The Playtest Agreement

[IronWolf]

The FAQ covers a lot of the same ground....but also reveals some weird stuff the agreement doesn't seem to cover.

....sooooo, anyone hoping to run a game online is SOL, and anyone hoping to share their experiences via video or audio are also forbidden.

I do not recall seeing the prohibition of playing online being prohibited in the actual agreement I agreed to in order to download the playtest. I can't see the FAQ as being "binding" as I do not recall agreeing to those terms or conditions prior to download.

Or did I just miss something in the agreement?

Not allowing online play via Skype, Google Hangouts, etc is pretty limiting for a playtest. It is the best show my group has of actually being able to provide feedback on the playtest. Getting us together in one physical location outside of our normal game night is near impossible.

 

[Zireael]

I can understand 'no playing online' and 'no modifying' rule (and 'no printing out' at a stretch) , but what about the kids who can't legally sign up for the playtest?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I do not recall seeing the prohibition of playing online being prohibited in the actual agreement I agreed to in order to download the playtest. I can't see the FAQ as being "binding" as I do not recall agreeing to those terms or conditions prior to download.

Yeah, I don't think the "playing online" thing is in the ACTUAL agreement...unless you count some very specifically weird interpretation of what constitutes making a copy (technically, we're all supposed to play this on the computers we originally downloaded the files to without moving the files around, and typing any information from those files constitutes making a copy), but it's something they could probably pursue if they bothered to.

Would they bother to? Yeah, like I said above, it's unlikely that WotC's fun police will come to your house. This is more functionally probably to down more public displays of playtest information. Though since there's no specific verbiage for what happens if you violate the agreement AFAICT, they'd probably be left trying to sue you for breach of contract or something. Which wouldn't be worth it unless you tried to get away with some serious stuff.

For me, it's just important that people know what they are really agreeing to. And that WotC knows what they are actually asking us to agree to. Non-negotiated contracts like this irritate me as a guy who tries to take this stuff seriously and follow the law. If you're going to make me sign an agreement, you shouldn't have an expectation that I will violate it -- the agreement should be reasonable enough that I don't HAVE to violate it to do what I need to do. It annoys me that your average D&D player nowadays has to be a thoroughly versed contract lawyer just to understand what they're doing when they just want to provide feedback.

It contrasts very negatively with Paizo's Pathfinder open playtest period, which was much more...well...open. And shows that the biggest name in fantasy gaming need not do what WotC chose to do.

Anyway, that's a bit of a rant about a specific bugaboo for me personally. I invite anyone signing up for the playtest to send WotC all of their feedback e-mails with this at the bottom.

And now:

 

[IronWolf]

Yeah, I don't think the "playing online" thing is in the ACTUAL agreement...unless you count some very specifically weird interpretation of what constitutes making a copy (technically, we're all supposed to play this on the computers we originally downloaded the files to without moving the files around, and typing any information from those files constitutes making a copy), but it's something they could probably pursue if they bothered to.

Terms in the FAQ don't seem enforceable to me even if they chose to enforce it. Things in the actual agreement I agreed to in order to download would be enforceable if they chose to.

Playing online really isn't much different than face to face, I don't need to copy any more materials for an online game than I do to play around someone's table. So if they can "enforce" something through the technicality you mention above to an online game then they could do the same to my friends playing around the table at home. The prep isn't that different.

I get what you are saying though. The agreement is on the poorly worded side and is frustrating - especially with a FAQ of items that weren't really presented up front in the agreement.

 

[MoonSong]

However, my PbP site of choice is likely to enforce the faq too -despiite the fact they have extremely gooddamn safety meassures that could easilly prevent non-signers from ever seeing anything-. And even If got away with playtesting with non-signers or online -and I'm not saying I'm actively looking forward to back track on my word, I have a word after all- that leaves a lot of explaining to do, AFAIK -and until proven wrong by the facts- I could be as well the only registered playtester on my city or even on my entire country!.

Until the very last moment I thought it would be possible to playtest with the DM alone signing in -that would be me- and that DM would give feedback for the whole group, then if any player wanted to give his own feedback too, then that player also registers. My players are pretty casual and I don't think they'll commit to the playtest that much, specially since we are in the middle of an interesting adventure. So it seems I won't be able to give any feedback at all.

