Critical Role Issues Statement

[Reynard]

Is it? I agree it's a weak and noncommittal statement. But the part where they say that broadening the field of creators boosts the entire industry is pretty clear to me. That's not neutral with regards to open gaming. Nor is fostering an environment that gives everyone an opportunity to easily share their stuff.

I mean, this is literally an example of it being a rorschach test.

 

[Synthil]

What else can it mean then?

 

[Reynard]

What else can it mean then?

Apparently, to some folks, it means CR is knuckling under. That's my point: people are seeing what they want, because the statement is vague and noncommittal.

 

[MarkB]

What else can it mean then?

"WotC may have screwed up initially, but they're right back on track with their latest statement, which claims to support both these concepts."

 

[Synthil]

"WotC may have screwed up initially, but they're right back on track with their latest statement, which claims to support both these concepts."

I see. Thanks! That is indeed a valid reading.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

What else can it mean then?

We've heard from you, the fans, that a statement is required. We agree! Statements are important. In times like this, when things are uncertain, and we don't know what might happen to the games we love, we all look for reassurance. Reassurance is good. We, like all of our fans, love reassurance. And we love our hobby. Because we love our hobby, and love reassurance, we want to reassure you, our fans, that our hobby is awesome, and deserves to continue to be awesome. Why?

Because of our fans, and our community. Where would this community be, if not for our fans? And because of that, because of the community, the fans, and the hobby, we want to reassure you that we are here, making a statement. Thank you!

 

[Bedrockgames]

Not commenting on the OGL specifically, but pretty clearly siding with creators and keeping D&D open.

I don't see them saying that. To me it looks very vague on the issue of the OGL. In fact they only mention people who take the risk developing new systems. This statement looks like it could be interpreted as being in support of the companies who are doing ORC but it also reads like it could be supporting WOTC statement as well.

 

[Reynard]

Thus whole OGL thing is making me very uncomfortable, given how often it I'd forcing me to like posts by @Snarf Zagyg

 

[Zeddok]

This tweet from Critical Role would have said it all, in my opinion:

"Pacta sunt servanda".

1. it would make clear that a "pacta", and a license is a kind of agreement, must be respected and not unilaterally unauthorized.


2. it would make clear that they can't say more because of the contracts and NDA we can assume they have with WotC.


3. the sentence is such an obvious truth and says that CR is in compliance with the NDA that it would not be a violation of the NDA.

 

[Remathilis]

' As someone in the thread stated earlier, this statement is a Rorschach test. You take out of it what you brought in.

The problem is that people were expecting a different type of Rorschach test...