PF were prohibited from trying to close their playtest because the playtest material was bound by the terms of the OGL. Which is to say, that any one may distribute that material provided that they in turn agree to be bound by the OGL.
The Playtest Agreement
I have never characterised WoTC as the evil in any post on these or any other forum. I do think that having people agree to a document that does not apprear to prohibit online playtesting and then prohibit said online playtesting in a FAQ is bad form and quite a clumsy way to go about business.
They also appear to not want feed back from online groups or groups where for one reason or another the players will not sign up individually to the agreement.
Now, both types of play will occur, Wizards have no effective way of policeing this. So in my view Wizards could have kept/gained some goodwill by allowing htese games to occur with their blessing just for the people concerend to hold their feedback untill they were ready for feedback relating to nontraditional formats/ DM only feedback or whatever reasons they have for excluding this kind of feedback right now.
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
Not quite. The actual OGC portions of the playtest materials could be put into a different document as distributed under the OGL. The original playtest document could not be legally distributed without the permission of the copyright holder.
And I find it very hard to call the WotC playtest "closed". The barrier to entry is laughably low. If you have an email address, and have the ability to fill out the forms to make a WotC account, you can get at the playtest materials.
Connorsrpg
Adventurer
Ah.......nevermind. Will ask question again elsewhere.
dd.stevenson
Super KY
Mearls himself has suggested several ways in which playtesters can switch up the BG's & themes. He's also gone on record saying that he he expects DMs to mix it up with homebrews as soon as the playtest starts.
So, I'd say you've got the green light.
Hussar
Legend
You haven't. Now, go back and read some of the other posters. We're seeing it already. "Losing goodwill" and all that. What goodwill is being lost here? Well, apparently people are insulted that WOTC doesn't want their group to play in the playtest, so I suppose that's some good will.
OTOH, it's a playtest. Getting insulted because WOTC has put around some limitation on how you can playtest seems a bit thin skinned. But, that's just me. If someone doesn't want my feedback? Ok, no skin off my nose. Move on.
Not really seeing the issue here.
Kaodi
Hero
I am not sure, " What Mearls said, " carries much legal weight. There is an agreement, and unless one of the suits pops up and says, " Hi, I am a lawyer for Wizards of the Coast, and the agreement totally does not require you to refrain from X, " I am not sure you can assume that you are not obligated to refrain from X. You know, all those arguments about what will happen anyway notwithstanding.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
My purpose here is twofold.
First, people should know what they're signing up for, and what the expectation of them actually is, legally speaking. A lot of people just click-through these things, and don't know exactly what they're agreeing to. I think people deserve to know what the actual agreement says, in plain language. Similarly, I think people deserve to know what WotC expects of them, in plain language.
Second, and perhaps a little more philosophically, I think that it is a little...skeevy...for anyone to ask you to sign an agreement that they fully expect you to violate and have no real intention of enforcing in any legitimate way. Someone who tells you that there is a law against eating apples, and then holds one out in front of you, nodding and smiling, telling you that apples sure are delicious and that everyone should try them at least once, and it's not like there's any cops watching, is not to be trusted, generally speaking. I know it sets off all sorts of morality bells for this bible-student. There is an easy way out of this, and that is for WotC not to make that rule to begin with. If they're going to do an open public playtest they should make it open and public.
On a practical level, no, it probably doesn't matter, because WotC is not a big evil empire who will prosecute you for making a 6th character sheet and playing on Skype with your buddies, and, in fact, probably fully expects you to do just that. But on a higher level, it is then, I think, kind of...wrong...of them to ask us to agree not to do that, especially in a way that is at least a little legally intimidating.
And it can be a little concerning going forward, knowing that the designers and the legal team aren't really on the same page about this. It throws some questions on how 5e might or might not do a GSL/d20/OGL style licence. Regardless of how much the designers might want to, a dogmatic -- or even just careless -- legal department could hamstring such an effort.
My usual mantra is to not assume malice where there is evidence of foolishness, and I think this is certainly more about the latter. I don't think people should get angry about this, I think they should get loud about it (specifically to WotC), and certainly be aware of it and talk about it.
This isn't sour grapes, for me. It's problem-solving. The problem being this weirdness in the agreement, the solution being to try and persuade WotC, as much as possible, to stop asking us not to eat the apple if they fully expect us to eat the apple.