 

[Kurtomatic]

I agree that the OPTA is very much on par with EULA silliness. I'm as worried about it as any EULA as well. It's a speed bump which doesn't change much.

The real value of registering officially is participation in the formal testing surveys. It's in Wizards interests that groups playtest these rules, and if making that happen means they do not capture 100% of the players in those groups, that is an acceptable social overhead cost to getting as much feedback as possible. So I agree the RAW of the OPTA works against them (as well as presumably for them, in their evaluation), but I think they are counting on folks being practical about these things.

Does Blizzard really expect all 6 bajillion WoW players to actually read their patch EULAs, or just scroll and click through them? It's a farcical kabuki dance, sure, but it stops almost no one from accessing the intended game experience.

Paizo's open playtest was not burdened with this kind of crap, but it also wasn't open signup of very early design candidate testing of an entirely new edition of D&D. I just don't find the OPTA very surprising, given the unique status of this particular playtest program.

Now, the FAQ restrictions are a different kettle of fish, and I'm not sure what I think of those limitations.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The real value of registering officially is participation in the formal testing surveys. It's in Wizards interests that groups playtest these rules, and if making that happen means they do not capture 100% of the players in those groups, that is an acceptable social overhead cost to getting as much feedback as possible. So I agree the RAW of the OPTA works against them (as well as presumably for them, in their evaluation), but I think they are counting on folks being practical about these things.

If that is all it was, I'd agree. However, it is more than that. This skews the playtest to people willing to jump through some specific hoops that don't really have anything to do with giving the rules a good try, and then giving feedback on that. Moreover, it means there probably isn't any provision to collect group feedback through the DM. (I don't know for sure, because I couldn't get the packet yesterday, despite having signed up the week it was first announced, and trying for a couple of hours last night.)

I'd have no trouble getting my group to really pay attention, play the game as it seems to be intended, think about it, and then give some feedback. We like dusting off rules systems that way. But I don't think I can get them to navigate the train wreck that is frequently WotC's website. So the universe of playtesters turns into the super set: People willing to playtest the game and people willing to jump through some specific and annoying hoops that have nothing whatsoever to do with the game itself.

Now maybe in the early playtest, that is an acceptable trade. Maybe when it comes to dealing with the heart of the system, you want a certain amount of arbitrary hoop jumping as a self-selection method. However, if this continues for the life of the playtest, then it would be like testing, say, the usability of a new remote control layout by limiting to people who can change the oil in their car. Perhaps they will open up, loosen up, as the playtest goes forward. Maybe "group reactions" are more important when you have a wider range of material to test. I don't know about the "when"--only that eventually it becomes important.

Also, the cynical side of my nature can't help but see the clumsy hand of marketing wanting to get email addresses to push stuff.

 

[Kurtomatic]

Now maybe in the early playtest, that is an acceptable trade. Maybe when it comes to dealing with the heart of the system, you want a certain amount of arbitrary hoop jumping as a self-selection method. However, if this continues for the life of the playtest, then it would be like testing, say, the usability of a new remote control layout by limiting to people who can change the oil in their car. Perhaps they will open up, loosen up, as the playtest goes forward. Maybe "group reactions" are more important when you have a wider range of material to test. I don't know about the "when"--only that eventually it becomes important.

I don't disagree with any of that.

I simply think its a mistake to cancel or otherwise abort an otherwise viable playtest group this weekend, simply because 100% by-the-book official sign-ups aren't practical. If just one person at the table has signed-up, then that game is a win for everyone, including Wizards.

They will HAVE to open this up with less restrictions in the future, if they want to meet their claimed objectives. This is still early days, however.

 

[Warbringer]

?..Feedback is the whole point of the playtest.

a fact that is obvious to all, with the exception of the WOTC lawyers....

It's an open playtest ... Ip and it's deritiavives are protected in the nda, irrespective of the mode of play.... Personally this doesn't bode well for an ogl type arrangement I was hoping they would return to .... Why? ... The rules wrangling

 

[Walking Dad]

...
Although it might be fun, Feedback is the whole point of the playtest.

Public playtest also work well as advertisement and to create discussions (which are also advertising). Keeping the potential buyers interested is not unimportant.