Official OGL Discussion Thread

[Psyren]

So do we agree that companies engineering protracted legal battles against other companies in order to benefit from the conflict is a bad thing?

That depends entirely on the benefit. In TSR's case specifically, I can't imagine what the expected benefit was supposed to be, but all the ones I can think of (Ashtagon's is a decent example) I would see as bad.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So do we agree that companies engineering protracted legal battles against other companies in order to benefit from the conflict is a bad thing?

Yes, I would agree with that. You compete by making a better product, not by means of backroom deals or trying to use market weight to tilt things in your favor to prevent becoming obsolete.

Please note, not weighing in on NuTSR, I've not researched it and I'm not going off of third hand information, so I M explicitly not weighing in on that issue. Just noting a point of principle.

Count me in as agreeing with this. I haven't followed NuTSR at all, so no comment on whether they're doing that or not. But as a point of principle, competing via the courtroom/legal tricks/anti-competitive market actions should (normative, not positive statement here) be disfavored.

[False God]

The survey is live.

Not exactly asking the most insightful questions and a lot of text-boxes to fill out.

"Understanding: high", "Satisfaction: low". Rinse and repeat.

Add in a final statement that if they're going to take their ball and go home, they better not forget we all can do the same.

[Unoriginal]

That depends entirely on the benefit. In TSR's case specifically, I can't imagine what the expected benefit was supposed to be, but all the ones I can think of (Ashtagon's is a decent example) I would see as bad.

What benefit resulting from companies engineering protracted legal battles against other companies in order to benefit from the conflict would you see as good?

[Psyren]

What benefit resulting from companies engineering protracted legal battles against other companies in order to benefit from the conflict would you see as good?

Given that the thread is already walking a fine line in terms of discussing legal issues, I'd rather keep things OGL-related if that's okay.

[Atranen]

However, I'm inclined to agree that nothing in the license really benefits me the player. The only thing it seems to do is potentially limit the list of third parties able to contribute to the space, while also potentially screwing over anyone who does do anything for D&D, with the new license still being revocable and based on the whims of corporate executives that don't care about the hobby

Yeah, a great way of putting it.

Sure, but it was a real answer - possibly even the most correct real answer.

Absolutely, 'it will give no benefit to and will harm TTRPG fans' is the correct answer. I guess if we agree on that, the question is, how ought we to respond? And opposing it is a very reasonable response.

The one thing most likely to actually kill D&D is its corporate handlers putting it on a shelf indefinitely, or selling it off in bits and pieces. This license combats that directly.

I don't follow. How will the license prevent its corporate handlers from shelving it?

One of the more grating parts of this whole debacle is that D&D is, by all rights, doing fantastic right now. There's been a huge growth in the playerbase, in the amount of interest; there's a movie coming out with pretty big stars, there are popular streams, and so on. If D&D were doing poorly, I could be sympathetic to Hasbro having to do something extreme to help save the game. But it isn't.

The best way to keep it from being shelved seems to me to be to ride that wave of success and keep doing what they were doing.

Just in case anyone needs more evidence as to why having WotC has the one arbiter of what content is or isn't acceptable would be terrible for the hobby, we have this one.

There are several examples of this (earlier another creator who wanted their name stripped from a WoTC product due to changes, this example, the Hadozee) brought up in this thread. I don't see how anyone can see that and defend WoTC as the best arbiter.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't follow. How will the license prevent its corporate handlers from shelving it?

One of the more grating parts of this whole debacle is that D&D is, by all rights, doing fantastic right now. There's been a huge growth in the playerbase, in the amount of interest; there's a movie coming out with pretty big stars, there are popular streams, and so on. If D&D were doing poorly, I could be sympathetic to Hasbro having to do something extreme to help save the game. But it isn't.

The best way to keep it from being shelved seems to me to be to ride that wave of success and keep doing what they were doing.

And not walk into an unforced PR nightmare like they did. Seriously, starting this controversy (which any fool could see would be controversial) just before the movie comes out? Alienating your deepest fans, the ones you're counting on as the base for that and other things (like your new edition)? Doesn't seem wisest.

[ToranIronfinder]

That depends entirely on the benefit. In TSR's case specifically, I can't imagine what the expected benefit was supposed to be, but all the ones I can think of (Ashtagon's is a decent example) I would see as bad.

