Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Protection from Chaos Part XI: The D&D Next Online Playtest Agreement
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5930142" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I teach private law at an Australian university, though equity and trusts rather than contract.</p><p></p><p>In general, it's not a requirement under Australian law that a contract be signed. Even if the terms of the contract have been reduced to writing (as in this case) there's no general requirement that it be signed.</p><p></p><p>I don't know much about EULA agreements. I know there is a fair bit of hostility towards them among IP academics, but not because they are not valid contracts, but rather because they are valid contracts whereby users get duped into waiving rights that they otherwise would enjoy under the general laws of IP.</p><p></p><p>As to the bit about absence of consideration rendering the agreement not enforceable as a contract, I'm not sure I agree with that either. WotC provided something to me: namely, they sent me an email with a link to a site where I could download some documents, and then they hosted that site. In return, I provide something to them: a promise to abide by the terms of the OPTA.</p><p></p><p>The idea that my receipt of the documents isn't valuable consideration because I have to do the (unpaid) labour of playtesting strikes me as weak, given that I am under no obligation to undertake any playtesting.</p><p></p><p>I would also tend to favour a different construction of the "Feedback" clause from that offered by the columnist: I don't think that it is imposing a burden on playtesters. The burden on playtesters is imposed via (i) the background law of IP, as the columnist explained, and (ii) the confidentiality clause, which - to the extent that it is effective - limits what you can say about your playtest experience.</p><p></p><p>The Feedback clause, as I read it, is actually a promise from WotC to the playtester - as the preamble states, they normally do not accept feedback, but on this occasion they promise to accept it. I'm not sure what that promise is worth - for example, suppose that they in fact refused to accept your feedback, and you sued them for breach of the OPTA, I'm not sure that the damages you'd receive would be very high! Why do WotC make this promise? Perhaps to increase the consideration that they are providing to the playtester, in order to better underpin the contractual character of the agreement.</p><p> </p><p>As I've just explained, the Feedback clause isn't a burden on the playtester. It's a promise from WotC to recieve playtesters' feedback. It gives you, as a playtester, a right to have your feedback received, in spite of WotC's normal practice (as stated in the preamble to the document) of not receiving feedback.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5930142, member: 42582"] I teach private law at an Australian university, though equity and trusts rather than contract. In general, it's not a requirement under Australian law that a contract be signed. Even if the terms of the contract have been reduced to writing (as in this case) there's no general requirement that it be signed. I don't know much about EULA agreements. I know there is a fair bit of hostility towards them among IP academics, but not because they are not valid contracts, but rather because they are valid contracts whereby users get duped into waiving rights that they otherwise would enjoy under the general laws of IP. As to the bit about absence of consideration rendering the agreement not enforceable as a contract, I'm not sure I agree with that either. WotC provided something to me: namely, they sent me an email with a link to a site where I could download some documents, and then they hosted that site. In return, I provide something to them: a promise to abide by the terms of the OPTA. The idea that my receipt of the documents isn't valuable consideration because I have to do the (unpaid) labour of playtesting strikes me as weak, given that I am under no obligation to undertake any playtesting. I would also tend to favour a different construction of the "Feedback" clause from that offered by the columnist: I don't think that it is imposing a burden on playtesters. The burden on playtesters is imposed via (i) the background law of IP, as the columnist explained, and (ii) the confidentiality clause, which - to the extent that it is effective - limits what you can say about your playtest experience. The Feedback clause, as I read it, is actually a promise from WotC to the playtester - as the preamble states, they normally do not accept feedback, but on this occasion they promise to accept it. I'm not sure what that promise is worth - for example, suppose that they in fact refused to accept your feedback, and you sued them for breach of the OPTA, I'm not sure that the damages you'd receive would be very high! Why do WotC make this promise? Perhaps to increase the consideration that they are providing to the playtester, in order to better underpin the contractual character of the agreement. As I've just explained, the Feedback clause isn't a burden on the playtester. It's a promise from WotC to recieve playtesters' feedback. It gives you, as a playtester, a right to have your feedback received, in spite of WotC's normal practice (as stated in the preamble to the document) of not receiving feedback. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Protection from Chaos Part XI: The D&D Next Online Playtest Agreement
Top