The Playtest Agreement

Kamikaze Midget said:

Where does the Agreement actually make that distinction? Explain it to me like I'm five.

Click to expand...

The agreement does not- it doesn't have to. It's a legal term meaning profit.

If they didn't intend to "get legal," they shouldn't have issued the OPTA. They certainly didn't have to. They chose to. Paid some folks good money to develop and organize it. Presumably to some constructive end on their part.

It wasn't me who decided to "get legal." I'm following their lead in this dance.

Click to expand...

You are getting MORE legal. You are looking at it in terms of a contract, not an agreement. They're leading and.. well you're off somewhere doing the robot or something.

My concern is what the Agreement actually says. With its actual words. In the actual world. I believe I've been abundantly clear about the fact that I'm not really worried about WotC bringing a hammer down on me or most anyone else involved in this. I crave elucidation, knowledge, clarity, and truth. Shouldn't be that big of a deal, really.

Click to expand...

It's not a big deal- you are just making a contract out of an agreement that's all (in the actual world with actual words.)

Contracts are heavily spelled out with exactly what you can and cannot do. For instance I am under contract on a house. Part of that contract says I can get a home inspection within 10 days. I can opt out of the contract if the roof is leaking and the owner refuses to fix it. I CANNOT opt out if it's just an old roof. If I do- I loose my 5 grand I put in escrow AND he can choose to sue me because I kept his house off the market.

All of that is perfectly spelled out in the document. It's a binding legal contract. Should either party fail to meet their obligations there are legal consequences involving lawyers and judges and stuff spelled out in the document.

This thing is an agreement, so it's very general because there are no judges and court rooms and such involved. Just WoTC saying don't do this stuff for profit or we'll kick you out of the playtest.

They're being purposefully vague because they want you to use the material, they just don't want you to use it to make a profit, or hinder them in some way.

As for the specifics, technically it would probably be a "violation" of the OPTA if you were to post your new monster stats or soemthing on this board because it would kind of make Morrus a profit (or the potential for profit).

Will they enforce that? Anyone's guess is as good as mine. My guess though is they will not. (But if you do a bunch of other stuff that pisses them off they might use it as another example of you being a dick.)

Kamikaze Midget said:

Where does the Agreement actually make that distinction? Explain it to me like I'm five.

Click to expand...

The distinction is implied. Either WotC is teh evil and made you sign something that makes you a criminal just for signing it, or what I put is the way it is. Which sounds more likely?

This somehow became a debate for it's own sake, so I think I'll bow out. Maybe a lawyer can help you understand.

I'm not looking at it right now, but I do remember verbiage in the agreement which included additional requests/instructions from WotC; the FAQ is one such request/instruction, as are Mike Mearls' requests.

So it's in there. There's nothing to be worried about. Hopefully someone not on a phone can grab the section in question and post it.

/Edit - just looked. I can't find that section. Looks like the FAQ is, indeed, non-binding. I am not a lawyer, of course. The agreement can be altered at any time, though, so they could add a reference to a changing FAQ quite easily.

enrious said:

I doubt it'll be answered, but I asked at the chat today:

"Given some of the controversy regarding the OPTA and how restrictive the FAQ interprets/defines playtest options, why are those restrictions in place - such as not being able to play online via Skype and so on? Can we expect a more trusting approach from WotC in the future?"

Click to expand...

I'd say that you'd be more likely to get a response to your query if you asked it in a less presumptuous way. "Can we expect a more trusting approach" means you've already decided why the restrictions were put in place (they don't trust us).

Fifth Element said:

I'd say that you'd be more likely to get a response to your query if you asked it in a less presumptuous way. "Can we expect a more trusting approach" means you've already decided why the restrictions were put in place (they don't trust us).

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's pretty aggressive phrasing. The same question could be phrased as "Has any thought been given to allowing online play for play testing purposes?" without the accusatory tone. It doesn't cost anything to say something nicely.

Scribble said:

Notice it's an Agreement, and not a contract. While the two are somewhat interchangeable, usually agreements mean that they don't really have an intention/way to enforce it through courts.

Click to expand...

The OPTA is a contract. Enforceable by private suit like any other contract.

Here is the relevant wording, from the preamble:

Scribble said:

Benefit in this case means profit. Don't try to do that stuff and profit.

Click to expand...

I would think that's highly plausible. The relevant words in clause 5 are:


Given that the preamble notes that the consideration you are receiving from WotC inclues the opportunity to use the playtest materials for playtesting, and given the paranthetical exclusion in clause 5, it is clear that you (and those you play with) are allowed to benefit from the materials to the extent that you gain pleasure or fulfillment from playtesting! The benefit you have promised not to receive is, by implication, benefits beyond playtesting. Of which profits would be the most obvious form.

