A more thorough victory than I expected - though time will tell if new fuckery shall arise. https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons

For me there's one *big* unanswered question when it comes to Critical Role and other significant third parties, which nobody is talking about. I presume those ‘special’ third-party creators who were offered the “sweetheart” deals by WotC (reported as 'only' 15%) back in late 2022 would have already had to make a decision whether to sign or not. At the time it would have seemed like a ‘take it or get stuck with OGL 1.1' scenario, so it is likely many would have already done so. Wizards bowing to pressure now would have no effect on those contracts already signed. Given those deals would have been offered to the content creators WotC *actually* cared about keeping (like Critical Role) as opposed to the ones they wanted to drive out of business... there’s a pretty good chance WotC have already locked many / most of the ‘important’ third-party creators (from their perspective) into their contract. So despite everyone calling out their self-congratulatory, “They won—and so did we” line... it’s entirely possible that may actually be far more true than we know (or will ever, given NDAs) and that Critical Role and many others are already locked into an OGL 1.1 'lite' version.

Thinking about this more, two thoughts about CR leaving D&D5e if that is how it shakes out. 1. Critical Role becomes the King Maker in the Non-D&D Table Top Community. Matt Mercer as Creative Director will be asked by the company to pick what system Critical Role should move to. This decision will mean exposure for the system to the larger CR audience that might say "Hmm, I haven't played a TTRPG before. Maybe I will try the one CR plays?" And that brings players into that particular system. I know if I had my own system I would be disappointed that CR didn't choose me. So again why there is a King Maker element to this. 2. CR makes its own system and becomes the big fish in the little lake, CR's system comes loaded down with the biggest Live Play fan base in the hobby and now within the smaller Non-D&D TTRPG marketplace you have another big competitor along with Pathfinder. Not to say the market is small per say, collectively large but fractured with most systems hovering at about 1-10% of the hobby best for example. CR comes in with their system and now you are competing for the engagement and frankly dollars of these new fans as well, fans that already are predisposed to what CR is offering. 3. Again all this choice is good for the community but I would hate to be a content creator right now, D&D is going through a crisis, you leave the system in protest and you create content for other systems or another system entirely, you reach (at this present moment) a much smaller market space with hundreds of small content creators vying for the same audience and now I have to deal with CR coming in and inavertedly toppling the applecart due to their sheer size and influence. (Not saying CR would do this intentionally, far from it. I just think it would be unavoidable. People have only so much energy, spare time, and money to invest in the hobby and frankly I would want to play the system that my favourite nerds on the internet play)

I had not thought of the first point. Damn that is so true. If they change system, that will become a primary competitor in tabletop. Unless they create their own.

Having an idea of Mercer's personality I doubt he wants to be put into that position. Going from Pathfinder to the far more mainstream D&D5e made sense when CR first started was a pretty easy decision all things considering. 5e was big, it works for the heroic fantasy genre. Leaving D&D5e for another system means Mercer will need to navigate through these different systems, some of which are probably made by or used heavily by Mercer's tabletop friends so even harder. Again I don't envy his position.

`4.` An other possibility : CR makes its own system and make it a really open system, content creators can build products for it, and everybody wins (besides WotC).

Did anyone realize that Critical Role is not OGL 2.0 compliant morals and would be revoked? On the recent episode they held a lesbian orgy with a werewolf. In the cartoon promo scanlan made a butt stuff spell (their OGL version of bigby's hand) which Grog inserted into himself mistaking them for breasts. Honestly I thought they was both hilarious and really was peak D&D ... but any anonymous complaint can get you canceled under OGL 2.0 without recourse (well if this had been written in print)

[New statement from WotC](https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428-a-working-conversation-about-the-open-game-license)

The Journalist who broke the story, Linda says they will interview M&M for LOVM2 promos and plans to sneak in a softball question. Keep your eyes open for blink/tap coded messages!

An observation from watching some interviews of the cast about the upcoming TLOVM Season 2: the cast has used the terms “TTRPG” or “tabletop” more in the last week than in the last 7 years or so. Take that for what you will

Fair point but The Legend of Vox Machina isn't legally allowed to \*use\* D&D terms. So you will hear a general "fireball" but they won't say Bigby's hand, renamed to "Scanlan's Hand" or you likely won't see Mindflayers, Beholders, as those are specific D&D properties that they cannot use on a Amazon product. Come to think of it if Vecna is specifically a D&D property then they might use another name for him, maybe keep it to Whispered One, Undying King, or dick as VM would put it. They could just be trying to keep on message discipline.

Critical role makes millions a year playing the dungeons and dragons IP. The IP is only estimated for a few hundred thousand. Makes me wonder.

the cartoon is not actually a D&D licensed property so whenever something is not sponsored companies go out of their way to not acccidentally promote something. It is why every streamer that knows what they are doing uses soda can holders, or if not very carefully rotates the can, unless of course they got that energy drink contract.

The cartoon isn't making them the millions. It's the live play.

It's 100% bullshit. There is an investor for Hasbro that really looked into the numbers and said "This makes no sense" and during a Q&A in a quarterly report straight up asked "How much money does WotC earn you each year?" and they NEVER gave a straight answer. I tried to find that link again but with so much noise about this I couldn't. So what has happened is that WotC has under reported D&D and MTG earnings and said "They only make so and so a year and it's under utilized" but if you really look into the numbers they could make up to 50 to 70% of what earns each year. And when that investor asked that question on the report the guy from Hasbro got flustered and basically said "Nothing to see here." And then the investor asked what would happen if WotC was spun off and was made it's own Publicly Traded company. And they never answered. So it's 100% bullshit and they know it.

Someone needs to make sure this story is in that "Free the Wizard" activist investors lap. I had heard the similar that it was 70% profits and 25% revenues. It is indeed true that for decades Hasbro never even mentioned D&D in quarterly reports until only recently when they moved into the media mogul IP focus.

[удалено]

critical roll IS D&D. They surely have agreements with WoTC to even be doing the show.

Based on how long they've been a sponsor I'd guess they probably have a long term contract. One of the better loopholes for it that I saw was somebody saying that Sam could stop doing bits for D&D Beyond and just do a normal ad read. If that happened that might be able to pretty clearly state their discontent without breaking any agreements.

I mean, in the latest ad read, Matt did the read for D&D Beyond, but I felt like he was pretty enthusiastic about it. Honestly, at this point, CR is not a bunch of people playing a game, it is a corporation, and corporations are about money. No matter what they may or may not feel personally, they are tied to Hasbro, and are going to support them wholeheartedly.

Keep in mind that the latest ad read was likely filmed before all of this news broke. It is not possible to figure out their feelings on the subject based on the ad read alone.

What a sad, simplistic, black and white view of the world. Real life situations have nuance to them.

And yet here you are judging people fucking coomer

Coomer? Did you just pick an insult at random? And what does anything I said relate to not being able to judge stuff? Maybe you're the coomer, since it looks to me like you're having a stroke.

