I don't want my books marked up. I have a signed copy of UC, no one is getting near that with a permanent marker
Point blank, Paizo isn't going to do anything to change the rules in a format that costs extra time and money. If you can come up with a viable option that doesn't cost Paizo an arm and a leg of time and money I'm sure people would listen. However, I'd rather them spend their time and money are putting out more product and scenarios than on something else to satisfy people that aren't willing to live within the rules....
Well fine then. (the cost of registering ID keys is not high, but your aversion to permanent marker is to be expected)
The easiest solution is to include the PDF with the purchase of any hardcover.
Books are already an expensive premium product. Why not just make the purchase better in all ways than buying the PDF alone?
If you were in a business to sell product and make money, would you do something that causes you to lose money? Each PDF they give away for free is money they have lost, which means the costs of other things are going to go up.
And this was already covered. It is to easy to "browse" a book, get the code and then get the free PDF.
Books are 4-6 times the cost of PDFs. People who buy books are unlikely to buy PDFs. Some people who buy PDFs would rather have books, but need the PDF for ease of carry and convenience. Each book sale is worth 4-6 PDF sales minus shipping and printing.
The book doesn't need a PDF code to include it with purchase.
|
The easiest solution is to include the PDF with the purchase of any hardcover.
Books are already an expensive premium product. Why not just make the purchase better in all ways than buying the PDF alone?
I'd be all for this, but it provides a couple problems:
1. How do you ensure that someone who is just looking through the books isnt going to use the code out of it to get the free PDF and stick the book back on the shelf?
2. Seconday market sales of the hardcovers wouldnt get to use the code, though that would just be a risk of buying second-hand books.
3. Hardcover + free PDF is one way Paizo entices people into their subscription program thing. If you would get the same thing from your lgs, why would you bother subscribing to Paizo for them?
1. At GenCon there was deal that if you bought Mythic Adventures you could purchase it's PDF for $5. Have retailers keep the PDF codes. When you buy a book, they put in the code and send you an email with instructions on how to get your PDF.
2. That's not exactly a bad thing. Someone playing with a used book in PFS, didn't give Paizo money for that book. If Paizo wants to confirm purchases this would help.
3. Convenience. I would think making books the more attractive options would bring in plenty of money.
1. Retailers keeping the code would work in limited situations. At a lgs where you know the owner and the staff, then sure, you could probably trust them to do it right, but would you trust Random Barnes and Noble Employee X to know they need to send you the info via email to download the book every time you buy one from them? I wouldnt.
Do you think Amazon is on the ball enough to know they needed to send you the info every time you bought a new one from them? Or that they will actually send you a brand new copy so you can guarentee to get the code, instead of a used one, where you wouldnt.2. You and I are in agreement on this one. :)
3. I would think the convenience for those that live close to a lgs would be to just go buy it. Gamers are very 'I want it NOW' type people.
*shrug*
@Seth
1. The code and distribution would be part of a contractual agreement. That or you code only put the PDF code on receipts of purchases (which even amazon emails those to people). If you don't receive your could, you can present the receipt to Paizo and have them redeem your purchase.
3. Buying things takes some effort. *shrug*
|
When did Paizo first start selling PDFs of their books?
...Do people in the 'books are heavy' group still buy hardcovers, or are they now buying PDFs?If you're standing fast in the 'books are heavy' group, why did you buy them when the PDFs have been on sale for years? Are you still buying them now?
They've had PDF's of all their current lines from inception.
The GameMastery line of modules predates the AP's by a slight bit IIRC, but the AP's have given a free PDF with subscription since the very first one.
All the print lines have included free pdfs as part of a subscription, since day one. And further non-book lines, such as the Flip Mats and Tile Sets have had this added last year.
This is in addition to a discount for subscription of that line, plus discount for anyone who is also an AP subscriber.Shipping is a PITA, but the amount saved on pdfs outweighs that cost, for me, at least. And I'm eight time zones away.
It's still cheaper for me to subscribe to a book line, than to buy the book at the 'local' store and a separate pdf from here.
Thanks Sniggevert.
Anyway, the question stands. Buying these books, you knew they were heavy. Now tablets weren't in nearly as great supply then as they are now, but at some point between Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat the price of a used iPad dropped significantly. Why did you keep buying the heavy stuff?
The price of a tablet isn't even a big issue, since you can print the pages you need from a watermarked pdf.
