to move some sort of product for trademark purposes, but it makes the company look like it's just "slap a logo on anything" instead of a solid game company.

This is definitely a popcorn worthy event.

 

[Bacon Bits]

The user Col_Pladoh is Gary Gygax

Obviously, yes.

The trouble is, in that thread Gary is talking about the ethics of an in-game character in his fantasy campaign world, not his personal ethics. He's talking about what a Lawful Good Paladin in his game world would think, and what the in-game, fantasy world that he imagines would consider Lawful and Good (both defined terms with special meaning, especially in 1e), not what he himself thinks is lawful or good under their plain English meanings in our world.

Gary's games and his table were always interested in historical simulation, so his games were interested in emulating their perceptions of medieval ethics and morals. That was part of their original purpose when they created D&D, so obviously his definitions for his campaign worlds suit that purpose.

If the comments are being used as an example that Gary intended or assumed that the morals and ethics of D&D settings would be sexist and racist, that's valid. If being used as evidence that the mechanical game design had anachronistic assumptions baked into it that are sexist and racist, that's valid, too. But -- and maybe I've lost track of the thread context, which is why I asked what the intent was -- that's very different than it being an example Gary's personal ethics or morals.

Because, yeah, I agree with him that a 1e Lawful Good Paladin using medieval ethics and morals would justify slaughtering orc and goblin children with phrasing similar to Colonel Chivington or Andrew Jackson or any number of European colonial conquerors. And the society that that Paladin belongs to would agree, just like the societies of the above individuals did. That's one reason why many players didn't like that scenario, and it's why the contemporary game largely does not try to emulate medieval ethics or morals.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not defending Gary or the ethical and moral assumptions that were baked into the early game. I'm saying that if you're looking to criticize Gary's personal beliefs, these comments are an extremely poor example. You're intentionally conflating what he says an in-game, fictional character would do in a world that by design has medieval ethics and morals, with what Gary himself personally believes about the real world. That's so much of a stretch that it's disingenuous. Even if he is stating his own personal beliefs, it's impossible to tell in that thread.

It's like taking Humbert Humbert's words and actions as Vladimir Nabokov's personal beliefs. It can be done (and absolutely has been done), but you're going to be taken as a fool making that kind of claim. Authors and creators do create worlds with morals and ethics that don't match their own morals and ethics in the real world, and they don't always put an Evil or Renegade label on everything that our contemporary morals would object to. That's not glorification or approval. That's fiction.

 

[darjr]

I'm not an expert on any of this, but if Giantlands was created by Mr. Ward, would it be possible for him to take back his game from that s**tshow? I know Ward is more conservative, but I'm pretty sure he does not share the views of The EGGJR, Demon-lord of Bigots (now pronounced egg-a-jurr, copyright pending).

It would leave them with a big catalogue of 0 product

They’d still have their bootleg t-shirts and overpriced dollar store dice.

 

[Parmandur]

Obviously, yes.

The trouble is, in that thread Gary is talking about the ethics of an in-game character in his fantasy campaign world, not his personal ethics. He's talking about what a Lawful Good Paladin in his game world would think, and what the in-game, fantasy world that he imagines would consider Lawful and Good (both defined terms with special meaning, especially in 1e), not what he himself thinks is lawful or good under their plain English meanings in our world.

Gary's games and his table were always interested in historical simulation, so his games were interested in emulating their perceptions of medieval ethics and morals. That was part of their original purpose when they created D&D, so obviously his definitions for his campaign worlds suit that purpose.

If the comments are being used as an example that Gary intended or assumed that the morals and ethics of D&D settings would be sexist and racist, that's valid. If being used as evidence that the mechanical game design had anachronistic assumptions baked into it that are sexist and racist, that's valid, too. But -- and maybe I've lost track of the thread context, which is why I asked what the intent was -- that's very different than it being an example Gary's personal ethics or morals.

Because, yeah, I agree with him that a 1e Lawful Good Paladin using medieval ethics and morals would justify slaughtering orc and goblin children with phrasing similar to Colonel Chivington or Andrew Jackson or any number of European colonial conquerors. And the society that that Paladin belongs to would agree, just like the societies of the above individuals did. That's one reason why many players didn't like that scenario, and it's why the contemporary game largely does not try to emulate medieval ethics or morals.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not defending Gary or the ethical and moral assumptions that were baked into the early game. I'm saying that if you're looking to criticize Gary's personal beliefs, these comments are an extremely poor example. You're intentionally conflating what he says an in-game, fictional character would do in a world that by design has medieval ethics and morals, with what Gary himself personally believes about the real world. That's so much of a stretch that it's disingenuous. Even if he is stating his own personal beliefs, it's impossible to tell in that thread.

