Hi Guys. The Non-Disclosure Agreement link in the Downloads module (see Generic Non-Disclosure Agreement on this page) doesn't appear to be working.
Has anyone else had the same problem when trying to download?
Could anyone point me to a NDA that would be suitable for using during play-testing sessings? Or pehaps post the text below?
Many thanks .... TwoBob
If you're asking this from the perspective of publishing games, the answer might be different, but if you're simply asking as a designer, I would say don't worry about NDA's at all. Asking your friends to sign an NDA will lose you friends, and asking strangers to sign one prior to playtesting won't gain you any.
If someone asked me to playtest their game, and then insisted I sign an NDA, I would do one of two things: (a) decline or, more likely (b) assume that the person had overestimated the quality of the game, and go into the session with a negative opinion of the game, which I'd then subconciously look for the session to validate.
Seriously, if you asked the big designers -- Faidutti, Knizia, etc -- I'd practically guarantee they don't worry about this stuff. Copyrights, NDAs, patents, just skip it and focus your energy on designing great games. Have no fear; no one will steal your lousy ideas, and you'll have way more of those than you'll have good ones if you're anything like the rest of us...
I realize I didn't actually answer your question, so many someone else will chime in with an actual NDA form for you...
-J
If you are interested in patenting your game GET PEOPLE TO SIGN AN NDA!!!!!
While your internal design crew isn't considered "public disclosure", almost anyone else can be. Depending on how much information goes how far it can jeopardize your patent application if the info is leaked out more than a year before your patent filing.
If you trust your friends, then develop an NDA that's toothless except for malicious attempts to sink your product. Your friends will probably not be afraid to sign something like that (while they might be afraid about getting sued for accidentally wigging out and spilling the beans).
Many major companies get their playtesters to sign NDAs. Don't use playtesters who won't sign one if you are going to patent your game. I've rarely met playtesters who won't sign one. The typical problem is not people who won't sign, but people who ignore them. Ugh!
People who have NDAs typically have their crap together and are serious about getting their game to market. Most novice designers don't know how to put one together and won't pay for a lawyer.
If your playtesters are worried about a blanket, permanent NDA, make it expire within X years (like 2-3 years). That gives you a chance to get the game to market, file patents, etc.
Don't use playtesters who won't sign one if you are going to patent your game.
With the sheer volume of people begging to help be on the "inside" of a game's design, it's very easy to only use those people willing to sign a very generic NDA. If they want in, they sign it -- if they don't, they miss out. Simple as that.
Seriously, if you asked the big designers -- Faidutti, Knizia, etc -- I'd practically guarantee they don't worry about this stuff.
You hit the nail on the head. Bruno Faidutti says exactly that in this great interview (scroll about half-way down the page), part of Tom Vassel's great Interviews by an Optimist series.
He mentions specifically that most game designers should focus their time and energy on dasigning games and not worry so much about people stealing your idea. To quote from the interview, "don't be paranoid."
Unless you're a publisher in the final stages of playtesting a game before going to print, I don't think you need to worry about an NDA.
There's nothing paranoid about having people sign a simple agreement stating that what they're going to see won't be discussed outside of your playtesting group. You don't need them to sign over their homes as collateral.
It's a dangerous progression in the industry that people have gone from wanting to spend $1000's of dollars to patent and get legal representation for all of their initial design work -- wasteful -- to the current trend which is opting a more devil-may-care attitude with "don't bother."
It's a huge error to recommend folks to not keep things in line. I've encountered not a single person that has ever balked at signing a NDA when given one.
In short: don't go to either extreme, but there's no reason to not have a common group NDA where everyone agrees to not discuss things outside of the group. While many take things too far and let their paranoia get the better of them, there's no reason to not take the one minute it takes to print off a NDA and have someone sign it.
With the sheer volume of people begging to help be on the "inside" of a game's design, it's very easy to only use those people willing to sign a very generic NDA. If they want in, they sign it -- if they don't, they miss out. Simple as that.