The rules on needing sources on hand existed before the PF RPG even existed, since PFS began using the D&D3.5 ruleset, for Season Zero.
Therefore, the PFS guidelines were already clear, and had been in use for a whole year, before anyone had the option to buy any version of the Core Rules.
Some people chose to buy a giant 500+ page doorstop, then (only the) print versions of subsequent books, instead of pdfs, then have come here to complain about being expected to bring them with them, when they play, despite 'show your source' being a rule that's been in place for the last 5 years.
|
If you want Paizo book purchases from every retailer worldwide to include a PDF activation code on the receipt, or some other similar grand plan, you're best off lobbying for that outside the PFS forums where it might be seen by the company owners. Because it's pretty clear that a few people complaining about their bags being too heavy at cons is not a deal-maker/breaker for that.
|
The price of a tablet isn't even a big issue, since you can print the pages you need from a watermarked pdf.
The rules on needing sources on hand existed before the PF RPG even existed, since PFS began using the D&D3.5 ruleset, for Season Zero.
I wasn't going to bring up printing because I knew I would get a snide comment about someone needing to print out the entire APG.
However, if all you need from Ultimate Combat is the gunslinger, the price of the PDF, paper, ink, and even a cheap printer is lower than the cost of the hardcover plus your chiropractor fees.
The price of a tablet isn't even a big issue, since you can print the pages you need from a watermarked pdf.
The rules on needing sources on hand existed before the PF RPG even existed, since PFS began using the D&D3.5 ruleset, for Season Zero.
I wasn't going to bring up printing because I knew I would get a snide comment about someone needing to print out the entire APG.
However, if all you need from Ultimate Combat is the gunslinger, the price of the PDF, paper, ink, and even a cheap printer is lower than the cost of the hardcover plus your chiropractor fees.
Isn't the whole point of this thread that Paizo probably doesn't want to discourage book purchases?
If you want Paizo book purchases from every retailer worldwide to include a PDF activation code on the receipt, or some other similar grand plan, you're best off lobbying for that outside the PFS forums where it might be seen by the company owners. Because it's pretty clear that a few people complaining about their bags being too heavy at cons is not a deal-maker/breaker for that.
Snide hyperbole followed by generalization of effected parties.
That was your post. It is less than helpful.
The point of this thread was allowing players to access the PRD instead of proving ownership of material in Pathfinder Society games. In what way does that encourage book purchases?
OP's primary concern was that he wants to purchase books, but the current system in PFS discourages their ownership. He then offered his solution to the problem.
|
|
If you want to play a caster, but don't want to bring books, or print lots of pages, then you've always had the option of using the spontaneous casters, like oracles or sorcerers, whose spells are fixed.
Maybe 12 pages max, to cover your class rules, bloodlines/mysteries, and the cantrips/1st-level spells you know. Add an extra page or two of spells every time you level up.
You want to play a cleric or wizard, and maintain the option to freely swap your spell slots for any spell that's ever been written, or ever will be written in any book?
Bring the books.
You can't complain about the resources you need to support your PC, when you're the one who decided to play on God-Mode.
|
Isn't the whole point of this thread that Paizo probably doesn't want to discourage book purchases?
Well, I am not certain it does. Do any of you know what percentage of Pathfinder hobbyists participate in PFS? I do not have this knowledge.
For those of us who play in PFS, I do believe the current system discourages the purchase of physical books, as all of cost, ease of use/transport for PFS, and verification of ownership are heavily weighed in PDF favor.
But for just general participation in the hobby? I wouldn't have the slightest idea how book sales compare to PDF sales.
I can only speak for myself when I give insight into my personal decisions: I purchased physical books because I wanted to support both Paizo and my local gaming store community (along with other lesser considerations such as books on a shelf being poor with employing technology). That said, if I had at that time divined the future to know I would one day participate in PFS and knew the AR rules it would have, my collection would be all PDF.
|
|
All I am seeing is people wanting to take a simple method (bring the book / watermarked pdf to game) with complicated methods that are actually more limiting and don't guarantee that the GM will have an official source in front of them when they need it.
4 pages of posts later, I am still not convinced.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, I don't think people could whine harder that they've got both the time, money and privilege to travel and go to conventions and are somehow annoyed that they have to justify their willing choice to use like 10 different sources to make a single character.
Bring all the material your trying to use is in no way unreasonable an requirement.
