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="Frylock" data-source="post: 5930599" data-attributes="member: 38140"><p>Thanks for your comments and questions about my article. I want to clear up a few things. First, the point of this article isn't the unenforceability of the agreement. The point of this article is trying to understand what WotC wants of you whether it's enforceable or not. However, on the subject of enforceability, I go into much more detail, involving far more legalese than you want to read, in a couple of responses to questions posed on the <a href="http://”http://www.loremaster.org/content.php/267-Protection-from-Chaos-Part-XI-%E2%80%93-The-D-D-Next-Online-Playtest-Agreement”" target="_blank">Loremaster thread</a>. In short, WotC isn't in the business of suing its playtesters because they're playtesting, and I’m still torn over the question of whether consideration is valid. If you really want to understand why, go back to the <a href="http://”http://www.loremaster.org/content.php/267-Protection-from-Chaos-Part-XI-%E2%80%93-The-D-D-Next-Online-Playtest-Agreement”" target="_blank">Loremaster thread</a>. Again, though, whether it’s enforceable isn’t the point. What you, as friends of WotC, want to know is what they’re asking of you.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I did not advise you against talking with others. As so many of you have pointed out, I doubt the (written) contract is valid, so obviously I’m not advising you on how to behave under it. I’m simply stating what I think WotC is trying to say with it. However, I do provide my interpretation of the language:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Moreover, as I point out later (and Morrus states in response to you), that term contradicts another within the document. Ambiguities in contracts are interpreted against the drafter. In other words, because WotC drafted the contract, and because the terms contradict, a judge would likely say you’re permitted to have those discussions. However, it’s unlikely a judge would ever get involved because WotC isn’t really trying to keep you from discussing your playtest with other playtesters. That’s not the point. The point is that WotC wants you to have "written" discussions with playtesters <u>not in your group</u> on their site so that they don’t miss any of your feedback (and, most likely, so that they can exercise control over the discussion). Whether they can reasonably expect to enforce this (valid contract or not) is a whole other issue and beyond the scope of my article (though they are using the leverage of IP law to help in that regard). </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>I know you desperately want this to be true <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />, and it probably is because of the ambiguity in the contract. The permissive nature of the statement is merely allowing you to shift the burden of reporting feedback to a single person in your group. You don’t have to report feedback unless you want, but if you do, you’re given permission to do so (by the Feedback session) on WotC forums. That being said, it seems odd that you interpret a “confidentiality” provision as giving you permission to discuss anything you want publicly. How could that possibly be correct? In what way does that maintain confidentiality?</p><p></p><p>Taken as a whole, the only reasonable interpretation is that WotC wants you to keep written communication on official WotC channels, but oral communication (i.e., those where it’s impossible to redistribute physical copies of their materials) are fair game. Again, it’s so sloppily written, I doubt anyone’s getting sued, and I doubt WotC really cares. They’re just trying to keep as much written conversation in house as possible.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is off-topic for me, because, <u>as I said in the article</u>, OPTA doesn’t address online play. However, I did briefly mention it and answered your question in the article. It’s different in theory only. If you’re making a good faith effort to play by WotC’s rules, you’ll easily be able to do that if everyone playing is sitting in front of your face with their own copies of the materials (though even this could be fudged, obviously). If you’re playing online, there’s no way, even in theory, to check that. This is more about WotC playing the odds, doing the best it can to assure compliance in a situation in which is impossible to do so.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>LEGALESE ALERT: In Virginia, when there’s an unsigned written contract, but clear evidence of an intent to contract under those terms, an oral contract can arise with exactly those terms. Nevertheless, the written contract is deemed void, and this is no small distinction. In Virginia, written contracts have a 5-year limitation, but oral contracts have only a 3-year limitation. So, in Dixon v. Hassell & Folkes, P.C. (Va., 2012), even though the oral contract was deemed to be identical to the written contract, because it was unsigned, the written contract didn’t really exist. Thus, my statement in the article that, even if unenforceable, </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I also remind you of this quote:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>In other words, the point isn’t in the legal minutia, but rather in interpreting what WotC is asking of you. Your discussions should be focused on that, unless you're trying to find technicalities on which to screw WotC. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I’m not sure about my position either. Again, I point you to <a href="http://”http://www.loremaster.org/content.php/267-Protection-from-Chaos-Part-XI-%E2%80%93-The-D-D-Next-Online-Playtest-Agreement”" target="_blank">my discussion in the comments</a>.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Interesting point, and given that WotC drafted the contract and it’s drafted rather poorly, it certainly could be interpreted this way. I’m not convinced it <u>must</u> be interpreted this way, but within the context of the entire agreement consisting of, among other things, a confidentiality term permitting public discussion (????), I’d say that interpretation is likely to fly. Nevertheless, I stand by my statement that WotC would prefer that you provide feedback on their forums so they have easy access to them. That's the question I was asked to answer with <a href="http://”http://www.loremaster.org/content.php/267-Protection-from-Chaos-Part-XI-%E2%80%93-The-D-D-Next-Online-Playtest-Agreement”" target="_blank">the article</a>.