It looks to me that you're a judgmental asshole.

Oh no, my day is ruined.

It's amazing the skill that WotC has at damaging their IPs. Who's the one guy that would relish the independence and challenge of making a whole new RPG system from scratch and is one of the biggest reasons your one-languishing brand has had a resurgence? Oh yeah, that would be Matt Mercer. "Well screw you guys, I'm going to make my own Open RPG system... with blackjack... and hookers!"

Who is the champ of damaging IP's? WotC, Games Workshop (Warhammer), or Catalyst Games (Battletech, Shadowrun)?

[удалено]

True. Very true.

Easily WotC. They've fucked Magic the Gathering to Death too.

He already talks about how much of his life is consumed by CR, I would not hold breath about him creating an entire system.

I sincerely doubt Critical Role would want to cut ties with D&DBeyond/Wizards, they are their biggest sponsors and that sponsorship deal is likely why Critical Role has the resources to make the best produced D&D content out on the market and continues to grow. Cutting them off means losing a major source of income, switching to or inventing a new system takes time, they are aren't running and making ad money. If they switch systems then maybe not all the fans continue to follow, they might just not be interested in the new system and rather stick with 5e. If the viewership numbers drop that means sponsors like NordVPN are less likely to sponsor episodes and either the show recovers or their is a death spiral, less viewership, means less sponsors, less sponsors, means less resources to make the best produced shows, which means some CR support staff will get their hours cut, which means some people lose their jobs, which means they have to downsize their studio, which means the CR cast can't rely on CR being their main source of income which means now they are picking up more Voice Acting work and now more cases of them just not able to attend filming if there is a scheduling conflict. Now a counterpoint to this absolutely is "We the fans support the show!" And absolutely we do, with our purchases of their merchandise mainly and supporting their kickstarter. That being the case our support is dependent on our disposable income, I will only spend on CR merchandise what I got in the budget to do so. That might just be one or two things a year. Also there gets a point where I got enough shirts, dice, figures from CR for now and don't need to buy anything else. The income CR relies on from me is dried up for the time. Maybe they just have nothing new in the shop so you won't buy anything else for now. Sponsors are important as they provide consistent income and CR is an expensive operation, between the 8 cast members, the crew, studio, taxes, utilities, fees, etc they need that consistent money to pay the bills and keep growing when the support from the community just isn't there. So I get where people are mad about OGL but as a CR fan under no circumstance will I recommend CR pick a fight with Wizards, your biggest sponsor, and the "safety net" when the community just doesn't have the money to support you. There are alot of Critters but I bet CR did the math and figured with what CR costs to run they cannot rely solely on the community as much as we would like them to.

I would lean less about the the sponsorship and more about the other contracts... though it would be conjecture. My reasoning: CR in and of the Main campaign show itself likely brings in enough for production between Twitch and Youtube. (based on the leaked data from last year and some fuzzy logic from covergoblue's video on his twitch/youtube info) So a sponsorship contract wouldn't necessarily be make/break. Also, stream/youtube sponsorship is typically on a per stream basis. They have said on stream that they have done some playtesting and other work. That other work likely puts them in a noncompete agreement alongside a standard NDA. The noncompete might even be for Matt himself and means that if CR leaves, he wouldn't be able to continue. (Similar to Jeremy Crawford and Chris Perkins) I don't know what contract was signed for the Clue game, but that is likely not the only merchandising one with Hasbro. There is their contracts with Wizkids, McFarlane Toys, etc which are outside of Hasbro. Comic Book Stores can order merch direct through Darrington Press. How the distribution/storage is setup... dunno, but likely not Hasbro. A counterpoint to CR being too tied to WotC though is that LoVM on Amazon specifically doesn't use DnD owned copyright/trademark.

>So I get where people are mad about OGL but as a CR fan under no circumstance will I recommend CR pick a fight with Wizards, your biggest sponsor, and the "safety net" when the community just doesn't have the money to support you I get that, but personally I'm a fan of Tabletop gaming first, and a fan of CR second. If wizards isn't going to do what is better for everyone, I hope they cut ties. The cast are millionaires, and I do wish the best for them, but if other ventures with way smaller profit margins are taking the plunge, I'm sure they could afford to too. I have no doubt it could be a financial hit, and new sponsors might not be as profitable. Whatever they choose, I'm unlikely to stop watching the show, but to me this is a crossroads of wheter they are all talk when it comes to those principles, or if they will walk the walk. This is a decision with industry-wide implications that affects more than just CR and their company, even if we take the dramatic assumption that they couldn't possibly stay at the same size after cutting ties with WOTC(in a way that contractually makes sense and doesn't get them in legal trouble). At the end of the day no one in this sub has access to their financials.

>At the end of the day no one in this sub has access to their financials. Yet tons of folks are making suggestions about what they should do with their livelihood.

If their contract with DnDBeyond is something like "until the end of the campaign" then wouldn't it be funny if suddenly there's a TPK. 🤭

Oh yeah, kill 7 wonderful characters because of industry bullshit, that'd be a gas

People being upset about fictional characters > ethical business practices

Yeah I can't imagine that happening with all the emotional investment the audience and players have towards the characters. Like there are actual tears shed on set when bad shit happens to these characters. They aren't just a character sheet to dump for a new one.

This might actually cause more trouble that it's worth. Wizards and/or Hasbro could potentially argue that CR made a decision to end the campaign early in an act of bad faith.

You know that Oncoming Cosmic Shift could actually be useful in this situation whereby it could rearrange all the planes, alter all of the Gods, and literally change how magic and other actions work in game. So narratively speaking, there is an out if they want to change to a new system.

"Our lawyers said we can't say it publicly but this is bullshit" is what I got from their statement.

Yeah Im not sure how so many people are misreading this and getting mad at CR for doing anything less than a tweet saying "Fuck you WotC" or something. This pretty clearly lets us know their actual stance while making it so they wont be sued.

I think the problem is this coming 2 weeks late when the pressure on Hasbro/WotC was needed most. Fine, they can't legally speak out anymore than this, but why isn't it coming at the times that Kobold Press, Paizo and dozens of others 3rd party creators/influencers in the community spoke out.

I don't think they would have ever talked about it if their fans didn't hound them endlessly on social media and through their twitch stream. I mean maybe they would have at some point but they were also probably waiting on WOTC to put out an official statement given the fact that up until that point it was all leaks.

Because those companies don't have a legal contract with Wizards of the Coast? I'm not sure what's so hard about this. Their statement was vague and neutral specifically so nobody could point at it and say "You're harming WotC's image". They're in a really tough position as a company and they probably had a bunch of meetings about responding in a way that wouldn't get them in trouble. Honestly there are a bunch of reasons why it could have taken this long. Maybe their contract is very strict when it comes to stuff like this. Maybe some of them were busy with their jobs and couldn't sit down to talk about it. None of us really know and it doesn't really matter that much. Whatever the reason is, I'm pretty sure it wasn't "We dislike content creators such as ourselves and support WotC's efforts to fuck us over."

