Hollister Gorgonton the Lich's Big Idea for PFS Product Confirmation


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 159 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Dark Archive 1/5

Alex McGuire wrote:

Suggestion: make the boon only include the hardcover books (Core, Ultimates, Advanceds). Should keep the filling out of chronicles to less than 3 minutes per person. If people want to use the splatbooks, they can carry them (they aren't exactly heavy).

Honestly, I'd have been sunk at Gen Con if someone decided to check if I had my books. I own all of the hardcovers, but wouldn't have been able to prove it as I didn't want to carry my books along with my 5" thick character binder (NOT exaggerating) and purchases.

That's actually not a bad idea. I agree that carrying the far more slight books isn't that bad (e.g., Seekers of Secrets, Alchemy Manual, etc.). It's the big-un's that are the trouble makers.

Here's another idea; the biggest complaint I've heard about this suggestion is the additional strain it would put on VO's. What if we had a Product Verification Boon - but it could be filled out by *any* GM?

This might sound loose at first - but consider that the entire backbone of the Pathfinder Society is set upon Chronicles, and Chronicles can be filled out by *any* GM. If you don't trust GM's to fill out these Chronicles, then so much for the integrity of the entire product!

Since we do have faith in our GM's, and their ability to appropriately fill out Chronicles - then how about any GM could also fill out and sign off on a Product Verification boon? We could have an obvious rule that GM's may not sign off on their *own* boon.

Or, as variation #121: instead of using VO rank, what if only GM's of, say, two stars or greater could sign off on the Product Verification boons?

Either one of these ideas would take the pressure off of VO's, while still moving forward to improve the existing process.

The Exchange

At its core this allows the construction of a character specific omnibus using physical books in conjunction with pdfs, something that is clearly not currently legal. I have been hoping for this for a couple of years now. Maybe this is a page in the character folio to encourage more people purchasing and using those.

Who could sign off and when they would do it is a question, but I don't see this as being entirely different from how the boons for the Pathfinder Tales line works... you bring the physical book once, the chronicle gets signed off, and then you are good to just bring the chronicle sheet.

I would LOVE to be able to bind up a quick mash up collection of photo copies AND print out pages from my pdfs and have a sign off sheet as page one to prove ownership and also act as a sort of table of contents for my omnibus. At a glance any GM could first see what books I legally had, and then flip to the appropriate page to reference the rule should they need to.

This would allow me to continue to occasionally support brick and mortar stores that provide a place for me to play by purchasing hard back books there (this is really important, and should not be under stated), and allow me to also use all the splat books that I have subs to and thus posses watermarked pdfs.

I don't see any kickback from players as unlike the ITS this route would be completely optional, it would however be asking for significant extra time investment from whoever would be doing the verification, ensuring that they were on board would be crucial.

I wholeheartedly +1 some sort of initiative like this if a reasonable solution could be found to meet everyone's needs.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

Jeff Merola wrote:
Acedio wrote:
Hmm, I swear that somebody said you could bring a printed page of the PDF because it has a watermark with your name at the bottom.

You can.

Edit: From the Additional Resources page:

Quote:
In order to utilize content from an Additional Resource, a player must have a physical copy of the Additional Resource in question, a name-watermarked Paizo PDF of it, or a printout of the relevant pages from it, as well as a copy of the current version of the Additional Resources list. (If you're bringing a printout of the pages, it must be from the Paizo PDF and not text copied and pasted into a blank word processing document).

Bears repeating that this is a solution for folks not wanting to carry hardcovers around. Thank you for mentioning it.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

This is by no means the first time that a 'solution' along these lines has been mooted. Every time it comes up, though, campaign management is quite resolute; photocopies of pages from hard-cover books will not be accepted as a legal player source.

I consider it extremely unlikely that reiterating the same arguments that were raised the last time, and the time before that, and ... will result in a different outcome this time around.

Here is a post from Michael Brock from a litlle over a year ago, at the start of Season 5, adressing precisely this point. Note, in particular, the following text from near the end of the post:

Michael Brock wrote:
The above is what all participants of the campaign are required to follow.

Sovereign Court 2/5

John Francis wrote:

This is by no means the first time that a 'solution' along these lines has been mooted. Every time it comes up, though, campaign management is quite resolute; photocopies of pages from hard-cover books will not be accepted as a legal player source.

I consider it extremely unlikely that reiterating the same arguments that were raised the last time, and the time before that, and ... will result in a different outcome this time around.

