Critical Role A key part of Linda Codegas Critical Role Interview

[darjr]

As founding cast members of Critical Role, Matt Mercer and Marisha Ray are some of the most influential Dungeons & Dragons players in the world. Currently they act as the Chief Creative Officer and Creative Director for Critical Role, and have always centered their fans in their creative endeavors. When asked about the movement in the wider D&D fandom to Open D&D (by either removing the Open Gaming License from the auspices of Wizards of the Coast, or irrevocably enshrining the OGL 1.0a), their response was measured, but came down strongly on the side of creators

Critical Role's Cast Supports Independent Creators and New Systems

Matt Mercer and Marisha Ray spoke to io9, saying that they will always support a Dungeons & Dragons environment that allows for “new things.”

gizmodo.com

 

[Haplo781]

They're definitely under some form of NDA or non-disparagement clause IMO.

 

[overgeeked]

They're definitely under some form of NDA or non-disparagement clause IMO.

Yeah. No way they're not.

 

[overgeeked]

So...where's the rest of it? Linda Codega said it was a 35 minute interview. There's three quotes and basically nothing there. No info. Also Linda got the Vox Machina info wrong. It's the first three episodes of season 2. That article is a whole lot of nothing.

 

[darjr]

So...where's the rest of it? Linda Codega said it was a 35 minute interview. There's three quotes and basically nothing there. No info. Also Linda got the Vox Machina info wrong. It's the first three episodes of season 2. That article is a whole lot of nothing.

See the tweet. I considered not making a new thread but figured it wasn’t going to hurt.

Mea-culpa

 

[Clint_L]

Well, if that is all they had to say about it, it would have been better to just avoid the topic. And I write that as a fan.

 

[overgeeked]

See the tweet. I considered not making a new thread but figured it wasn’t going to hurt.

Mea-culpa

Ah. No mea-culpa necessary. I didn't bother looking at the tweet. I just dove into the article.

This is me impatiently waiting for more.

Thanks for the link.

 

[DND_Reborn]

@darjr can you please use the Critical Role tag for things you post concerning CR instead of D&D General (which it isn't...)?

Thanks!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

So...where's the rest of it? Linda Codega said it was a 35 minute interview.

A 35-minute interview will also include a lot of "are we recording? yeah, we are," "sorry, I thought I silenced my phone," a bunch of "um" and "you know" language litter, rambling questions that aren't worth including for readers to read, digressions about other topics ("oh, yeah, we really liked the Witcher, too!") and so on.

A few meaty points in a 35 minute interview isn't ideal, but it's hardly surprising.

 

[Dausuul]

So... same as their original statement. Very carefully avoiding anything that could even suggest criticism of WotC, equally carefully avoiding criticism of #OpenDND, while being strongly in favor of things basically nobody is against.

I don't know how outspoken they normally are, but it certainly sounds like some mix of "non-disparagement clause" and "we really really don't want to have to pick a side in public."

(Side note: Wizards should be taking lessons from them on how to do PR.)

 

[Ondath]

One thing to note in Codega's article is Mercer calling WotC's OGL v1.2 + CC moves on D&D "a grandiose step in a grandiose direction":

Critical Role's Cast Supports Independent Creators and New Systems

Matt Mercer and Marisha Ray spoke to io9, saying that they will always support a Dungeons & Dragons environment that allows for “new things.”

gizmodo.com

Now I'm not a native speaker so maybe I'm understanding it wrong, but isn't grandiose a rather negative term? Kinda like something that has a lot of pomp but not because it deserves to have it, but is big only to have an air of greatness?

If that's the case, Mercer's comment seems like an incredible backhanded compliment. I'd almost say he's dancing around the non-disparagement clause...

 

[Haplo781]

One thing to note in Codega's article is Mercer calling WotC's OGL v1.2 + CC moves on D&D "a grandiose step in a grandiose direction":

Critical Role's Cast Supports Independent Creators and New Systems

Matt Mercer and Marisha Ray spoke to io9, saying that they will always support a Dungeons & Dragons environment that allows for “new things.”

gizmodo.com

Now I'm not a native speaker so maybe I'm understanding it wrong, but isn't grandiose a rather negative term? Kinda like something that has a lot of pomp but not because it deserves to have it, but is big only to have an air of greatness?

If that's the case, Mercer's comment seems like an incredible backhanded compliment. I'd almost say he's dancing around the non-disparagement clause...

"Grandiose" means "impressive and imposing in appearance or style, especially pretentiously so: excessively grand or ambitious." (Emphasis mine.)

So you ain't wrong. Matt's a wordsmith; he didn't pick that term haphazardly or by mistake. He's saying "this plan is Wizards swinging its around as a show of dominance and it's overly ambitious."