Wow that is a significant difference of opinion that explains a lot of where you and I disagree, probably not something I would debate here. It's explanatory, we will need to agree to disagree, but that is perhaps at the root and core of the questions I noted earlier in terms of a responsibility for square dealing.

Not just for Psyren
While I don't think a number of these have been adequately answered, I won't be raising anything other than responding to my points on the following,on the grounds of boredom:
1. The impact of this on the larger eco system, particularly since the OGL did not create that ecosystem, but did radically alter it.
2. The no lawsuit clause, including Jr's enforceability.
3. The problems with the lack of objective basis in 6(f).
4. Broader metaethical issues and why I don't think they are germane or really that a gaming forum is really an appropriate place to debate foundational claims.

It is getting a bit circular at this point, anything new on the topic worth considering?

[Rynjin]

I don't follow. How will the license prevent its corporate handlers from shelving it?

One of the more grating parts of this whole debacle is that D&D is, by all rights, doing fantastic right now. There's been a huge growth in the playerbase, in the amount of interest; there's a movie coming out with pretty big stars, there are popular streams, and so on. If D&D were doing poorly, I could be sympathetic to Hasbro having to do something extreme to help save the game. But it isn't.

The best way to keep it from being shelved seems to me to be to ride that wave of success and keep doing what they were doing.

You're not thinking like a corpo. Wizards is making a ton of money for Hasbro.

But a ton of money is only some of the money. They want ALL the money. They want ALL the money so so much that they're willing to give up a lot of the money at the mere chance to get more of the money.

Corpo looks at the OGL and says "Here's your problem, this is holding you back". Because on paper it is, corpo cares nothing for the customer's worthless opinion. Corpo wants customer's MONEY. And customer will give us MONEY if we make sure they have no choice.

Corpos are very simple people. They're like wild apes, but dumber. Grug want money. Grug get more money? GIVE GRUG MORE MONEY!

Brand growing? NOT FAST ENOUGH! Making lots of money? MAKE MORE!

What you mean "ride the wave"? No, we ride wave we make SAME money. Same money BAD. Need MORE money. MORE!

It's not complicated. Unlimited, unrestricted, unattainable growth is the only goal of any corporation,a nd they will literally chop their own feet off in an attempt to throw themselves further ahead in the metaphorical race.

[False God]

You're not thinking like a corpo. Wizards is making a ton of money for Hasbro.

But a ton of money is only some of the money. They want ALL the money. They want ALL the money so so much that they're willing to give up a lot of the money at the mere chance to get more of the money.

Corpo looks at the OGL and says "Here's your problem, this is holding you back". Because on paper it is, corpo cares nothing for the customer's worthless opinion. Corpo wants customer's MONEY. And customer will give us MONEY if we make sure they have no choice.

Corpos are very simple people. They're like wild apes, but dumber. Grug want money. Grug get more money? GIVE GRUG MORE MONEY!

Brand growing? NOT FAST ENOUGH! Making lots of money? MAKE MORE!

What you mean "ride the wave"? No, we ride wave we make SAME money. Same money BAD. Need MORE money. MORE!

It's not complicated. Unlimited, unrestricted, unattainable growth is the only goal of any corporation,a nd they will literally chop their own feet off in an attempt to throw themselves further ahead in the metaphorical race.

I have to say this is the most depressingly hilarious thing I've read today. Congrats.

[Psyren]

Absolutely, 'it will give no benefit to and will harm TTRPG fans' is the correct answer. I guess if we agree on that, the question is, how ought we to respond? And opposing it is a very reasonable response.

This seems like you've answered your own question to me.

I don't follow. How will the license prevent its corporate handlers from shelving it?

By keeping it lucrative with an eye on future trends, or at least maximizing its chances of remaining lucrative.

The best way to keep it from being shelved seems to me to be to ride that wave of success and keep doing what they were doing.

I'm sure Blockbuster, Barnes & Noble, and others thought the same thing.

[White Blade]

Okay earlier in the thread someone said that the hate speech clause would protect their brand and I don’t know what would be worse for their brand than actually being the TTRPG mods.

1. Someone publishes something questionable/someone questionable publishes something
2. WotC resists hammering the person in a statement on some business call or brings the hammer down
3. Now WotC is to blame and it’s in the news
4. WotC brings the hammer down to get out of the news or reinstates the person
5. The game press publishes for weeks on how this proved the skeptics right/wrong about 6f

Just agonizingly terrible for WotC the whole way through.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Atranen
…the question is, how ought we to respond? And opposing it is a very reasonable response.