Here is a post from Michael Brock from a litlle over a year ago, at the start of Season 5, adressing precisely this point. Note, in particular, the following text from near the end of the post:

Michael Brock wrote:
The above is what all participants of the campaign are required to follow.

Yeah, I don't think anybody is disagreeing that this is how things are now. At least I'm not.

Quote:
A screenshot of your downloads page, coupled with links to the appropriate PRD pages would cover both purposes if you choose to utilize such a method.

But yeah, so if this is ok, then hypothetically speaking how is this different than having some other campaign sanctioned proof of ownership and then using an online resource like the prd or archives of nethys? Or photocopies for that matter.

Dark Archive 1/5

John Francis wrote:
...photocopies of pages from hard-cover books will not be accepted as a legal player source.

No one suggested that photocopies of pages be any such thing. We are talking about the possibility of a new boon type as a product verification system. Reread the OP.

Even if, a year old quote doesn't really mean something is never meant to be discussed again. PFS is not a religion; we don't have to hold onto one-off commandments made back in time as some sort of dogma. Things can always be made better.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

Just in case you think I'm totally opposed to the idea; about a year ago I was considering introducing a similar scheme for when I GMed at local stores; I would have created a sheet (similar to the inventory tracking sheet) listing all non-core feats, archetypes, abilities, items, spells, etc. needed for a character. (The player is supposed to notify the GM of all of these before play anyway, so they really should already have such a list). I would be prepared to sign off on each line item if a player showed me a legal source, including a hardcover rulebook.

But this was just for my use, at local stores. I was trying to steer a middle course between the prevailing practice of GMs hardly ever checking anything, and the rules of the campaign (which we are supposed to follow) of having every sourcebook you need present at every table.

I never got round to creating such a sheet, so the idea is still on the shelf. Maybe next year ... And, in any case, I wasn't proposing that such a sheet would have any standing anywhere than at tables that I ran.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

Hollister Gorgonton the Lich wrote:


No one suggested that photocopies of pages be any such thing. We are talking about the possibility of a new boon type as a product verification system. Reread the OP.

Odd - I could have sworn that this is precisely what you were espousing here:

Hollister Gorgonton the Lich wrote:
The current rather broken rules do state that you *MUST* bring the book. But, I do agree with you - if ownership is established as proven, a photocopy should be just fine.

A photocopy of a page from a hardcopy book is disallowed for precisely the same reason that you're not allowed to cut-and-paste the text from a PDF; it has neither proof of ownership nor any way of verifying that the text on the page is actually the unmodified text from Paizo. And while it is no doubt possible to create something that appears to have the same signature headers/footers as a page from a Paizo PDF, that's a little bit trickier.

Furthermore, proof that at one time in the past you had access to a legal source is a long way from proving that you still have access to that source.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

If you buy a PDF legally from say, Drivethrustuff, does it get watermarks? 3PP stuff I've bought from them doesn't, so does Paizo stuff?

I don't use a creditcard, and paizo.com doesn't use Paypal. Right now I need to resort to having a friend buy them for me as gifts. I find this awkward.

The system isn't working so well. I do think a fresh look at it (like this topic) is needed.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Eyes the three pages of the four pound hard cover they need.

Eyes exacto blade

hmmmms...

5/5

Ascalaphus wrote:

If you buy a PDF legally from say, Drivethrustuff, does it get watermarks? 3PP stuff I've bought from them doesn't, so does Paizo stuff?

I don't use a creditcard, and paizo.com doesn't use Paypal. Right now I need to resort to having a friend buy them for me as gifts. I find this awkward.

The system isn't working so well. I do think a fresh look at it (like this topic) is needed.

Paizo's PDF's are only purchasable through Paizo. They do not sell their stuff through places like DriveThruRPG.

Dark Archive

Hollister Gorgonton the Lich wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
It literally has nothing to do with whether people have books with them or not.

For you - for myself, and every other GM I've spoken to about it, it has a big 'to do' with it. Auditing players is considered a 'jerk' thing to do, and the biggest reason for that is the broken state of the system.

Filling out a Product Confirmation boon would likely take as long, or only trivially longer, than a standard chronicle sheet. It would not be that time consuming.

This Product Confirmation boon would work. What would also work is if Paizo included a free PDF to everyone who purchases the physical product. The former is more likely to occur, though.

Personally, I consider someone resenting a GM because they are enforcing the rules of the game the jerk move.