[sarcasm]Miss out on what? The opportunity to playtest an almost certainly flawed game, to help you make it better so that you can make money off of it? [/sarcasm]
Suffice it to say, we're looking at playtesters from a different philosophical lens. To me, they're already doing me a favor by playing my probably broken game, and to be suspicious of them to boot by making them sign an NDA is just not starting the relationship on the right foot. It's like signing a pre-nup. It may make all the sense in the world, but it just doesn't feel right.
It's a dangerous progression in the industry that people have gone from wanting to spend $1000's of dollars to patent and get legal representation for all of their initial design work -- wasteful -- to the current trend which is opting a more devil-may-care attitude with "don't bother."
Dangerous to whom or what? I think Steve's reference to Faidutti's comment is quite helpful. He's sold more game designs than any of us ever will, and he's never worried about the "intellectual property" thing at all. If someone that successful and gifted as he doesn't worry about it, I don't know if there's much to be gained by me worrying about it that much.
It's a huge error to recommend folks to not keep things in line.
I don't think it is. But of course, folks should take our opinions for what they are: our opinions, not sure-fire advice to how to succeed in the world. You'll probably find that most of us aren't super-cagey about disclosure of our games -- many of us put them up here on the internet for public discussion. Someone who's going to do that isn't going to worry about asking people to sign an NDA, so it's possibly just a matter of personal approach.
But to be honest, I don't think it's that dangerous. Are you, or is anyone, aware of a case where a playtester stole a game design and went on to publish it? And anyway, is an NDA really going to keep someone from blabbing, or protect you from anything if they do?
I just think that asking people to sign an NDA smacks of paranoia, and hubris, and I want to steer as clear from both of those as I can, even if it puts me at slight risk.
Obviously, you, and twobob, and everyone, should follow whatever NDA philosophy seems most prudent to you...
-J
You'll probably find that most of us aren't super-cagey about disclosure of our games... Someone who's going to do that isn't going to worry about asking people to sign an NDA
I'm with Jeff here, and him saying it is even more powerful once you know that around here, he's in fact one of the most cagey about disclosing specifics of a game in public before it's 'ready'.
As for NDA's, what are they supposed to accomplish? What happens if someone signs my NDA before playtesting All For One, then goes home and tells all his friends about it? I suppose the worst case would be that he or one of those friends makes a copy and submits it to Days of Wonder and gets published... unlikely but theoretically possible. In which case what good does my NDA do me, exactly?
- Seth
Keeps you warm at night on your park bench?
Unless you're a publisher in the final stages of playtesting a game before going to print, I don't think you need to worry about an NDA.
I think this is a very good point.
I can see both sides of the argument ... especially when seeing who is promoting each.
A "hobbyist" or "aspiring" designer (read: unpublished by a known games company) -- which is most of us -- probably don't have a need for NDAs when working on a new design ... it's probably just too early for that. Who knows if the game is even going to work? And, by the time it *does* work and the designer is just tweaking and tightening up the design before submitting it, I'm guessing the designer already knows most of the people he or she is using to test the game. (Now if that designer is sending the thing off to an unknown group for some true blind-testing, things might be different.)
However, a publishing company moving a design toward publication has every need to protect the path of that product toward market.
Again, as Jeff W. pointed out ... this is simply an opinion.
-Bryk
[sarcasm]Miss out on what? The opportunity to playtest an almost certainly flawed game, to help you make it better so that you can make money off of it? [/sarcasm]
======== Being a playtester for a game is a huge opportunity and a privilege. Regardless of flaws or otherwise, letting people in on something before others have the access to it is a marvelous thing -- seeing behind the curtain -- and, sure, they DO a service in return by providing manpower to look over things, and while I'm certain my experience might not be the same as others, a vast majority of people that volunteer to help I do not take them up on their offer, for a variety of reasons.
Dangerous to whom or what? I think Steve's reference to Faidutti's comment is quite helpful. He's sold more game designs than any of us ever will, and he's never worried about the "intellectual property" thing at all. If someone that successful and gifted as he doesn't worry about it, I don't know if there's much to be gained by me worrying about it that much.
======== I don't care who said what or what they have or haven't done. Bad advice is bad advice. A single-paged NDA is easy and clean and keeps everything on the up and up. There's no reason not to do it, despite whether someone may or may not have said something who has done X in the industry. Opinions and examples don't matter that much when you can avoid all of the problems and have everything very neat and tidy by keeping things professional.