And on the topic of derivative material: the purpose of the document is to regulate a playtest. The only consideration that WotC have granted to you, in return for your agreement to be bound by the OPTA, is partcipation in the playtest. To the extent that participation in the playtest involves making derivative material, the OPTA - by necessary implication - does not preclude that.

I think this is a fairly basic piece of contractual interpretation.

Mark CMG said:

Mike Mearls is the lead designer and as official a spokesperson as WotC has with a public face. If he says something is okay to do regarding the playtest, then it's okay to do regarding the playtest.

Click to expand...

I agree. Legally there are various ways that this might be analysed - estoppel and waiver being the two that occur to me. But I don't think we need to worry about the detailed legal analysis to draw the general conclusion.

Kamikaze Midget said:

If they didn't intend to "get legal," they shouldn't have issued the OPTA. They certainly didn't have to. They chose to. Paid some folks good money to develop and organize it. Presumably to some constructive end on their part.

Click to expand...

Yes. The constructive end (from WotC's point of view) is the capacity to regulate the playtest. And under our system of law, the way that private actors regulate the behaviour of other private actors is by way of contract.

Kamikaze Midget said:

My concern is what the Agreement actually says. With its actual words. In the actual world.

Click to expand...

I think there is a tension between (i) focusing on the agreement as a legal document (which it is) and (ii) not reading it and thinking about its implications in legal terms (which are the overwhelmingly salient terms for understanding and thinking about the implications of a legal document).

Scribble said:

The agreement does not- it doesn't have to. It's a legal term meaning profit.

Click to expand...

The time when they use the word "benefit" in the OPTA, it doesn't really seem to be interchangable with the word "profit:"

OPTA said:

You further agree that you will not use the Playtest Materials for your own
benefit (other than to participate in the online playtest) or to the benefit of any third party

Click to expand...

Using it to participate in the online playtest is considered using it "for your own benefit" under OPTA, but I don't really understand how it could be "for your own profit" in any financial sense. Unless "profit" also has some doublespeak meaning I'm unaware of that is broad enough that it could include participating in the playtest? In which case, what else might that term cover? Or if you're allowed to charge money to people to playtest with them?

That bit is also unrelated to the bits about not making copies or derivatives, which what what I pointed out as Mearls asking us to break the agreement. That bit doesn't say "don't do it for your own benefit," it just says, "don't do it," seemingly indicating that there's no circumstance under which it's OK to print out a character sheet if you want to be in accordance with the Agreement.

Agamon said:

The distinction is implied. Either WotC is teh evil and made you sign something that makes you a criminal just for signing it, or what I put is the way it is. Which sounds more likely?

Click to expand...

What sounds likely to me is carelessness, but, curiously, that's not an option you presented. Since I've said over and over again, starting with the very first post in the thread, that I don't expect WotC to take much legal action based on this, I don't know why you continue to insist that "teh evil" is still an option I entertain.

Like I said above, I don't think it's malice, I think it's foolishness. Carelessness. A legal department perhaps too enamored of boilerplate their own jargon to bother to craft something that actually does what they need it to do. That doesn't require evil, it just requires a very banal obliviousness.

And "implications" don't feel very reliable to me, when compared to the actual language of the agreement.

My main question right now is less if WotC will sue me, but if I'm allowed to do a PbP on ENWorld with the playtest material. The FAQ says no and I thought that it to be binding.

People tell me not to make a to big thing out of th OPTA, that they expect it to be broken and any complain to be some kind of nerdrage. In reality, there is no PbP with the playtest material here. So please don't tell me how it isn't affecting anyone.

Thanks!

Walking Dad said:

My main question right now is less if WotC will sue me, but if I'm allowed to do a PbP on ENWorld with the playtest material. The FAQ says no and I thought that it to be binding.

People tell me not to make a to big thing out of th OPTA, that they expect it to be broken and any complain to be some kind of nerdrage. In reality, there is no PbP with the playtest material here. So please don't tell me how it isn't affecting anyone.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Has anyone actually said it isn't affecting anyone? I know that I cannot participate in the playtesting because of this agreement.

OTOH, I'm not going to get terribly fussed about it either. They don't want my feedback? Ok. Not going to weave it into the fabric of my existence. It'll likely change down the road.

Maybe I'm just too laid back.

Morrus said:

Yeah, that's pretty aggressive phrasing. The same question could be phrased as "Has any thought been given to allowing online play for play testing purposes?" without the accusatory tone. It doesn't cost anything to say something nicely.

Click to expand...

Except arguably one's integrity.