I tend to plan my characters around the number of books I want to be carrying. If it gets too heavy, I buy a PDF to lighten the load.

I think you should be listening to the VO's who took the time to post on this thread, instead of assuming you know more about what they do than they do.

Dark Archive 1/5

John Francis wrote:
Hollister Gorgonton the Lich wrote:


No one suggested that photocopies of pages be any such thing. We are talking about the possibility of a new boon type as a product verification system. Reread the OP.

Odd - I could have sworn that this is precisely what you were espousing here:

Hollister Gorgonton the Lich wrote:
The current rather broken rules do state that you *MUST* bring the book. But, I do agree with you - if ownership is established as proven, a photocopy should be just fine.

If I wasn't clear, then I apologize - that isn't what I intended to express at all. I never meant to suggest that a photocopy of a page was adequate for proof. What I said was, that if ownership of a source has already been proven through other means, and is therefore known to be true, then a copy of a page should be adequate to demonstrate the mechanics of the ability involved. This is not to say the photocopy is proof of ownership in and of itself. The proof must come from other means (such as a Product Confirmation boon!).

Victor Zajic wrote:


Personally, I consider someone resenting a GM because they are enforcing the rules of the game the jerk move.

If rules are perceived as unreasonable and unfair, then anyone who enforces them will also be perceived as unreasonable and unfair. This is an established dynamic throughout our culture. Consider an unjust law, and then consider how the population might perceive a policeman who enforces that unjust law. It is true the policeman is just 'doing their job'; but people are not going to think very well of them for doing it.

Victor Zajic wrote:


I think you should be listening to the VO's who took the time to post on this thread, instead of assuming you know more about what they do than they do.

What a lovely appeal to authority. I have not assumed I know more than they; instead, I have assumed that I know exactly as much as they do. This is because we are equals.

The VO's within Pathfinder Society are our peers; not our ruling class. Please don't get me wrong - I appreciate anyone - VO or not - who spends time making our little gaming community a better place. It's great that people do that. However, that does not place them in a position of superior judgement or rule over everyone else. A VO is not a better person than a non-VO, and is never 'more right' than a non-VO by nature of their rank alone.

This community's strange unspoken assertion that VO's are somehow the Patricians to our Plebs is mildly disturbing. There is no real rank here, and any perception of such is an illusion. I just made my Will save.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Really didn't want to get involved in this debacle, but here we go...

Hollister Gorgonton the Lich wrote:
What a lovely appeal to authority. I have not assumed I know more than they; instead, I have assumed that I know exactly as much as they do. This is because we are equals.

If you're suggesting a change to campaign structure, organization, the auditing system, or something else of that nature, the VOs' opinions hold more weight.

They're the ones who have the most experience with the system, they're the ones who spend the most time dealing with it, and they're the ones who would be most effected by any changes.

You're assuming you know as much about being a VO as the VOs do.
Knock it off.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic

Hollister Gorgonton the Lich wrote:
I have not assumed I know more than they; instead, I have assumed that I know exactly as much as they do. This is because we are equals.

There are some differences between VOs and the rest of the player base.

1. All VOs have signed an NDA.

2. VOs are assumed to use their actual names on the Pathfinder Society forums (with the exception of the IC boards).

3. VOs do have a VO board where many issues are discussed. They are bound by their NDA not do disclose anything that is discussed there, but be assured that many possible changes and (big) ideas have been considered in the last 4 years.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hollister Gorgonton the Lich wrote:
"Victor Zajic wrote:
I think you should be listening to the VO's who took the time to post on this thread, instead of assuming you know more about what they do than they do.

What a lovely appeal to authority. I have not assumed I know more than they; instead, I have assumed that I know exactly as much as they do. This is because we are equals.

The VO's within Pathfinder Society are our peers; not our ruling class. Please don't get me wrong - I appreciate anyone - VO or not - who spends time making our little gaming community a better place. It's great that people do that. However, that does not place them in a position of superior judgement or rule over everyone else. A VO is not a better person than a non-VO, and is never 'more right' than a non-VO by nature of their rank alone.

This community's strange unspoken assertion that VO's are somehow the Patricians to our Plebs is mildly disturbing. There is no real rank here, and any perception of such is an illusion. I just made my Will save.

Mr. Lich, your post here is a bit of a stretch from Victor's original post, which was basically asking you to think critically about VO responses.

