D&D 5E How will the playtest of D&D next go at XP?

[JoesephBear]

Good Guy Morrus.

Has journalistic integrity.

Doesn't sign NDA's.

 

[enrious]

I don't think that this is fair. I wouldn't call this a PR blunder, a mis step maybe. Firing people seems a bit extreme.

It's a good general policy to have.

 

[Mark CMG]

Yeah, I've decided that should the opportunity fall my way I won't choose to playtest or sign an NDA.

Smart. It might seem like a lot to give up but I think you'll find it more fruitful in the short and long term.

 

[Gundark]

Smart. It might seem like a lot to give up but I think you'll find it more fruitful in the short and long term.

I suppose it doesn't stop him from joining the public playtest . Assuming no NDAs there.

 

[Mark CMG]

I suppose it doesn't stop him from joining the public playtest . Assuming no NDAs there.

If they go that route, we'll be swimming in information. Have they said there will be a no-NDA public playtest? I had gotten the impression that they were just calling their NDA'd playtest a "public" playtest in that it is open to anyone from the public even if the details wouldn't be public.

 

[Phaezen]

WotC just issued a clarification on twitter that the D&DNext Seminars will not have an NDA, athough the "Caves of Chaos" playtest will still require an NDA

https://twitter.com/#!/Wizards_DnD/status/161935038181670913

https://twitter.com/#!/Wizards_DnD/status/161938311403937792

and this little teaser....

https://twitter.com/#!/Wizards_DnD/status/161938688329265152

 

[enrious]

The playtest's the thing.

And NDA or not, it's going to be leaked.

Would have been much more intelligent for them to control the release of information. Doing it the way they're doing it means that there could be some anti-WotC bias hidden in the leaks, whereas officially releasing it allows for pro and con commentary, where such biases can be easily seen and evaluated.

 

[grimslade]

The NDA is both marketing (you the privileged few) and protection from the OGL inspired D&D 3 16/8 ed. Someone at Hasbro is convinced that someone will release a game that copies the amazing trade secrets contained in an early beta. This does not bode well for a loose GSL or OGL lite for VEd.

 

[enrious]

The NDA is both marketing (you the privileged few) and protection from the OGL inspired D&D 3 16/8 ed. Someone at Hasbro is convinced that someone will release a game that copies the amazing trade secrets contained in an early beta. This does not bode well for a loose GSL or OGL lite for VEd.

I believe you'll find that game mechanics can't be copyrighted, so I think the NDA having anything to do with other publishers is a red herring - especially given that the info's going to get out anyway and a publisher could simply say that since they hadn't signed an NDA, they were under no compulsion to honor it.

To be sure, there would be other aspects of copyright law involved.

 

[Gundark]

Well if the public playtest is only a few months off, an NDA to protect their IP from competitors makes little sense. I mean what's to stop a competitor from joining the public playtest and copying mechanics then?

The only reasonable reason that I can think of for the NDA is to stem some of the "OMG THESE RULES ARE TEH SUCK!!!!!" that are going to come. There may be some game mechanics they want to hammer out before the public and the "haters" get their hands on them.