Critical Role A key part of Linda Codegas Critical Role Interview

[dave2008]

This is an important point. The CC licensing and 1.2 initially looked like they could be a positive step forward. It took a bit longer to actually analyze the documents and realize how little was included in the CC license and how much power WotC was giving itself to manipulate the terms of 1.2.

Well those are initial steps too. They have said they plan to put more editions in both the CC and OGL 1.2 and they are actively getting feedback to modify the OGL 1.2. In the end, both steps could end up being very positive steps. Also, the CC contribution is a lot actually. I mean it is enough to create a game completely compatible with 5e. I feel the community forgets how generous this is, just because we have been a bit spoiled for 20 yrs.

 

[darjr]

Well those are initial steps too. They have said they plan to put more editions in both the CC and OGL 1.2 and they are actively getting feedback to modify the OGL 1.2. In the end, both steps could end up being very positive steps. Also, the CC contribution is a lot actually. I mean it is enough to create a game completely compatible with 5e. I feel the community forgets how generous this is, just because we have been a bit spoiled for 20 yrs.

It’s not. It’s a clawback. Nothing in there is copyrightable. In the CC. See what Russ and Matt Welch have to say.

It’s a no go.

 

[The Stray]

It takes a little bit to get Matt riled and sharing his real feelings, but you can see it happen on side projects like Game Grumps.

I have no doubt he slipped some backhanded compliments into the interview.

I think we'll need to see what his body language is like when he talks about it to gain more context clues.

 

[Rabulias]

I think we'll need to see what his body language is like when he talks about it to gain more context clues.

So it's our Wisdom (Insight) vs Matt Mercer's Charisma (Deception)? That might be a tough roll...

 

[The Stray]

So it's our Wisdom (Insight) vs Matt Mercer's Charisma (Deception)? That might be a tough roll...

Well, we can certainly try...

 

[Haplo781]

Given that I routinely freak out looking for the glasses that I'm currently wearing, I don't think even a nat 20 will let me succeed here.

 

[Neonchameleon]

My reading of that is he's speaking to the seismic shift of putting the core rules out under the Creative Commons license.

But, then again, he might not be. This is one of those rare times where citing the dictionary might actually be helpful.

grandiose
grăn′dē-ōs″, grăn″dē-ōs′
adjective

1. Characterized by greatness of scope or intent; grand.
2. Characterized by excessive self-importance or affected grandeur; pompous.
3. Impressive or elevating in effect; imposing; splendid; striking; -- in a good sense.

Regarding Grandiose and two of the meanings being positive, here are the definitions for nimrod from the Merriam-Webster dictionary

1 : a descendant of Ham represented in Genesis as a mighty hunter and a king of Shinar
2 not capitalized: hunter
3 not capitalized slang: idiot, jerk

That's two out of three that are positive or at worst neutral. But when someone is called a nimrod do you expect it to be positive?

And going to the M-W it only has two definitions of grandiose:

1: characterized by affectation of grandeur or splendor or by absurd exaggeration
They did not believe his grandiose claims.
2: impressive because of uncommon largeness, scope, effect, or grandeur
had grandiose plans for the city

The first meaning is negative. The second is neutral and has overtones of arrogance at best in my experience. Depending on taste the second can be positive or negative.

I'm not sure which dictionary you are using, but grandiose is not a term I expect to be positive, and neither does the MW - nor Wiktionary which even manages to shade the 'positive' meaning in the quote chosen.

I'm pretty sure Mercer wouldn't have used the word grandiose if he meant anything positive by it.

 

[J.Quondam]

. I feel the community forgets how generous this is, just because we have been a bit spoiled for 20 yrs.

No, we haven't been "a bit spoiled."
"Spoiled" is what happens when someone is treated too leniently for doing something bad. "Spoiled" is what it would have been had there been no OGL, and creators did their willy-nilly D&D things anyway while WotC turned a blind eye.

But that's not what's happened. Generally, 3pps have used the OGL in good faith on WotC's terms for 20+ years. Creators who have abided by that agreement are not "spoiled" for doing so, nor are they "spoiled" for trusting WotC's intentions when they released it and for the last two decades. Perhaps it was naive, but it's not "spoiled" to accept as status quo something that's been in existence for so long- longer than many gamers have been alive, in fact, and for whom OGL1.0 is literally "the way it's always been."

Stop framing this issue as if 3pp creators and hobbyists are doing something wrong by using OGL1.0. Those people and companies are not "spoiled" brats, they're not leeches on WotC bank account. That's an unfair misrepresentation of how the past twenty years have unfolded.

 

[Haplo781]

No, we haven't been "a bit spoiled."
"Spoiled" is what happens when someone is treated too leniently for doing something bad. "Spoiled" is what it would have been had there been no OGL, and creators did their willy-nilly D&D things anyway while WotC turned a blind eye.

But that's not what's happened. Generally, 3pps have used the OGL in good faith on WotC's terms for 20+ years. Creators who have abided by that agreement are not "spoiled" for doing so, nor are they "spoiled" for trusting WotC's intentions when they released it and for the last two decades. Perhaps it was naive, but it's not "spoiled" to accept as status quo something that's been in existence for so long- longer than many gamers have been alive, in fact, and for whom OGL1.0 is literally "the way it's always been."

Stop framing this issue as if 3pp creators and hobbyists are doing something wrong by using OGL1.0. Those people and companies are not "spoiled" brats, they're not leeches on WotC bank account. That's an unfair misrepresentation of how the past twenty years have unfolded.

The relationship between WotC and 3pp is much like the relationship between Samsung and Galaxy accessory manufacturers. Mutually beneficial in that one provides a product that the other can't be bothered with, yet they boost each other's sales.

 

[dave2008]

No, we haven't been "a bit spoiled."
"Spoiled" is what happens when someone is treated too leniently for doing something bad. "Spoiled" is what it would have been had there been no OGL, and creators did their willy-nilly D&D things anyway while WotC turned a blind eye.

But that's not what's happened. Generally, 3pps have used the OGL in good faith on WotC's terms for 20+ years. Creators who have abided by that agreement are not "spoiled" for doing so, nor are they "spoiled" for trusting WotC's intentions when they released it and for the last two decades. Perhaps it was naive, but it's not "spoiled" to accept as status quo something that's been in existence for so long- longer than many gamers have been alive, in fact, and for whom OGL1.0 is literally "the way it's always been."

Stop framing this issue as if 3pp creators and hobbyists are doing something wrong by using OGL1.0. Those people and companies are not "spoiled" brats, they're not leeches on WotC bank account. That's an unfair misrepresentation of how the past twenty years have unfolded.

Perhaps I used the wrong word. I never said, nor intended to insinuate, that anyone was doing something wrong by using the OGL 1.0(a). That is your projection, not my intent or even what I said. Please note I included myself (we) as being "spoiled."

The point I wanted to make was that we are lucky to have the OGL 1.0(a) and we took it for granted.

However, I think the OGL 1.2 can be even better. That in conjunction with the CC release and DMsGuild and we could be looking at the best time ever for D&D.