Playtesting?

Jer · Sep 10, 2007

FickleGM said:
Remember the playtesters are going to become valued (I hope) members of the team that will be responsible for the game that we play. If they talk about it, they are opening the door for some possible "bad things":

These bad things aren't exactly convincing to me overall.

FickleGM said:
1) Letting game mechanics out of the bag that competitors may steal.

Eh. They're going to be releasing the system as OGL - competitors are going to have access to it in a few months anyway. The worst case scenario is that someone quickly publishes a ruleset and claims that Wizards "stole" it from them, but that would be hard to prove - especially if they're now using version control inside Wizards (as they say in the podcasts) since that will time/date stamp everything they do and at least provide evidence for an argument that it was leaked from Wizards own material.

FickleGM said:
2) Open themselves to bribes, in order to somehow sabotage the playtesting of the game.

Again, eh - there are very, very few people in the roleplaying industry who would like to see D&D sabotaged. Most folks realize that as D&D goes, so goes the industry. When D&D was seeing bad times in the 90s, the RPG market was tanking. When Wizards revitalized D&D, the RPG market rode high. D&D helps keep game stores in business, which keeps smaller game companies afloat.

Also, if bribing a few loudmouthed playtesters to lie on their playtest reports can seriously impact the quality of your finished game, you've got bigger problems with your playtests.

FickleGM said:
3) Making false claims that could come back to bite WotC (things could change between playtest and publication, so a claim made one day could become false by the next).

This one is believable, but only inasmuch as it gives a good reason for requiring playtesters to keep their traps shut about the rules that they're playtesting - not the fact that they're playtesters at all. Of course any NDA you sign will tell you to keep quiet about the specifics of what you're working on, but few of them require that you not admit to working on the thing at all.

I suspect that the major reason for a "don't even tell people you're a playtester" clause would actually be to protect the playtesters from harassment. By telling people you're a playtester, you open yourself up to lots of people begging to see the document, denouncing you as a liar and demanding that you "prove it", asking you to confirm/deny rumors, trying to get you to play "Twenty Questions" (like "Just say yes or no - are there gnomes in the playtest document?"), etc. The more harassment that your playtesters have to go through, the more likely they are to just snap and blurt out something to make the harrassers go away. You minimize that threat by just instructing the playtesters that part of their duties as playtesters is to not tell people that they're a playtester. That way you don't have to "punish" them for making boneheaded mistakes in judgement on the Internet. (And Lord knows, making boneheaded mistakes in judgement on the Internet can often be a punishment unto itself).

cignus_pfaccari · Sep 10, 2007

If possible, playtest materials should be FedExed to the players in a box that opens like a suitcase, and have lights that shine out when opened.

Brad

FickleGM · Sep 10, 2007

Jer and helium3 - I don't disagree, I was just picking three things off the top of my head that I was told regarding the few NDAs that I've had to sign. I also don't think that the risk is very high for any of them, but I'm not a corporate lawyer.

I would be surprised if silly minutae that we (the non-lawyers amongst us

) wouldn't even consider is being protected from by NDAs.

helium3 · Sep 10, 2007

FickleGM said:
Jer and helium3 - I don't disagree, I was just picking three things off the top of my head that I was told regarding the few NDAs that I've had to sign. I also don't think that the risk is very high for any of them, but I'm not a corporate lawyer.

I would be surprised if silly minutae that we (the non-lawyers amongst us ) wouldn't even consider is being protected from by NDAs.

Weird. You've actually seen an NDA that demands you not even admit you signed the NDA in the first place?

I used to work for a very small tech startup and we had a couple of discussions on the whole NDA thing when we started looking for investors. The impression I got from our lawyer was that they're extremely hard to enforce legally and really only useful once someone has actually let the cat out of the bag and needs to be sued. Usually in the case of patent infringement and the like.

So when I see people saying with a straight face that WoTC is going to magically use an NDA to hold signers to a standard that companies in the "real world" don't, I start to wonder if people really know what they're doing. It just feeds into the only legitimate criticism of the whole 4E "thing" that I've seen backed up with any sort of rational argument that points to real world data, namely that the whole thing has come off as rather amateur, like the team in charge of 4E doesn't really know what they're doing. Mind you, I'm not talking about development of the system, i'm talking about the marketing and PR campaign.