</p><p></p><p>Thanks to all of you for your comments. However, I respectfully request that all further feedback on my article be restricted to the Loremaster forum.</p><p></p><p>Just kidding. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Frylock, post: 5930599, member: 38140"] Thanks for your comments and questions about my article. I want to clear up a few things. First, the point of this article isn't the unenforceability of the agreement. The point of this article is trying to understand what WotC wants of you whether it's enforceable or not. However, on the subject of enforceability, I go into much more detail, involving far more legalese than you want to read, in a couple of responses to questions posed on the [URL=”http://www.loremaster.org/content.php/267-Protection-from-Chaos-Part-XI-%E2%80%93-The-D-D-Next-Online-Playtest-Agreement”]Loremaster thread[/URL]. In short, WotC isn't in the business of suing its playtesters because they're playtesting, and I’m still torn over the question of whether consideration is valid. If you really want to understand why, go back to the [URL=”http://www.loremaster.org/content.php/267-Protection-from-Chaos-Part-XI-%E2%80%93-The-D-D-Next-Online-Playtest-Agreement”]Loremaster thread[/URL]. Again, though, whether it’s enforceable isn’t the point. What you, as friends of WotC, want to know is what they’re asking of you. I did not advise you against talking with others. As so many of you have pointed out, I doubt the (written) contract is valid, so obviously I’m not advising you on how to behave under it. I’m simply stating what I think WotC is trying to say with it. However, I do provide my interpretation of the language: Moreover, as I point out later (and Morrus states in response to you), that term contradicts another within the document. Ambiguities in contracts are interpreted against the drafter. In other words, because WotC drafted the contract, and because the terms contradict, a judge would likely say you’re permitted to have those discussions. However, it’s unlikely a judge would ever get involved because WotC isn’t really trying to keep you from discussing your playtest with other playtesters. That’s not the point. The point is that WotC wants you to have "written" discussions with playtesters [U]not in your group[/U] on their site so that they don’t miss any of your feedback (and, most likely, so that they can exercise control over the discussion). Whether they can reasonably expect to enforce this (valid contract or not) is a whole other issue and beyond the scope of my article (though they are using the leverage of IP law to help in that regard). I know you desperately want this to be true :), and it probably is because of the ambiguity in the contract. The permissive nature of the statement is merely allowing you to shift the burden of reporting feedback to a single person in your group. You don’t have to report feedback unless you want, but if you do, you’re given permission to do so (by the Feedback session) on WotC forums. That being said, it seems odd that you interpret a “confidentiality” provision as giving you permission to discuss anything you want publicly. How could that possibly be correct? In what way does that maintain confidentiality? Taken as a whole, the only reasonable interpretation is that WotC wants you to keep written communication on official WotC channels, but oral communication (i.e., those where it’s impossible to redistribute physical copies of their materials) are fair game. Again, it’s so sloppily written, I doubt anyone’s getting sued, and I doubt WotC really cares. They’re just trying to keep as much written conversation in house as possible. This is off-topic for me, because, [U]as I said in the article[/U], OPTA doesn’t address online play. However, I did briefly mention it and answered your question in the article. It’s different in theory only. If you’re making a good faith effort to play by WotC’s rules, you’ll easily be able to do that if everyone playing is sitting in front of your face with their own copies of the materials (though even this could be fudged, obviously). If you’re playing online, there’s no way, even in theory, to check that. This is more about WotC playing the odds, doing the best it can to assure compliance in a situation in which is impossible to do so. LEGALESE ALERT: In Virginia, when there’s an unsigned written contract, but clear evidence of an intent to contract under those terms, an oral contract can arise with exactly those terms. Nevertheless, the written contract is deemed void, and this is no small distinction. In Virginia, written contracts have a 5-year limitation, but oral contracts have only a 3-year limitation. So, in Dixon v. Hassell & Folkes, P.C. (Va., 2012), even though the oral contract was deemed to be identical to the written contract, because it was unsigned, the written contract didn’t really exist. Thus, my statement in the article that, even if unenforceable, I also remind you of this quote: In other words, the point isn’t in the legal minutia, but rather in interpreting what WotC is asking of you. Your discussions should be focused on that, unless you're trying to find technicalities on which to screw WotC. :) I’m not sure about my position either. Again, I point you to [URL=”http://www.loremaster.org/content.php/267-Protection-from-Chaos-Part-XI-%E2%80%93-The-D-D-Next-Online-Playtest-Agreement”]my discussion in the comments[/URL]. Interesting point, and given that WotC drafted the contract and it’s drafted rather poorly, it certainly could be interpreted this way. I’m not convinced it [U]must[/U] be interpreted this way, but within the context of the entire agreement consisting of, among other things, a confidentiality term permitting public discussion (????), I’d say that interpretation is likely to fly. Nevertheless, I stand by my statement that WotC would prefer that you provide feedback on their forums so they have easy access to them. That's the question I was asked to answer with [URL=”http://www.loremaster.org/content.php/267-Protection-from-Chaos-Part-XI-%E2%80%93-The-D-D-Next-Online-Playtest-Agreement”]the article[/URL]. Thanks to all of you for your comments. However, I respectfully request that all further feedback on my article be restricted to the Loremaster forum. Just kidding. ;) [/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