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 Justin LaNasa, Stephen Dinehart, and Ernie Gygax. The controversy has been raging for over a week, since TSR3 announced itself with a press release.

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

Stephen Dinehart and Ernie Gygax have since deactivated their Twitter accounts; Justin LaNasa doesn't appear to have one, but it is believed he is the person operating TSR3's Twitter account. A couple of days ago, Ernie Gygax posted about recent events on Facebook (note that he edited the post, but the original can be seen here).

I wish to state in the strongest terms that I never meant to hurt anyone of any race, creed or color. My video From the Bunker caused some to feel that they would not be welcome or would be looked down upon. That was never the intent, I was reacting to focus of modern role play into a more background and Role Play rather than the wargame that so made so many lives happy over 40 years ago.

As a gamer it meant that most of us were not worthy of any attention from others of our own age. We were Nerds. We were brainy-acks and others would snicker. Older classmen would ask to "borrow" something of ours to then pass back and forth a game of keep away. I used to receive some special attention from about 4 Juniors in my Freshman year. I played the Violin and often I began to wish that I had Super Powers, perhaps become a Giant.. I was far to shy and then embarrassed as attractive ladies would just lower the eyes while the jocks or other socially vibrant fellows had some fun at another geeky nerds expense. Thank goodness I grew 4 inches my junior year.

The only real comfort zone we all could share was a table in the lunch room. At least the fledgling TSR found fertile minds in those who had only those like us - gamers. Rather than have to risk embarrassing myself, since Phy Ed was going to force us to dance with those wonderful and yet scary girls. Well to get my Diploma I had to slave for a month to Mr. Gerber the head of the Phy Ed department. Fortunately I knew all about janitorial work as before D&D and TSR dad only made $5,000 as a Cobbler (five children) and we had food stamps and even free school lunches. Yes you had to go to the councilors office every week to collect your free lunch passes. Obviously you could feel all the eyes on you and the talk about....

Everyone has been welcome at my gaming table and multitudes of new friends have been created by the time spent playing the games we Love. Look at pictures of gaming on my site or anywhere I run games. Everyone is welcome, just like a Boot Hill game leave your guns at the bar until you leave town. If you come to the Dungeon Hobby Shop Museum Jeff R. Leason will show you courtesy and a smile and you will see that gaming with elder gamers is a safe and entertaining environment.

TSR - Ernie Gygax on New TSR, WotC Beefs, Trademarks, Licensees, 5E, & More

A YouTube channel, 'Live From the Bunker', interviewed Ernie Gygax about the new TSR. I've watched and decided to try to transcribe the most relevant parts of it, but the full hour-long video is below if you want to see the whole interview and full context. Ernie Gygax is one of D&D...

www.enworld.org

 

[CleverNickName]

That's a very narrow definition of political and generally not one held by political science as a discipline.

I don't disagree, but it's not my definition. It's the dictionary's definition of the word (which doesn't include any mention of a discipline by that name). I'm not really trying to argue, I'm just trying to establish clarity by suggesting that "Political" might not be the proper word to use.

 

[Libertad]

Sadly there's huge sections of the population that view the existence of certain groups of people as a political issue. So oftentimes a lot of spaces fall into one of three categories in terms of online moderation for "no politics" stuff. At least based on my own personal experience.

1. Regurgitating ethnic/sexual/gender identity statements, stereotypes, and such is not 'political' if it reflects the status quo. Complaining about or pointing out how such things may be outdated or even harmful is 'political' because by necessity it brings it to the forefront and confronts people with how society is structured. So people either talk about it and thus real-world politics and the attitudes of others in the subculture, or they just plug their ears and complain about "politics." These rules are inevitability biased against minority and disenfranchised groups as it allows for one-sided political conversation.

2. Race, gender, sexual orientation, and the like are an aspect of one's identity that are not chosen and by default doesn't imply a specific worldview like an ideological or religious choice. Such groups don't count as "political" because they can run the gamut of viewpoints. In some cases they may be politically biased, in much the same way that the existence of black and Jewish people was a political issue in the 1800s and 1930s and thus pushed said groups towards certain parties and organizations due to survival. As a result, these communities tend to not have "no politics" rules, and are quite often on the left side of the spectrum in that they realize that certain political issues can and do affect such people. Thus it would be unfair in muzzling such groups from discussing things that have relevance to their lives and to their gaming spaces.