It is indeed.

But I’m not convinced that answering their survey will do anything except add a few more puffs of CO₂ to the atmosphere. So how else to respond?

The recent uptick in cancellations certainly got their attention; but they were probably expecting some of that already. And I would assume that most people who were inclined to cancel have done so already, so this approach is spent.

The question is, what other approaches will 1) capture their attention, 2) cause a real course correction, and most importantly 3) be something the community will actually do, rather than just vent about online?

[Brookshw]

It is getting a bit circular at this point, anything new on the topic worth considering?

I stopped into the LGS this afternoon and, while chatting with the owner, was told WizKids recently lost the D&D license. I was pretty surprised to hear that, and didn't see anything online to the effect, but I've known the guy who runs it for over a decade, not someone I'd expect to be telling tales. Has anyone heard anything about the minis line license getting pulled?

Edit: who also mentioned he was getting new orders for GURPS (I smiled), and PF (1e I think?) was sold out by his distributor.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It is indeed.

But I’m not convinced that answering their survey will do anything except add a few more puffs of CO₂ to the atmosphere. So how else to respond?

The recent uptick in cancellations certainly got their attention; but they were probably expecting some of that already. And I would assume that most people who were inclined to cancel have done so already, so this approach is spent.

The question is, what other approaches will 1) capture their attention, 2) cause a real course correction, and most importantly 3) be something the community will actually do, rather than just vent about online?

Depressing but probably true answer: nothing. They're gonna do what they're gonna do. Nothing we say or do will do more than nudge things.

I stopped into the LGS this afternoon and, while chatting with the owner, was told WizKids recently lost the D&D license. I was pretty surprised to hear that, and didn't see anything online to the effect, but I've known the guy who runs it for over a decade, not someone I'd expect to be telling tales. Has anyone heard anything about the minis line license getting pulled?

If this is true, no one's re-deployed their online profile. Their site still says they're churning out D&D stuff.

[Atranen]

You're not thinking like a corpo. Wizards is making a ton of money for Hasbro.

But a ton of money is only some of the money. They want ALL the money. They want ALL the money so so much that they're willing to give up a lot of the money at the mere chance to get more of the money.

Corpo looks at the OGL and says "Here's your problem, this is holding you back". Because on paper it is, corpo cares nothing for the customer's worthless opinion. Corpo wants customer's MONEY. And customer will give us MONEY if we make sure they have no choice.

Corpos are very simple people. They're like wild apes, but dumber. Grug want money. Grug get more money? GIVE GRUG MORE MONEY!

Brand growing? NOT FAST ENOUGH! Making lots of money? MAKE MORE!

What you mean "ride the wave"? No, we ride wave we make SAME money. Same money BAD. Need MORE money. MORE!

It's not complicated. Unlimited, unrestricted, unattainable growth is the only goal of any corporation,a nd they will literally chop their own feet off in an attempt to throw themselves further ahead in the metaphorical race.

Spot on characterization. The line must go up.

This seems like you've answered your own question to me.

Do you disagree?

By keeping it lucrative with an eye on future trends, or at least maximizing its chances of remaining lucrative.

I'm sure Blockbuster, Barnes & Noble, and others thought the same thing.

I have no problem with WoTC continuing to try to innovate. Making a movie, expanding the brand, making a new edition, establishing a VTT, and so on are all reasonable things for them to do.

But you're implying that if they don't adopt 1.2, the whole company could fold and D&D could be lost in limbo for years, cut down by the power of Microsoft's cRPG. And that just doesn't seem plausible to me.

It seems more plausible that the competitors that spring up in response to 1.2 hurt their profitability and make D&D more likely to be shelved.

It is indeed.

But I’m not convinced that answering their survey will do anything except add a few more puffs of CO₂ to the atmosphere. So how else to respond?

The recent uptick in cancellations certainly got their attention; but they were probably expecting some of that already. And I would assume that most people who were inclined to cancel have done so already, so this approach is spent.

The question is, what other approaches will 1) capture their attention, 2) cause a real course correction, and most importantly 3) be something the community will actually do, rather than just vent about online?