It's like taking Humbert Humbert's words and actions as Vladimir Nabokov's personal beliefs. It can be done (and absolutely has been done), but you're going to be taken as a fool making that kind of claim. Authors and creators do create worlds with morals and ethics that don't match their own morals and ethics in the real world, and they don't always put an Evil or Renegade label on everything that our contemporary morals would object to. That's not glorification or approval. That's fiction.

Problem is, that's not actually what Medieval ethics looked like...

Crying "realistic simulation of a Medieval world" is a problem when A, there were no Elves or real Wizards in Medieval Europe, and B, the racist/misogynistic attitudes in question are not applicable to Medieval Europe but do reflect mid-20th century reactionary values.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Problem is, that's not actually what Medieval ethics looked like...

I agree. It's what colonial ethics looked like.

However, that's still beside the point. Gary is still not talking about his personal ethics and morals.

 

[overgeeked]

Obviously, yes.

The trouble is, in that thread Gary is talking about the ethics of an in-game character in his fantasy campaign world, not his personal ethics. He's talking about what a Lawful Good Paladin in his game world would think, and what the in-game, fantasy world that he imagines would consider Lawful and Good (both defined terms with special meaning, especially in 1e), not what he himself thinks is lawful or good under their plain English meanings in our world.

Gary's games and his table were always interested in historical simulation, so his games were interested in emulating their perceptions of medieval ethics and morals. That was part of their original purpose when they created D&D, so obviously his definitions for his campaign worlds suit that purpose.

If the comments are being used as an example that Gary intended or assumed that the morals and ethics of D&D settings would be sexist and racist, that's valid. If being used as evidence that the mechanical game design had anachronistic assumptions baked into it that are sexist and racist, that's valid, too. But -- and maybe I've lost track of the thread context, which is why I asked what the intent was -- that's very different than it being an example Gary's personal ethics or morals.

Because, yeah, I agree with him that a 1e Lawful Good Paladin using medieval ethics and morals would justify slaughtering orc and goblin children with phrasing similar to Colonel Chivington or Andrew Jackson or any number of European colonial conquerors. And the society that that Paladin belongs to would agree, just like the societies of the above individuals did. That's one reason why many players didn't like that scenario, and it's why the contemporary game largely does not try to emulate medieval ethics or morals.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not defending Gary or the ethical and moral assumptions that were baked into the early game. I'm saying that if you're looking to criticize Gary's personal beliefs, these comments are an extremely poor example. You're intentionally conflating what he says an in-game, fictional character would do in a world that by design has medieval ethics and morals, with what Gary himself personally believes about the real world. That's so much of a stretch that it's disingenuous. Even if he is stating his own personal beliefs, it's impossible to tell in that thread.

It's like taking Humbert Humbert's words and actions as Vladimir Nabokov's personal beliefs. It can be done (and absolutely has been done), but you're going to be taken as a fool making that kind of claim. Authors and creators do create worlds with morals and ethics that don't match their own morals and ethics in the real world, and they don't always put an Evil or Renegade label on everything that our contemporary morals would object to. That's not glorification or approval. That's fiction.

The bit about the LG paladin? Sure, maybe. The bit where Gary outright says women are less then men? Not a chance. At the very least, Gary was clearly a misogynist.

 

[Dire Bare]

This whole TSR train wreck just keeps piling up. Try digging up Ernie!

Lol. It's like a flaming wreck that you're compelled to watch.

Ernie is dumber than my cat.

"TSR Games" is actually not Ernie, it's Justin LeNasa. Ernie's involvement is mostly his name and his ability to generate controversy with poorly thought out transphobic and racist comments.

These tweets are not Ernie going after his brother, Luke.

 

[Parmandur]

"TSR Games" is actually not Ernie, it's Justin LeNasa. Ernie's involvement is mostly his name and his ability to generate controversy with poorly thought out transphobic and racist comments.

These tweets are not Ernie going after his brother, Luke.

Just his business partner going after his brother...

Dumpster inferno...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

However, that's still beside the point. Gary is still not talking about his personal ethics and morals.

He doesn't say anything to indicate that he thinks different values should apply in RL.

 

[Dire Bare]

I'm not an expert on any of this, but if Giantlands was created by Mr. Ward, would it be possible for him to take back his game from that s**tshow? I know Ward is more conservative, but I'm pretty sure he does not share the views of The EGGJR, Demon-lord of Bigots (now pronounced egg-a-jurr, copyright pending).

It would leave them with a big catalogue of 0 product

The concept and ownership of Giantlands is Justin LeNasa, who is also the main person behind TSR 3.0. James Ward was hired, probably work-for-hire, to create a game to go with the setting. It's unlikely Ward has any ownership or control over Giantlands, or the dumpster fire going on with TSR 3.0.