D&D General Critical Role Ending

[Parmandur]

What I was objecting to is the theory that CR only uses OGL materials and didn't use a beholder because of legal issues. They use many things that are not in the basic rules and they have used a beholder.

As far as legal obligations, CR does not charge people to view their content. Therefore I don't believe there is not any licensing issue because of the Fan Content Policy [1] [2]. Yes they sell merchandise, but it's not D&D copyrighted merchandise. The CR cartoon will obviously be a different issue, as is the Wildemount guide.

If you are a lawyer, or if you can point to any evidence at all, I will bow to legal expertise. Until then, it's not worth arguing about.

@pemerton is actually a lawyer, and IIRC teaches philosophy in a Lwa School.

They probably haven't received pushback from WotC, but wouldn't they tried to publish an art book with their IP. So, for convenience to prevent needing to asl permission, they use less WotC IP when possible. Keeps thi to clean.

 

[Mort]

As far as legal obligations, CR does not charge people to view their content.

But they do.

You can subscribe to their channel (various levels of subscription and cost) and they get proceeds from that. The number of subscribers they have gives them a decent amount of money.

 

[Maxperson]

What I was objecting to is the theory that CR only uses OGL materials and didn't use a beholder because of legal issues. They use many things that are not in the basic rules and they have used a beholder.

As far as legal obligations, CR does not charge people to view their content. Therefore I don't believe there is not any licensing issue because of the Fan Content Policy [1] [2]. Yes they sell merchandise, but it's not D&D copyrighted merchandise. The CR cartoon will obviously be a different issue, as is the Wildemount guide.

If you are a lawyer, or if you can point to any evidence at all, I will bow to legal expertise. Until then, it's not worth arguing about.

I don't think he's a lawyer, but I think he graduated law school and does maybe legal research. It's been a while since it came up.

 

[overgeeked]

What I was objecting to is the theory that CR only uses OGL materials and didn't use a beholder because of legal issues. They use many things that are not in the basic rules and they have used a beholder.

Then you’re objecting to something I never said.

 

[CleverNickName]

LOL, this is what I get for waiting until after the weekend to respond.

A total loss of context to my comment.

At the time of the original exchange, I am commenting on the lack of rules-mastery CR still shows after years of play.

Their lack of rules mastery is the 'home game standard' I am referencing.

In replying to a post over 7 pages back, I get how that could get lost.

A high level of rules mastery seems like an unreasonable expectation to me. And wouldn't be nearly as fun to watch.

I mean, I've been playing D&D since 1986. My oldest and longest-lived gaming group has been playing together for over a decade, and we've been playing the 5th Edition rules for the last six years. And our mastery of the rules is nowhere near as good as Critical Role's. Hell, we also play every week and we still struggle with how "flanking" isn't a thing anymore, what triggers Attacks of Opportunity and what doesn't, and how a Shield Bash works.

And it's not like we aren't accustomed to rules and minutiae; three of us are civil engineers, one is a mechanical engineer, and one of us owns his own tech business. We love us some rules, we follow rules for a living. It's just that when you're hanging out and having fun (and maybe a few beers), there comes a point where rules just aren't that important anymore...in fact, they can start getting in the way. "Who cares if that shield bash comes before or after the attack roll, just get on with it!"

Critical Role isn't an acting gig, at least not a traditional one. Sure, they get paid to act in front of a camera but I think that's where the similarities end. Two hours into each episode, they feel like every other group of old friends sitting around a table, getting tipsy and throwing dice and telling stories about magic and dragons. It's not that they don't know the rules; they are letting the rules take a backseat to the story, and I appreciate that.

 

[Oofta]

@pemerton is actually a lawyer, and IIRC teaches philosophy in a Lwa School.

They probably haven't received pushback from WotC, but wouldn't they tried to publish an art book with their IP. So, for convenience to prevent needing to asl permission, they use less WotC IP when possible. Keeps thi to clean.

My basic objection still stands: Matt is not making up beholder-adjacent monsters to avoid IP conflicts.

Considering the book and cartoon I'm sure their legal department has been talking to WOTC's legal department. But, unless I'm missing something there's not an issue even if they do get ad revenue and donations. You just have to allow people to view it for free:

from the fan content policy:

​

1. One word: F-R-E-E. You can use Wizards’ IP (except for the restrictions listed in #3) to make Fan Content that you share with the community for free. Free means FREE:
   • You can’t require payments, surveys, downloads, subscriptions, or email registration to access your Fan Content;
   • You can’t sell or license your Fan Content to any third parties for any type of compensation; and
   • Your Fan Content must be free for others (including Wizards) to view, access, share, and use without paying you anything, obtaining your approval, or giving you credit.

