D&D 5E Protection from Chaos Part XI: The D&D Next Online Playtest Agreement

[TerraDave]

Sure. Though its not that small a thing.

On your last point, they have done it over and over again. Leading to a vast mass of FRPGs.

The reason people don't play these (much) is the value lost as things have to be renamed or reworded...and someone says, I don't want to deal with this, I will just play D&D.

Take advantage and disadvantage, or the ability based check descriptions... paraphrasing would take some real thought..and someone capable of doing it probably has better things to do.

 

[I'm A Banana]

On your last point, they have done it over and over again. Leading to a vast mass of FRPGs.

No one to my knowledge has done it to 5e yet.

The reason people don't play these (much) is the value lost as things have to be renamed or reworded...and someone says, I don't want to deal with this, I will just play D&D.

Take advantage and disadvantage, or the ability based check descriptions... paraphrasing would take some real thought..and someone capable of doing it probably has better things to do.

Sure. I was only really pointing out that the OPTA is fairly useless for stopping bad actors, so it doesn't really protect WotC very well.

 

[Hussar]

I'd say it's a bit tricky to do it to 5e at the moment considering how little of 5e actually exists and is apparently changing pretty rapidly. People talk about playtest doc's from January looking very little like what we see today. Any "knock off" game based on what we have at the moment isn't going to gain a whole lot of traction.

 

[dd.stevenson]

Thanks for posting this.

I'm afraid I still view their prohibition on online playtesting with contempt, and that's going to spill over onto my view of the company. But it's very nice to see this agreement explained by someone who knows what they are talking about.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I gotta admit, as much as I'd like to put a positive face on things, I can only come to the conclusion that some lawyer saw "online play" and said, "Hell no - online is where those pirates live - we can't do that!"

I could kinda see the point that you don't want online gamers to seriously skew the results (as I look, there are some 40000 subscribers on the DDI VTT beta - that's a big block of potential skew), but, really, I don't think that's where the problem lay.

I do think that the legal department and the design department are not talking to each other and getting their ducks in a row. No big shock there.

 

[Morrus]

I have two questions about that analysis.

1) Where he talks about the lack of signatures and identification rendering it unenforceable. How does that compare to a common EULA, which also has no signatures or identification?

2) I also noticed the bit about "designated forums" for feedback. This seemed contradicted to me by the clause at the end which said you were welcome to discuss your thoughts publicly: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, you may publicly discuss your thoughts regarding the D&D Next Playtest Materials and your playtesting experience." How do those two stack up? Regarding their intentions, they've certainly indicated that they're happy to see blog posts and threads at places like EN World, so I wonder if this is a case of language and intent not matching.

3) Regarding the online playtesting. My understanding at present is that the restriction is in place because it entails reproducing the content of - at the very least - the adventure, and they don't want people who haven't essentially agreed not to republish (prepublish?) it being able to see it (the non-effectiveness of that notwithstanding - that's what the intention is). However, they are reviewing that at present.

 

[KesselZero]

So wait, I'm still unclear (or maybe just incredulous) on one point: we're not supposed to be discussing the playtest at all outside of official channels? The lawyer guy advises not even talking to other playtest groups about your experience. So the entire ENWorld New Horizons forum is breaking the OPTA?

Or am I missing some fine legal distinction?

 

[Morrus]

So wait, I'm still unclear (or maybe just incredulous) on one point: we're not supposed to be discussing the playtest at all outside of official channels? The lawyer guy advises not even talking to other playtest groups about your experience. So the entire ENWorld New Horizons forum is breaking the OPTA?

Or am I missing some fine legal distinction?

That's what my second question, above, is about. They seem to contradict that later in the same document.

Note that the FAQ also clearly states it's OK to do so:

Can I blog/post/talk about my playtest experiences with others who may not be in the playtest?
Yes. You may publicly discuss your thoughts about the D&D Next playtest materials and your experiences while playtesting.

Where can I go to talk to others who are playtesting? Is there a forum or discussion area?
Feel free to discuss your thoughts about your D&D Next playtest experience anywhere.

The agreement itself also says:

"Notwithstanding the foregoing, you may publicly discuss your thoughts regarding the D&D Next Playtest Materials and your playtesting experience."

I believe the legal analysis published above to be wrong in this regard. Note that the agreement says you may provide feedback via the means indicated by Wizards including... it's permissive, not restrictive, and the "means indicated" is "anywhere" as indicated in the final line and in the FAQ. It tells you how you may provide feedback; it doesn't restrict you from doing so elsewhere. And even indicates that WotC can indicate other methods to you, which they have done so via the FAQ and later in the same agreement.

In my opinion, you have clear permission to discuss D&D Next anywhere you like as long as you don't reproduce or redistribute the materials.

 

[enrious]

My question about a possible conclusion being drawn about prohibiting online play is that strangers (who may not have signed up for the playtest) may participate and therefore be exposed, but how is that any different from my offline experience?

My offline experience is that I signed up and got together with a group of people around a table and we playtested. I have not asked, nor will I ask if each individual has signed up and downloaded from Wizards.com, because I don't think I have any legal or moral requirement to do so, based on the OPTA.

From what I can tell, I have been in compliance with the OPTA and it's none of my business if the people I'm playing with are as well.

 

[Hussar]

My question about a possible conclusion being drawn about prohibiting online play is that strangers (who may not have signed up for the playtest) may participate and therefore be exposed, but how is that any different from my offline experience?

My offline experience is that I signed up and got together with a group of people around a table and we playtested. I have not asked, nor will I ask if each individual has signed up and downloaded from Wizards.com, because I don't think I have any legal or moral requirement to do so, based on the OPTA.

From what I can tell, I have been in compliance with the OPTA and it's none of my business if the people I'm playing with are as well.

I agree with you here. And, as Morrus says, it's under review, and I imagine that, by the next round of playtesting at the latest, we'll see some change here. I could be wrong, but, I remain somewhat optimistic.

However, as to your F2F experience - did you provide the character sheets for everyone? Anyone who brought any material obviously had signed the OPTA, so, that's a pretty sure way to tell. Now, if you handed your printouts to someone else, my reading of the OPTA would interpret that to mean that you are actually obligated to ask if they've signed in since you've agreed not to share with anyone who hasn't signed.

Am I off base with that?