Critical Role Issues Statement

[Aspirinsmurf]

Linda Codega asked them a question about contracts and the PR person shut it down.

That would attest to them being under a non-disclosure agreement too. Nothing really odd about any of that.

 

[Saracenus]

And Linda Codega at io9 posted an interview with Matt and Marisha on YouTube. She asked them about their views on the Open D&D Movement... It definitely feels like they are under some sort of agreement and cannot speak plainly.

The whole vid is 10min but I started is around the 7:50 mark to get to the Open D&D question.

 

[Azzy]

And Linda Codega at io9 posted an interview with Matt and Marisha on YouTube. She asked them about their views on the Open D&D Movement... It definitely feels like they are under some sort of agreement and cannot speak plainly.

The whole vid is 10min but I started is around the 7:50 mark to get to the Open D&D question.

But, man, the way Matt exaggeratedly says "grandiose" speaks volumes.

 

[MacDhomnuill]

The way they PR talked the response (Marisha would be a good political spokesperson) makes me think they already signed the new OGL or more likely one of WOTCs super secret special agreements and have no way to back out with out damaging their company plus 100% NDA has been signed.

 

[Haplo781]

The way they PR talked the response (Marisha would be a good political spokesperson) makes me think they already signed the new OGL or more likely one of WOTCs super secret special agreements and have no way to back out with out damaging their company plus 100% NDA has been signed.

Or they have a sponsorship deal with D&D Beyond (now part of Wizards of the Coast) that includes a non-disparagement clause.

 

[overgeeked]

The way they PR talked the response (Marisha would be a good political spokesperson) makes me think they already signed the new OGL or more likely one of WOTCs super secret special agreements and have no way to back out with out damaging their company plus 100% NDA has been signed.

Yeah, I don’t think so. I don’t see CR being dumb enough to sign on to only forking over 15% of their revenue over $750,000 when they basically don’t use the OGL. They published one book that uses the OGL. Nothing else they do touches it. They were business savvy enough to keep ownership of CR from Geek & Sundry before that went sideways. No way they’ve suddenly got real dumb.

 

[OB1]

Now that the OGL drama is over, I'm starting to wonder if the reason for CRs careful statements was that either CAA (the agency that represents the cast) or Amazon (for obvious reasons) or both were preparing a lawsuit against WotC in response to all of this, and they were instructed not to make any specific statements about the situation. Perhaps they were trying to get out of their sponsorship deal with DDB (which probably includes an agreement that they actually play D&D), and taking Wildmount and Netherdeep away from WotC's ability to publish (if they argue that WotC's move is hurting their brand).

 

[pemerton]

Now that the OGL drama is over, I'm starting to wonder if the reason for CRs careful statements was that either CAA (the agency that represents the cast) or Amazon (for obvious reasons) or both were preparing a lawsuit against WotC in response to all of this, and they were instructed not to make any specific statements about the situation.

Why would they be suing their sponsor? What would be the cause of action?

To me it seems fairly obvious - as others have posted, Critical Role have existing professional, commercial and legal relationships with WotC. These will almost certainly included legal obligations not to disparage the sponsor or bring it into disrepute. Critical Role also has good non-legal reasons not to burn any bridges.

 

[OB1]

Why would they be suing their sponsor? What would be the cause of action?

To me it seems fairly obvious - as others have posted, Critical Role have existing professional, commercial and legal relationships with WotC. These will almost certainly included legal obligations not to disparage the sponsor or bring it into disrepute. Critical Role also has good non-legal reasons not to burn any bridges.

If they felt that WotCs actions were a breach of their agreement and they wanted to remove themselves from their obligations to DDB and/or allowing their IP to be sold under Wizards name. Agree it's not likely, but also possible depending on if they felt WotCs actions could cause serious harm to their brand via the association.

 

[pemerton]

If they felt that WotCs actions were a breach of their agreement

It seems very unlikely to me that WotC, in a sponsorship agreement, would make promises about how it will conduct its core business. It probably promises not to disparage.