OGL Critical Role Issues Statement

p_johnston

Explorer
So whatever we hear publicly form CR is likely tied up by contracts and constrained by what their lawyers will ok for them to say. Keep in mind that doesnt mean they arent letting WOTC know what they think.
Nothing is certain but based on the few hints we've gotten it seems CR is against this move and having that big an ally tell WOTC they're unhappy, even if its not in a public statement, will have an effect.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Dausuul

Legend
I'm hating this "You're either with us with bells on and streamers and bringing the pitchforks or you're against us" purity test.
Who's imposing purity tests? I see a lot of people (myself included) making fun of them for putting out such a totally substance-free statement, but come on, how can you not mock a statement like that? There's very little actual anger in this thread that I can see.

I mean, there's plenty of stuff like this:

Well, yeah, okay, but that's Twitter. I think they have "Toxic Purity Test" trademarked.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
???

Considering it has some of the same language Wizards used earlier today in their 'no no you guys got it all wrong we are with you!' I'm not sure thats the correct reading.
The wording isn't very strong, but it's entirely about standing with the content creators, even if it means creating new games. There's nothing there supportive of WotC.
 

The wording isn't very strong, but it's entirely about standing with the content creators, even if it means creating new games. There's nothing there supportive of WotC.
I'm a big fan of Critical Role, but both WoTC and several 3pp are both 'content creators' and 'industry partners'.

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

I don't think it was done with sinister intent or anything. It looks to me like someone had decided that their shot clock for remaining silent had run out, and this was the best they could come up with.

It's not great, but considering their production schedule, their current other commitments like the new season of their TV show is coming out next week(!) and that everything is still up in the air with what is actually going to happen, "not great" is an unsurprising result.
 
Last edited:

So whatever we hear publicly form CR is likely tied up by contracts and constrained by what their lawyers will ok for them to say. Keep in mind that doesnt mean they arent letting WOTC know what they think.
Nothing is certain but based on the few hints we've gotten it seems CR is against this move and having that big an ally tell WOTC they're unhappy, even if its not in a public statement, will have an effect.
 

BrassDragon

Adventurer
Supporter
Man, you can love Critical Role and still think this is a weak, non-commital and soulless statement from a company that usually presents itself with passion, sincerity and in-your-face politics.

All the hand-wringing about NDAs is a bit disgenious - Hasbro/WOTC is not going to sue ONE OF THE BIGGEST MEDIA PROPERTIES REPRESENTING THEIR BRAND over a poorly chosen word or stringent sentence when it's commenting on PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION. Even if they win legally (far from certain), they're certainly not going to turn CR's audience against them in the middle of a PR firestorm. If you think it surprising that mainstream media has picked up this controversy, watch what happens if WOTC takes CR to court. Far, far smaller and less influential entities who also have business ties to WOTC have come out with clear and certain statements.

It's a disappointing showing... but also it's fine and CR will be fine. They're a positive force on the whole and lovely people by all appearances. But we can still call them out for this and be justified.
 
Last edited:

delericho

Legend
If I found myself in a position where I absolutely had to say something, but really didn't want to actually say anything, I'd probably say something like this. There are a lot of words, but very little content.

Which, honestly, I'm fine with. While the internet seems to love binary divisions with absolutely no nuance, I'm not a fan.
 


Synthil

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


Reynard

Legend
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.
 





Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
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!
 

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.
 


Zeddok

Villager
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

Legend
' 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...

44642342d701750efb4ec6b3c4e20c32.jpg
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top