Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Clint_L" data-source="post: 8864359" data-attributes="member: 7035894">As a miniatures enthusiast, I have long noted that WotC is pretty generous with letting folks play in their sandbox, but there are what seem to me very reasonable parameters. For example, Reaper miniatures makes versions of almost all the classic D&D monsters, even though they don't have a specific licence like, say, Wizkids. For example, I just painted up their "Fathom Tyrant," which is very obviously an Eye of the Deep with two extra eye stalks. So it deviates a bit from the official art and doesn't get to use the copyrighted name, but we all know what it is, and WotC is fine with it.WotC have traditionally been supportive of third-party content providers, and I see no reason why they would not continue to be so. That said, they may well intend to strengthen their core brand in ways that could pose greater challenges. For example, if the movie is huge and they therefore decide to really start emphasizing the Forgotten Realms as the default setting for the game so that they can build up the strength of that IP, that could create less demand for non-FR material from third parties. The other thing is that D&D is not a product like, say, Disney, in the sense that its IP is not nearly as integral. D&D is rooted in individual imaginations; every player and every table is to some degree unique in how they interpret the game. This is why it is such a rich source for third-party creators, because if they come up with something cool then their creation still gets to be part of D&D insofar as it is up to each player to decide what counts and what doesn't. Fathom Tyrants are now part of my D&D universe because I have a really cool miniature, and there's not really anything WotC can do about that. Not that they care to try.</blockquote>

Verification