Regardless, it certainly doesn't matter to me what others do, but as a public service, I would be doing the board a grave injustice by not speaking against something that is just illogical.
In which case what good does my NDA do me, exactly?
- Seth
They are toothless and, in reality, pretty much unenforceable.
However, when you have someone sign a piece of paper that says they will not talk about something with anyone not part of the playtesting group, in general, something magical happens: people, by their own very good nature, will adhere to this promise ESPECIALLY when they remember that they signed a paper.
You're not going to sue your buddy over talking about your game with his sister. That's not the point. The point is that a document exists and a contract whereby the parties agree to something.
People will do what they want -- but miscommunications happen without things in writing all of the time.
There simply is no reason not to do it, especially when most people, when presented a NDA, will be flattered to look at something that requires a NDA in the first place.
There simply is no reason not to do it, especially when most people, when presented a NDA, will be flattered to look at something that requires a NDA in the first place.
The above statement is absurd! There may be reasons for you to do it, but there are reasons for the rest of us not to. I'll give a few brief reasons (most of which have already been said).
1) I don't know about you, but I don't have potential playtesters e-mailing every day asking me when my next game design needs to be playtested. And considering tight schedules, real life, etc it's hard enough to find any playtesters to try out your designs. If you scare any of them away by making them sign a NDA, then that can be a set back as far as progressing your game through the tweaking process. If you don't have enough playtesters you can't playtest.
-and-
2) If they do go through the trouble of signing an NDA, and your design sucks ROYALLY, then your reputation may suffer. They may see you as overly paranoid, or worse, someone not to be taken seriously. Your chances of using them for future playtests suffers.
I understand opposing viewpoints, but attempting to invalidate someone else's, (especially when said viewpoint is shared with some very respected designers), just doesn't make sense.
-Darke
I think there has to be a disconnect here in what stage of playtesting we're talking about. For myself, and I think others, I'm talking about the stage where you've got a prototype together, maybe you've already tested the game a few times, and you're going to get together with some guys and gals, some of whom you might know, to playtest the game and see whether it works and how it could be improved. Barron, are you advocating an NDA for that stage, or are you talking more about the "the game is done, and now I need to test it for market appeal" stage?
It seems to me that you must be talking about this latter stage, or else the CCG world is just different from the board game world, as this legion of playtesters among whom one can choose to turn a majority away is just completely foreign to my experience in designing.
-Jeff
But to be honest, I don't think it's that dangerous. Are you, or is anyone, aware of a case where a playtester stole a game design and went on to publish it? And anyway, is an NDA really going to keep someone from blabbing, or protect you from anything if they do?
Mutants & Masterminds was out on Kazaa before it even got to hard copy. A playtester was passing out the game. Green Ronin was VERY upset.
This happened because playtesters got the file in electronic form to begin with. Having this happen after your game is out is one thing. Having it happen before hand is miserable for some games. It can be free advertising for others.
An NDA is only going to keep someone from blabbing if they think that you will sue them and catch them.
Believe me, if you signed an NDA with Hasbro, they thought you broke it, they thought you damaged their business, and they had proof, then you would be very bankrupt very quickly.
I just think that asking people to sign an NDA smacks of paranoia, and hubris,
Paranoia? No. I have seen so many people break non-disclosure agreements on the net, that it's hardly paranoia to think that some people (particularly those you don't know) can't keep their mouths shut.
Hubris? How much are you spending to publish your game? I'm working on a game right now that is going to cost me a TON of cash. It's probably going to feature famous licensed comic book characters. But I could EASILY be put out of business if one of the big companies produced something substantially similar with 10 times the amount of prize support before my game gets to market.
Then I'd be stuck with expensive annual licensing fees on a game which was dead out of the gate.
An NDA is not there to protect my ego. It's there to make sure that if some nutjob releases information early that gets me put out of business that I have his bank account and house to call upon to recompense my lost investment.
I want to steer as clear from both of those as I can, even if it puts me at slight risk.