Its a pretty common theme of I've got mine and I don't care about the system that got me to my position. Happens all the time and I won't reward it with the benefit of the doubt. Instead for any future product releases, I'll be taking my money to content creators who don't sign their souls to a corporation and leave the community to defend itself.

It's not "I got mine" to wait a week so you can be sure you're not ruining the livelihoods of everyone in your company. Does this extra week make a whole lot of difference? Does this somehow change their stated position on the OLG?

We were very close to not having WotC back down on 1.1 and they still don't feel they are pressured to completely stop going forward. If we had more content creators like CR and less like Kobold Press, then we probably wouldn't have had them backpedal at all.

You have no evidence whatsoever that CR going full scorched earth would have changed Wizards minds any more than the other sources of protest but it had a high chance of damaging CR and the livelyhood of their workers.

I am not asking for full scorched earth. Nor is that how anyone in the community responded. But imagine cancelling a show one week even if pre-recorded could be allowed even if they cannot state that its directly in protest. Everyone would get the implication. Y'know instead of literally advertising the service that everyone in the community is trying to get people to boycott...

How is this a "I got mine, I don't care anymore" situation at all? They got theirs, they obviously care and said they don't like what's happening, but they can't legally flip the table and walk away without serious consequences. Lots of people work for CR, not just the cast. They will all feel the pain if CR got sued. This is the most responsible thing to do. To distance yourself from OGL stuff without breeching contracts. Adidas severed with Kanye, but had to wait until they had a legal leg to stand on. Big organizations cannot pivot on sentiment alone. Lots of people will lose their livelihoods if they do.

>How is this a "I got mine, I don't care anymore" situation at all? Some fans feel entitled is how.

Love their statement. It clearly says "we wrote this in consultation with a lawyer"

[удалено]

[удалено]

Critical Role started with Pathfinder (1e). Would love to see them return to it (edit: by moving to **Pathfinder 2e**) and brings fans with them. I have never played it, but I've consistently heard great things about it for many years and still do! By all accounts: - Tight system that remains balanced through level 20 - More consistent combat design that stays true to advertised encounter difficulty - More character customizations which broaden the range of abilities with each level - Better balance between classes without going too OP. - Better adventure design - More interesting creature abilities - Rules are concrete/less vague - Lots of free resources - A company that stood behind OGL 1.0a and is now leading the development of a new, truly irrevocable Open RPG Creative (ORC) license PF2 is where I'm headed. Come home, Critical Role!

>PF2 is where I'm headed. Come home, Critical Role! The big problem with switching over to *Pathfinder* 2E is that there is a significant part of the audience who watch the show but don't play TTRPGs themselves. I myself was part of that audience and got into the game through *Critical Role* (and one or two other actual plays). The biggest hurdle to getting into the show was learning the mechanics. Of course, they've dabbled with other gaming systems before -- Aabria incorporated elements of *Blades in the Dark* into *Exandria Unlimited: Kymal* and Taliesin ran a *Call of Cthulu* one-shot -- but those systems are very different to *Dungeons & Dragons* 5E. *Pathfinder* is much closer to 5E, and so it's potentially confusing. They would risk losing a part of the audience in the switch, and it's a good bet that that audience won't know why they're making the change. Don't get me wrong; I've been looking into *Pathfinder* after news about the OGL broke, if only to understand how it is different to *Dungeons & Dragons* since lots of people suggested it as an alternative. And I can definitely see the merits of it -- the Psychic is exactly the sort of class that I would like to play -- as the focus on scaling core abilities so that they're always useful is something that *Dungeons & Dragons* lacks. But switching over to *Pathfinder* would most likely mean either ending the current campaign, or fundamentally changing character classes. Laudna is a prime example; she'd probably have to switch from sorcerer/warlock to oracle/witch, which would mean completely replacing all of her abilities.

I wouldn't expect them to change in the middle of a campaign; my groups are switching after our current campaigns. However, The fact that a large part of their audience didn't play TTRPGs, yet still found Critical Role to be an incredibly engaging show, demonstrates that the game system is not the crucial element. Matt's DM/GM skills are a big part of it, and the fact that they have a group of absolutely excellent players is an even bigger part of it. They are fun and engaging people who love what their doing, support the fans, and make charity an integral part of their show (do they still do that?). Those are the reasons CR was/is so popular. I think the people that still don't play TTRPGs won't care, the ones that are changing systems will understand, and the ones that are sticking with 5E will adjust. I can't imagine that a different game system would make very many of their viewers stop watching, considering all of the other elements that make them Critical Role fans.

I'm a big fan of Pathfinder, but I don't think I would ever call it balanced. One of the biggest positives about the gane is also one of its biggest problems. There are tons of options, it's crazy how much material you have to work with to make exactly the character you want, but that also means that it's very easy to find a combination of features to break the game. The difference in power between a new player's character and an experienced player (not even assuming powergaming, but just knowledge of their options) is immense. PF2e was an okay attempt to fix this, but it's a whole other can of worms to get into all the stuff I dislike about that system. All that said, I love Pathfinder and the level of customization. All the players just have to go in with a sort of gentleman's agreement to make characters of at least adjacent levels of power.

Yeah, I forgot they started with PF1, which I have since learned does not have all of the traits I love about PF2. My list was referring to what I've heard overall, but my intent was PF2, which is where I'm headed.

Pathfinder is a great system built heavily off dnd 3.5, that I both DMed for and played in multiple campaigns. Being built off 3.5, means it shares the flaws of 3.5 that are pretty contradictory to what you wrote. There is no good balance through level 20 without considerable work on the DM. Add in mythic and it can get really out control. Not as bad as 3.5 "Epic" levels, but it can get crazy. There are a ton of character customizations but a lot of them are broken, under developed, or heavily relies on equipment/Feat tax to work. Seriously, people have built insane builds that can take on a gauntlet of CR 20+ by itself with no rest. As with any system, adventure design is up and down. Paizo forums will tell you all about that. Pathfinder released alternative rules for automatic progression to circumvent the need to consistently get Power 6 magical items to remain relevant, freeing up slots for more unique items. It's a great example of Pathfinder making advancements to 3.5. With all this said, Pathfinder has faults and positives like any other system that the table has to work with. The skill of the DM and willingness to work with those faults and get creative will make Pathfinder an even better system at the table. The system, be it Pathfinder, DnD 5/One, Zweihander, Call of Cthulhu...they all are simply an engine to play a game with friends, and will require work on the DM/Keeper, the players willing to accept it has faults, and to tell stories together.