For those of us who play in PFS, I do believe the current system discourages the purchase of physical books, as all of cost, ease of use/transport for PFS, and verification of ownership are heavily weighed in PDF favor.
But for just general participation in the hobby? I wouldn't have the slightest idea how book sales compare to PDF sales.
I can only speak for myself when I give insight into my personal decisions: I purchased physical books because I wanted to support both Paizo and my local gaming store community (along with other lesser considerations such as books on a shelf being poor with employing technology). That said, if I had at that time divined the future to know I would one day participate in PFS and knew the AR rules it would have, my collection would be all PDF.
Assuming that Paizo makes more money on books than PDFs (which that doesn't have to be true, books cost more to make and have higher overhead), would it not behoove Paizo to construct PFS rules in such a way as to not discourage books sales. Especially if Paizo considers PFS marketing for their products?
Wow, I don't think people could whine harder that they've got both the time, money and privilege to travel and go to conventions and are somehow annoyed that they have to justify their willing choice to use like 10 different sources to make a single character.
Bring all the material your trying to use is in no way unreasonable an requirement.
Of course it is a reasonable requirement. A more important question is if that requirement is in Paizo's best interest.
|
|
If you want Paizo book purchases from every retailer worldwide to include a PDF activation code on the receipt, or some other similar grand plan, you're best off lobbying for that outside the PFS forums where it might be seen by the company owners. Because it's pretty clear that a few people complaining about their bags being too heavy at cons is not a deal-maker/breaker for that.Snide hyperbole followed by generalization of effected parties.
That was your post. It is less than helpful.
Considerably more helpful than your reply though.
I'll state it clearly, as some people still don't get it:
If you want a system where purchasing the hardcover gives you a free PDF, go to one of the areas of these forums frequented by the likes of Vic Wertz or Lisa Stevens.
Mike Brock is the main Paizo person who posts in the PFS area, and he is not the person who can make this happen for you, so asking for it here is pretty much pointless.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
That's the thing. As GM, your job is not table cop. It's to run the game.
With respect, Melissa, I think that part of "running the game"is following the procedures that the campaign leadership has set up.
However, it is not your job to make sure everyone owns every resource they use; if it was, you'd ask to see copies of the CRB every game, and the APG and/or UM every time someone said "I'm an oracle" or "I'm a magus", and I bet you don't.
The CRB is part of the Core assumptions; we don't check that, because the campaign assumes the players have that.
As for the Advanced Players Guide, Ultimate Magic, etc, yep, you bet. I've had two tables in the last couple of months:
* At one, 4 out of 5 players had aasimar or tiefling PCs, and none of them had an authentic copy of the rules. (HeroLab.) They got to play pre-gens.
*At another, a couple of players sat down with summoner characters with all sorts of tricky feat/spell/evolution combinations. But they didn't have legitimate copies of the Summoner class (d20pfsrd). That time, I didn't catch the problem until play had already begun, and it looked like we'd need to take a break while they retreived other PCs, but one of them went on-line to Paizo.com and bought a PDF of the APG PDQ. So they were AOK.
As VL Jeff Mahood pointed out in another thread, we're not doing anybody any favors if we don't at least explain that they need legitimate copies at the table. And if every GM keeps repeating: "You really should have the sources here, but just this once, I'll let it pass." then we set them up to be keenly disappointed when someone eventually does call them on this.
(Maybe it would work if we letit pass once, but put anote to that effect on the player's Chronicle sheet ...)
|
|
For those people pushing for the PRD to be PFS legal, what is the proposed method of allowing a GM to review the rules?
Is the suggestion on a wi-fi or mobile internet based phone or tablet? If so I assume the player would provide the tablet / phone and be willing to do without the material if no internet connection is present, yes?
Or is there a suggestion that print outs from the PRD will be acceptable? And will players be willing to go without the material if the GM requests an associated rule that hasn't been printed out (e.g. if a the player printed the PRD sections for an archetype but part of that part makes mention of a spell that wasn't printed out)?
If the PRD is made legal then I would actually be quite happy as I could presumably use the retraining rules from Ultimate Campaign (a book I don't own).
|
|
Again, why do you think "too bad you bought the book, buy a PDF" is the best answer Paizo can provide?
There has been no better answer. It's certainly not a viable solution to bare the PRD for all players in PFS.