Your call. I hardly call them hubris. I've had so many people try to break verbal contracts with me (one cost me $20 thousand dollars of revenue that was owed to me), that I think that you simply need some things in writing.
I'm a Southerner. So, I traditionally conduct all business deals on a handshake. I feel that people should be honorable enough to uphold their deals. Unfortunately I've found that will people I don't know that this is sometimes just a foolhardy policy.
When dealing with friends I'd use an NDA that was sort of toothless and only if I intended to use it as proof of lack of public release for a patent application.
I think NDA's are also sometimes of interest to CCG designers because they want people to chase cards. If people see a card list before the set comes out, it can alter the flavor of release/pre-release tournaments where you want players to get blind-sided by cards they've never seen or heard of before.
I personally prefer to have more players know about the cards -- I think errata is more likely to be caught at pre-print stages that way, but others clearly have different business and personal preferences.
Either way, I think the choice to use an NDA will largely be based on how much dough your investors have to put up. For my current game, my investors are gonna drop down $20-30 thousand in seed money, so having a casual attitude toward the legal side of things is just a ridiculous way to treat my investors. Were I merely investing $1-4K of my own cash I would think the extra time drafting contracts, etc. was just a waste of my bloody time.
Barron, are you advocating an NDA for that stage, or are you talking more about the "the game is done, and now I need to test it for market appeal" stage?
Any stage. Any type of game, board or CCG or whatever.
There is no reason whatsoever to not have someone sign something that is basically just a moral contract saying that you are trusting them with something and that, in turn, you'd like them to promise not to discuss it with anyone outside of this special group that is being allowed to see something.
Again: I've dealt with NDA's for 100's of people and no one has ever balked at all.
Everyone should do themselves a favor and cut-and-paste whatever NDA you find applicable (heck, make up your own), hit print on your computer, and have people sign it.
There's no reason not to, despite what others might think -- anyone in the industry who advocates not getting NDA's signed from potential playtesters is doing no one a service.
I think NDA's are also sometimes of interest to CCG designers because they want people to chase cards. If people see a card list before the set comes out, it can alter the flavor of release/pre-release tournaments where you want players to get blind-sided by cards they've never seen or heard of before.
This is true of some CCG designers, of course. However, with my case, just to be clear on my particular motivation, this has absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact, we make public spoilers of our cards in spoiler waves MONTHS in advance to generate excitement about the set AND to see if something needs altered wording in case something was missed in playtesting. Wanting secrecy to facilitate pre-release events is short-sided thinking and certainly not where I stand on the issue, or the reason for that stance.
There is no reason whatsoever to not have someone sign something that is basically just a moral contract saying that you are trusting them with something and that, in turn, you'd like them to promise not to discuss it with anyone outside of this special group that is being allowed to see something.
And I have sent several games to the Hippodice contest and haven't expected them to sign an NDA :-)
I don't doubt that "leaks" happen all the time. In RPGs I can see it being a serious issue, since they really only exist in written form, so it would be perfectly feasible for players to use a pirated copy. With boardgames this is slightly less of an issue since component factors do play a part*. With CCGs I can see it being even less significant since a lot of the appeal is around the production values of the cards themselves. That's not to say that home-made versions of CCGs don't exist but I've only experienced them in stand-in form (when a player doesn't have the actual card yet but wants to try it out.)
(*when Puerto Rico was first shown at Essen (it wasn't formally released until the following Nuremberg show), at least one rough copy of the rules and components list was circulated on the rec.boards newsgroup and people were talking about it. But there's no evidence at all that this cost the game any sales in the long run. The counterbalance to this is John Bohrer's approach with Winsome Games, where he doesn't allow rules to appear anywhere on the net, but there is likewise no counter evidence that this has increased sales!)
I have to confess that I'm with Jeff here - I think the reverse is true. At the design stage, even thinking about asking my testers to sign something is akin to saying "I don't trust you."
No, it doesn't. It says that I have something you may want to see but in order for you to see it, you have to promise not to talk about it with others. If you can't promise that, it's fine, but then you don't get to see behind the curtain.
Again, perhaps someone has more of a sample base than I do, but I have 100+ NDA's signed on my desk from various people and not one of them said a word to me when I forwarded them the document.