 

[DarkCrisis]

One thing to note in Codega's article is Mercer calling WotC's OGL v1.2 + CC moves on D&D "a grandiose step in a grandiose direction":

Critical Role's Cast Supports Independent Creators and New Systems

Matt Mercer and Marisha Ray spoke to io9, saying that they will always support a Dungeons & Dragons environment that allows for “new things.”

gizmodo.com

Now I'm not a native speaker so maybe I'm understanding it wrong, but isn't grandiose a rather negative term? Kinda like something that has a lot of pomp but not because it deserves to have it, but is big only to have an air of greatness?

If that's the case, Mercer's comment seems like an incredible backhanded compliment. I'd almost say he's dancing around the non-disparagement clause...

It’s not. Just mean like “big”.

 

[darjr]

The fact he isn’t effusively positive about it says all you need to know.

 

[overgeeked]

One thing to note in Codega's article is Mercer calling WotC's OGL v1.2 + CC moves on D&D "a grandiose step in a grandiose direction":

Critical Role's Cast Supports Independent Creators and New Systems

Matt Mercer and Marisha Ray spoke to io9, saying that they will always support a Dungeons & Dragons environment that allows for “new things.”

gizmodo.com

Now I'm not a native speaker so maybe I'm understanding it wrong, but isn't grandiose a rather negative term? Kinda like something that has a lot of pomp but not because it deserves to have it, but is big only to have an air of greatness?

If that's the case, Mercer's comment seems like an incredible backhanded compliment. I'd almost say he's dancing around the non-disparagement clause...

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.

 

[BRayne]

I believe that the interview was like 30 minutes after 1.2 was released so he might be completely genuine.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I haven't really been commenting throughout the larger OGL controversy... it all seems very open to interpretation and the legality key elements seems fairly uncertain, and the constant supposition and theories have been pretty crazy. So I figured best to just pay half attention from a distance.

I think the speed with which we all expect/demand/want answers these days can at times have a negative impact instead of a positive one. Whether an NDA or similar restriction applies or not (though it certainly seems likely) I actually appreciate that it seems the CR folks are taking their time and offering a considered take instead of just adding to the loud and often rash reactions we've seen throughout.

I won't ever defend WotC's shenanigans, no matter if they're within their legal rights to revoke the old OGL, and no matter what version of it they wind up offering in place of it. They handled this incredibly poorly, and I would say to the potential detriment of their product and its longevity. They've also put many other businesses at risk.

But, I don't think that seeking an alternate creative commons or ORC or any other idea that's been proposed which will basically allow the industry to continue to prop up some version of D&D as the dominant product in RPGs is really the best idea. Perhaps if everyone who was going to make 5E products instead made something else, it would lead to more variety in the hobby. And it would also, perhaps, force WotC to be more creative themselves. Like they won't be able to rely on the creativity of others along with their market position to do the heavy lifting.

Maybe that would all be a good thing.

Anyway, as vague and cryptic as the comments from the CR folks have been, I can't help but read them with the above in mind. They're all for creators and for variety and a diverse market.... which all sound like great things to me, too. But I'm not sure if their stance will be compatible with the ORC or any attempts to promote or maintain one dominant system in the hobby.

 

[Haplo781]

I haven't really been commenting throughout the larger OGL controversy... it all seems very open to interpretation and the legality key elements seems fairly uncertain, and the constant supposition and theories have been pretty crazy. So I figured best to just pay half attention from a distance.

I think the speed with which we all expect/demand/want answers these days can at times have a negative impact instead of a positive one. Whether an NDA or similar restriction applies or not (though it certainly seems likely) I actually appreciate that it seems the CR folks are taking their time and offering a considered take instead of just adding to the loud and often rash reactions we've seen throughout.

I won't ever defend WotC's shenanigans, no matter if they're within their legal rights to revoke the old OGL, and no matter what version of it they wind up offering in place of it. They handled this incredibly poorly, and I would say to the potential detriment of their product and its longevity. They've also put many other businesses at risk.

But, I don't think that seeking an alternate creative commons or ORC or any other idea that's been proposed which will basically allow the industry to continue to prop up some version of D&D as the dominant product in RPGs is really the best idea. Perhaps if everyone who was going to make 5E products instead made something else, it would lead to more variety in the hobby. And it would also, perhaps, force WotC to be more creative themselves. Like they won't be able to rely on the creativity of others along with their market position to do the heavy lifting.

Maybe that would all be a good thing.

Anyway, as vague and cryptic as the comments from the CR folks have been, I can't help but read them with the above in mind. They're all for creators and for variety and a diverse market.... which all sound like great things to me, too. But I'm not sure if their stance will be compatible with the ORC or any attempts to promote or maintain one dominant system in the hobby.

...ORC is not about creating a dominant product or a "new D&D".

 

[Maxperson]

It’s not. Just mean like “big”.

It means excessively big or pretentiously impressive. It is a backhanded compliment. If he had meant it as just big, he'd have said grand, not grandiose.

 

[Seramus]

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.