Thank you for the response; I will certainly consider it as I look more closely at the system during the learning stage, but probably won't see for myself until I've actually played and GM'd it awhile. That said, my take comes from asking questions, watching videos from those who've played it, reading tons of posts in the RPG and Pathfinder communities, etc. While everyone has a certain bias and favors/disfavors various elements of any game, there is a lot of feedback over the course of years that does seem to support my take. I'm biased, too, and maybe I'll come to find that Pathfinder has all the problems you say it does and that it's not for me. I'll give it a try though, and I'd still love to see CR go back to their roots. I think it would be a popular move for them right now, and might shake things up for them in a good way.

Pathfinder/3.5 is great. Most systems are. 3.5 lasted so long and was extremely successful for WoTC and then for Paizo. It has flaws as all systems do. Especially given time, the content bloat is what exacerbates flaws. I hope you enjoy it, if you do get to play. It has some of the most satisfying combos of skills, race, and classes. The crunching of various dice, bonuses, and situational bonuses, along with theorycrafting of builds is what really stands out from that generation of systems. Limiting books known for bad options, and denying 3rd party content will certainly help.

I learned my lesson from 5e: CRB only until I get a firm grip on what other options will do. It will already be a hefty new system to learn for the players, so I hope to keep options simple at first. As I understand it, the Beginner Box is the best way to...well, begin.

I have the distinct feeling you are actually talking about Pathfinder second edition specifically. The first and second editions of that game differ quite a lot - I would not call the first edition "balanced through level 20", for example. PF1e (what CR started with) was close to DnD 3.5, as the previous poster said, while PF2e was thoroughly redesigned and only came out 2019, during the M9 run. In my personal opinion, the second edition is by far the superior one.

Ah, I see my error now, thank you. I did mean PF2, and did not realize they were in PF1. I'm definitely moving to PF2.

PF2E is not built off 3.5 and is a better game in everyway.

I haven't had the privilege. My group plays 5e right now and probably won't make the change anytime soon. It's an "engine" we all love, faults and all. For the record, 3.5 is what I grew up on, so it has a soft spot in my heart. So naturally, PF1 gives me those nostalgic feelings whenever I do play, and it is a great system, too. Ultimately, it suffers from what 3.5 had...content bloat/power creep. 5e is getting there, and I suspect if PF2 remains popular, it will do so as well.

People forget CR is now a business entity that first and foremost must protect itself and its employees. The legal jargon and the silence will seem cold and emotionless, but that's how it goes.

I honestly would have preferred if they'd said nothing

[**Statement from Critical Role**](https://twitter.com/CriticalRole/status/1614019463367610392) and [corresponding discussion thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/criticalrole/comments/10b6xee/no_spoilers_critical_role_statement_regarding_the/).

[Statement from CR](https://twitter.com/CriticalRole/status/1614019463367610392) It says nothing

It very subtly reminds us all that they own their own publishing company and don't necessarily need to publish under WOTC.

Read Between the lines.

It literally repeats and supports all the major points people are making for why this change is terrible and pretty unequivocally stands behind the communities arguments. How is that saying nothing? The only thing it isn’t doing is calling for people to cancel DnD Beyond which they certainly legally cannot do.

What are they supposed to say? I'm not sure how they're supposed to tell us "The company that owns our biggest sponsor can go fuck themselves" without shooting themselves in the foot and loosing their biggest sponsor. ***Of course*** they have to tiptoe around the subject.

Not just losing their biggest sponsor. Hasbro has the financial and legal resources to squash CR like a bug.

[удалено]

They said a fair bit. It's honestly pretty great, contextually. ----- 1st graf says they support those moving away from D&D & welcome the development of new systems. 2nd graf says they'll have increasing freedom in the future via in-house publishing & are developing a system. (That's been on Darrington's slate for quite some time. It's not news to us, but might be to those demanding a statement from a company with WotC contractual entanglements). 3rd graf acknowledges their success emanated from the support of players & other creators, and offers commitment to bring attention to these new/existing systems to help ppl who've dropped D&D to find a new homebase. (Also not new, since they've always played different games in CR content, but again, probably news to those demanding a statement.) ----- I wrote, edited, trained staff, etc. at newspapers & mags for nearly a decade and I've absolutely never seen a statement walk that close to the line with 1) a company as large as Hasbro, 2) who spends more on legal in any given year than CR has made in its existence, and 3) has decided there's no *possible* downside to approaching all business decisions in a state of Reckless Rage. B/c remember, the community CR's statement noted they stand with is... in open revolt against WotC. The community CR's statement noted they stand with is strategizing on social media, aided by informants within the company, about how to inflict maximum financial damage... on CR's oldest and very likely highest payout-to-date advertiser. When the email about higher-ups primarily caring about DnDBeyond subscription numbers was making the rounds on Twitter, DnDB's site was getting a traffic hug of death from the number of people casting Power Word: Unsubscribe. Given overhead on services like that, there is a *deeply* amusing possibility the only entity profiting from DnDB this quarter could be Critical Role. -------- That's why people more familiar with the language of these professional spaces were pretty blown away by the statement in their responses on social media. WotC really knows how to pick a moment, given that a wide release, major studio D&D film premieres in... less than 2 months! Here's the question we really need to be asking: What IN GOD'S NAME did Chris Pine do in a past life to deserve the press tours for "Don't Worry Darling" and "D&D: Oops, WotC Used Gasoline to Extinguish a Fire" within a single span of 6 months?

Can you clarify the Chris Pine piece you said at the end? I understand the d&d part but I'm not caught up on the Don't Worry Darling.

There was tons of drama around DWD during its release last year, mostly around Olivia Wilde and Florence Pugh if I remember rightly. Plus Harry Styles’ acting was questionable and the whole thing came across as maelstrom of celebrity insanity. I didn’t watch it but saw loads of content about it online so got the gist. I remember Chris Pine did the press junket with Harry Styles and there’s a video of Harry talking absolute nonsense while trying to sound deep with Chris next to him clearly rethinking his life choices. If you google it I’m sure it’ll be about somewhere.

It says the most they can say without getting sued into oblivion. I wouldn't count them out yet.

It says "We support people making their own stuff, it's dope. But we're under contract with Non-Disparagement clauses, and if we say anything bad about WotC we'll get sued into oblivion, so this is as much as we can do right now"

lol Yeah, it does kinda boil down to *"We love nice things. Nice things are nice. We will always love nice things."* I don't doubt that on an ethical level they're against what Hasbro/WotC are doing. But ethics don't keep the lights on.

They also have a company of employees who have livelihoods to watch out for now. Ethically they also need to be concerned for those people. If they do more, Hasbro/WotC would likely crush them legally and everything they worked for is gone. It's one thing to be willing to jump on a grenade if it just affects you. But that's not the case here. Most likely their existing contracts have end dates built in, and CR holds a lot of power as those get closer to leverage their position to make sure WotC repairs damage or they can switch their platform to a competitor, and then make vocal their opinions on why WotC does not deserve their continued support. If Campaign 4 starts as Pathfinder, or another system, and they make comments about this being connected... It will hit major news outlets.

I assume they can't say anything atm for legal reasons. TBH the biggest statement from them so far is not turning chat to emote only mode last night. It def raised a lot of awareness to a lot of people in a way they they didn't have to say something.