Quantifying verbal discourse into a physical document makes it very plain AND eliminates situations down the road where someone says, "Oh, I thought I couldn't SELL your idea, but I was free to talk about it with X, Y, and Z. I'm sorry, it wasn't clear."
When there is a physical document that says, "YOU WILL NOT DISCUSS THIS WITH ANYONE." and then they sign it, you eliminate the problem.
The simple fact is this: there is no logical reason NOT to have people sign a NDA. You can come up with all kinds of thoughts as to why a NDA isn't applicable and won't ever be applicable, and that's fine, but there is no reason NOT to do it... With that being the case AND it being so simple, this shouldn't even be a thread.
But there's no evidence at all that this cost the game any sales in the long run. The counterbalance to this is John Bohrer's approach with Winsome Games, where he doesn't allow rules to appear anywhere on the net, but there is likewise no counter evidence that this has increased sales!)
This doesn't matter. NDA's aren't about sales (increasing or decreasing) or promotion (increasing or decreasing) they are about keeping things under wraps until you decide to do otherwise.
There is no reason NOT to do this as you controlling the information is always superior to letting others do it for you.
Examples one way or the other don't prove or disprove anything. Logic does. And logic says that NDA's are all pro's and the only "con" is theoretically hurting someone's feelings -- and, if they're going to get their feelings hurt about asking them to sign a basic document, they're going to like it less when they have 10 suggestions for a game and you think 9 are completely moronic but 1 is applicable.
I think I can almost discern a clear cut line of division between the two opposing view points.
Those folks who are opposed to the use of an NDA seem to be strictly designers. I.E. We are for the most part freelancers, who once we feel our design is ready, we will probably shop it around to different publishers in hopes that it gets published.
The opposing camp, or those who feel they are absolutlely necessary, seem to be more in the business side of game development. Publishing, marketing, investments, etc.
I would be interested to hear the opinions of someone who has been, or is currently on, both sides of the fence. And by that I mean someone who started out as a freelance designer and moved into publishing other folks games. I'd be interested to see if their stance has changed any over the transition. Pat (Live Oak), Anye (Dancing Egg Plant), Chris (Inner City) might have some interesting insight into this debate.
-Darke
Here's what I cobbled together recently. Since I'm visually impaired, if you notice any glaring errors, drop me a line. Some of it is cobbled from bits and pieces of ideas from a variety of legal sources, but some of it is custom drafted language.
I do some litigative consulting on civil rights cases and I draft public policy but I am NOT a lawyer. I am not providing you with legal advice. You are not my client. I do not warrant this text to be suitable for any particular purpose.
--------------
CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT
WHEREAS [Your Name] (hereinafter, "the Discloser") possesses certain ideas and information relating to business, games, and game-related products that is confidential and proprietary to Discloser (hereinafter "Confidential Information"); and
WHEREAS ______________________ (hereinafter, "the Recipient") is willing to receive disclosure of the Confidential Information pursuant to the terms of this Agreement for the purpose of possibly loaning funds to a company which shall publish the Discloser's games;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration for the mutual undertakings of the Discloser and the Recipient under this Agreement, the parties agree as follows:
AGREEMENT DURATION
The obligations of this Agreement shall be continuing until the Confidential Information disclosed to Recipient is no longer confidential by virtue of the public release of the Confidential Information by the Discloser or an authorized representative thereof, or until a period of 5 years has passed, whichever comes first.
CONSIDERATION
Recipient agrees that good and valuable consideration has been received in the form of an opportunity to learn of a business venture, and in the form of the good will that may thereby be established between the parties.
DISCLOSURE
Discloser agrees to disclose, and Recipient agrees to receive the Confidential Information. Nothing in this Agreement shall be so construed as to entitle the Recipient to any Confidential Information from the Discloser that the Discloser does not wish to reveal.
