TSR TSR3.5 Launches IndieGogo Campaign to "Stop" WotC

The latest in the TSR3 saga, which has gone quiet for a while, is a new IndieGoGo campaign launched to "stop Wizards of the Coast". They cite wrongful bullying of TSR, and refusal to answer requests that WotC show TSR "proof of their claims" (although the campaign page doesn't mention what those claims are).

The IndieGoGo campaign was launched yesterday and has so far raised $675 (at the time of writing).

The action TSR seeks is a "Trademark Declaratory Judgement of Ownership" which is a court declaration about the status of something in dispute.

TSR has launched a campaign to stop Wizards of the Coast

Become a Champion of TSR and Support TSR’s campaign against Wizards of the Coast!

TSR is taking a stand against Wizards of the Coast (“WOTC”) and its wrongful bullying of TSR, our trademarks, and its public libeling and slander of all those who helped create TSR based Dungeons & Dragons and products.

Wizards of the Coast has continually bullied TSR regarding TSR’s legally owned Trademarks. Wizards of the Coast has refused to answer all of TSR's repeated requests that they show any proof of their claims. Wizards of the Coast has the vast resources behind them and is implying to bring them to bear down on TSR.

The new TSR suffered widespread pushback when it launched, which they blamed on WotC, claiming that they were under a "coordinated assault across various channels being mounted.... by [WotC]" The company announced itself earlier this year, having acquired the TSR trademark after the previous holder accidentally let it lapse. It was run by Ernie Gygax, Justin LaNasa, and Stephen Dinehart. After several weeks of controversy, the company split into two -- Wonderfilled (Stephen Dinehart), and TSR (Ernie Gygax and Justin LaNasa).

TSR - TSR3 Blames Widespread Pushback On WotC

In an unexpected turn of events, the primary individuals behind TSR3 have claimed the pushback they've received on social media and elsewhere was orchestrated by .... D&D publisher Wizards of the Coast (a company which has thus far remained completely silent on recent events). TSR3 is run by...

www.enworld.org

The page also indicates an intention to "fight to have WotC's legacy product disclaimer removed" from older products (that's the disclaimer on the older books available on DMs Guild which indicates that those books are products of their time) by claiming that the disclaimer portrays the creators of those older products as "as supporting those alleged prejudices, stereotypes and bigotry, wrongfully claimed to be part of those products".

TSR will also Fight to Have the WOTC Legacy Disclaimer Removed

TSR is suing WOTC for Trademark Declaratory Judgement of Ownership . TSR will also pursue in the near future having WOTC remove the legacy content disclaimer placed on TSR based Dungeons & Dragons and other products, and retractions of any other libel and slander which alleges that racism and other heinous beliefs are incorporated into those products.

This disclaimer attempts to make a statement of fact argument, and therefore paints all of the writers, editors, artists and consumers of those products as supporting those alleged prejudices, stereotypes and bigotry, wrongfully claimed to be part of those products. This statement by Wizards of the Coast opens the possibility for the producers and players of these "Legacy Products" to face ridicule, and face the labeling as "bigots", "racists", "misogynists", and worse Cyber & Physical Attacks!

Wizards of the Coast legacy content disclaimer.

"We (Wizards) recognize that some of the legacy content available on this website does not reflect the values of the Dungeons & Dragons franchise today. Some older content may reflect ethnic, racial, and gender prejudice that were commonplace in American society at that time. These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. This content is presented as it was originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed. Dungeons & Dragons teaches that diversity is a strength, and we strive to make our D&D products as welcoming and inclusive as possible. This part of our work will never end".

TSR3's Justin LaNasa spoke about the campaign in a YouTube video.

TSR - Companies & Freelancers Distance Themselves From The New TSR

The new TSR (which I refer to as TSR3 to avoid confusion) has doubled down on its stance--which has been widely condemned online--via an ongoing series of tweets and replies from its TSR Games, Giantlands, and Dungeon Hobby Museum social media accounts (possibly operated by Justin LaNasa) in an...

www.enworld.org

 

[Mannahnin]

Agreed on all 3 paragraphs.