3. A less common one is "no politics, except for X." In this case they may allow for LGBT people to talk about adventures with respectful representation, or how it's okay to have Nazis and alt-right chuds as villains in a modern RPG, or some other thing the community and/or mods have agreed upon is acceptable for the ideal forum culture. Such groups may not want to get bogged down in debates as to an ideal tax rate or regulation of big business, but have enough common sense to not ban people for wanting to talk about Blue Rose or material which has homophobic villains motivated by a warped interpretation of religion.

I think that "no politics" as a rule just on its own is way too vague, and needs greater specifics. Sadly in this day and age, the existence and equal rights for certain groups of people is a political issue (even in Western countries). So just in my view, I adopt the mindset of "okay it's political, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it, especially when it's issues that affect a sizable percentage of our fellow gamers."

 

[Charlaquin]

We don't live in different worlds, objective reality is not hard to find if you choose to look for it.

I don’t disagree, but in the era of “alternative facts,” it seems some people certainly believe or at least behave as though reality is whatever they want it to be.

 

[Neonchameleon]

We don't live in different worlds, objective reality is not hard to find if you choose to look for it.

We also live in a world where we have to communicate with an imprecise language and where we weight different things different ways. And I know my eyes are less than perfect; I wear glasses. Also are e.g. laws a part of objective reality because they are definitely social constructions.

 

[Stephen Shomo]

We also live in a world where we have to communicate with an imprecise language and where we weight different things different ways. And I know my eyes are less than perfect; I wear glasses. Also are e.g. laws a part of objective reality because they are definitely social constructions.

Trans rights is not a regressive tax code.
You know when you are hurting another human being.

 

[Essafah]

OK. Let's try an analogy here because it might make things easier for you.

Someone is interviewed and says a few dogwhistles about "the blacks". When asked to clarify what they mean their business partner jumps in with a couple of n-bombs. It also turns out that both of them are following a famous neo-Nazi with a murder conviction (this part is not analogy; the neo-Nazi in question is Varg Vikernes).

He then makes an "apology" saying that he was raised with Christian values and taught not to discriminate against people on the grounds of religion or gender, pointedly missing race off the list of things he doesn't discriminate about despite the fact that it's his comments on race that started this whole fiasco. Do you think that apology and statement that didn't mention race covers things?

And if you don't what do you make of people jumping in to the conversation saying "he said he doesn't discriminate. Why should it matter that he didn't say he doesn't discriminate about race"?

Very well. I will accept that argument. Given the scenario provided I would be offended and would want the group (Blacks) to be mentioned in the apology. My only point of contention is that given the above scenario I am still not going to come into the game and DEMAND that the DM say my character is Black. When I do my character sheet and put my character's description in there as Human why would the discussion of real world human race then come up in game? Likewise if I list my PC character as male or female (of whatever origin cis, etc.) Why would the exact nature of the character's gender ever come up again in the game unless I demanded that the DM say my character is trans or something? It would not.

I think that's all we are talking about here? In-game, products should not reproduce cultural stereotypes and should include a diverse set of characters, and out-of-game, we try to ensure that the hobby and tables are inclusive (which in part means factoring in a creator's viewpoints when considering whether to purchase their products or support their position in the hobby). No one is talking about Giantland does or does not address in-game, but rather the views of its ostensible creator (*game doesn't exist yet and EG didn't create anything)

Right. So we are on the same page. Here is my confusion: If the transwomen are women and transmen are men. I am saying they are. Then when the DM describes a female in the game and says "X character is female. She stands about 5 feet tall and has red hair and is dressed like a typical villager." How would the fact that the person is trans ever come up in the game? Again, I am saying some homosexual representation should be present in the game, some representation of various races, and definitely in the real world as far as hiring practice I would hope to see different groups present. I just don't see how the trans aspect is going to be present in an RPG especially if that RPG is about adventure gaming like I am trying to think where in say Storm Kings Thunder that just comes up.....

 

[Neonchameleon]

Very well. I will accept that argument. Given the scenario provided I would be offended and would want the group (Blacks) to be mentioned in the apology.

And this is basically what is going on and why Ernie Gygax is receiving the criticism he is including of the apology.

My only point of contention is that given the above scenario I am still not going to come into the game and DEMAND that the DM say my character is Black. When I do my character sheet and put my character's description in there as Human why would the discussion of real world human race then come up in game?

What would you do with a DM that refused to let anyone play black characters in any campaign although white and hispanic characters were OK? Me, I'd be looking for a new DM or setting up a new game even if it wasn't me wanting to play the black character.

If you can play a black character then other people can play trans ones.

 

[Essafah]

And this is basically what is going on and why Ernie Gygax is receiving the criticism he is including of the apology.