BASIS FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT
It is recognized that the Confidential Information disclosed to the Recipient pursuant to this Agreement may describe or modify an invention on which the Discloser may have the right to file a patent application and the premature publication or public use may (in the sense of terms as used under Patent Laws) impair or destroy the right to secure patent protection on such an invention. It is further recognized that such information has substantial competitive value so long as it is withheld from public dissemination, and this value will be impaired or destroyed on publication or disclosure to others.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The Recipient will not, without prior written approval of the Discloser, or an authorized representative thereof, disclose or in any other way make known, reveal, report, publish or transfer to any person, firm, corporation or utilize for competitive or any other purpose any Confidential Information or know-how relative to the disclosed information, including but not limited to: any information designated as secret or confidential, the operation, plans, specifications, drawings, layouts, blueprints, patent applications, and other materials relating to the machinery, equipment, processes and products invented or used by the Discloser. Any information provided by the Discloser to the Recipient shall automatically be deemed by the Recipient as Confidential Information unless otherwise specifically noted to the contrary by the Discloser.
Except as provided for herein, in no event shall the Recipient, without the prior written approval of the Discloser, (a) make such information or documents known to any third party, or (b) disclose or identify the source of any of the information disclosed in confidence.
Recipient agrees to take all steps reasonably necessary to protect the secrecy of the Confidential Information, and to prevent the Confidential Information from falling into the public domain or into the possession of unauthorized persons.
EXCEPTIONS TO CONFIDENTIALITY
Elements of disclosure received by the Recipient without restriction or found in the public domain will not be restricted for other uses, provided that items and information which are patentable but merely have not, as of yet, been patented by the Discloser, shall not be excepted from the confidentiality requirements set forth in this Agreement. The exceptions set forth in this paragraph shall not apply to information made public as the result of a breach of the obligation to keep such matter confidential in whole or in part.
Notwithstanding any other provisions hereof, Recipient shall not be liable for use, release or disclosure of any information that:
a) is required by judicial action after all available legal remedies to maintain the information in secret have been exhausted; or
b) is independently developed by Recipient or one of its divisions of groups without any breach of this Agreement; or
c) is approved by Discloser for use or public release.
ASSIGNMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
Recipient agrees that all Confidential Information shall remain the property of Discloser, and that Discloser may use such Confidential Information for any purpose without obligation to Recipient. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as granting or implying any transfer of rights to Recipient in the Confidential Information, or any patents or other intellectual property protecting or relating to the Confidential Information.
Furthermore, any patentable, trademarkable, or copyrightable subject matter generated by the Recipient relative to the matter under consideration belongs to the Discloser either by way of work-for hire rules or by assignment. The parties agree to forthwith effectuate any writing needed to complete an assignment upon either party's request that the same be performed.
Recipient does not receive a license to make, use, or sell any items described or detailed within the Confidential Information. Such License, if provided, will be the subject of a separate agreement, which may refer to this Agreement.
LEGAL FEES
In addition to any other damages that may be awarded to the Discloser for any breach of this Agreement by the Recipient, for any arbitration, mediation, or other legal proceeding which arises out of a breach of confidentiality by the Recipient, the Recipient agrees to pay all reasonable mediation, arbitration or other legal fees that were incurred by the Discloser pursuant to said arbitration, mediation, or legal proceeding. The Recipient’s duties under this paragraph shall survive the termination of the remainder of this Agreement.
AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE
The undersigned attests that he has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of himself and attests that he is able to hold as confidential any Confidential Information received from the Discloser.
ASSIGNMENT OF THIS AGREEMENT
The rights and duties of the Recipient under this Agreement may not be assigned or delegated without the written consent of the Discloser. The Discloser may assign any or all of his rights and duties under this Agreement to another party without the consent of the Recipient.
GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of the State of Massachusetts and of the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States.
RECIPIENT'S INFORMATION
___________________________________________________________
Recipient's Mailing Address
___________________________________________________________
Recipient's Signature
___________________________________________________________
Date Signed by Recipient
Examples one way or the other don't prove or disprove anything. Logic does. And logic says that NDA's are all pro's and the only "con" is theoretically hurting someone's feelings --
What principle of logic states that getting people to sign a toothless, unenforcable document that people may or may not adhere to is the clear path of wisdom on the grounds that no one you know personally has ever objected to signing one? It's the same as saying "gargling with toilet bowl water is the logical thing to do after you brush your teeth, since, even though it won't really stop cavities, it won't give you gum decay either."