On Ernie's mistake, I think that his thinking is that old school = older demographic, and that older demographic = "anti-woke". I don't think that it's a completely insane line of reasoning, but I think that the correlation is FAR weaker than he believes. There are quite a number of "old-school interested" players who are quite young, and nowhere every older person is anti woke.

Yup. Old school and OSR games appeal to a lot of younger players too. In the main Discord server I use for them we have players from their teens through fifties, and a good percentage in college and their 20s.

I did a quick count in the below-linked Reddit thread on how people got into the OSR, and from the comments where I could distinguish, I'm seeing about 28-30 commenters who started playing D&D or other RPGs in the 90s or earlier, and 36 who started in the 2000s or later.

 

[CleverNickName]

Agreed on all 3 paragraphs.

On Ernie's mistake, I think that his thinking is that old school = older demographic, and that older demographic = "anti-woke". I don't think that it's a completely insane line of reasoning, but I think that the correlation is FAR weaker than he believes. There are quite a number of "old-school interested" players who are quite young, and nowhere every older person is anti woke.

I think that for all "old school interested" gamers (folks who are interested in playing TSR-era games, or the OSR games like Castles & Crusades), less than half of them are part of an "older demographic" (whatever that means; I'm guessing it refers to folks who played D&D in the 70s, so...folks aged 60 and up?).

And I think that for the older demographic of gamers, very few of them are actually "anti-woke" (again, whatever that means....I suppose it means Conservative?) I know that there is an ageist stereotype that says older people always pine for the "Good Old Days", and the Old Man Yelling At Cloud meme is a thing. But here on the west coast there are a lot (LOT!) of older "hippie" folks who defy that stereotype: they are incredibly liberal and progressive, went to Woodstock, played D&D in college in the 70s, and celebrate Pride. So here in Oregon, I'd estimate that the number of older gamers who oppose social progress to be less than 10%...and in Texas, it's probably 90%. Let's split the diff and call it 50%.

So applying some statistics to that:

In my Edition Experience surveys from last year: out of 939 total votes, only 41 people voted that they are still playing TSR-era D&D games (4.37%). If half of that number are the "older demographic," we are talking about 2.18% of players...and if half of that number are offended by social progress, that means we are talking about 1.09% of D&D players.

TL;DR: This is a lot of smoke and noise for only ~1% to 4% of the player base.

 

[J.Quondam]

I feel sympathy, that is, for their humanity—I don't mean that I agree with them or have the same response, but I can put myself in their shoes and understand why they are taking it so personally and feeling hurt and threatened and angry and afraid (in a word, defensive).

Honestly, I'd feel a bit more sympathetic toward them if their leader wasn't a failed politician of a particular sort, known to fan faux outrage and to exploit ignorance and fear of already privileged people.

 

[Rune]

Or rather, wanting to sue them. They are trying to raise funds to do so here.

Man, the fun never stops with these guys. A few initial observations

1. I can't help but notice the irony in nu-nu TSR suing someone

2. If I were to speculate, I would speculate that none of this money would actually go to a lawsuit. Everything I've seen from them, or rather, haven't seen in the way of actual products, just reminds me of grifting.

3. This was the most interesting part:



That reads to me like WotC has been sending them them things, like C&Ds. Perhaps when they kept using the original cover of Star Frontiers to pimp their "upcoming" project?

4. And good luck proving this part!



*
Wizards of the Coast legacy content disclaimer.

"We (Wizards) recognize that some of the legacy content available on this website does not reflect the values of the Dungeons & Dragons franchise today. Some older content may reflect ethnic, racial, and gender prejudice that were commonplace in American society at that time. These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. This content is presented as it was originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed. Dungeons & Dragons teaches that diversity is a strength, and we strive to make our D&D products as welcoming and inclusive as possible. This part of our work will never end".

As much as I am loathe to defend a couple of grifters making bad-faith arguments to prey upon a demographic that is feeling left behind by their hobby and society (especially by pedaling intollerance), I feel compelled to point out that the fact that the disclaimer says “These depictions were wrong then…” does actually constitute an indictment of the authors as prejudiced and wrong. At the time of writing.