You stated several reasons why someone might want books despite having PDFs for convention purposes, and I do agree that the reading experience of a hardcover is easier. Is it so hard to believe that I think owning both is a good thing? Just don't complain about them being heavy when you could weigh them in your hands before you purchased them.
|
|
The CRB is part of the Core assumptions; we don't check that, because the campaign assumes the players have that.
As for the Advanced Players Guide, Ultimate Magic, etc, yep, you bet. I've had two tables in the last couple of months:
* At one, 4 out of 5 players had aasimar or tiefling PCs, and none of them had an authentic copy of the rules. (HeroLab.) They got to play pre-gens.
*At another, a couple of players sat down with summoner characters with all sorts of tricky feat/spell/evolution combinations. But they didn't have legitimate copies of the Summoner class (d20pfsrd). That time, I didn't catch the problem until play had already begun, and it looked like we'd need to take a break while they retreived other PCs, but one of them went on-line to Paizo.com and bought a PDF of the APG PDQ. So they were AOK.As VL Jeff Mahood pointed out in another thread, we're not doing anybody any favors if we don't at least explain that they need legitimate copies at the table. And if every GM keeps repeating: "You really should have the sources here, but just this once, I'll let it pass." then we set them up to be keenly disappointed when someone eventually does call them on this.
(Maybe it would work if we letit pass once, but put anote to that effect on the player's Chronicle sheet ...)
And to think people at gen con were wondering why PFS looses people in droves to home games.
How many of those players have you seen again?
|
|
The CRB is part of the Core assumptions; we don't check that, because the campaign assumes the players have that.
As for the Advanced Players Guide, Ultimate Magic, etc, yep, you bet. I've had two tables in the last couple of months:
* At one, 4 out of 5 players had aasimar or tiefling PCs, and none of them had an authentic copy of the rules. (HeroLab.) They got to play pre-gens.
*At another, a couple of players sat down with summoner characters with all sorts of tricky feat/spell/evolution combinations. But they didn't have legitimate copies of the Summoner class (d20pfsrd). That time, I didn't catch the problem until play had already begun, and it looked like we'd need to take a break while they retreived other PCs, but one of them went on-line to Paizo.com and bought a PDF of the APG PDQ. So they were AOK.As VL Jeff Mahood pointed out in another thread, we're not doing anybody any favors if we don't at least explain that they need legitimate copies at the table. And if every GM keeps repeating: "You really should have the sources here, but just this once, I'll let it pass." then we set them up to be keenly disappointed when someone eventually does call them on this.
(Maybe it would work if we letit pass once, but put anote to that effect on the player's Chronicle sheet ...)
And to think people at gen con were wondering why PFS looses people in droves to home games.
How many of those players have you seen again?
Droves, really? As our membership continues to grow, how do we sustain growth if we really are losing membership in droves?
Lets can the hyperbole please.
|
|
If PFS loses people to home games because they aren't willing to follow the rules of organized play, then I don't feel like we've lost players who benefit organized play.
That's not to say people who don't like the rules of organized play are bad people. They just don't want to follow PFS rules, and that makes the game worse for all of us, them included.
|
If PFS loses people to home games because they aren't willing to follow the rules of organized play, then I don't feel like we've lost players who benefit organized play.
That's not to say people who don't like the rules of organized play are bad people. They just don't want to follow PFS rules, and that makes the game worse for all of us, them included.
That really depends upon how onerous the rules of OP are, doesn't it? Besides, I don't think we have anything to gain by adopting an "us vs. them" mentality.
|
|
That really depends upon how onerous the rules of OP are, doesn't it? Besides, I don't think we have anything to gain by adopting an "us vs. them" mentality.If PFS loses people to home games because they aren't willing to follow the rules of organized play, then I don't feel like we've lost players who benefit organized play.
That's not to say people who don't like the rules of organized play are bad people. They just don't want to follow PFS rules, and that makes the game worse for all of us, them included.
Let's look at a few ways of dealing with a rule that one disagrees with.
The first method consists of finding a rule that one doesn't agree with and making a clearly-argued and logical post about it. If the thing is then changed, cool. If it's not, you shrug and say "it's organized play, and I can't get everything I want". Mike Brock has been known to respond to well thought-out proposals, and I'll cite Jiggy's post to unban Magical Knack as evidence.
The second method is to ignore the rule. I can pretty confidently say that if people are ignoring a rule in a game, it's making the game worse for everyone who follows the rule. I don't want people like that at my table.