Surely, if you're able to introduce your anecdotal experience that people don't appear to mind signing NDAs, we're allowed to introduce anecdotal evidence of very successful designers who have never used NDAs and still went on to have happy, prosperous careers. (Careers WAAAAY more successful than any of us have had)
Let's face it, Barron, all of us are basically counting on our playtesters to be upstanding, decent people. You are hoping that having folks sign an NDA will motivate them to not spill the beans on your game, and are assuming people won't mind signing them. We feel oily about asking people to sign an NDA, and are assuming that it won't make a difference to our game's eventual success either way.
BOTH of us are making assumptions, and the reasonableness of those assumptions is hard to arbitrate. The fact that you haven't had a problem getting people to sign an NDA doesn't make me feel less oily about it. The fact that other people have had great success without worrying about them doesn't make you believe they're unnecessary.
This is not an argument about logic. It's a presentation of the different assumptions we are making in deciding an NDA philosophy that we'll adopt.
I don't mind that you have a differing opinion, and I encourage you to keep using NDAs, and by all means, to advocate their use by other designers. I object to your looking down your nose at myself and others, and triumphantly claiming to hold the position of logic when you emphatically do not. You haven't entered a formal logical argument at all. I think what you mean is that yours is the path of prudence. That's a fine opinion to have, but it's an opinion (or maybe more appropriately, an assertion), and that is most definitely all your comments amount to; it's also all that my comments amount to.
-Jeff
Lest take a look at the other side.
I do a lot of tests and I send games away for tests and reviews.
When I have the role of a tester I will never sign any paper. If they want to have any signed paper, I find other games to test. The reason is:
- They do not do me a favor by letting me tests there games. It is the other way around.
- I don’t get paid for the tests.
- I don’t gain anything by signing a paper.
- Where do we draw the line if I can use an Idea or not. If I test a fantasy board game, does that prevent me from doing a fantasy board game my self (and in the case above for up to 5 years)?
- I get new ideas all the time from things I see and read. (The GDW is a really good source of inspiration and I have a hard time to just review the game in the GDW and not the new ideas I come up with). Still: the game I test or review is the property of the designer and I will always treat it like that.
We have something around 50-60 games (this is probably a low figure) in the pipeline that we want to play (both games on the market and prototypes). We have in our group 2 players that collect game as a hobby, 3 players that also design games (and want to have there prototypes tested. We do test for other designers and game companies. I also test games and do reviews for a RPG/Board game magazine (A game that I will review has to be tested at least 3 times). On top of this we have a lot of games that we like and want to play.
If someone says that they do me a favor by letting me tests there prototypes I would just laugh. We love to play and test new games, but we have a lot of options.
// Johan
What principle of logic states that getting people to sign a toothless, unenforcable document that people may or may not adhere to is the clear path of wisdom on the grounds that no one you know personally has ever objected to signing one?
Point of fact, 99% of NDAs are neither toothless nor unenforceable. Note that the only toothless ones I recommended were for friends, and they were primarily as proof of "no public disclosure of information" for patent applications. For anyone other than close friends I'd recommend highly toothy, high enforceable NDAs.
The one I just posted has teeth.
We feel oily about asking people to sign an NDA, and are assuming that it won't make a difference to our game's eventual success either way.
Are you dropping down tens of thousands of dollars on the development of your game? Are you seeking a broad pool of playtesters including people you've never even met face-to-face, let alone know?
If you are playtesting with 4 friends on a game which you may spend, at most, $2,000 on development for, then you probably don't need NDAs.
Heck, you might not need NDAs if you spend tens of thousands of dollars on if you playtest with just friends.
As soon as you start playtesting with people you don't know, then putting a deal on paper makes more sense if you have a lot of money on the line.
You haven't entered a formal logical argument at all. I think what you mean is that yours is the path of prudence. That's a fine opinion to have, but it's an opinion (or maybe more appropriately, an assertion),
My assertion: if you playtest with a perfect stranger after investing tens of thousands of dollars on development and he leaks your game to a competitor who sinks your company you may have no legal recourse without an NDA and you may have a legal recourse with an NDA if you have proof of his activities.
You cannot refute this point. It is formal logic.