Good questions. I think supporting competitors is the way forward at the moment; do the Project Black Flag playtest, advocate for those events at your FLGS or in your groups, run some if you can. Unify around a real alternative and show that this kind of conduct is not acceptable for a corporation that wants to succeed in this space.

Depressing but probably true answer: nothing. They're gonna do what they're gonna do. Nothing we say or do will do more than nudge things.

Accurate. I fully expect them to get away with it.

[ToranIronfinder]

I stopped into the LGS this afternoon and, while chatting with the owner, was told WizKids recently lost the D&D license. I was pretty surprised to hear that, and didn't see anything online to the effect, but I've known the guy who runs it for over a decade, not someone I'd expect to be telling tales. Has anyone heard anything about the minis line license getting pulled?

I hadn't, its interesting, doesn't Whizkids hold the copyright on a lot of FASA's old properties?

[Psyren]

The question is, what other approaches will 1) capture their attention, 2) cause a real course correction, and most importantly 3) be something the community will actually do, rather than just vent about online?

I think this largely depends on how you define "real course correction." If that means leaving 1.0a intact, the answer is probably "nothing." If that means "1.2 but better," then civil discourse might influence more survey respondents than just oneself.

[ToranIronfinder]

It is indeed.

But I’m not convinced that answering their survey will do anything except add a few more puffs of CO₂ to the atmosphere. So how else to respond?

The recent uptick in cancellations certainly got their attention; but they were probably expecting some of that already. And I would assume that most people who were inclined to cancel have done so already, so this approach is spent.

The question is, what other approaches will 1) capture their attention, 2) cause a real course correction, and most importantly 3) be something the community will actually do, rather than just vent about online?

It's simple, start playing other gaming systems instead, you may find one you like better. Paizo did do a Savage worlds Pathfinder that might fit the bill, I like OpenD6, FATE has a lot of fans.

[Unoriginal]

Given that the thread is already walking a fine line in terms of discussing legal issues, I'd rather keep things OGL-related if that's okay.

It is more than okay if you do not wish to answer the question, or any of my questions for that matter, but I assure you all of my inquiries were OGL-related.

[Blackdrop]

Without going into the specifics, as an attorney, I'd like to point out that there is disagreement within the legal community on this point as it applies to D&D, with some leaning one way, some the other, and no general consensus other than "could be".

And the people that think they can copyright the D&D game mechanic are just the most adorable people, bless their heats. And on the day one of those brave, simple legal scholars works up the (liquid) courage (or loses a bet) to walk into a courtroom and say to a judge:

"Your Honor, we believe we can copyright the very specific act of rolling dice, using mathematics, and listing things in pursuit of playing a game of make believe."

On that day (if the judge in question doesn't have to be taken to the hospital from Laughter-Induced-Asphyxia) I'll consider this a valid idea worth considering. Until then, I'm just gonna to continue to do what I've been doing, which is cupping my hands around my mouth and screaming the actual, legally-accepted answer:

YOU CAN'T COPYRIGHT GAME MECHANICS!

Submitted my feedback. High scores for comprehension (most of the place), low scores for how much I liked it.

Dit-Dit-Ditto.

I also called out that nothing in OGL 1.2 actually prevents WotC/Hasbro from pulling this stunt again in 6/12/18 months by revoking OGL 1.2 and instituting OGL 1.3 with all the cow-pucks like the Royalties Clause added back in.

[NichG]

An even better (and constructive!) counter-play would be to collectively write and publish lots of homebrew, adventures, setting books, etc for other systems instead and to use open licenses on your own stuff so other people can in turn riff off of it.

Basically, the value a community provides is in network effects, viral marketing, etc. People's passion for a thing and desire to do it and share it even if not being compensated translates to the equivalent compensation for that work basically being gifted for free in the form of free advertising, promotion, content development, testing, etc. So take that value and give it to someone else.

Some sort of concerted push, the equivalent of starting a wiki or other online repository for 'open license gaming content' and bringing in prolific homebrewers to archive their work would be a move at scale above and beyond just wasting breath into the void. Regardless of whether it changes WotC's mind about what to do, hey, you now have a community sharing gaming content with one another! So its win-win.

[Brookshw]

If this is true, no one's re-deployed their online profile. Their site still says they're churning out D&D stuff.