The third method is to stop playing. If someone has more fun in their home game, then they should play their home game. This isn't an 'us vs. them' thing. I sincerely hope that they have fun playing a home game where they have more control over the rules they use and whether they need to bring along their books.
Matthew Trent's post that we were losing players in drove to home games, hyperbole or no, is not alarming to me. If those players would have not followed the rules otherwise, then I'm glad they're having fun in their home games.
|
|
The CRB is part of the Core assumptions; we don't check that, because the campaign assumes the players have that.
As for the Advanced Players Guide, Ultimate Magic, etc, yep, you bet. I've had two tables in the last couple of months:
* At one, 4 out of 5 players had aasimar or tiefling PCs, and none of them had an authentic copy of the rules. (HeroLab.) They got to play pre-gens.
*At another, a couple of players sat down with summoner characters with all sorts of tricky feat/spell/evolution combinations. But they didn't have legitimate copies of the Summoner class (d20pfsrd). That time, I didn't catch the problem until play had already begun, and it looked like we'd need to take a break while they retreived other PCs, but one of them went on-line to Paizo.com and bought a PDF of the APG PDQ. So they were AOK.As VL Jeff Mahood pointed out in another thread, we're not doing anybody any favors if we don't at least explain that they need legitimate copies at the table. And if every GM keeps repeating: "You really should have the sources here, but just this once, I'll let it pass." then we set them up to be keenly disappointed when someone eventually does call them on this.
(Maybe it would work if we letit pass once, but put anote to that effect on the player's Chronicle sheet ...)
And to think people at gen con were wondering why PFS looses people in droves to home games.
How many of those players have you seen again?
Organized Play isnt for everyone, so if checking the resources of a player is enough to scare the player away, it's probably not a terrible loss.
As to directly answer your question of how many players he has seen again...I can atest that my wife and I have both played at Chris' table more than once, had something checked about the character both times, and would gladly sit under him again. He is probably one of the best GMs I have ever sat under.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
That really depends upon how onerous the rules of OP are, doesn't it? Besides, I don't think we have anything to gain by adopting an "us vs. them" mentality.If PFS loses people to home games because they aren't willing to follow the rules of organized play, then I don't feel like we've lost players who benefit organized play.
That's not to say people who don't like the rules of organized play are bad people. They just don't want to follow PFS rules, and that makes the game worse for all of us, them included.
Let's look at a few ways of dealing with a rule that one disagrees with.
The first method consists of finding a rule that one doesn't agree with and making a clearly-argued and logical post about it. If the thing is then changed, cool. If it's not, you shrug and say "it's organized play, and I can't get everything I want". Mike Brock has been known to respond to well thought-out proposals, and I'll cite Jiggy's post to unban Magical Knack as evidence.
The second method is to ignore the rule. I can pretty confidently say that if people are ignoring a rule in a game, it's making the game worse for everyone who follows the rule. I don't want people like that at my table.
The third method is to stop playing. If someone has more fun in their home game, then they should play their home game. This isn't an 'us vs. them' thing. I sincerely hope that they have fun playing a home game where they have more control over the rules they use and whether they need to bring along their books.
Matthew Trent's post that we were losing players in drove to home games, hyperbole or no, is not alarming to me. If those players would have not followed the rules otherwise, then I'm glad they're having fun in their home games.
Nice sentiment perhaps, but highly unrealistic and inaccurate. The rules state DMs are supposed to do a quick audit of characters before play begins. I know there are people out there that do this, but I have been playing PFS for over a year, I organize it locally and I have played it at several Cons, including GenCon. I have been DMed by DMs with 4 & 5 stars, DMs who are VLs, VCs and even DMs who are part of the campaign staff and not a one of them has ever followed this rule. So essentially you are saying that 100% of the people I have ever played under in PFS are people you do not want at your table and who make the game worse for everyone. I seriously doubt that.
When I first read the DM rules in the PFS guide I was appalled at how draconian they were and how much they expected volunteer DMs to act as IP police. Fortunately, I discovered these rules were not heavily enforced or I would probably have never joined PFS.