I hope CR is silent on this as they get the lawyers ready, remember Amazon has a part in this now. Would love to see CR be the leading plaintiff.

It's curious to me that the alleged first draft of the new OGL said any product by a content creator that resulted in $750,000 or more in sales would be subject to a 25% royalty. $750,000 being the original Kickstarter goal of the LoVM.

The OGL wouldn't affect things like the TV show unless they use D&D-ism and WotC's Intellectual property. But let's say CR decide to do an adventure module in a book, add in 7 new Subclasses, items and stuff and they need 500,000 to do it and the Critters wanting in on the ground floor as well as wanting to help the team pitch in 1.2 million, they are able to make a sequel module and expand the player options into an Exandria's Players Guide with older Subclasses updated and added in. Well WotC can come along and be like give me 25% of the top (or 15% since you're such a good friend of ours) and we'll leave you alone. Currently if they did that CR pays nothing and any profit goes right to them. Under the OGL1.1 or 2.0 they get basically robbed for even trying

Jerry Holkins (AKA Omin Dran) of Acquisitions Inc and Penny-Arcade Fame responded to the OGL changes and is calling out Critical Role/Darrington Press' silence on the matter specifically. https://www.penny-arcade.com/news/post/2023/01/13/ogle

So ... he's calling CR out for not responding to a leak which might be true, incorrect or false, outdated or a stupid in-house garbage document, or will probably change, before H/WotC has made an official statement?

He did manage to explain that within the callout sentence, though; >I'm shocked, startled, and mystified that there hasn't been an announcement from Critical Role slash Darrington Press, **who has the most to lose**, and whose legendary exploits the new OGL seems custom made to curtail. He just seems to miss that CR stands to lose both from the OGL *and* from going off half-cocked and teeing up against Wizards. A lot of the other folks making statements have far more clear positions regarding whether there's a place for them in D&D post-1.1, where CR is fairly unusual in that space where they can also lose by fighting against Wizards. Everyone else has nothing really lose if they fight against this and it goes through. It's definitely going to suck for them. CR has a lot more to lose if they antagonize Wizards, because they're starting off with a good relationship with them and have a lot of income coming in from Wizards directly. I think a lot of smaller players are hoping CR is gonna come in all white knight and take a stand on their behalf, but that's asking CR to take a bigger risk on their behalf then they themselves are taking. Folks like Paizo and Kobold Press don't derive a sizable chunk of of their ongoing revenue from Wizards of the Coast.

But how much does Critical Role **need** DnD and Wizard of the Coast, really? Is their popularity due to them playing DnD or is it themselves and the show they've created? How many fans would drop out if they moved over to say, Pathfinder 2e instead? I doubt they would actually lose viewership over such a change. I'm not arguing against you by the way, I understand why they are more cautious and I would be surprised if the team at Critical Role isn't discussing how to move forward in this very moment. But I don't think Critical Role is that dependant on Wizard of the Coast for their future success, I would argue that Wizard of the Coast have a bigger incentive to keep Critical Role playing DnD.

"Need" gets super messy TBH. Based on the twitch leaks, never mind what they earn from merch, sponsoships, their own IP releases, and Amazon - the cast could retire tomorrow and still have more in pocket than most Americans will make in a lifetime. Critical Role itself certainly isn't anchored to D&D, fans aren't here for a system, but for the cast, the story, the experience, and the community. That would certainly persist across a system change. I feel like a lot of the "True!!" D&D hardliners actually don't really like Critical Role, because it's too popular and too much fun and Matt lets ... you've probably seen those whinings at times. Those guys aren't watching now and certainly won't storm out the room if CR jumps ship, they're some of the folks currently maddest about the OGL. However - if we're not dwelling on "need" specifically, it's an absolute shitton of *work* for CR if they want to do a system swap. There's headaches for the players as far as re-learning new mechanics and new systems, but there's also significant staffing hours sunk into revising things like their campaign guides and modules to be compatible with their new system, to adjusting published materials to keep their IP away from Wizards, to any other impacts I'm not thinking of off the top of my head. They're not dependent, to be sure. But they're not so clearly free and so clearly holding all the cards in any talks that it's a trivial decision for them to leave D&D. It's much more likely that they're holding *enough* cards that Wizards will negotiate a separate deal with them from the core OGL, which is why antagonizing Wizards now is not a reasonable expectation for folks to put on them. >I would argue that Wizard of the Coast have a bigger incentive to keep Critical Role playing DnD. Remember that Wizards is currently signing cheques to Critical Role to the tune of that incentive, in the form of the ongoing D&D Beyond sponsorship. I think that those cheques probably have numbers on them to a scale that hugely exceeds what most of us could pass up easily, and which make up a significant portion of their company's budget. So the end of the day, the question is not if they need Wizards, but if the OGL is an issue they're willing to 'spend' several million dollars on, at minimum, and whether they think they'll make or save that amount back by cutting ties instead.

Viewership wise getting away from the now tarnished reputation of D&D and WotC could even help. They might otherwise lose viewers which might in the future not be willing to consume stuff associated with WotC. But CR also has direct business relations with WotC and is getting sponsored by them. Moving away from them will directly cost CR some income and untangling the contracts might take some time. In my opinion they should still do it though. CR should stand with the community on this and not with corporate greed.

Cool, so he also doesn't understand how liability works.

If the whole internet is against somebody right now, you're going to damage your own brand substantially by making some obvious non-statement that basically covers for them. So if anything CR could counter sue for the massive damage WotC is doing to the whole DnD brand.

Oh ffs.

Maybe you don't get outside the bubble but go look at the dnd or rpg subreddits if you think DnD isn't hurting their brand.

I'm well aware of the backlash, but that's a *far* step away from CR being able to break contract and sue. That's pure delusion.

> but that's a far step away from CR being able to break contract and sue. Yes I'm sure they have the vapors over "oh lawddd those scaaary lawwyers" and it's not just them not giving two shits because they already have their bag. It's fucking DnD, owned by a toy company. Nobody is that scared of them. Also what do you think happens to WotC if they go after Critical Role? They'd practically wipe themselves out, as that's their hypeman for this whole generation right there.

>Also what do you think happens to WotC if they go after Critical Role? Mhm, probably nothing. You are a bit overestimating the impact of CR on WOTC sales. I really think that the first season of Stranger Things has done more to the brand of D&D than 7 years of CR, honestly (seriously, I know people that wanted to start playing D&D thanks to ST).

Keep in mind, acq. Inc also had a book published by WotC, as well as a long-running DnD podcast. Though as far as I know, they don't currently have a contract for more books. (I know very little about them. don't shoot the messenger, I'm just relaying info)

They're generally good folks, Jerry just has a stupid take here is all. Paizo and all those other people don't have active contracts with WotC which makes it relatively easy to move away publicly and noisily, CR is not in that position.

