The Playtest Agreement

[Nagol]

<snip>

The way that WotC generates the right to control its playtest materials is to get those to whom they distribute them to enter into a contract. It doesn't mean they're going to enforce those contractual rights against everyone, or even anyone. It's just an example - one of any number that could be given - of people using the private law to create rights that give them a regulatory capacity.

One might object on anarchist grounds, or socialist grounds, or other sorts of grounds that you can't talk about on ENworld. But assuming a person has no general objection to contemporary systems of private law, I don't think they can have much of an objection to the type of private legal ordering that WotC is creating here.

It would of course be different if WotC was under some sort of duty to distribute the materials, or if WotC were not the appropriate people to regulate the playtest. But I haven't seen any argument that either of these things is true.

This philosophy fails when the purpose is to engage as broad an audience as possible but the terms of the contract act as a barrier to entry that part of the base balks.

I know I've given up the concept of participating in the playtest because of the "all players must sign" and the "no derivative work" provisions of the agreement.

I signed up to look at the material, but am not willing to put any energy into gathering or participating in a playtest group.

I am not going to guess why WotC decided these restrictions are appropriate or whether any violation on my part is actually frowned upon by WotC. I simply look at the restrictions and ask myself "Would following this agreement lead to a net benefit for me?" The answer seems to be a mild no so I won't bother engaging.

*edit*

And copyright gives WotC great control over its playtest materials irrespective of trying to layer on a probably unenforcable end-use agreement.

/edit

 

[I'm A Banana]

Okay, but then isn't simply writing a name beside NAME also creating a derivative work by your definition? We can be as pedantic as we like, the idea is we aren't allowed to make a derivative work of the rules and pawn it off as our own. Pretty sure no one cares if we make notes in the margins of our copy.

No, I think you're right on a practical level. The Fun Police probably won't come git you.

But that would count as a derivative work by my understanding. Again, not that it would have much practical result, just evidence that the OPTA is making you agree not to do things that WotC clearly expects you to do. Which is a futzy bit of business in my mind. It bothers me.

But the law is nothing if not pedantic, so pedantry is kind of necessary, here, if we hope to understand what the actual text says, and what we are actually agreeing to do, and what any designers paying attention might want to gently tell the legal department while slappin' them around a bit.

 

[mudbunny]

No, I think you're right on a practical level. The Fun Police probably won't come git you.

But that would count as a derivative work by my understanding. Again, not that it would have much practical result, just evidence that the OPTA is making you agree not to do things that WotC clearly expects you to do. Which is a futzy bit of business in my mind. It bothers me.

But the law is nothing if not pedantic, so pedantry is kind of necessary, here, if we hope to understand what the actual text says, and what we are actually agreeing to do, and what any designers paying attention might want to gently tell the legal department while slappin' them around a bit.

But don't forget, that in the law, terms have very specific meanings. Derivative is one of those terms that has a very specific meaning under copyright law and, to the best of my knowledge (IANAL, but I do work in the IP industry on the patent side of things) simply modifying a character or monster would not run afoul of the section on not creating derivatives.

 

[enrious]

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?"

 

[Agamon]

But don't forget, that in the law, terms have very specific meanings. Derivative is one of those terms that has a very specific meaning under copyright law and, to the best of my knowledge (IANAL, but I do work in the IP industry on the patent side of things) simply modifying a character or monster would not run afoul of the section on not creating derivatives.

Right. I don't think the lawyers are dumb enough not to understand that including language in the agreement that every single participant will be breaking just by participating in what they are agreeing to is pointless. More likely, the understanding of that language by us is faulty. Especially when all evidence points to that (Mearls did tell us to make it our own...). Arguing about what we really don't understand instead of just doing as the designers tell us is what is really pointless.

 

[Mark CMG]

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. That's not legal advice nor is it legal advice to tell WotC that if they don't want people doing what Mike Mearls says then they ought to make that clear pretty soon.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Derivative is one of those terms that has a very specific meaning under copyright law and, to the best of my knowledge (IANAL, but I do work in the IP industry on the patent side of things) simply modifying a character or monster would not run afoul of the section on not creating derivatives.

So what am I missing? If drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa counts as a derivative work (given that it is a modification of the Mona Lisa), how does writing the words of the Defender theme onto the Fighter's character sheet not count as a derivative work (given that it is a modification the Fighter's character sheet)? Isn't printing out a copy of the PDF copying the material? Isn't e-mailing it distributing it digitally (and also making a copy, given that you don't loose the original file)?

Arguing about what we really don't understand instead of just doing as the designers tell us is what is really pointless.

Depends on what your point is. I put my reasoning for posting this thread a page or so back. I'm not really looking for an argument. I'm looking for discussion, greater understanding, and increased clarity.

"Doing as the designers tell us" would be a lot easier for me if I didn't have to sign an agreement rather explicitly (if in leagalese) forbidding me from doing what the designers tell me to do.

 

[Agamon]

So what am I missing? If drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa counts as a derivative work (given that it is a modification of the Mona Lisa), how does writing the words of the Defender theme onto the Fighter's character sheet not count as a derivative work (given that it is a modification the Fighter's character sheet)? Isn't printing out a copy of the PDF copying the material? Isn't e-mailing it distributing it digitally (and also making a copy, given that you don't loose the original file)?

It's pretty simple. If you create a game that is like DDN, and it is found out that you made copies of the playtest docs and changed them to make your own, they have you because you signed the agreement. If you make a change as suggested by the designer (or even one of your own players) but keep it to yourself for your own personal playtest, don't worry about it. This isn't 1984. Nobody is going to care. Again, you are picking nits...unless your intention is to use DDN as the basis of your next game. My advice in that case would be: don't.

 

[Scribble]

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


Also note- they indicate pretty much what will happen should you violate the OPTA... They're revoke the OPTA (essentially kicking you out of playtesting).


I think you're getting a bit too legal where no such thing was intended. 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.

It's essentially a way they can boot you if you start acting up and trying to screw them in some way. It's not a way for them to throw you in jail or something.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's pretty simple. If you create a game that is like DDN, and it is found out that you made copies of the playtest docs and changed them to make your own, they have you because you signed the agreement. If you make a change as suggested by the designer (or even one of your own players) but keep it to yourself for your own personal playtest, don't worry about it.

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

Benefit in this case means profit.

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

I think you're getting a bit too legal where no such thing was intended.

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.

This isn't 1984. Nobody is going to care. Again, you are picking nits...unless your intention is to use DDN as the basis of your next game. My advice in that case would be: don't.

It's not a way for them to throw you in jail 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.