I'm really not sure on this one, on the one hand, once you're tied into that wholesale distribution channel, you do tend to find out things faster than the general public, otoh, the only reason to pull the license I see would be if they wanted to launch an internally manufactured line or found a cheaper supplier, I'm a bit skeptical either could be the case. It certainly seems WizKids is still plenty active, but there could be some type of silence agreement in place and stock selloff right.

@Toran, glancing at FASA's website, looks like they use Ral Partha.

[Segev]

If that's truly all you're doing then you have nothing to worry about whether that clause exists or not.

I disagree. The clause as it exists would absolutely permit them to declare Waylocator to be "offensive" and revoke access. Even with my stipulation that Waylocator is no more offensive than Pathfinder. Remember: they don't need to justify it, identify the offensive content, nor defend their reasons (should they choose to give them) why their insane troll logic makes it offensive.

If their true offense is "We didn't want Pathfinder, and couldn't do anything about it, and now we CAN get rid of Waylocator," they don't have to admit that, and can name or even leave unnamed whatever offense they choose to invent.

And, no, I don't trust Hasbro Execs to NOT use this to shut down products they simply don't like for reasons they can leave unspecified other than to say "it was offensive." And "don't like" can mean anything from "we noticed that Segev, creator of Waylocator, posted something we don't like on Giant in the Playground Forums 10 years ago" to "Waylocator uses a blue cover, and we don't like the color blue" to "Waylocator is getting praise as more-D&D-than-OneD&D, and we don't like that."

Then we may just be at an impasse, because I don't see any of these potential challenges as good enough reasons to not include the clause (with remedies.) Yes, it will be hard to argue and defend and may result in a win for the licensor. But at the end of the day you made the calculation that the license was needed to do whatever you wanted to do, so you're in the weaker negotiating position to begin with; if you don't think you need the license, don't use it and you won't have to worry about any clauses in it.

And I don't see the clause as being necessary for any reason other than to smear people they want to cut off, and then cut them off.

From harm would be the morality clause. Defining the license as only applying to TTRPGs and VTTs may not overtly harm them but it's still leaving money on the table from a videogame, AI, etc. licensee that they wouldn't otherwise be in a great position to negotiate, and therefore still reasonable in my book.

The morality clause is not the only change in 1.2, so it clearly isn't the only thing they want. If it were, we could have a different discussion.

But the issue is that 1.2 makes changes that aren't necessary for the purposes they claim to be made, and if you look at what they do allow as "oops, totally unintended side effects," it paints a very dark picture. It's better than 1.1 was. It isn't good enough.

They need to remove the "deauthorize" clause, or it's basically a no-go anyway.




Let me paint a picture for you why the morality clause isn't something you should support, either: Let's say that the Hasbro executive team, in 2-3 years, winds up being replaced by people who have morals that align against what you support. Even if we ignore the "they don't need to have any excuse at all" aspect of the clause, this would mean that Hasbro could prevent a work which includes more freedom to make races be any class, supports positive depictions of societal elements you highly value, and Hasbro could ban it and anything like it from being printed precisely because of those elements you value. And, unlike the Waylocator example, they're not even being disingenuous; they genuinely think that stuff is immoral and besmirches D&D's image if it's included! You may think them wicked, but the clause still gives them that power. And even with your "remedies," who's to say what qualifies as "moral?" They certainly will have, in this case, a moral argument, even if YOU disagree with it. You're not the judge. Or the jury. And WotC will definitely strive to get a jury that is made up of the kind of people who share their morals, in this kind of case.


1.2 is absolutely designed to prevent a Waylocator from existing. Amongst other things. Whether it can succeed at that is irrelevant. If it weren't, there'd be no need to deauthorize 1.0(a), because they could absolutely release OneD&D under a different license than the OGL entirely, if the yreally wanted to.

[EggKookoo]

You're not thinking like a corpo. Wizards is making a ton of money for Hasbro.

But a ton of money is only some of the money. They want ALL the money. They want ALL the money so so much that they're willing to give up a lot of the money at the mere chance to get more of the money.

Corpo looks at the OGL and says "Here's your problem, this is holding you back". Because on paper it is, corpo cares nothing for the customer's worthless opinion. Corpo wants customer's MONEY. And customer will give us MONEY if we make sure they have no choice.

Corpos are very simple people. They're like wild apes, but dumber. Grug want money. Grug get more money? GIVE GRUG MORE MONEY!

Brand growing? NOT FAST ENOUGH! Making lots of money? MAKE MORE!