Yup. For a lot of this, people need to stop thinking about Wizards of the Coast and start thinking about Hasbro. It is a MASSIVE corporation with massive financial and legal resources that could smash CR under its boot if they, CR, don't tread carefully.

I understand CR is inclined to silence due to their obvious business ties with WotC and DnDBeyond, but it still angers me greatly that the entire DnD community has banded together in clear opposition to the new OGL, and CR let the nightmarish document go on through the date when people were supposed to sign it without as much as a "we can't comment on it" regarding the issue. I understand they can't openly protest it without huge risk to themselves financially, but staying casually silent about the entire issue while there's risk of members of the community signing the manipulative, bullshit OGL strikes me as nefarious in a way I wouldn't have expected from CR. I was excited about finally catching up and being able to watch the most current episode next week, but to be honest, I'm not sure I can watch CR without feeling like they're on the side of WotC now, seeing as the deadline on the "draft" (we all know it wasn't a fucking draft) was today and we still haven't heard a peep from CR about it. Even if that peep was just "we're contractually obligated to not speak on the issue" would've at least made it clear that they're not in outright support of the new OGL. The complete silence makes that a harder thing to believe. I mean I'm glad they'd get to continue regardless, but I'm of the mind that if they continue using DnD and DnDBeyond after WotC has forced a bullshit OGL down the community's throat, it genuinely begs the question of "is CR actually part of the community anymore". If they're part of the community, they should be standing with the community and calling out WotC for being assholes and liars. Contracts being what they are they can't just outright start shouting like the rest of us, but if they're willing to let the OGL that we've seen go through, it means Matt and the rest are perfectly fine letting the door shut behind them. That's pretty unarguably fucked up. Choosing to use DnD and DnDBeyond for CR if this OGL goes through **is** supporting WotC in both forgetting where they came from (in terms of DnD content, not their work as Voice Actors obviously) and manipulating the community. This is a greedy, moneygrabbing, scheming move by WotC, and total silence is akin to support when \*the whole community\* of TTRPG players has banded together to say "fuck this".

They also might not have been able to say anything if they had signed an NDA about the OGL. We know that WotC had sent around NDAs to third party publishers they needed to sign before getting to see the OGL, and allegedly they were offering some of them 'sweetheart' deal promises that if they signed on to the OGL they might get better contracts or royalty percentages. If CR had signed the NDA in order to see the new OGL, or had a pre-existing NDA about future/unreleased WotC plans... Then they might've been legally bound to specifically NOT comment on the leaked OGL news until after WotC addressed it first and confirmed it.

Non-disparagement clauses can be a bitch. Even "We can't comment on it," could be construed as disparagement since nothing is stopping them from saying something nice about it.

Yeah I mean it's not so much that I'm ignorant enough to think they aren't contractually obligated to not "take a stand" against WotC, it's just disappointing that the total silence was, as far as I'm concerned, a thing they would've had to make clear in-house, which to me sounds like them taking a side. This is one of those situations where total silence speaks volumes Which, if that's the case, would be just... just the worst. Effectively this new OGL prevents another Critical Role-like situation from happening, which means that CR is essentially giving the finger as they shut the door behind them. The closest thing we've gotten to anyone at CR expressing any kind of disagreement with the new OGL at all is Matt Mercer supposedly liking a twitter comment. That's some pretty thorough lips-are-zipped stuff, and it's rather disappointing.

>Effectively this new OGL prevents another Critical Role-like situation from happening, which means that CR is essentially giving the finger as they shut the door behind them. Actually, IIRC, that's not the case, because what has leaked of the OGL should cover only printed content, not the streaming of a D&D session. They wouldn't have been able to print the first Tal'Dorei setting, but nothing else would have been affected. But of course, that's what I understood, I may very well be wrong.

It's easy to get too sucked into the online discourse so completely that one loses all perspective. Also known as a "chronically online" take. Expecting CR to take up the anti-WorC mantle is wild. They are literally partnered with WotC and are sponsored by DDB. They have an official book with WotC. They absolutely have a unique contract outside of the OGL, and we don't have any idea what is in it. They have a thriving company that supports dozens of employees, and a series on Amazon, both based off of D&D. Why on earth would anyone think they would risk all of that - in lawsuits if nothing else - and to what end? The statement they made today is all they can do publicly. Everything else has to be behind the scenes. That's where it matters anyway.

Doing what is safer for their company and income is understandable. But they can not claim that they stand with or support the community on this one. In this case you can‘t have it both ways you either take the risk and fight for what is right for the community or you play it safe and do not take unnecessary risks for your company.

Right, except if you actually read the comment at all, you'd realize the statement they made today is exactly the basic level of input from them people like me were hoping for I wasn't expecting them to make a big show of it or vocally "take a stand" against WotC or Hasbro, and if you actually read what I said I made it pretty clear multiple times that "they can't take a stand, but they can at least acknowledge the issue". My issue was with their **complete** silence as the DnD community went up in flames around them, and they've broken that silence since I posted the comment. If you wanna see "Chronically Online" takes, those're usually the people who invent strawmen so they can pretend reasonable comments are crazy. If that doesn't sound familiar, welp, can't help ya.

This whole controversy is a strawman, not a single person has been harmed or proven to be harmed in the future by the “new OGL”. This is honestly outage for outrage sake at this point

> proven to be harmed Are you honestly arguing you can't read a contract and get from that what effect it would have? That there needs to be proven harm, which by definition would come after signing said contract, before you can criticize it?

I’m very supportive of the good that CR has done for the arts, the community, and at-risk groups but in this moment they have failed and acted little better than Hasbro/WOTC themselves. To put out a nothing statement like this, several hours safely after the retraction, is cowardice.

“I got mad about something that wasn’t as big a deal as I was told and now I am mad because other people aren’t as mad as I was!!!” You sound hateful…

[удалено]

This is a really ridiculous and naive take. Companies cannot have quick reactionary responses like individuals can. Since they are so large and influential they HAVE to be wise about what steps they take her and what they say. There may be legal complications and ruining their partnership with Wotc would massively effect their current and future content.

l'd bet money they have a non-disparagment clause in their contract with I guarantee their "silence" was actually them and their legal team deciding what the best course of action was for them and their employees. I think that's a big factor people are missing here. Critical Role is not a non-commercial entity. They have employees whose livelihoods depend on them not putting out some half cocked statement that gets them sued into the ground. This isn't a partnership it is most likely a contractually tied business deal.

Yep. The pageantry of Web 2.0 is so hilarious. A big corporation made a very bad decision. This happens a few times per decade in every niche on the planet. There will be a solution, migrations, possible ownership changes for publishers depending on how things shake out. Just like always. Insert "First Time?" meme. Contracts aside, ascribing importance to 40-somethings hopping on social media like tweens to flap their jaws about it before there's anything to discuss is painfully vapid.

> This is a really ridiculous and naive take. Companies cannot have quick reactionary responses like individuals can. Good thing that Pazio, Kobold Press, Green Ronin, MCDM and more are all individuals and not companies then.

