Critical Role Issues Statement

[billd91]

Also: I am rapidly tiring of everybody and their uncle seeking to suck up to folks starting their statements with the word "inclusive".

Yeah, well, a bunch of us are also tired of people grousing about efforts to improve inclusivity as if it’s some kind of sin. You’re not new here, you know it’s a value this forum promotes.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yeah, well, a bunch of us are also tired of people grousing about efforts to improve inclusivity as if it’s some kind of sin. You’re not new here, you know it’s a value this forum promotes.

yup I think that language is needed because the default has been NON INCULSIVE for so long that if you don't' say it, then it feels like you might not be.

 

[ilgatto]

Yeah, well, a bunch of us are also tired of people grousing about efforts to improve inclusivity as if it’s some kind of sin. You’re not new here, you know it’s a value this forum promotes.

Please allow me to clarify. Rather than "grousing about efforts to improve inclusivity as if it’s some kind of sin" I am criticizing organizations that use the word to promote and protect "their brand" or to correct PR disasters (yes, that's you, WotC) rather than anything else. Behavior like that disgusts me, especially when it involves inclusivity.

 

[darjr]

 

[darjr]

OK.

something odd.

the CR Darington Press book has the OGL in it
so whatever standing contracts they had didn't cover publications of setting/rule/adventure books. which makes sense cause they could just use the OGL.

Also the scuttle but is that no one has singed the blooding thing.

does that mean CR didn't either.

Even if they had a special deal, is it likely they didn't as per publishing and this latest OGL thing would have required them to sign the new thing or a special deal.

does that mean they didnt' and are still on the OGL 1.0a?

I dunno.

I'm going to go read my Mutant Crawl Classics book.

 

[humble minion]

I would be unsurprised if, in 2024, there is a period before official release of the 1D&D PHB/DMG/MM, where you can access "beta" versions of them (a lot more finalized than the playtest, as they'll have to finalize a while before printing), and make characters/encounters/etc. with them, if you have a Master Tier subscription. Which would technically and temporarily fulfil that prediction.

That particular future is already here, really. SotDQ was released on DnDBeyond several weeks before the hardcopy came out, and given the well-documented looong delays in shipping to non-US locations and in preorder fulfilment, the actual delay has been closer to a month for many people. It didn't occur to me at the time, but with hindsight that looks 100% like a pretty deliberate shove in the direction of the online tools.

 

[MarkB]

OK.

something odd.

the CR Darington Press book has the OGL in it
so whatever standing contracts they had didn't cover publications of setting/rule/adventure books. which makes sense cause they could just use the OGL.

Also the scuttle but is that no one has singed the blooding thing.

does that mean CR didn't either.

Even if they had a special deal, is it likely they didn't as per publishing and this latest OGL thing would have required them to sign the new thing or a special deal.

does that mean they didnt' and are still on the OGL 1.0a?

I dunno.

I'm going to go read my Mutant Crawl Classics book.

Whatever special agreement CR may have with WotC, I'd have assumed that it's to cover their sponsorship deal (D&D Beyond is their long-term sponsor for the entire current campaign) and possibly their use of WotC IP in non-gaming products such as the Vox Machina cartoon and their various novels and comic books.

Since their campaign itself hasn't relied upon non-OGL content since partway through campaign 1 (an early plot line featured mind flayers, and they notably avoided adapting those adventures when making the cartoon), it makes sense that they'd publish any actual rules content under the OGL rather than relying upon any more temporary arrangement between themselves and WotC.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That particular future is already here, really. SotDQ was released on DnDBeyond several weeks before the hardcopy came out, and given the well-documented looong delays in shipping to non-US locations and in preorder fulfilment, the actual delay has been closer to a month for many people. It didn't occur to me at the time, but with hindsight that looks 100% like a pretty deliberate shove in the direction of the online tools.

Oh wow I wasn't aware that it came out way earlier on Beyond, that is interesting.

 

[overgeeked]

Since their campaign itself hasn't relied upon non-OGL content since partway through campaign 1 (an early plot line featured mind flayers, and they notably avoided adapting those adventures when making the cartoon), it makes sense that they'd publish any actual rules content under the OGL rather than relying upon any more temporary arrangement between themselves and WotC.

You mean the early days when Orion was still there? Likely they skipped that to avoid his presence as well.

 

[Reynard]

OK.

something odd.

the CR Darington Press book has the OGL in it
so whatever standing contracts they had didn't cover publications of setting/rule/adventure books. which makes sense cause they could just use the OGL.

Also the scuttle but is that no one has singed the blooding thing.

does that mean CR didn't either.

Even if they had a special deal, is it likely they didn't as per publishing and this latest OGL thing would have required them to sign the new thing or a special deal.

does that mean they didnt' and are still on the OGL 1.0a?

I dunno.

I'm going to go read my Mutant Crawl Classics book.

I think it is more likely that the Darrington Press book was OGL so they could maintain full control over the copyright -- as opposed to the books published by WotC. I don't own any of them, though, so maybe there is another reason. Do the ones published by WotC include D&D stuff not available with the OGL? Is there any closed content or WotC IP in the Tal'Dorei book?