What would you do with a DM that refused to let anyone play black characters in any campaign although white and hispanic characters were OK? Me, I'd be looking for a new DM or setting up a new game even if it wasn't me wanting to play the black character.

If you can play a black character then other people can play trans ones.

Well, if I couldn't play a character of whatever skin tone I wanted I would of course do as you suggested and look for a new game.....but that is not exactly what we are talking about nor have I ever said people should not be able to play trans folk so I don't know where that is coming from....at all. I just blatantly didn't insist ANYWHERE in any statement that people can't or shouldn't play trans characters. In fact, I have said the opposite people can play whatever character want.

Here is what I am saying. If I make a character. He is Black. He is bald-headed and clean shaven with light brown eyes. If in the game my DM describes my PC to another PC and says, "Okay, standing before is a man who is five feet tall, he has coffee brown skin with green eyes, and a clean shaven head and face." I am not then going to get mad and say but you didn't say the word BLACK for my PC.

Likewise if you make a trans female character and describe her as heavy set, with blonde hair and light red eyes and a moustache on her upper lip and the DM says, "Okay standing before you is a portly woman in green garb who has blonde hair and equally blonde moustache on her upper lip". Where would trans specifically come into the description at all? Again it just seems like (and this could be just my perception) that somehow it is being demanded that trans specifically be used in the description when if transmen are men and trans women are women then saying men and women would be enough in the description as it is logical.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Well, if I couldn't play a character of whatever skin tone I wanted I would of course do as you suggested and look for a new game.....but that is not exactly what we are talking about nor have I ever said people should not be able to play trans folk so I don't know where that is coming from....at all. I just blatantly didn't insist ANYWHERE in any statement that people can't or shouldn't play trans characters. In fact, I have said the opposite people can play whatever character want.

Here is what I am saying. If I make a character. He is Black. He is bald-headed and clean shaven with light brown eyes. If in the game my DM describes my PC to another PC and says, "Okay, standing before is a man who is five feet tall, he has coffee brown skin with green eyes, and a clean shaven head and face." I am not then going to get mad and say but you didn't say the word BLACK for my PC.

Likewise if you make a trans female character and describe her as heavy set, with blonde hair and light red eyes and a moustache on her upper lip and the DM says, "Okay standing before you is a portly woman in green garb who has blonde hair and equally blonde moustache on her upper lip". Where would trans specifically come into the description at all? Again it just seems like (and this could be just my perception) that somehow it is being demanded that trans specifically be used in the description when if transmen are men and trans women are women then saying men and women would be enough in the description as it is logical.

The alternative to "trans men are men and trans women are women" isn't just saying "men" for trans men and "women" for trans women. As far as I know no one on this side of the argument objects to that as far as I am aware. The sort of jerks in question would insist on calling a trans woman a man. Or "a man in a dress".

Your comment seems to be not relating to anything I'd expect to see in the real world.

 

[Malmuria]

Well, if I couldn't play a character of whatever skin tone I wanted I would of course do as you suggested and look for a new game.....but that is not exactly what we are talking about nor have I ever said people should not be able to play trans folk so I don't know where that is coming from....at all. I just blatantly didn't insist ANYWHERE in any statement that people can't or shouldn't play trans characters. In fact, I have said the opposite people can play whatever character want.

Here is what I am saying. If I make a character. He is Black. He is bald-headed and clean shaven with light brown eyes. If in the game my DM describes my PC to another PC and says, "Okay, standing before is a man who is five feet tall, he has coffee brown skin with green eyes, and a clean shaven head and face." I am not then going to get mad and say but you didn't say the word BLACK for my PC.

This maybe neither here nor there but how did you feel about Tomb of Annihilation? I never played or ran it but I read it and thought...well, thought a few things, but among other things that they missed an opportunity to create a non-stereotypical 'fantasy Africa' with player options for Chuultian characters, as well as exploring the aftereffects of colonialism from Amn.

Likewise if you make a trans female character and describe her as heavy set, with blonde hair and light red eyes and a moustache on her upper lip and the DM says, "Okay standing before you is a portly woman in green garb who has blonde hair and equally blonde moustache on her upper lip". Where would trans specifically come into the description at all? Again it just seems like (and this could be just my perception) that somehow it is being demanded that trans specifically be used in the description when if transmen are men and trans women are women then saying men and women would be enough in the description as it is logical.

Is that an urgent demand? I'm not sure about that. I think the main demand is, 'hey, game creator, don't be transphobic or some people won't buy your product.' Of course, EG doesn't actually have a project because he's a grifter, but, I don't know, shouts to Gabor Lux who is a self-described transphobic reactionary.