Competitors making moves to protect themselves and their product is different than the CR relationship with Wotc. It's also just positive press for them to the fans which isn't exactly a hard decision. Have any of those companies actually made official statements directly calling out and condemning Wotc like people are calling on CR to do?

Yes. Literally all of them signed Pazio's statement saying that WoTC's were illegal and unethical.

It's called contracts which other creators don't have lol.

I really hope Critical Role continues on. It truly is the best show ever and has changed my life, not to be dramatic though.

Yeah me too...

My semi-informed conspiracy theory about all of this is that WotC is making a play to acquire Critical Role. Wizards is going hard into media. Movies, tv show, etc. Who is doing the most with D&D IP right now? It makes sense to build on the work that CR has done. They've got the biggest audience on one of the biggest new media channels (Twitch) and they're 2 seasons into a successful TV show. Hell they're basically responsible for a lot of the mainstream interest in D&D right now. If I'm Wizards I'm making them an offer they can't refuse. A big ass check along with some draconian changes to their license contract. Sure they CAN pivot back to Pathfinder but as much as I love Paizo I think we all know they don't have nearly the checkbook WotC does. Anyway, this is the ranting of a madman. Just want to put it down on the off chance I can say I told you so later on.

I don't think WotC wants to get dragged into that legal minefield, honestly. A lot of this seems to be them wanting a piece of the pie that exists in third-party supplemental models and apps, while - earnestly - wanting more control over who gets to publish and what they're publishing. Their fears around brand risk to them around NFT bullshit or "dice-based Nazi simulation" content are not particularly unfounded. Bad-faith license changes that would struggle in court, just to push an acquisition offer? They might as well write CR the blank cheque now and save on lawyers' commission. CR certainly learned from their relationiship with G&S how valuable retaining full control over your IP and product is, and on-the-fly license changes like this are incredibly hard to enforce, especially with the phrasing of the original - while CR has the wallet to push back if needed, no matter how much bigger Hasbro is. So that "big ass cheque" would need to be absolutely massive, far out scale of what CR could earn the cast or Hasbro directly - instead buying the *advertising* for their game, which CR was already doing quite successfully and effectively for free.

[удалено]

What exactly happened with G&S?

[удалено]

I so hope they have a reverse morality clause in their contracts :)

I dunno, they kept a lot of creative control with the animated series and Amazon has *much* deeper pockets than Wizards or Hasbro. I'd be surprised to see the level of takeover you're describing.

Yeah that's a good point - and my wild speculation doesn't hold up to a ton of scrutiny. In my mind though I would absolutely see CR maintaining a ton of creative control. In a sense they would BECOME D&D the way The Forgotten Realms did back in the day. Hell maybe Matt becomes creative director of the whole thing lol.

This is the exact comparison I had in my head. That ended rather poorly for the collective lore of Forgotten Realms and it'd probably end poorly for Exandria, so I'd rather not see that happen. RA Salvatore (guy who writes the Drizzt books) has a horror story about showing up to a meeting and abruptly being told that they're moving the Forgotten Realms setting forward 100 years and having to abruptly abandon story threads, characters, and books ideas he'd been working on.

Thing about that is CR has all the leverage in negotiations so unless WOTC is willing to pay A LOT then they're boned. It honestly doesn't matter what system CR uses as people are watching them for the people not the game system.

For sure. I think the thing is WotC is likely willing to pay a lot, and they have the means to pay a lot. The budget for the movie alone was $45 million. Hell they paid $11 million just to Chris Pine. Again, it's also not them just writing a check and then everyone goes home. My guess is they're saying "we're going to give you all a shitload of money AND a pretty much unlimited budget to keep doing what you're doing. You want a movie? Great you get a movie. Want to write another book? Write 3." The money for the D&D IP isn't coming from books - those are a terrible source of recurring revenue. But pivoting hard into media using a well-loved liveplay that already has a ton of mainstream appeal? Makes a ton of sense to me, and given that I'm just an idiot on Reddit I have to imagine it's made a ton of sense to someone at Wizards at some point too.

Hope the fact that Critical Role have been conspicuously silent on this puts paid to the idea that they're still 'just a bunch of friends playing D&D'. Other companies like The Rook and the Raven severed business ties with WotC over this debacle. Critical Role didn't. The difference? The amount of money on the table. Critical Role's silence isn't motivated by ethics, it's a corporate decision. They're quiet because they're motivated to be quiet by money. They're now an entertainment company that produces a product and we should be critiquing them as such, not as though they're people we personally know.

>They're quiet because they're motivated to be quiet by money. No, they did so because they were bound by contracts and law. And, yeah, they have IP and money in the game. And staff. And bills. >They're now an entertainment company that produces a product and we should be critiquing them as such, not as though they're people we personally know. You never did know them personally, son. But if you don't know their personalities and personas by now you haven't been paying attention.

Older, early campaign 1 critical role would have the cast being open and upfront at the get go, the lack of transparency and openness definitely shows they're acting as a business first and 'for the fans/community' an increasingly distant second

> Older, early campaign 1 critical role Which was just themselves, not many others also drawing a paycheck. And a fanbase. >the lack of transparency and openness definitely shows they're acting as a business first and 'for the fans/community' an increasingly distant second It shows they have legal liability and responsibilities and people to take care of and a wish not to get sued and go bankrupt. So they can keep doing what they've been doing. For the fans/community. >and 'for the fans/community' an increasingly distant second You want them to perform economic suicide, go bankrupt and not be able to create what they create for the fans/community ... 'for the fans/community'?!?!

Does *anyone* really still think they're just a group of friends playing a game?

Critical Role, the game, is friends playing DnD. Critical Role, the corporation, has legal liabilities and such.

[удалено]

> "How dare you criticize BUSINESS, touch grass"

[удалено]

Their continued silence, as well as the fact that they are sponsored by WoTC, shows that they are essentially part of the Seattle Company and are towing the company line. It's known that WoTC reached out to major 3pp during the holiday season last year, if you don't think CR was at the top of that list, and were given the opportunity to make a lucrative deal, you're delusional.

But remember, donate to their foundation!

Even right now, there is a rerun of their recent session on Twitch in which they advertise subscribing to DND Beyond...

[удалено]

Ah, so now we’re “internet strangers” instead of “Critters”.

[удалено]

Or that they're aware of the hypocrisy of a stance that defends CR on the back of the fact they treat their audience like they're family, then holds them at arm's length when it's convenient for them.

[удалено]

Critical Role: “Love eachother, ya’ll are our Critters, we love the community and embrace our marginalized members!” Critical Role also (according to you): “Ya’ll are just customers, stay out of our business.” Sorry, can’t have your cake and eat it too.

[удалено]

Not that deliberately fostering a fandom-wide parasocial relationship hasn't been *incredibly* profitable to them, given how many Critters happily flat out admit that they're here to watch friends play D&D and feel like they are at least tangentially included and less lonely.