While you might assume you know as much as a VO does, we are privy to NDA information and take part in discussion of that material. We rely on that knowledge, along with our experience involving PFS, to try and make informed decisions. So, at a literal level here, we often do know more than you do, simply by the privilege of our title.

And while that doesn't make us better people than you (I don't see anyone claiming this anywhere, by the way), we certainly have access to more data and use that to inform our opinion. It's because of this that people on these forums tend to give us a bit more credence when we share our opinion on difficult matters. Similarly, when issues of GMing arise, posts from individuals with one or more "GM stars" tend to carry more weight.

I have been keenly following your perspective through this thread and I think you do your legitimate points a disservice by getting sidetracked by rallying against a VO polycracy that doesn't exist.

Dark Archive 1/5

Walter Sheppard wrote:
I have been keenly following your perspective through this thread and I think you do your legitimate points a disservice by getting sidetracked by rallying against a VO polycracy that doesn't exist.

Most fair and well said; I do see that VO's may have access to NDA information which does give them an advantage on raw information accessible. My grump is that they are not superior in avenues of reason and that a non-VO may certainly come up with a good suggestion, worthy of consideration, just as well as someone with formal rank.

*But* - let's not pursue that point. Please, even. As you said, getting sidetracked into a mire is not productive. The originating main point, and the point of the thread, is that there is a sincere issue with how products are confirmed to be owned, and my real goal is to help offer suggestions - or at least start the conversation towards - real change which can help to alleviate the problem.

4/5

Hollister Gorgonton the Lich wrote:
What a lovely appeal to authority. I have not assumed I know more than they; instead, I have assumed that I know exactly as much as they do. This is because we are equals.

I appreciate your opinion and I'd like to make it clear that we are all equals.

I disagree with you assertion that being equal as humans means we all know the same amount. Because they're are a lot of people that I'm equal with that know a lot more then me about a lot of different things.

One of the things we VO's have in common though is that we are all organizers that got to where we are by dedicating ourselves to Pathfinder Society Organized Play. That's why so many VO's also seem to have a lot games run under their belt.

Discounting Andrew's views because he's a VO and therefore equal to you is a slight to Andrew and a slight to his views. Andrew has dedicated a lot to this game and he has a huge knowledge base to work from when it comes to organizing and being a VO. And your idea relies on that perspective greatly.

I like your idea, I liked the idea when I first saw a version of it a few years ago on this forums. Especially when I was carrying two hardback books and 25 softcover books to gamedays spending 1 and 1/2 hours on a bus. In a perfect world it would be a great option.

I agree with Andrew about why this wouldn't work. I also have an additional reason.

PFS is a marketing tool to help promote Pathfinder. It helps get visibility to the brand while at the same time trying to help people play in this hobby that they love.

Hardcover books and pdf printouts sitting on a gaming table are awesome marketing. They help people who walk by the table and don't know what's going on see what game is being played.

That visual of the game books on the table and people having fun helps sell the game, and the hobby.

Without those books people would have to ask, and since many people don't like to interrupt they may just assume it's whatever game without ever actually knowing.

Your idea would need to find a way to solve that, to show people interacting with the actual Paizo products in order for it be able to the same level of marketing Paizo has now.

If you can solve that I'd like to hear it, because I haven't been able to think up a way to do that effectively.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

3 people marked this as a favorite.

You know, after reading this thread, I have to ask:

Is Paizo deliberately trying to discourage me from buying from my FLGS?

Here is what I mean. This rule has the following effect on me. While I do prefer hard cover books when I am actually reading the new material, at 53 years old I have no intentions of lugging 50+ pounds of hard cover books around a Con or even my FLGS just to prove my character is legal. This leaves me with getting the PDFs and putting them on my smart phone or ipad. Now I could buy both the hard cover book and the PDF, but that is just a waste of my limited disposable income if all I am really getting out of the hard bound books is a more pleasant reading experience, especially when the PDFs are cheaper and more readily available for purchase. Now I could get both for the same price by signing up for a subscription service with Paizo, but that still means I am getting everything straight from Paizo. So instead of buying my books from my FLGS who supports our local game group, I find myself purchasing PDFs straight from Paizo.

Since it doesn't seem to me that the potential disadvantages of Hollister's suggestions would outweigh the advantages of encouraging sales from a FLGS, then I have to ask if this is deliberate and why? I already have a hard enough time fighting for table space against MtG, Heroclix and Warhammer tournaments who produce a demonstrable revenue source to my FLGS without giving them any more reasons to not support me.

