Critical Role A key part of Linda Codegas Critical Role Interview

[DMZ2112]

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.

It's absolutely a good thing. I think the likelihood that the ORC will result in ash RPG durbatulûk is actually pretty slim. I believe, at least, that the ORC is important because the most important thing the loss of the OGL is taking away from independent creators isn't the D&D SRDs, it's a common license.

There's a ton of open game content licensed under the OGL that isn't owned by Wizards, and the deauthorization immediately makes that content closed right along with the D&D SRDs.

Individual publishers can and will re-release their proprietary open content under a new open license, but unless everyone does that under the same license, it is going to shatter the web of interdependency that the OGL supported and erect barriers to collaboration and the sharing of ideas. That, not D&D compatibility, is the biggest casualty here.

So what the ORC facilitates is that interdependency. Some roughly D&D-compatible SRDs are inevitable, but there's no way we all agree on one, and that's fine. There will be dozens or hundreds of SRDs, each doing their own thing, with their own strengths and weaknesses. And they'll recombine with each other under the ORC, and a bunch of games with shared or similar mechanics and rules will be produced from which each of us can pick and choose one that best fits our table. Or design our own.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I expect it's going to be written to easily slot in where publishers had been using the OGL with as little muss and fuss as possible now that the existence of the OGL is threatened. Other, similar agreements might provide the same kind of rights and coverage... or they might not and I might not have the time or money to do the research myself. I would expect a license like ORC, written specifically to replace the OGL, to do so.

Right, this is pretty much what I was saying. Mostly this is about maintaining use of the stuff authorized by the previous OGL, or bypassing any obstacles to using it, perhaps.

This is what I had in mind when I expressed some concern, and why I thought that concern may possibly be expressed by Mercer and Marisha's comments (though, frankly, the comments are vague enough to be interpreted several ways).

It's absolutely a good thing. I think the likelihood that the ORC will result in ash RPG durbatulûk is actually pretty slim. I believe, at least, that the ORC is important because the most important thing the loss of the OGL is taking away from independent creators isn't the D&D SRDs, it's a common license.

There's a ton of open game content licensed under the OGL that isn't owned by Wizards, and the deauthorization immediately makes that content closed right along with the D&D SRDs.

Individual publishers can and will re-release their proprietary open content under a new open license, but unless everyone does that under the same license, it is going to shatter the web of interdependency that the OGL supported and erect barriers to collaboration and the sharing of ideas. That, not D&D compatibility, is the biggest casualty here.

So what the ORC facilitates is that interdependency. Some roughly D&D-compatible SRDs are inevitable, but there's no way we all agree on one, and that's fine. There will be dozens or hundreds of SRDs, each doing their own thing, with their own strengths and weaknesses. And they'll recombine with each other under the ORC, and a bunch of games with shared or similar mechanics and rules will be produced from which each of us can pick and choose one that best fits our table. Or design our own.

This would be my hope, as well. I hope it helps set a community and industry standard. My concern is that it may result in simply further fracturing the D&D-alikes into ever smaller subsets, and maybe doing the same for a couple of other notable systems.

 

[billd91]

Right, this is pretty much what I was saying. Mostly this is about maintaining use of the stuff authorized by the previous OGL, or bypassing any obstacles to using it, perhaps.

Yes, but the stuff people are allowing under the OGL isn’t just D&D. Other games maintained their own ecosystems with their own rules using the threatened OGL. So it’s not about furthering D&D-family dominance, per se. It’s about giving everyone using the OGL an alternative no matter what game’s SRD/open content they used.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, but the stuff people are allowing under the OGL isn’t just D&D. Other games maintained their own ecosystems with their own rules using the threatened OGL. So it’s not about furthering D&D-family dominance, per se. It’s about giving everyone using the OGL an alternative no matter what game’s SRD/open content they used.

No, I get that... and I agree. But the D&D dominance kind of goes along with it all, doesn't it? It's a big part of it, if not the entirety.

 

[billd91]

No, I get that... and I agree. But the D&D dominance kind of goes along with it all, doesn't it? It's a big part of it, if not the entirety.

D&D’s market dominance would accompany any license following up 20 years of a very successful and generous OGL, ORC or not. WotC would have to screw that pooch even harder to achieve the dubious goal of driving everyone away from D&D(-ish) support.

 

[hawkeyefan]

D&D’s market dominance would accompany any license following up 20 years of a very successful and generous OGL, ORC or not. WotC would have to screw that pooch even harder to achieve the dubious goal of driving everyone away from D&D(-ish) support.

I think there are plenty of people that seem to think that's where things are at, no? My personal opinion aside, I see plenty of talk that folks are done with D&D. Plenty of people asking about other games and other systems.

And while I'm perfectly fine with folks finding alternatives that still scratch the same itch... I'm hoping we see a proliferation of new systems and ideas rather than just variants on the old ones.

 

[ValamirCleaver]

According to Codega's interview with Roll for Combat, she asked a question about "contracts", Matt and Marisha looked kind of confused for a second, and the PR person stated they wouldn't be answering that question.

@ 22:06

 

[ThorinTeague]

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":

The Critical Role 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 could be interpreted as negative. But for a billion dollar company, making grandiose moves is probably pretty much a given.

 

[Haplo781]

@ 22:06

That loooooong awkward pause with hands over the mouth lol

 

[Aldarc]

I think there are plenty of people that seem to think that's where things are at, no? My personal opinion aside, I see plenty of talk that folks are done with D&D. Plenty of people asking about other games and other systems.

And while I'm perfectly fine with folks finding alternatives that still scratch the same itch... I'm hoping we see a proliferation of new systems and ideas rather than just variants on the old ones.

I can't say that I'm too hopeful. In the wake of the OGL 1.1 announcement, several 3pp said that they were working on their own system. Sounds great. The problem? It sounds like it's more of the same. I don't want to disparage them too heavily, but a fair number of these "Screw you! I'm making a new game" creators seemed to just be reinventing the wheel, with some flagrantly tracing over the pre-existing design plans.

Kobold Press basically implied that it would be D&D 5.1. Some others already had quickstarts and previews, and these were basically just D&D variants too. One I saw looked pretty OSR, but nothing really stood out as to why I should pick this OSR game over the myriad of other OSR games already out on the market that are competing for the same exact niche.