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

[Alphastream]

Frylock, what do you make of the Derivative works section? What is it meant to cover? Can I create a version of a pegasus for D&D Next, including an idea for a monster block format that I think works better? Can I post new class features, new themes, etc.? Or is all of this part of the "don't discuss the playtest outside of WotC" (which bloggers everywhere seem to enjoy ignoring).

[Frylock]

Derivative works could easily be the subject of an entire Protection from Chaos article themselves. It's a loaded question, so I'm going to focus on your specific questions. Keep in mind that the purpose of the article is to determine what WotC wants from you regardless of whether they're technically within their legal rights to demand it from you (though I do address that eventually). Also note that I haven't reviewed the latest playtest docs because I've bowed out of the process. I have no idea, for example, what the pegasus entry looks like, so I'm applying assumptions rather than facts. Finally, if the OPTA has been rewritten, I'm not aware of that fact, so I'm still operating under the one I have.

[Does WotC mind if] I create a version of a pegasus for D&D Next,

My guess is probably not provided that your pegasus is almost unrecognizeable, mechanically-speaking, from their entry other than obvious characteristics. For example, if their stat block says that a pegasus can fly, well duh. A pegasus (a creature of legend and thus in the public domain) is supposed to be able to fly, so giving it a fly speed is necessary to create a pegasus. On the other hand, if their stat block includes a hoof attack with a "push the target 5 feet" rider, you might want to make sure yours doesn't have that. This might be considered a trade secret, as it isn't something that pegasi were supposed to have in legend, so not everyone would assume it exists. (Put another way, it's a choice WotC didn't have to make, and is thus "creative" and worth protecting via trade secret.) That doesn't mean you can't include a hoof attack (again, duh!), but don't use mechanical ideas that are specific to WotC.

I really hope that attack isn't in the actual Pegasus block. I swear I haven't read it.

including an idea for a monster block format that I think works better?

From a copyright perspective, telling you that you couldn't reproduce or modify stat blocks would be offensive, but not so for from a trade secret perspective. Paragraph 5 (Confidentiality) makes it clear that they don't even want you to create a new stat block. I suspect that's an overstatement. WotC would probably want you to feel free to create them, but then submit them to WotC as feedback. I'd ask WotC directly, though. My article apparently resulted in a change in WotC's approach to the OPTA. They clearly just threw together an agreement without much concern for its details, so that when we brought up these details here, they took that as an opportunity to consider and address them to the public.

[Does WotC mind if] I post new class features, new themes, etc.? Or is all of this part of the "don't discuss the playtest outside of WotC"

Again, I'd say "no" but for the same reasons as the stat blocks, so you might want to go to WotC over this. Moreover, I'd point out that copyright is far more likely to apply to themes than to stat blocks and simply-worded class features, so WotC has a greater incentive to lock down themes that are obviously variations of their own. The concept of a theme, however, is probably not copyrightable, so a truly original theme would probably be okay under copyright law . . . but the trade secret analysis above still applies. They don't want you publishing themes and class features yourself.

(which bloggers everywhere seem to enjoy ignoring).

This is a shame, but it's an important note. WotC ignoring the publications of trade secrets assures that they won't be viewed as trade secrets even if they once were. (My article discusses why I think they might not have been trade secrets ever.) Again, I'm addressing this from the perspective of what WotC wants from you, but at this point, following those rules seems silly considering that they place you at a disadvantage. If WotC's done nothing to prevent publication of these materials, it could be because they really don't care. However, you might have a closer relationship with WotC than some of these bloggers, so maybe they'll pay closer attention to what you do. Are you talking about a blogger like me or one like Dave the Game? If Dave the Game (just an example) were doing this and WotC wasn't saying anything about it, I'd just say, "Screw it. Publish what you want. They clearly know it's being done by someone with a wide reach and don't care." However, even in that case, you might not know what's been said between Dave and WotC, so maybe his situation is somehow different. Still, when a trade secret is published, it's public domain, so if WotC isn't doing anything about it, it tells me they don't care. (Remember, I'm just using Dave as an example of a well-known blogger. I'm not following the status of the playtest or how bloggers are commenting on it.)