For a much more nuanced description of this problem, see Paradise Lost, and/or any discussion on the Problem of Evil in Monotheism.
First, people should know what they're signing up for, and what the expectation of them actually is, legally speaking. A lot of people just click-through these things, and don't know exactly what they're agreeing to. I think people deserve to know what the actual agreement says, in plain language. Similarly, I think people deserve to know what WotC expects of them, in plain language.
Second, and perhaps a little more philosophically, I think that it is a little...skeevy...for anyone to ask you to sign an agreement that they fully expect you to violate and have no real intention of enforcing in any legitimate way. Someone who tells you that there is a law against eating apples, and then holds one out in front of you, nodding and smiling, telling you that apples sure are delicious and that everyone should try them at least once, and it's not like there's any cops watching, is not to be trusted, generally speaking. I know it sets off all sorts of morality bells for this bible-student. There is an easy way out of this, and that is for WotC not to make that rule to begin with. If they're going to do an open public playtest they should make it open and public.
On a practical level, no, it probably doesn't matter, because WotC is not a big evil empire who will prosecute you for making a 6th character sheet and playing on Skype with your buddies, and, in fact, probably fully expects you to do just that. But on a higher level, it is then, I think, kind of...wrong...of them to ask us to agree not to do that, especially in a way that is at least a little legally intimidating.
And it can be a little concerning going forward, knowing that the designers and the legal team aren't really on the same page about this. It throws some questions on how 5e might or might not do a GSL/d20/OGL style licence. Regardless of how much the designers might want to, a dogmatic -- or even just careless -- legal department could hamstring such an effort.
My usual mantra is to not assume malice where there is evidence of foolishness, and I think this is certainly more about the latter. I don't think people should get angry about this, I think they should get loud about it (specifically to WotC), and certainly be aware of it and talk about it.
This isn't sour grapes, for me. It's problem-solving. The problem being this weirdness in the agreement, the solution being to try and persuade WotC, as much as possible, to stop asking us not to eat the apple if they fully expect us to eat the apple.
For a much more nuanced description of this problem, see Paradise Lost, and/or any discussion on the Problem of Evil in Monotheism.
No disagreement from me here!
I personally think it's a feat of marketing genius for Paizo to have consistently turned what is a major legal burden for them (namely, the OGL) into a marketing triumph!
And I feel a little sorry for WotC being continually hoisted in this petard of its past licensing decision. Time and time again they seem unable to take a trick. And this seems to me to be one of those times - what strikes me as a completely reasonable contractual agreement in the context of freely distributed playtest materials is able to be held against them.
I find the whole idea that there is going to be litigation over what people do with these materials among their own playtest groups is laughable in itself. But if there was such litigation, I would be taking a copy of Mearls' statement into court and on that basis arguing waiver, estoppel or some comparable line of defence.
I mean, Mearls is clearly in a position to communicate on behalf of WotC in respect of the playtest - my playtest package even included a letter from Mearls to me!
It's utterly routine in our economy for people to use contracts to set up rights that they have no intention of enforcing in the vast majority of cases.
It's common in other areas also. For example, a public housing estate near my home has a sign at each gate saying that only residents and bona fide visitors may enter. In compelte disregard of that sign I routinely enter the estate, to walk through to the street on the other side, to take my kids to the playground, etc - I even taught my older daughter to ride her bicycle on the grounds of the estate, because it has long flat paths with no cars.
What's the point of the sign? To give the security personnel on the estate the power to move on trespassers they don't like, such as hooligans or drug dealers. They don't want to move on me or my bike-riding daughter. Heck, they probably want us there because we contribute to an atmosphere of normality rather than criminality on the grounds of the estate.
Signs in shops about searching your bag serve the same purpose.
The point of the OPTA, from WotC's point of view, is to give it the capacity to regulate the playtest should it want to. But it's obvious and ordinary that most of the rights they enjoy under the agreement they don't intend to enforce.
That's like asking the owners of private "public" space - say, the landlord of a shopping mall - to just gratuitously relinquish title in that land. Whether or not that would be desirable in some utopian sense (and people have different views that they are forbidden from expressing on ENworld), it's obviously not going to happen. Management reserves the right to refuse entry, to inspect bags, to ask you to move on, etc, etc.
The OPTA is no different. It's a private corporation maintaining private ownership and control of the stuff that it has opened up to the public.
Similar Threads
