Critical Role Issues Statement

[Scribe]

Think it might be worthwhile to take a step back and remember what the actual issue is, what specific party is responsible, and maintain focus on that and what is needed to reverse course.

United opposition against Wizards? Check.

 

[Incenjucar]

To be fair to CR, they just saw WotC turn their own golden goose into gooseburger, so they're probably wary of doing the same with theirs.

 

[Retreater]

 

[humble minion]

I honestly don't know what else people expected from CR. They literally have a sponsorship agreement with DndBeyond, which is not just a branch of WotC, but it is THE branch of WotC which has been making all the statements about the OGL. I'm not much of an expert on sponsorship contracts (though if you want give me money to sponsor me, DM me!) but 100% they'd contain language preventing the sponsoree from loudly and publicly criticising the sponsor. The entire point of sponsorship is to ensure quite the opposite, in fact. And of course that's not to mention the various other agreements they have re Wildemount, Netherdeep, and who knows what else.

(Actually now I'm wondering a bit if this is why DnDBeyond has been the vehicle for WotCs communications on the subject - because it hamstrings CRs ability to criticise)

 

[BRayne]

While he hasn't come out to say it, I feel like Matt's most recent like (after the statement, which has replaced this at the top) probably says a lot about his view of things:

View attachment 272468

Also:

 

[overgeeked]

That’s disappointing, but makes sense. They’re likely bound by contract to not say anything negative about Hasbro, D&D, or D&D Beyond. Beyond is a long-time sponsor of the show. They likely had to work out some deal with Thanos Hasbro to use bits of their IP in the cartoon. Still…disappointing.

 

[Vael]

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.

 

[Alzrius]

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.

I like to think that it's not that, so much as people seeing a headline about Critical Role saying something only to then find out that they aren't actually saying much of anything.

 

[rcade]

I strongly support and oppose Critical Role's statement because reading it left me with no idea where it stands.

 

[pemerton]

Could Critical Role have a lawsuit against WotC for their reckless and unhinged mishandling of the brand? One that damages any contractual agrement between the two?

That seems very unlikely to me. I don't know what you think the cause of action is, nor what loss you think Critical Role would be trying to prove.

It seems more likely as a defense if CR chooses to breach their contract with WotC.

I don't see what the defence would be either.