To site another specific example, many of the invested players/GMs in my area have sufficient disposable income to purchase the books needed for the characters they play and most of them do. In some cases, they may have paid for a property as many as 3 times. Once as a book, once as a PDF and once a royalties through Hero Lab. In most cases, they own the material they use, though in a few cases they may only have paid royalties through Hero Lab. All of these people use Hero Lab because going through all of the books to find what they want is not worth the bother for them and they are willing to spend money to avoid that bother. All of these people went to GenCon. When it looked like Paizo might try some form of increased enforcement at GenCon the universal response was that if they had to supply all the paperwork necessary to prove they were legal in order to play the characters they wanted to play then they would demand a refund on all their PFS tickets and never play PFS again. The reason for this was because they had neither the time nor inclination to go through all of their characters, figure out which book each thing on their character came from, then make sure they had an accessible PDF version of that book available for the DMs when most of the info was available to DMs via the PRD or through a mostly accurate version of it printed out from Hero Lab. These are not people who cheat or who won't buy product, they are people that think excessive record keeping in order to play PFS just isn't worth it. And I can't say I disagree with them. This is a hobby they play for fun. Make it too hard for them and they take their wallets elsewhere.
Since these people are my friends, DMs and include my wife, I would have to join them in leaving PFS which would mean I would no longer be supporting or organizing PFS in my area.
But, by your reasoning, these people who 'mostly' follow the rules, regularly give Paizo money and DM and organize PFS games make the game worse for everyone because they ignore some of the rules they find overly cumbersome in a 'hobby.' I could not disagree with you more.
If Paizo wants to enforce ownership rules, they need make it far more convenient. While opening up the PRD is a solution, it has a high potential of abuse. What I personally recommend is that Paizo get together with Hero Lab and do what is necessary to make Hero Lab a legal PFS source.
|
|
I can pretty confidently say that if people are ignoring a rule in a game, it's making the game worse for everyone who follows the rule. I don't want people like that at my table.
That's where you lose me. For example, according to campaign rules, the Character Folio only allows a re-roll in you're playing the character recorded within. The GMs in this area, myself included, do not enforce that rule, especially since many who buy the folio do it ONLY for the re-roll(because it's a marginal sheet, imo). Those people are still supporting Paizo, and I"m not going to tell them that their purchase was in vain -- nor do I think the campaign, or Paizo, would be better off if all those people up and quit.
|
|
I can pretty confidently say that if people are ignoring a rule in a game, it's making the game worse for everyone who follows the rule. I don't want people like that at my table.That's where you lose me. For example, according to campaign rules, the Character Folio only allows a re-roll in you're playing the character recorded within. The GMs in this area, myself included, do not enforce that rule, especially since many who buy the folio do it ONLY for the re-roll(because it's a marginal sheet, imo). Those people are still supporting Paizo, and I"m not going to tell them that their purchase was in vain -- nor do I think the campaign, or Paizo, would be better off if all those people up and quit.
The campaign rules do not say the folio reroll is only for the character in it. The folio can be used to grant reroll to any character you have.
|
|
Organized Play isnt for everyone, so if checking the resources of a player is enough to scare the player away, it's probably not a terrible loss.
That's a completely specious conclusion. The only way you can conclude that is by lumping people into "good" and "bad" categories based on a single criteria. I repeat: lumping people into US/THEM is a very human behavior, but not a very useful one.
|
|
The campaign rules do not say the folio reroll is only for the character in it. The folio can be used to grant reroll to any character you have.I can pretty confidently say that if people are ignoring a rule in a game, it's making the game worse for everyone who follows the rule. I don't want people like that at my table.That's where you lose me. For example, according to campaign rules, the Character Folio only allows a re-roll in you're playing the character recorded within. The GMs in this area, myself included, do not enforce that rule, especially since many who buy the folio do it ONLY for the re-roll(because it's a marginal sheet, imo). Those people are still supporting Paizo, and I"m not going to tell them that their purchase was in vain -- nor do I think the campaign, or Paizo, would be better off if all those people up and quit.
Yeah, you only have to have the folio on the table, you don't have to use it. Mike's stated that a couple of times, and there's nothing in the Guide that states you have to use the folio.
|
|
The campaign rules do not say the folio reroll is only for the character in it. The folio can be used to grant reroll to any character you have.
According to the 5.0 Guide to Organized Play:
"If a player is using a physical copy (not a PDF, printout, or photocopy) of the Pathfinder RPG Player Character Folio, he receives a free reroll."
Note it says "using," not "owns." Even so, it was only an example...I can easily produce another.
|
|
Yeah, you only have to have the folio on the table, you don't have to use it. Mike's stated that a couple of times, and there's nothing in the Guide that states you have to use the folio.
