Critical Role Issues Statement

[The Stray]

There is a key difference: Wizards were completely D&D centric, and didn't address the OGC issue at all. Matt Mercer specifically calls out creators of new systems in his first paragraph. This is the category that will likely be hurt most by 1.0a being closed down to D&D specific.

If it hadn't been for that detail I would have fully agreed that it was a complete non-statement.

That's certainly an interesting way of reading the leaves of this weak-tea non-statement.

 

[Enrahim2]

If they had gone out agressively, it wouldnt have been a threat. It would have been an action. Wizards know how influential CR is, and seeing them going public with even something you need to be a tea reading expert to see might really scare them. If they go out fully endorsing a different system, I would not be surprise a hasbroo stock fall rivaling the recent mtg fiasco. But then the leverage is gone.

(The timeing is also likely not coincial. They wanted to see wizards reaction. If it had been acceptable, why say anything?)

 

[Gradine]

 

[darjr]

Could Critical Role have a lawsuit against WotC for their reckless and unhinged mishandling of the brand? One that damages any contractual agrement between the two?

 

[Staffan]

Very many of the new systems relly on ogl to protect against legal action (there was a lot of these in the 90s) many of them also rely on the ogl for enabling content creation for their game. ORC might help on the second count, but transitioning to it might actually put them on a worse legal footing than continuing publishing under 1.0a despite wizards claim they cant. They are in a really bad situation right now.

Yeah, until proven otherwise I think "The OGL 1.0(a) can't be revoked/deauthorized just because you say so, so I'll keep publishing under it" is a much stronger argument than "These things can not be protected by copyright." Particularly when it comes to things that are arguably part of the implicit worldbuilding of D&D (mainly monsters).

 

[MarkB]

Could Critical Role have a lawsuit against WotC for their reckless and unhinged mishandling of the brand? One that damages any contractual agrement between the two?

Not a lawsuit per se, I'd think, but they might be able to cite it as grounds for an early termination of their sponsorship deal with D&D Beyond, which otherwise seems pretty locked-in.

Until and unless they were able to break out of that deal, I'd expect it to be difficult for them to pivot away from WotC even if that's what they want to do - their sponsorship deal may well include a requirement for them to actively use the product in their game sessions, which would be tricky if they switched to a different system.

 

[OB1]

I can't blame them. It's a pity, though, because CR could do more than anybody to make Wizards change course.

Maybe they already were, but stuck to their NDA to work the issue behind the scenes instead of illegally leaking it to the press.

Remember, much of what was in the leaked 1.1 doc was confirmed by WotC back on Dec 21, including the royalties. For all we know CR and other interested parties could have already gotten WotC to walk back the deauthorization plan (if it was a plan and not just a negotiating tactic).

 

[Bacon Bits]

Hard disagree.

Their fans are fans of them, not the system. They could do it.

But I suspect they may have a contract with WotC in which case, yeah, they can't.

"Ugh, unfortunately, Matt is going to be unavailable for a few months due to unforeseen complications. We may need to just cancel Season 3, unfortunately! In the meantime, please enjoy our guest campaign that we're calling Critical Reroll with guest DM, Ttam Recrem!"

 

[CleverNickName]

Quoting myself from another thread:

Well, let's break that statement down a bit then, shall we?

First paragraph, they open with a statement of support. They have always supported tabletop game creators (plural) and development. This means that they support Wizards of the Coast, but they also other creators and developers. They are reminding us what we already know: that the hobby is bigger than one company, one game, or one license.

Then they say that they stand by their peers in the industry; again this is plural. So if they aren't referring to a single entity, who are they "standing by"? Well, they clarify that in the next sentence: they stand behind anyone who takes a risk creating a new system or developing an original idea. So who's taking risks? Who's creating new systems and developing original ideas? (Hint, it's not Wizards of the Coast.)

On to the second paragraph.

They open with a statement about how games are better (they use the word "beauty") when they share inclusive, diverse, and compelling stories from a wide spectrum of creators. These words were carefully chosen to resonate with a particular group of people--those who are marginalized and underrepresented in the hobby. People who watch the channel regularly already know that this is very important to CR, and it's a focus of much of their charity work.

They explain why they launched their own gaming company: they believe that broadening the field of creators boosts the entire industry. This is the opposite direction from Hasbro/WotC at the moment. I don't know how that could be more clear.

And finally, in the last paragraph:

They credit the greater tabletop community for their success, and they commit to fostering an environment that allows everyone to easily share their own stories. This echoes the sentiments in the central paragraph.

-----

So do they come right out and shove a middle finger at Wizards of the Coast? Of course not. Nor did they pledge support to the Open RPG Creative License. I wouldn't call it a 'non-statement,' but I think @Bacon Bits is right about it not being a show of support for WotC.

Besides. Not saying what I wanted to hear isn't the same thing as saying nothing.

 

[Alzrius]

But I suspect they may have a contract with WotC in which case, yeah, they can't.

That's not really an issue though; so long as their contract doesn't explicitly say it's "irrevocable," they can just declare it to be de-authorized, and they won't be bound by it anymore.

What's WotC going to say to that?