The next part, “…and are wrong today” is also an indictment of the authors, if the authors deny the predjudice and wrongness of those past works.

The point of the disclaimer seems not to be to call out the authors, but it is a byproduct of those phrases. To condense them: The authors of this work wrote things that were prejudiced and wrong at the time and still are prejudiced and wrong now.

Of course, none of that means that the disclaimer is actually wrong…

 

[Charlaquin]

No Ernie, it’s not the legacy content disclaimer that “opened the possibility” for you to be called a bigot. It’s all the bigoted things you said that did that.

 

[J.Quondam]

As much as I am loathe to defend a couple of grifters making bad-faith arguments to prey upon a demographic that is feeling left behind by their hobby and society (especially by pedaling intollerance), I feel compelled to point out that the fact that the disclaimer says “These depictions were wrong then…” does actually constitute an indictment of the authors as prejudiced and wrong. At the time of writing.

The next part, “…and are wrong today” is also an indictment of the authors, if the authors deny the predjudice and wrongness of those past works.

The point of the disclaimer seems not to be to call out the authors, but it is a byproduct of those phrases. To condense them: The authors of this work wrote things that were prejudiced and wrong at the time and still are prejudiced and wrong now.

Of course, none of that means that the disclaimer is actually wrong…

It could be read like that, but I think it's more explicitly an indictment of the "American society" mentioned in the previous sentence.

 

[Mannahnin]

As much as I am loathe to defend a couple of grifters making bad-faith arguments to prey upon a demographic that is feeling left behind by their hobby and society (especially by peddling intolerance), I feel compelled to point out that the fact that the disclaimer says “These depictions were wrong then…” does actually constitute an indictment of the authors as prejudiced and wrong. At the time of writing.

The next part, “…and are wrong today” is also an indictment of the authors, if the authors deny the predjudice and wrongness of those past works.

The point of the disclaimer seems not to be to call out the authors, but it is a byproduct of those phrases. To condense them: The authors of this work wrote things that were prejudiced and wrong at the time and still are prejudiced and wrong now.

Of course, none of that means that the disclaimer is actually wrong…

Good people can make mistakes and write bad things.

There is an important distinction between "this ACTION is bad" and "this PERSON is bad", which nuTSR appears to miss or deliberately and dishonestly conflate. To say "this thing which was written has some bad parts" (or MAY have some bad parts, because it's a generic disclaimer on dozens or scores of products, not all of which have such issues) is not a blanket condemnation of the person who wrote it.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is pretty wild. I see they're "also" mad about the disclaimer which like, is definitely not libellous/defamatory in any legal sense, but is there any clue to what they think they're suing for "ownership" of lol? The D&D brand? Somehow I don't think that's going to work out for them.

They’ve probably been getting C&Ds from WotC and they want to fight for ownership of whatever WotC is asking them to stop using - likely art, and possibly the TSR name and logo.

 

[Sacrosanct]

As much as I am loathe to defend a couple of grifters making bad-faith arguments to prey upon a demographic that is feeling left behind by their hobby and society (especially by pedaling intollerance), I feel compelled to point out that the fact that the disclaimer says “These depictions were wrong then…” does actually constitute an indictment of the authors as prejudiced and wrong. At the time of writing.

The next part, “…and are wrong today” is also an indictment of the authors, if the authors deny the predjudice and wrongness of those past works.

The point of the disclaimer seems not to be to call out the authors, but it is a byproduct of those phrases. To condense them: The authors of this work wrote things that were prejudiced and wrong at the time and still are prejudiced and wrong now.

Of course, none of that means that the disclaimer is actually wrong…

Well, then I suppose all LaNassa has to prove is his writing credits to any of the TSR created materials back then to make a case he's arguing of libel....

 

[Charlaquin]

I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure you can’t sue for libel on somebody else’s behalf?

They do say it defames the creators and players of the legacy products… So maybe that’s their angle?