Incorrect...the Guide explicitly says "use." Further, players have no reasonable way of knowing what Mike has stated or where.
But again, that was just an example.
|
|
Again, why do you think "too bad you bought the book, buy a PDF" is the best answer Paizo can provide?There has been no better answer. It's certainly not a viable solution to bare the PRD for all players in PFS.
You stated several reasons why someone might want books despite having PDFs for convention purposes, and I do agree that the reading experience of a hardcover is easier. Is it so hard to believe that I think owning both is a good thing? Just don't complain about them being heavy when you could weigh them in your hands before you purchased them.
I'm saying that's a horrible attitude towards customer service and I really don't want to see the campaign staff take it. You're telling paying customers who follow the rules that the campaign won't compromise to make life a little easier for them. You're saying that, when a customer comes to a company with a complaint you recognize as legitimate about the company's extra rules around using their product, the best response you can imagine is "Suck it up or buy another version of the same product?"
I agree, it is good to have both hard covers and PDFs, and I wouldn't be surprised if Paizo tried to up sell me towards both. But, building your marketing campaign in a way that appears antagonistic towards book buyers isn't a very classy way of upselling PDFs. There is a world of difference between "The easiest way to provide additional resources is by bringing a watermarked PDF. But if you only have the hard covers, these are your options..." and "You could weigh the book in your hands before you bought the book, buy the PDF or don't complain about the weight."
I'm not telling you to 'suck it up'. I'm telling you the proposed solution won't work. Come up with something better on the brainstorm thread if you like.
To other people who are ripping my words to shreds, you're not going to get the PRD made legal by doing so.
|
|
To other people who are ripping my words to shreds, you're not going to get the PRD made legal by doing so.I'm assuming that was aimed at me, yes? I don't think the PRD should be legal. In that respect, I'm on "your side" -- but writing people off whole cloth isn't the answer.
It kinda is if the responses / ideas are illogical, repetitive, and unrealistic. Especially after we've explained why they are illogical, repetitive or unrealistic.
Eventually, you are just going to get, "NO! It is the way it is, stop asking!"
Unless the responses are more based on logical, well-thought-out discourse, instead of "what is most convenient for me."
|
|
It kinda is if the responses / ideas are illogical, repetitive, and unrealistic. Especially after we've explained why they are illogical, repetitive or unrealistic.
Eventually, you are just going to get, "NO! It is the way it is, stop asking!"
Unless the responses are more based on logical, well-thought-out discourse, instead of "what is most convenient for me."
I think the current rules work fine, and don't think they should be changed. Yet I maintain that inviting people to leave the campaign because they feel differently is rude and counter-productive. Further, assuming the campaign would be better off without them is simply a conclusion not supported by valid reasoning or data.
Also, the fact that I was incorrectly assumed to be on the "wrong side" is pretty clear evidence of the rampant us/them thinking in this thread.
|
|
It kinda is if the responses / ideas are illogical, repetitive, and unrealistic. Especially after we've explained why they are illogical, repetitive or unrealistic.
Eventually, you are just going to get, "NO! It is the way it is, stop asking!"
Unless the responses are more based on logical, well-thought-out discourse, instead of "what is most convenient for me."
I think the current rules work fine, and don't think they should be changed. Yet I maintain that inviting people to leave the campaign because they feel differently is rude and counter-productive.
Also, the fact that I was incorrectly assumed to be on the "wrong side" is pretty clear evidence of the rampant us/them thinking in this thread.
Adam is not inviting people to leave the campaign.
But his level of frustration is obvious at how everyone seems to be nitpicking his words into incomprehensible, out of context replies.
What he is saying is, if people aren't going to follow the rules, for whatever reason, then the campaign is better off without them. I don't think anyone can refute that.
|
|
Yeah, you only have to have the folio on the table, you don't have to use it. Mike's stated that a couple of times, and there's nothing in the Guide that states you have to use the folio.Incorrect...the Guide explicitly says "use." Further, players have no reasonable way of knowing what Mike has stated or where.
But again, that was just an example.
Like Sniggevert said, Mike has stated before that you only need to have the folio at the table.
And players arent necessarily expected to know every little thing that Mike posts, but once you know about it, you are expected to follow it. Here is a link to show you where Mike says you dont have to have the specific character in it.
|
|
Like Sniggevert said, Mike has stated before that you only need to have the folio at the table.