Morrus · Sep 10, 2007

helium3 said:
Weird. You've actually seen an NDA that demands you not even admit you signed the NDA in the first place?

I used to work for a very small tech startup and we had a couple of discussions on the whole NDA thing when we started looking for investors. The impression I got from our lawyer was that they're extremely hard to enforce legally and really only useful once someone has actually let the cat out of the bag and needs to be sued. Usually in the case of patent infringement and the like.

So when I see people saying with a straight face that WoTC is going to magically use an NDA to hold signers to a standard that companies in the "real world" don't, I start to wonder if people really know what they're doing. It just feeds into the only legitimate criticism of the whole 4E "thing" that I've seen backed up with any sort of rational argument that points to real world data, namely that the whole thing has come off as rather amateur, like the team in charge of 4E doesn't really know what they're doing. Mind you, I'm not talking about development of the system, i'm talking about the marketing and PR campaign.

I think you're missing the point. Sure, WotC is unlikely to take legal action against a playtester except in really extreme cases. An agreement isn't only defined by its legal penalties though; by siging that, playtesters are agreeing to it. Most of them will feel (rightly) obliged to adhere to those conditions; some of those that don't may be intimidated into meeting them.

Most agreements tend to be kept to. The legal side of it is a backup; documents aren't drafted with the intention of enforcing them: enforcement is the last resort of an agreement.

It's called "risk reduction". WotC isn't stupid; they know that leaks will occur (heck, I'd be amazed if they haven't strategised to factor that in - even , to an extent, intend to use it), but it reduces the percentage. That's not "amateur"; that's competence.

Heck, think WotC's are acting amateur if you like - I've no shares in the company. But I'm pretty impressed with the level of awareness, anticipation and so forth they've generated; and I guarantee that it's all strategised to the nth degree. Their publicity is working perfectly; and it's going to sell a LOT of PHBs, MMs and DMGs.

Crap, even their as-yet-nonexistent legal documents are generating conversation. Well done, WotC!

Kid Charlemagne · Sep 10, 2007

Here is a question that some of my gaming buddies want answered regarding playteting - will the Digital Game Table be available for playtesting? If a group is assembled that is virtual - but otherwise acceptable - will they be given equal consideration? Can we playtest 4E and beta test the DI all at the same time?

FickleGM · Sep 10, 2007

helium3 said:
Weird. You've actually seen an NDA that demands you not even admit you signed the NDA in the first place?

I used to work for a very small tech startup and we had a couple of discussions on the whole NDA thing when we started looking for investors. The impression I got from our lawyer was that they're extremely hard to enforce legally and really only useful once someone has actually let the cat out of the bag and needs to be sued. Usually in the case of patent infringement and the like.

So when I see people saying with a straight face that WoTC is going to magically use an NDA to hold signers to a standard that companies in the "real world" don't, I start to wonder if people really know what they're doing. It just feeds into the only legitimate criticism of the whole 4E "thing" that I've seen backed up with any sort of rational argument that points to real world data, namely that the whole thing has come off as rather amateur, like the team in charge of 4E doesn't really know what they're doing. Mind you, I'm not talking about development of the system, i'm talking about the marketing and PR campaign.

Yes, but in all fairness, that was a secretive project (and IT-based, not RPG related). This is a different case, since it is now very well-known, but I was just giving my thoughts on possible "why's". Also, as Morrus said, it isn't likely to be enforced except in extreme circumstances (similar to noncompete clauses with employment contracts). Heck, I've broken a noncompete clause, with no penalties, because I'm a tiny little fish in the industry. If, instead of just joining another company in a different state, I had written some ground-breaking software, then perhaps my noncompete clause would have been called into question.

Kaffis · Sep 11, 2007

helium3 said:
Weird. You've actually seen an NDA that demands you not even admit you signed the NDA in the first place?

Yes. Every NDA for a videogame beta I've ever seen, for about a dozen. It doesn't surprise me in the least that playtests would follow a similar model.