The Playtest Agreement

[dd.stevenson]

And I'm not personally really trying to "prove" anything to you. If you aren't concerned about this, it's no sweat off my back. If you are trying to persuade ME not to be concerned about this, it will take a lot more than "I think what the designers say is correct," because even if they never SAID to print off the character sheets, I can't realistically imagine that everyone play this game gathered around the computers they all downloaded the documents onto crowded into one room (not playing online). The terms of the agreement seem to prohibit very normal things that people do in the course of playtesting.

The thing I'm trying to persuade you of is bolded in the quote below.

Look, I don't like the playtest agreement--I think its dumb as a stump, considering the market that WotC is trying to recapture. I'll admit that I'm baffled by the prohibitions on online playtesting, and troubled by the ramifications of this attitude for the next OGL. But what you're doing is impugning the behavior of a talented, respected and helpful designer, founded on nothing more than flat-earth-society style legal research.

This isn't a moving goalpost issue. You're saying that two-kids-discussing-heart-surgery analysis is a "shred of evidence" that Mearls has encouraged us to break the license agreement. Whereas I disagree.

I'm not sure this disagreement can lead anywhere constructive unless new information is brought to bear. So I'm fine letting the matter drop knowing that my objection has been heard.

 

[enrious]

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.

Honestly, I respect that - although I think it's a sign of WotC shooting themselves in the foot.

After all, I think they'd benefit from your feedback, whereas I'm able to provide it because we playtested it in person.

I do note that I make no claims that all participants had signed up for the playtest as I didn't ask - I'm not my fellow gamers' keeper.

 

[babomb]

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

The agreement doesn't explicitly make that distinction, because it doesn't need to. "Derivative work" has a specific meaning in the context of copyright.

Furthermore, RULES ARE NOT COPYRIGHTABLE, only the specific expression of them. So adding a theme to the fighter isn't making a derivative of a copyrighted work because the fighter rules aren't copyrighted to begin with! The sentences that explain the fighter rules are. See the difference?

But [writing a name on the character sheet] would count as a derivative work by my understanding.

Your understanding is incorrect. That's no more a derivative work than if you write the name on a blank sheet. Now if you take the character sheet and make a new one with some of the parts moved around, THAT is a derivative work. Filling it out is not.

Scribbling in the margins of a book isn't creating a derivative work; copying three of the chapters into your own book is.

Even supposing that filling out a character sheet or making some house rules were creating a derivative work (and again, it's absolutely not), there's a little thing called fair use that would protect you.

The problem is that you're (a) over-thinking this and (b) trying to interpret legal terms using their non-legal meanings.

Honestly, this agreement is about WotC protecting themselves, so that YOU can't sue THEM for copyright infringement if they add something that is similar to your feedback. They're not being evil money-grubbing jerks or any other such thing. The no-online-play thing in the FAQ is a bit weird, I'll admit, but otherwise, this agreement is really, really, not a big deal.