What you mean "ride the wave"? No, we ride wave we make SAME money. Same money BAD. Need MORE money. MORE!

It's not complicated. Unlimited, unrestricted, unattainable growth is the only goal of any corporation,a nd they will literally chop their own feet off in an attempt to throw themselves further ahead in the metaphorical race.

I'm generally pro-business and not at all anti-capitalism or anti-profit. This is absolutely accurate.

It's sometimes hard to see because good businesses work hard to disguise it in the hopes that their customers will be fooled into thinking they care.

[ToranIronfinder]

I'm really not sure on this one, on the one hand, once you're tied into that wholesale distribution channel, you do tend to find out things faster than the general public, otoh, the only reason to pull the license I see would be if they wanted to launch an internally manufactured line or found a cheaper supplier, I'm a bit skeptical either could be the case. It certainly seems WizKids is still plenty active, but there could be some type of silence agreement in place and stock selloff right.

@Toran, glancing at FASA's website, looks like they use Ral Partha.

Interesting, I knew Catalyst was sublicensing Shadowrun, no idea who has everything else, Whiz kids seemed to only want the minis license there.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm really not sure on this one, on the one hand, once you're tied into that wholesale distribution channel, you do tend to find out things faster than the general public, otoh, the only reason to pull the license I see would be if they wanted to launch an internally manufactured line or found a cheaper supplier, I'm a bit skeptical either could be the case. It certainly seems WizKids is still plenty active, but there could be some type of silence agreement in place and stock selloff right.

@Toran, glancing at FASA's website, looks like they use Ral Partha.

I'd put it at "plausible but highly unconfirmed." Plausible, because bringing the "toy" part of it in-house is a mostly-rational move. Toys (of which miniatures are one variety) are Hasbro's oldest specialty, right? Highly unconfirmed because you'd think someone would have posted something about it online.

I mean...there are a lot of sources for D&D-compatible minis out there other than WizKids, and I've not been particularly impressed with the WizKids lineup anyway (you know how hard it is to find a large bear? And how useful that would be for my moon druid players?)

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Atranen
Unify around a real alternative and show that this kind of conduct is not acceptable for a corporation that wants to succeed in this space.

Agreed in principle, but unfortunately this is the sort of silent reaction which won’t register with WotC. It won’t get their attention the way the spike in cancellations did. That was visible, by the metrics they watch, and it also made the news, so it had a double impact, however fleeting.

I’m thinking something more tangible. And I’m remembering the mail-in campaign that got the original Star Trek renewed for a third season.

There have been various campaigns like that ever since; I’m thinking of the ball bearings that fans sent in to protest the cancellation of Sarah Connor Chronicles. And I’m betting there are more opponents to this current situation than there were fans of SCC.

What’s a simple, physical symbol of our opposition to this? One we can mail in large numbers?

[animorte]

I have been somewhat attempting to keep up with this hot topic thread, but I no doubt will maintain mostly an observant presence. (Much appreciation to the mods for providing this space. Come friends, let's not screw it up. )

Anyway I read the OGL 1.2 and went through the survey. These things right in the opening summary caught my attention and I think they're worth putting here.

• OGL 1.2 will only apply to TTRPG content, whether published as books, as electronic publications, or on virtual tabletops (VTTs). Nobody needs to wonder or worry if it applies to anything else. It doesn't.
• We'll share what we heard from you and updates to the OGL document as a result.
• The process will extend as long as it needs to. We'll keep iterating and getting your feedback until we get it right.

I know there's a lot more detail within, but that last bullet point seems important to me. They really messed up with the opening concept and I hope this proves as a bit of a learning process. This note in particular seems to express their willingness to work with community on understanding each other's perspective and process.

[Brookshw]

I'd put it at "plausible but highly unconfirmed." Plausible, because bringing the "toy" part of it in-house is a mostly-rational move. Toys (of which miniatures are one variety) are Hasbro's oldest specialty, right? Highly unconfirmed because you'd think someone would have posted something about it online.

I mean...there are a lot of sources for D&D-compatible minis out there other than WizKids, and I've not been particularly impressed with the WizKids lineup anyway (you know how hard it is to find a large bear? And how useful that would be for my moon druid players?)

All good points, and agreed (I'm also not too impressed, but the price point kinda pushes that I suspect).

Well, unless someone has any actual info on it I'll toss it aside until something is actually known.