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.

 

[Dausuul]

The phylactery used in D&D bears no resemblance to the Tefillin, for that matter: phylactery is a broader Greek word for Talisman, and it seems the original D&D phylactery was actually a hidden jar. More Universal's "The Mummy" than anything: so more than passing Orientalist, but not drawing from anti-Semetic tropes per se. It'd be a pretty silly Lich who wore their Horcrux on their brow and hands.

In the 2E Monstrous Compendium (edit: I had the source wrong, it was the 3.5E Monster Manual), the lich entry described the typical phylactery as being a box full of strips of paper covered in arcane symbols. It bugged me for years because it seemed so weird and random. But that appears to be an exact description of a Tefillin.

Now, this was 2E 3E, long after the original introduction of the lich. It may well be that Gary picked the name "phylactery" as a generic term for "protective amulet," and then a later writer who knew "phylactery" as a synonym for "Tefillin" assumed that was what it meant. But no matter when it happened, the association definitely made its way into D&D.

 

[Yaarel]

Jewish religion is a different topic because the whole Judeo-Christo-Islamic thing is way too sensitive and volatile to ever make them a part of a fantasy game that wants global appeal, rather than a niche audience.

Yes, these reallife monotheistic religions are sensitive. At the same time, pressuring the devout adherents of these to play polytheists can also be unwelcoming.

Personally, I am a fan of the "cosmic force" Cleric in Xanathars, and hope it becomes core. To focus on a concept, like love or light, or whatever, allows enough flexibility in the character concept, that (most of?) the monotheistic adherents can work with comfortably.

I also like the formulation of the 5e "cosmic force". It is more concrete and plays out more realistically as something that could be plausibly sacred, than the 3e "philosophical" that often felt solipsistic.

Also "cosmic force" works great for animism too, where it can be, for example, the concept of "community" including all of the surrounding natural beings.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Unless I'm missing something, the 2e Monstrous Compendium (original three-ring binder and later book printings) just says "The phylactery, which can be almost any manner of object, must be of the finest craftsmanship and materials with a value of not less than 1,500 gp value per level of the wizard."

In the 2E Monstrous Compendium, the lich entry described the typical phylactery as being a box full of strips of paper covered in arcane symbols. It bugged me for years because it seemed so weird and random. But that appears to be an exact description of a Tefillin.

Now, this was 2E, long after the original introduction of the lich. It may well be that Gary picked the name "phylactery" as a generic term for "protective amulet," and then a later writer who knew "phylactery" as a synonym for "Tefillin" assumed that was what it meant. But no matter when it happened, the association definitely made its way into D&D.

 

[Yaarel]

I don't think an "accurate and compassionate welcome" is even possible in this case. Jewish mythological concepts are so different from DnD that the only way to integrate them would be to mangle them beyond recognition. I mean, can you imagine what combat would look like? Rocket tag to see who can pronounce YHVH first!

In my own campaign, when I portray a monotheistic culture, I emphasize that the Divine is infinite and imageless, and wants humanoids to figure out how to make the world a better place. Meanwhile, the Plane of Positive Energy is perceived by the culture as the immanent aspect of the Divine, energizing, healing, and making whole.

 

[Faolyn]

No, almost certainly not. It was an innocent mistake almost fifty years ago. But it's a mistake that hasn't been corrected in almost fifty years.

I googled phylactery (I know what it means, but wanted to see what the internets would say). According to Wikipedia, while the primary definition are the boxes that Torah scrolls are kept in, the word has several other major uses: as magic amulets, as a reliquary for Christian relics, as the name for the little ribbon-y word balloons you get in medieval art, and... where monsters keep their souls, as per D&D. And also according to Wikipedia, the word comes from Ancient Greek and means "protectant."

So the D&D usage of the word is only a mistake if you consider any usage other than that of a place to put Torah scrolls in, in which case it's also a mistake for Christians and for art historians to use that term as well.

 

[Azzy]

Not that it changes anything about my opinion on whether phylactery is anti-Semitic or offensive, but I went back and looked at the 1e and 2e phylacteries and found this. There are three magic item phylacteries. All of which are priest only items, one of which specifically calls it out as being wrapped around the arm. Both editions use identical language.

It seems that when they made the game that they were aware of the religious use of the term and built their magic item phylacteries around that. Liches, though, are different and any object can be used, so that one used the alternate definition.

Yup. It was those magic items that make me look up phylacteries in an encyclopedia when i was but a wee lad. I always thought that they were neat.

 

[Dausuul]

Unless I'm missing something, the 2e Monstrous Compendium (original three-ring binder and later book printings) just says "The phylactery, which can be almost any manner of object, must be of the finest craftsmanship and materials with a value of not less than 1,500 gp value per level of the wizard."

My mistake, I had the source mixed up. It wasn't 2E, it was the 3.5E Monster Manual: "The most common form of phylactery is a sealed metal box containing strips of parchment on which magical phrases have been transcribed."

So, quite a long time after Gary and D&D parted ways. But it did end up in there.

 

[Maxperson]

In the 2E Monstrous Compendium, the lich entry described the typical phylactery as being a box full of strips of paper covered in arcane symbols. It bugged me for years because it seemed so weird and random. But that appears to be an exact description of a Tefillin.

Now, this was 2E, long after the original introduction of the lich. It may well be that Gary picked the name "phylactery" as a generic term for "protective amulet," and then a later writer who knew "phylactery" as a synonym for "Tefillin" assumed that was what it meant. But no matter when it happened, the association definitely made its way into D&D.

That's odd, because the 2e Monstrous Manual Lich entry says this.

"In order to become a lich, the wizard must prepare its phylactery by the use of the enchant an item, magic jar, permanency and reincarnation spells. The phylactery, which can be almost any manner of object, must be of the finest craftsmanship and materials with a value of not less than 1,500 gold pieces per level of the wizard."

 

[Maxperson]

My mistake, I had the source mixed up. It wasn't 2E, it was the 3.5E Monster Manual: "The most common form of phylactery is a sealed metal box containing strips of parchment on which magical phrases have been transcribed."

So, quite a long time after Gary and D&D parted ways. But it did end up in there.

And by WotC no less. Of course, they did go on to say at the end of that section...

"Other forms of phylacteries can exist, such as rings, amulets, or similar items."

 

[Umbran]

Personally, I am a fan of the "cosmic force" Cleric in Xanathars, and hope it becomes core. To focus on a concept, like love or light, or whatever, allows enough flexibility in the character concept, that (most of?) the monotheistic adherents can work with comfortably.

That idea is in Xanathar's, but it is notable that the equivalent - being a cleric that simply had an ethos about the subject of their spheres existed as a stated option back in the 3e PHB.