Critical Role Could Critical Role launch their own RPG?

[CleverNickName]

Over a nothing statement from CR? Probably not.
. . .
It only has the meaning you want it to have.

It's mostly a non-statement. It's certainly not open support for WotC, though.

I think CR is stalling. More than even Hasbro is. CR have the issue that D&D Beyond (and therefore WotC/Hasbro) have been and, as far as I know, still are sponsoring their show. They may very well have non-disparagement and non-disclosure clauses in those sponsorship agreements that restrict what they're allowed to say.

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.

 

[FormerLurker]

Critical Role is and always has been a business. They're doing the show to make money. They're not going to jeopardize their business by slandering or attacking a business partner they have contracts with. They likely have future products and books in the work. Another adventure or new campaign setting book for the third campaign's continent.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Rarely have I seen so many words with so little substance.

That’s a sheltered life.

 

[DarkCrisis]

They said something.
It's more PR speak than today's WotC post

Corp gonna Corp.

 

[Clint_L]

It's definitely not a statement in support of WotC, but it's also framed in such vague terms that it is not much more substantive than a Hallmark card. And I write this as a fan of Critical Role.

I totally get why they might need to hold back for now. But they definitely are not leading from the front. I am hopeful that they have been busy helping from behind the scenes, given their pull.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

That’s a sheltered life.

Perhaps. Or perhaps I just speak a touch hyperbolically from time to time.

 

[MockingBird]

I would definitely pick up a CR rules system. I really like their campaign settings and show.

 

[bostonmyk]

Critical Role is and always has been a business. They're doing the show to make money. They're not going to jeopardize their business by slandering or attacking a business partner they have contracts with. They likely have future products and books in the work. Another adventure or new campaign setting book for the third campaign's continent.

Yeah and end-of-day they have to provide for their families and all the people they've hired. It sucks for all.

M

 

[Azuresun]

Rarely have I seen so many words with so little substance. But the lack of content is part of the message. They are sitting on the fence, weighing their options, and waiting to see what happens.

Bear in mind they're probably tangled up in non-disclosure / non-defamation agreements and are very restricted in what they CAN say. Even if the players and GM could survive jumping ship, the same can't be said for the dozens of other people involved in the company.

Advice for Matt Mercer:

Step 1: Post on Enworld, "Hey gang, I'm writing a new Critical Role RPG, what should (and shouldn't) be in it?"

Step 2: Wait for consensus.

Step 3: Goto step 2.

No, Step 3: Die of old age as the thread degenerates into dozens of people recommending their favourite indie heartbreaker, and / or a handful of terminally online posters dragging it into an endless semantics debate. You know I'm right.

 

[FormerLurker]

Yeah and end-of-day they have to provide for their families and all the people they've hired. It sucks for all.

People they chose to hire. They chose to expand and become this growing lifestyle brand.

But, look, it's somewhat hypocritical to defend CR for doing business things for business reasons and then come down hard on WotC for doing the same thing. As it's a much bigger company with even more people to pay and families to provide for. Just because we all (probably) love Matt Mercer and the cast doesn't make it less of a multimillion dollar corporate business venture.