OGL Critical Role Issues Statement

[Composer99]

I mean, if the VTT has a monthly subscription and you run, like, one game a month on it, wouldn't that amount to the same thing?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yeah I just saw a tweet that said "rumor has it now that WotC is putting OneD&D behind a pay wall, no physical books will be released" (not exact quote). They would be really, like in another galaxy, out of touch if they did this.

I think it's beyond unlikely for the real release. If nothing else, the books are extra profit, and they reach people Beyond just won't.

HOWEVER.

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.

We haven't seen the business model behind their upcoming VTT yet. There's still time.

I think they'll probably settle for requiring the person opening the VTT session to be on a Master Tier subscription, though they might introduce a higher tier for VTT access though I think it's more likely they'll just have one which adds content to the VTT (more tiles, minis, etc.).

I mean, if the VTT has a monthly subscription and you run, like, one game a month on it, wouldn't that amount to the same thing?

Exactly.

 

[BrassDragon]

There's also the possibility of add-on subscription services like, say, an integrated Microsoft Teams with D&D functionality (using Teams as an example because Hasbro already said it's used for in-house testing and they have former Microsoft people in leadership positions.)

 

[Mercurius]

Man, this is Twitter in a nutshell with the new algorithm. Instead of showing you posts from people you follow in chronological order, it shows you a selected assortment of posts on subjects you've shown interest in from people you've never heard of. I've read takes ranging from "WotC is trying to cancel cultural conservatives" to "this was all instigated by reactionaries against 'woke' D&D," with hundreds of conventional lefty "late-stage capitalism corporate greed" takes in the "middle."

Sounds like your feed is on "For You" rather than "Following." If you want to see tweets by people you follow, set it towards the latter.

(I was confused at first, too, but going to Following reverting back to seeing only/mostly tweets from people I follow)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There's also the possibility of add-on subscription services like, say, an integrated Microsoft Teams with D&D functionality (using Teams as an example because Hasbro already said it's used for in-house testing and they have former Microsoft people in leadership positions.)

i like teams but i dont see it being what WotC would want

 

[Greg Benage]

Sounds like your feed is on "For You" rather than "Following."

Yeah, I switch back to "Following" when I can't take it anymore.

 

[Haplo781]

i like teams but i dont see it being what WotC would want

Let's be honest, 99% of groups will use Discord and disable the in-game voice chat.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Let's be honest, 99% of groups will use Discord and disable the in-game voice chat.

Virtually built-in voicechat solution is going to end up getting abandoned in favour of a non-built-in one, for the very simple reason that people get on voice-chat BEFORE they start they game session, in 99.9% of cases, for VTTs.

So I think integrating any kind of voice-chat solution kind of indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of how these products are used. With Roll 20, we had actually quite some real annoyance disabling their one. At least it stays disabled, but bloody hell - it was absolutely godawful and all it was really doing was annoying us and costing them money!

At most I think they might want to endorse a voice-chat solution and make it so it's particularly easy to create a voice-chat session in that by clicking something in the VTT.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Let's be honest, 99% of groups will use Discord and disable the in-game voice chat.

maybe... we had issues trying that with roll20 because half the group has really great 'gaming' computers... but half of us have old broken laptops and can't run two streaming websites at the same time.

 

[ilgatto]

That's... not much of a statement. Not much of anything, really. Some vague fluffy feel-good stuff that commits them to absolutely nothing.

With respect, I'm failing to see any statement.

"Just make sure to get the buzz words of the day in there...yeah yeah, good, hit send."

All of this.

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

 

[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?