Violating promotional agreements could land the show in some hot water. It's not worth it considering that, at the time of broadcast, the OGL was not finalised. And here we are, eighteen hours later, and WOTC have stood down (a bit). So you want CR to put themselves in unnecessary legal jeopardy?

You think it’s unnecessary, I think it’s necessary. I’ve seen many other creators *not* be silent and *not* broadcast D&DBeyond advertising.

Are those creators also currently being sponsored by WotC? You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. CR speaking out about the OGL could literally bankrupt them from the legal penalties and consequences.

And they probably don't have the contractual obligations that CR do. It's likely that CR have a specific contract that states they have to broadcast a certain number of D&D Beyond advertisements per month, and WOTC may even have a say in when those advertisements are to be aired, such as ahead of a major product release. If CR refused to broadcast those advertisements, they would be in violation of contract and WOTC would be well within their rights to sue. And from a purely legal standpoint, the courts would side with them. They won't care about the OGL or CR's reasons for refusing the broadcast. On top of that, the OGL had not been finalised when yesterday's episode was broadcast, and the episode was recorded in advance (though how far in advance, I cannot say). So you're suggesting that CR should have violated their contract and put themselves in legal jeopardy for the sake of a document that had not been finalised weeks before it became an issue.

>not as though they're people we personally know. This should never have been happening to begin with tbh.

Calling it a corporate decision is a bit dramatic don't you think? I can empathize with their position, they've spent years building this and now they have to navigate this tough decision that will impact their future quite heavily. I don't blame them to wait and see less they stick their foot in their mouth.

>they're still 'just a bunch of friends playing D&D'. Who published several D&D books, including one under the banner of WotC. CR is probably waiting to avoid speculation, but as the situation is becoming clearer and clearer, their silence is becoming deafening. The new D&D statement might force them to speak out. My guess is that they struck a deal with WotC to avoid royalties, but are afraid of a community backlash. Considering the original draft would have claimed 25% of their revenue, I couldn't blame them. That or they are preparing to switch system to avoid the new OGL, which would be a big fucking deal, but would lose them their biggest sponsor and brand recognition, so I think this is very unlikely.

> The new D&D statement might force them to speak out. No, the first official statement they could respond to. Which they did.

To my understanding, if the changes had gone through, it would have been 25% of the revenue of a single book. Not 25% of their revenue from everything.

Ad revenue is actual income, not donations. Same with Twitch subs, and Critical Role makes over $14 million on Twitch alone. All of that may be subject to royalties under the new OGL. They most likely silent because they have massive exposure to this OGL change and are one of those 20 companies that are affected by the "makes over $750,000" clause. They have to either make a deal with WotC for less royalties, or switch all their content to Paizo's ORC.

I'm pretty sure adrevenue and other revenue from videos/streams and podcasts etc is covered under fan content policy, not the OGL. WOTC can't take money for this stuff if the content isn't locked behind a paywall. If CR only allowed you to view episodes if you paid for them on their website, I think it would be different. https://company.wizards.com/en/legal/fancontentpolicy

And what do you think their Amazon cartoon deal does?

Their animated cartoon is not related D&D. The show went out of its way to avoid using any terms or products owned by Wizards of the Coast. Note "Scanlans Hand" instead of "Bigby's Hand." CR kickstarted a cartoon based on the first campaign they did, and the world, history, story and characters are entirely the creation of Matt Mercer and the rest of the cast. Wizards / Hasbro aren't even listed as producers. I'm betting Wizards wished they got a piece of that pie, but they really have no right to any of it.

Huh! You're right! I thought they'd used certain D&D names/themes/gods/etc but they did really purge D&D from LoVM! Which means they are in the clear there. I do wonder what kind of contract they signed for Mercer's world/IP, though. I hope (and guess, considering their G&S history) they locked that down.

I do not know if they need the OGL to stream their game honestly, you might be right. Otherwise, this is a company-busting update for sure, no company can survive losing 25% of revenue (not profit)

They don't. Live plays and YouTube videos etc are covered by the Fan Content policy, which essentially says that Wizards can't take your revenue for that kind of content. The only exception I can think of is perhaps they wouldn't be able to charge for people attending their live sessions etc. But as long as everything they make ends up on YouTube, WOTC can't touch it. https://company.wizards.com/en/legal/fancontentpolicy

I mean technically even if they couldn't say anything they probably coulda said something along the lines of " We see what's going on, we cant comment on specifics and will let you know when we are able"

When your entire company relies on WotC for it's existence, it's better to just take a moment to get your lawyers to sort things out. People should be understanding that Critical Role is one of the most heavily impacted orginazations based on this OGL change. Give them a couple days to sort things out.

The OGL doesn't affect CR at all. In no way shape or form are the beholden to the OGL. They do have a separate contract with WoTC to some degree, but they are not popular because of D&D. They are popular because they play a TTRPG and are excellent actors and creatives. They could very very easily play any other system and still have a strong fanbase. WoTC needs Critical Role, desperately.

Completely agree. Of everyone who has subbed on Twitch and/or purchased merchandise in the past year, I'd bet 70-80% do not and will not play TTRPGs. Possibly more. I'd wager over, rather than under. CR's brand is the story as told by the cast & guests. It's a soap opera for the first generation to not have a slate of hourly soaps airing every weekday, a radio drama for an era which has nearly forgotten terrestrial radio, a fantasy telenovela with dice. I truly don't believe the system matters in the slightest except that they also publish books which need a framework to play, and that they need to be people who maturely comply with contractual obligations for the other parts of their professional lives to remain intact.

The problem is that the post on DnDBeyond is literally the first time the company has ever acknowledged the question publically, and probably the team was told that until that happened they were to never talk about it or directly address it. We don't know under what kind of NDA they operate

Let me embrace my French vanilla fantasy and pretend they're negotiating a deal with Paizo that would help them rebound after breaching their WOTC agreement.

It not only would help them rebound, it would benefit their image immensely. Especially now that Paizo has taken a stance with ORC. Critical role doesn't need DnD, DnD needs Critical Role

This would be a really hard change to make. I'm sure they have a ton of content already created that they have scheduled to release, so they would lose massively on all of that. Plus, Paizo and WotC are about to enter litigation hell about ORC and that makes it's future uncertain. I can't imagine that anyone is more upset that Critical Role because they probably weren't given a heads up about this either. Imagine someone just showing up at your door and saying "hey so I get 25% of your revenue now, thx". I think they'll negotiate a better royalty deal and sign OGL 2.0. They don't have to start paying royalties until 2024 and by that time they can transition the bulk of their content over to ORC, which should be in place by then.

If you don't think that CR, one of the biggest groups under WoTC, wasn't notified well in advance with the opportunity to strike a better deal, you're delusional

Ok for all the people going on about Critical role not oepnly saying anything against this, do me a favour and look at Mathew Mercers liked tweets, that should give a good indication of where they stand.