TSR NuTSR Sells Rebound 1E Core Rulebooks For $650 Each

Despite being embroiled in ongoing legal disputes with WotC regarding use of the TSR trademark (amongst other things), NuTSR has posted images of leather-bound compilations of AD&D 1E books they say are rebindings of old material, complete with the disputed logo. They're selling these books for $650 each.

The Deities & Demigods book (middle top in the image) has a typo on the front cover.


rebound1e.jpg


About these books, NuTSR says "Look what just came in. Sorry, we didn't have these in for TSR CON. (in the beginning, WotC said similar to what people below are saying. We said they are rebound of old material. Long story short, WotC said ok no problem, we have it in writing)"

As rebindings, these would be existing books simply being resold. However, the covers with the disputed logo are new.

In early March WotC launched a lawsuit -- (PDF attachment of filing) -- naming TSR, TSR CEO Justin LaNasa personally, and the Dungeon Hobby Shop museum. WotC seeks a judgement that TSR hand over all domains, take down all websites, pay treble damages and costs, hand over all stock and proceeds related to the trademarks, and more.

Screen Shot 2022-03-29 at 11.36.02 PM.png
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Beatles (as in the band) is a noun, not an adjective. But if you say you're a Beatles fan, Beatles is an adjective modifying 'fan.' You're not a fan that belongs to the Beatles, you're a fan of the Beatles. So no apostrophe required.

So it's not a book that belongs to the players, it's a book of the players. As I said, in a situation like this that's a trivial distinction, but it's still a distinction, and is therefore technically "correct" to not use an apostrophe. It would also be "correct" to use one, with the ever-so-slight difference in meaning. I put "correct" in scare quotes because rules of orthography like this tend to be arbitrary nonsense.

I believe you're still wrong, because the Player's Handbook isn't a handbook about or describing players--it's for players.

So just like you wouldn't say a Mechanics Manual--unless you're referring to a manual for dealing with mechanics, rather than to be used by mechanic--Players Handbook doesn't work.

It's ok for it to be wrong. Even blessed Gygax (praise be upon him) got things wrong.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Lidgar

Gongfarmer
I believe you're still wrong, because the Player's Handbook isn't a handbook about or describing players--it's for players.

So just like you wouldn't say a Mechanics Manual--unless you're referring to a manual for dealing with mechanics, rather than to be used by mechanic--Players Handbook doesn't work.

It's ok for it to be wrong. Even blessed Gygax (praise be upon him) got things wrong.
Didn't you just answer why it is titled the way it is? The title could be Handbook for Players. It is not a handbook possessed by players. Hence Players Handbook.
 



Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
Didn't you just answer why it is titled the way it is? The title could be Handbook for Players. It is not a handbook possessed by players. Hence Players Handbook.
But "for someone" is more or less possessive. A Beatles fan is a fan of the Beatles, not for the Beatles.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Didn't you just answer why it is titled the way it is? The title could be Handbook for Players. It is not a handbook possessed by players. Hence Players Handbook.

I can't believe I'm diving into this one...

Nope. Because the individual book is not for players-plural. The individual book is for a player-singular. So, as an example, you have the Boy Scout Handbook, where even though there are thousands of boys, the book is for the one individual.

1648659419866.png


And, never mind the idea that the book is supposed to be for the player, but not posessed by the player. As a pracitcal matter, folks, the book is not useful to the player if they do not have easy access, and the busienss intent is to, in fact, sell the book to the player so they own it.
 

Lidgar

Gongfarmer
I can't believe I'm diving into this one...

Nope. Because the individual book is not for players-plural. The individual book is for a player-singular. So, as an example, you have the Boy Scout Handbook, where even though there are thousands of boys, the book is for the one individual.

View attachment 154558

And, never mind the idea that the book is supposed to be for the player, but not posessed by the player. As a pracitcal matter, folks, the book is not useful to the player if they do not have easy access, and the busienss intent is to, in fact, sell the book to the player so they own it.
Ok, I see your point. But when I was 12, I had to share a handbook with 3 other players, so maybe Gary was considering the kids who couldn’t fork out enough dough to buy a personal copy. ;)
 

glass

(he, him)
Beatles (as in the band) is a noun, not an adjective. But if you say you're a Beatles fan, Beatles is an adjective modifying 'fan.' You're not a fan that belongs to the Beatles, you're a fan of the Beatles. So no apostrophe required.
Although funnily enough, "a fan of the Beatles'" should have an apostrophe, for small values of "should". Almost nobody actually includes it, but OTOH, almost everyone would say "a fan of mine" rather than "a fan of me".

_
glass.
 

Remove ads

Latest threads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top