Those who are risk averse enough to want legal recourse may need an NDA to guarantee that their investments are protected.
The reason is:
- They do not do me a favor by letting me tests there games. It is the other way around.
- I don’t get paid for the tests.
- I don’t gain anything by signing a paper.
A decent developer will give his playtesters sets of the game in exchange for playtesting. Then, you are not only getting a set of free gaming materials, but you are getting games which you may like, and may like a lot if your playtesting comments were listened to.
In the case of the CCG I'm designing, if our art license goes through, our playtesters are likely each going to get what would amount to thousands of dollars of cards (if they had purchased them at retail). The relationship is hardly a parasitic one.
Also, the above non-disclosure is a generic non-disclosure and is also suitable for giving to potential investors. In fact, it was primarily designed for investors. Because while our playtesters might be considered "non-public disclosure" in a patent case, shopping around our game to John Doe investor certain would be public disclosure without an NDA.
You apparently playtest for very thankless companies if they give you nothing for your trouble.
I think what you mean is that yours is the path of prudence.
-Jeff
No, I meant what I said: it is illogical not to have people sign NDA's. Yes, it is prudent to have them do likewise and you can loop it around to say that being prudent is being logical and it's logical to be prodent.
Regardless: you're free to do as you will, logical or otherwise, prudent or otherwise.
- They do not do me a favor by letting me tests there games. It is the other way around.
- I don’t get paid for the tests.
- I don’t gain anything by signing a paper.
First, I'd argue that the people who let you test games are doing you FAR more of a favor than you are by testing them. And I don't think it's close, barring, of course, the games being absolute jokes in which case everyone is just wasting time.
Second, playtesters do get paid. And handsomely. As someone said above, good playtesters get hundreds and thousands of dollars worth of product. Why? Because they did their job well and because it's part of the relationship.
Third, you do gain something by signing a paper. You get the chance to see behind the curtain. That is priceless, in certain situations. For example: imagine if you were on the playtesting squad of "Puerto Rico," watching that game go from the infant stages 'til it was published. Can you put a price tag on that? No. If I could go back in time and get on that team I would pay thousands of dollars for the opportunity to have seen that game come together, without question. PAID -- and gladly.
 | Dymino Monsters Update 4-18-2024 (1) by questccg |
 | Hidden Movement: What Makes it Cool? (19) by larienna |
| Wizardry Legacy: the Forgotten Academy (12) by larienna |
| TradeWorlds — Tactical Core (3) by questccg |
| Introducing, Jacob! (that's me by the way...) (0) by Jacob |
| Chat GPT: Testing as a design assistant (8) by larienna |
| Winner Announced for the Meta Progression Community Challenge! (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Hi guys ~ Gameland and Yaofish are officially accepting board game design submissions! (1) by questccg |
| A programmer's dilemma (16) by larienna |
| Qubits: a solo trick taking game (9) by Wobt2 |
| Worker placement, Role selection and Action cards: Is it the same thing? (11) by larienna |
| Site Ads and Google Experiments (0) by questccg |
| TradeWorlds — Smuggler's Run (7) by questccg |
| Single Item Shipping at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (May 24-26) (0) by The Game Crafter |
| How to avoid being blocked at content creation (10) by questccg |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (0) by sirvalence |
| In need of some IDEAS concerning a "Battle" System (15) by questccg |
| How to avoid quarterbacking in an adventure game (7) by larienna |
| How complicated could math get? (23) by X3M |
| Can we have gaming ads on this website (7) by questccg |
| Dice Mitigation Challenge - Winner Announced! (0) by The Game Crafter |
 | Delving! - " That is when it hit me, it was starting to feel like other games" (3) by MarkJindra |
| Game Purchase Contract (0) by MarkJindra |
| Blackboard Boogie Board: a bit of a REVIEW... (2) by questccg |
Most designers will not (and should not) consider patenting their ideas. Unless there is some novel mechanical device involved, don't spend the time or money worrying about a patent.
Arguably the greatest game designer ever, Sid Sackson, applied for only one patent in his career, and that was at the request of his publisher, Ideal. The game was Winning Ticket and it did have a rather novel lottery machine.