You can, however, subsidize your Fan Content by taking advantage of sponsorships, ad revenue, and donations—so long as it doesn’t interfere with the Community’s access to your Fan Content.​

​

But, you know what? I don't really give a furry rat's posterior. Just pointing out that as long as people can get the content for free there should be no issue assuming you follow the other guidelines.

 

[MarkB]

What I was objecting to is the theory that CR only uses OGL materials and didn't use a beholder because of legal issues. They use many things that are not in the basic rules and they have used a beholder.

As far as legal obligations, CR does not charge people to view their content. Therefore I don't believe there is not any licensing issue because of the Fan Content Policy [1] [2]. Yes they sell merchandise, but it's not D&D copyrighted merchandise. The CR cartoon will obviously be a different issue, as is the Wildemount guide.

If you are a lawyer, or if you can point to any evidence at all, I will bow to legal expertise. Until then, it's not worth arguing about.

They probably have little or no issue using WotC IP in their streamed shows. But streamed shows are no longer the entirety of their product range. They're producing an animated show, they've launched their own boardgames company, and they have other projects on the go that produce commercial products.

It's in these areas that they may run into issues when using WotC IP - but all of these subsidiary lines are fed from the lore, setting elements, storylines and characters established in their main shows. So it would make sense to keep any WotC IP minimised in the main show, and certainly not hang any storylines or character elements off it, to ease the process of adapting those materials for subsidiary products that will be subject to copyright and IP restrictions.

 

[Oofta]

They probably have little or no issue using WotC IP in their streamed shows. But streamed shows are no longer the entirety of their product range. They're producing an animated show, they've launched their own boardgames company, and they have other projects on the go that produce commercial products.

It's in these areas that they may run into issues when using WotC IP - but all of these subsidiary lines are fed from the lore, setting elements, storylines and characters established in their main shows. So it would make sense to keep any WotC IP minimised in the main show, and certainly not hang any storylines or character elements off it, to ease the process of adapting those materials for subsidiary products that will be subject to copyright and IP restrictions.

Which is what I've been saying. The TV show, the book, any games will obviously require lawyers and probably licensing.

 

[Oofta]

Then you’re objecting to something I never said.

Really?

There's a difference between a troll and a beholder. The troll is generic and not under copyright, the beholder is unique and under copyright. The SRD lists what WotC considers Product Identity. On that list are "proper names (including those used in the names of spells or items)" followed by a long list of specific locations and characters and it finishes off with "beholder, gauth, carrion crawler, tanar’ri, baatezu, displacer beast, githyanki, githzerai, mind flayer, illithid, umber hulk, yuan‑ti." Of that entire list, I think only beholders and illithid / mind flayers appeared in C1. I know displacer beasts and yuan-ti appeared in C2...but I don't remember if either were actually name dropped in the episodes.

There's also a huge difference between the level of scrutiny most DMs have to deal with and what Matt does on Critical Role. You can use whatever you want and call it whatever you want. No matter how much you violate someone's intellectual property, you're not going to get a call from anyone's lawyer. On CR the cast has to drink from unlabeled cups and they have to cover any logos because they're broadcasting to however many millions of viewers on a weekly basis. They have to follow much different IP rules than the rest of us.

 

[Parmandur]

My basic objection still stands: Matt is not making up beholder-adjacent monsters to avoid IP conflicts.

Considering the book and cartoon I'm sure their legal department has been talking to WOTC's legal department. But, unless I'm missing something there's not an issue even if they do get ad revenue and donations. You just have to allow people to view it for free:

from the fan content policy:

​

1. One word: F-R-E-E. You can use Wizards’ IP (except for the restrictions listed in #3) to make Fan Content that you share with the community for free. Free means FREE:
   • You can’t require payments, surveys, downloads, subscriptions, or email registration to access your Fan Content;
   • You can’t sell or license your Fan Content to any third parties for any type of compensation; and
   • Your Fan Content must be free for others (including Wizards) to view, access, share, and use without paying you anything, obtaining your approval, or giving you credit.

You can, however, subsidize your Fan Content by taking advantage of sponsorships, ad revenue, and donations—so long as it doesn’t interfere with the Community’s access to your Fan Content.​

​

But, you know what? I don't really give a furry rat's posterior. Just pointing out that as long as people can get the content for free there should be no issue assuming you follow the other guidelines.

I agree with you, so I'm not sure why this post was directed to me?