And players arent necessarily expected to know every little thing that Mike posts, but once you know about it, you are expected to follow it. Here is a link to show you where Mike says you dont have to have the specific character in it.
Thank you for pointing that out, I genuinely appreciate it. As for following it, I was already doing so -- I just thought I was breaking the rules based on what I found in the Guide.
|
|
Thank you for pointing that out, I genuinely appreciate it. As for following it, I was already doing so -- I just thought I was breaking the rules based on what I found in the Guide.Like Sniggevert said, Mike has stated before that you only need to have the folio at the table.
And players arent necessarily expected to know every little thing that Mike posts, but once you know about it, you are expected to follow it. Here is a link to show you where Mike says you dont have to have the specific character in it.
You're quite welcome. It seems a ton of people have that same belief.
*Makes mental note to ask that to be fixed in Guide 5.1.*
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adam is not inviting people to leave the campaign.
But his level of frustration is obvious at how everyone seems to be nitpicking his words into incomprehensible, out of context replies.
What he is saying is, if people aren't going to follow the rules, for whatever reason, then the campaign is better off without them. I don't think anyone can refute that.
I understand the frustration. But no, I don't think that anyone who knowingly breaks a rule is automatically someone the campaign is better off without. To me, that IS inviting people to leave, which I don't think is a good strategy. Obviously you're free to disagree. *shrug*
Edit: And again, for the record, I think Paizo is more than reasonable with the pricing of their PDFs, and with their rules for using supplementary material. I just think we could dial back what I perceive to be a "do it or leave" tone, especially coming from VOs. YMMV.
|
|
Adam is not inviting people to leave the campaign.
But his level of frustration is obvious at how everyone seems to be nitpicking his words into incomprehensible, out of context replies.
What he is saying is, if people aren't going to follow the rules, for whatever reason, then the campaign is better off without them. I don't think anyone can refute that.
I understand the frustration. But no, I don't think that anyone who knowingly breaks a rule is automatically someone the campaign is better off without. To me, that IS inviting people to leave, which I don't think is a good strategy. Obviously you're free to disagree. *shrug*
If they can be rehabilitated to follow the rules. Yeah. And we should make every effort to do so.
But willfully ignoring the rules is malicious.
And all that does, especially if veteran players and/or GM's are doing it, is set a bad example and precedence for newer players to follow suit.
That is horrible for the campaign.
If you can't follow the rules, I straight up will say, that I invite you to leave the campaign. (figurative you, not you specifically).
|
|
If you can't follow the rules, I straight up will say, that I invite you to leave the campaign. (figurative you, not you specifically).
Part of my objection is that it comes across as presumptuous.
Another part is that not all rules are created equal. If there is a well-behaved, friendly player that contributes to the fun of others on a regular basis -- then, no I don't think that you can categorically state that the campaign is better off without that person just because he consciously decides, say, that it is not worth his time to track mundane arrows (and yes, I realize mundane arrows are too cheap to show up on the ITS -- I don't think that equates to the campaign telling you that you don't have to track them).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, Mike said he would look over options that don't fit into: Books, watermarked PDFs, or printed pages from watermarked PDFs.
Lets give him a few days to weigh-in before we start throwing poo around.
But the rule has always been, that you must carry your books if you don't want to use the other two options.
I'm sorry if you don't like that response. But that's been the rule.
It is being more strongly clarified as such.
Voicing our support of the rule and enforcing said rule, is actually something V-O's are required to do.
So until Mike has time to look things over and make a decision one way or another, lets lay off the hate of V-O's who are only doing what they are supposed to be doing: Supporting the current set of rules as they stand.
I've been guilty of trying to explain the why's and wherefores. Its something I tried to do to help alleviate all the angst. But apparently trying to be nice and helpful and clarify things is not what is wanted.
So instead of explaining the why's and wherefores, I'm just going to say:
The rule is what it is until it isn't. Deal with it or don't. But don't be surprised if you don't, that a GM may not let you play that character or use an ability or spell or feat.
It is your own fault if you choose not to follow the rule, for whatever reasons.
I'm done trying to explain it. It is what it is, until it isn't. Lets move on from the argument, put out your ideas in the other thread (as this one has run its course), and stop beating up your friendly V-O's for trying to be helpful.
Bashing and nitpicking our every word just frustrates us and causes a lot of the seeming acrimony you keep saying you are reading.