Critical Role Issues Statement

[MockingBird]

I mean, there's plenty of stuff like this:

What did this say? Apparently the poster removed it.

 

[Velderan]

While I agree the statement is basic PR fluff that doesn't really say anything, my question is what did people seriously expect them to say? Their show is sponsored by DDB and they have 2 books published by WotC, I don't see how or why anyone expected them to come out strong against WotC.

 

[Incenjucar]

While I agree the statement is basic PR fluff that doesn't really say anything, my question is what did people seriously expect them to say? Their show is sponsored by DDB and they have 2 books published by WotC, I don't see how or why anyone expected them to come out strong against WotC.

It is my impression that people sometimes confuse influencers with leaders.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm a big fan of Critical Role, but both WoTC and several 3pp are both 'content creators' and 'industry partners'. As someone in the thread stated earlier, this statement is a Rorschach test. You take out of it what you brought in.

WotC is a creator(singular) and not a peer. Critical Role said creators(plural) and peers(plural and more little guys). You have to morph plural into singular and make Critical Role equal to a multibillion dollar corporation in order to make them a peer for what Critical Role said to mean WotC. You also have to ignore what they said about taking risks making new games as meaning WotC and not the little guys talking about doing it right now. As I said, it's not strong, but it does mean Third Party Providers.

I don't think it was done with sinister intent or anything. It looks to me like someone had decided that their shot clock for remaining silent had run out, and this was the best they could come up with.

It looks to me, because of what I said above, that they want to support the little guys and stand with them against WotC, but can't because of contractual obligations. That or they want to side with the little guys without angering WotC.

 

[Gammadoodler]

WotC is a creator(singular) and not a peer. Critical Role said creators(plural) and peers(plural and more little guys). You have to morph plural into singular and make Critical Role equal to a multibillion dollar corporation in order to make them a peer for what Critical Role said to mean WotC. You also have to ignore what they said about taking risks making new games as meaning WotC and not the little guys talking about doing it right now. As I said, it's not strong, but it does mean Third Party Providers.

It looks to me, because of what I said above, that they want to support the little guys and stand with them against WotC, but can't because of contractual obligations. That or they want to side with the little guys without angering WotC.

WotC is a company which employs creators (plural).

Alternatively, since nothing here is explicit, WotC + 3PP would also be plural.

'Peers' are in the eye of the beholder.

WoTC and little guys both have taken risks to make new games.

...

At the end of the day, I'm inclined to agree with you regarding how the cast and crew of Critical Role feel about the situation.

I don't think the statement actually says it.

 

[MockingBird]

Now I have a YT video pop up with the title "Critical Role Failed Us". Why go after CR? They didn't make these crazy decisions. They are not accountable. I don't expect them to make business decisions based on emotion.

 

[Greg Benage]

What did this say? Apparently the poster removed it.

I mean, I didn't memorize it or anything, but I remember the word "shameful."

 

[Sidhanei]

Now I have a YT video pop up with the title "Critical Role Failed Us". Why go after CR? They didn't make these crazy decisions. They are not accountable. I don't expect them to make business decisions based on emotion.

Many don't want to doubt them and would strongly prefer to think of them as being on their side. They are rolemodels and heroes to many after all. Don't get me wrong, I get that. I know how creator contracts work and just how constraining they can be, and that CR of all people probably were never offered a new contract in all this as their existing contracts likely extend until 5e would stop being supported.

All that said, neutrality isn’t always side-agnostic. This is especially true for the little guys in any struggle where they are feeling very threatened. So I do not fault CR fans for feeling like they were left behind by the role models they built up—even if CR never had a choice in the matter and are victims of their own success.

It's a terrible spot to be in when you can only show apathy and I don't envy CR being in that position. But regardless of all the excuses in the world, that is ultimately still the hand they're showing.

 

[Reynard]

Now I have a YT video pop up with the title "Critical Role Failed Us". Why go after CR? They didn't make these crazy decisions. They are not accountable. I don't expect them to make business decisions based on emotion.

YouTube is designed to make you mad. Don't let it.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Now I have a YT video pop up with the title "Critical Role Failed Us". Why go after CR? They didn't make these crazy decisions. They are not accountable. I don't expect them to make business decisions based on emotion.

When you don't pick a side, it's not unreasonable for one or both sides to be mad at you.