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).


zw5pyzcqtfqc7xu2.jpg


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.


 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey


log in or register to remove this ad



I wonder how many of these, umm, premium gaming experiences they've managed to sell? After watching enduring the droning video launching his WotC poutrage, I'd be especially interested to hear just how, umm, engaging LaNasa in particular is as a DM.

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd guess that DM LaNasa is probably not $50 engaging.

So far, 6 total slots sold (4 for Ernie, 1 for Jeff Leason, 1 @ $10 for the Dungeon Crawl board game). Also, 6 total con badges (tickets) sold.
 

Wilphe

Adventurer
Monsters in his typical dungeon crawl probably include:

a gibbering mouther
gas spores
defective modrons
ghostly warriors from the edge of the stars
a grits ooze
a wizard from a coastal region

Well personally I would have antagonist group be "The Unsleeping Littoral Sorcerers"

but that's too creative for them, so it would probably just be the "Wizards of the Woke"

Their main servitors would be hive-minded lemming people


grits ooze - no Grits Golem

The ooze would be a gross rainbow patterned thing called a GenderFluid

And the first encounter would be with the few remnants of an orcish band displaced by the Lemming People and if you do anything except instantly try to kill them your Paladin falls and any good clerics lose their spells
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Well personally I would have antagonist group be "The Unsleeping Littoral Sorcerers"

but that's too creative for them, so it would probably just be the "Wizards of the Woke"

Their main servitors would be hive-minded lemming people


grits ooze - no Grits Golem

The ooze would be a gross rainbow patterned thing called a GenderFluid

And the first encounter would be with the few remnants of an orcish band displaced by the Lemming People and if you do anything except instantly try to kill them your Paladin falls and any good clerics lose their spells
Just like you doubt their ability to be creative with TULS, I doubt they could imagine grits as anything but an ooze.

Points for GenderFluid, though.
 






Mort

Legend
Supporter
I'm looking forward to WoTC's response.

You can rarely tell how strong a case is by the complaint. If an attorney can't make a case at least SEEM like a winner in the complaint, then the case should probably not have been filed.

Once a response is filed, things are a bit clearer - at the very least you get a good look at both sides.
 


Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
I'm looking forward to WoTC's response.

You can rarely tell how strong a case is by the complaint. If an attorney can't make a case at least SEEM like a winner in the complaint, then the case should probably not have been filed.

Once a response is filed, things are a bit clearer - at the very least you get a good look at both sides.

?

If it's a motion to dismiss, sure.

But if it's an answer, you're not going to get much other than variations of "Denied," usually. Federal court also means that they don't need to fact-plead their affirmative defenses, so you probably won't learn a lot from that either.
 

Mort

Legend
Supporter
?

If it's a motion to dismiss, sure.

But if it's an answer, you're not going to get much other than variations of "Denied," usually. Federal court also means that they don't need to fact-plead their affirmative defenses, so you probably won't learn a lot from that either.

Usually, it's bad form to just say "deny." If you deny you generally at least give a reason - which gives information.

Or something to inform this court of the TTaB action and asking for some kind of removal/consolidation, isn't ones of they marks at issue the one WoTC is trying to cancel?

No idea on how it works in these kinds of cases when you essentially have competing actions.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Usually, it's bad form to just say "deny." If you deny you generally at least give a reason - which gives information.

? Again, I'm not sure I understand. If you're writing for the press, maybe? But in federal court (and certain state courts) you either admit, you deny, or you use weasel words (the document speaks for itself, the allegation makes a legal conclusion and no response is required, etc.).

An answer is almost never useful. Absent an unforced error (an "admit" when you shouldn't), it is usually (not always) the most useless document in litigation.

This is especially so in federal litigation- in some states, there are different requirements.


Or something to inform this court of the TTaB action and asking for some kind of removal/consolidation, isn't ones of they marks at issue the one WoTC is trying to cancel?

That will be done through either (1) a motion to stay, (2) a motion to dismiss, or (3) as an affirmative defense.

No idea on how it works in these kinds of cases when you essentially have competing actions.

Competing (collateral) actions happen all the time. No big deal. :)
 

David Flor

Darklight Interactive
Yeah, but if I am reading that correctly, the demand was stricken because they didn't do so correctly. And they were told there's missing paperwork, too, it looks like. Off to a great start.

Yes, but they filed the necessary paperwork doubling down on their request for a jury trial.
 




Visit Our Sponsor

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top