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.

TSR - The Full & Glorious History of NuTSR

Because the Saga of TSR3 has been ongoing for a while, with many landmarks, I thought I'd do a quick timeline for those who haven't had the time (or, frankly, inclination) to keep up with the whole palaver. As multiple entities refer to themselves as TSR, I will use the nomenclature (1), (2)...

www.enworld.org

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.

 

[Shakeshift]

If this is The Dungeon Hobby Shop Museum, you'd be better off setting the book on fire.

No, nobody who does their research would give the Dungeon Hobby Shop Museum anything. They're a for-profit and they're also unworthy. If I wanted to sell the second book, I would just do it myself. I want it to go to a fitting museum, not some pretender's house.

 

[DLIMedia]

No, nobody who does their research would give the Dungeon Hobby Shop Museum anything. They're a for-profit and they're also unworthy. If I wanted to sell the second book, I would just do it myself. I want it to go to a fitting museum, not some pretender's house.

Pretty sure they're explicitly targeting an audience that doesn't do their research.

 

[ko6ux]

Pretty sure they're explicitly targeting an audience that doesn't do their research.

Or, one that "does their own 'research'."

 

[CleverNickName]

Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook count as 'research', right? Because everybody knows: if you're looking for something on a computer, you are doing 'research.' Google it, you'll see I'm right.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook count as 'research', right? Because everybody knows: if you're looking for something on a computer, you are doing 'research.' Google it, you'll see I'm right.

I believe Instagram pics and telegram discussions also count.

If you can cite peer reviewed articles you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[Lidgar]

Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook count as 'research', right? Because everybody knows: if you're looking for something on a computer, you are doing 'research.' Google it, you'll see I'm right.

This is one of my pet peeves when I hear some say they’ve been “doing a lot of research.” I immediately want to ask which peer reviewed journals they have been reading - and actually comprehending.

 

[CleverNickName]

Separate (but related) topic: one of my pet peeves is when people misuse the words "theory" and "scientific." There's a common misunderstanding that all theories are scientific, and therefore, valid. "I have a theory about that" is very different coming from the lips of a geologist, than from the lips of a bartender.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The bulk of that is due to “hypothesis” and “theory” having COMPLETELY different uses in STEM as opposed to common parlance. There’s an unfortunately large percentage of people who conflate the terms, and use “theory” as meaning the starting point of a line of inquiry, as opposed to being near its terminus.

 

[CleverNickName]

The bulk of that is due to “hypothesis” and “theory” having COMPLETELY different uses in STEM as opposed to common parlance. There’s an unfortunately large percentage of people who conflate the terms, and use “theory” as meaning the starting point of a line of inquiry, as opposed to being near its terminus.

It's true. And a large part of this problem is that science isn't taught as uniformly, or as rigorously, as other topics. Kids graduate high school believing that science is "just another good idea," instead of literally the way good ideas are discovered (and verified, and repeated.)

And don't get me started on the difference between "knowledge" and "belief." Or "belief" and "support."

"I don't believe in eating meat," says the smug guy at the gym. I roll my eyes so hard I almost lose my balance on the treadmill.