Dark Archive 1/5

trollbill wrote:
So instead of buying my books from my FLGS who supports our local game group, I find myself purchasing PDFs straight from Paizo.

This is a valid concern and point.

Paizo likely makes far more money from a PDF sale than when selling a physical book. The process to generate a single PDF are essentially free; it is an abstract computer file. Selling a new one consists of making a copy of a file, running an algorithm to stick the water mark in into it, and - that's it. In contrast, a physical book must be made, and this making costs Paizo money. Therefore, their profit potential for PDFs greatly exceeds physical product. The profit from a PDF is probably close to 100%; the profit from selling a book, far less than that.

It is not impossible that one of the motives behind this rule is to not-so-gently encourage players to purchase PDF products instead of the more traditional hard back book.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to other concerns.

Dark Archive 1/5

I'd like to re-emphasize this particular idea to help the discussion get back on track. I apologize for my own side-tracking.

What if we created a Product Confirmation boon as described, but *any* PFS GM could fill it out? If we trust rank-and-file GM's to fill out chronicle sheets, which are the very backbone of PFS integrity, then why shouldn't we trust them with a Product Confirmation boon?

Allowing this to occur - with any GM being allowed to fill one out - should alleviate concerns of already overburdened VO having more work to do, and would also considerably improve the state of product validation.

Sovereign Court 2/5

That's very likely an unintended side effect. Really sure that the current policy is not in place to steal sales from FLGSs or force people to buy additional PDFs.

Some time ago I was chewing on the idea of suggesting a product registration tool so you can register your book purchase on paizo's website regardless of where you purchased it, but that requires web development, and punishes people who buy used. =\

Dark Archive 1/5

Acedio wrote:
Some time ago I was chewing on the idea of suggesting a product registration tool so you can register your book purchase on paizo's website regardless of where you purchased it, but that requires web development, and punishes people who buy used. =\

This was actually my original idea, that I had expressed to Brian Darnell some time ago. It would be a site where GM's could look players up by member number, and then toggle items verified to be owned, which then future GM's could see and refer to for product verification.

I do understand web development and I could make such a thing - probably a couple weeks time in off hours.

That said, I ditched the idea when I thought of Product Confirmation boons as such as boon would use the already existing infrastructure, and so would be much easier to implement and would not require maintenance (web applications would always require maintenance).

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to other concerns.

Who said anything about malice? There may be other legitimate business concerns for this decision, but if there are, I am not seeing them. That's why I asked.

As far as I am concerned, this policy is adversely affecting my ability to support PFS because it hinders my ability to convince my FLGS that PFS has value to them compared to other products that take up table space.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic

trollbill wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to other concerns.
Who said anything about malice? There may be other legitimate business concerns for this decision, but if there are, I am not seeing them. That's why I asked.

Well, there currently isn't a way to gift the pdf with the sale of a physical book at a FLGS.

This would require something like scratch cards with confirmation codes for every product which would require investments and a logistic nightmare.

A generic scratchcard for a certain amount of non-physical product on paizo.com that can be included with the sale of any rulebook might be a solution.

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fellow Pathfinders:

As a Venture-Lieuentant, I am bound to observe the rules for Organized Play. And, while I try to follow them faithfully, both as to the letter and the spirit of the rules, there are times when, for the good of the table, my judgement must be substituted therefor.

At Gen Con this year, I had a table of 6 players. 4 of them were a group; the other two were individual players. One of the group of 4 had made the characters for all of his group. About 90 minutes into the game, the one who made all the characters for the group of 4 used some bardic ability I had never heard of. I asked him to show me what it did, and he pulled out his phone and started reading it from an online source. I asked if he had the source with him, and he said no. I explained the requirement to him, and asked if the other players in his group had similar issues - that is, they were made with items from outside of the CRB, but the only source they had was the online sources. He said it applied to all of them.

At that point, I explained to him that, by the rules, I shouldn't let any of those characters play (or, at the least, disallow anything that was not in the CRB.) However, I was mindful that I had two players at the table who, had I sent the group of 4 away, would have been left without a table 90 minutes into the slot. I told the group of 4 that before they sat at another table, they should fix that problem because another GM might not let them play at all. I continued my game because I could not, in good conscience, cause the two innocent players to be punished because of the rules violations of the others at the table.

Most VOs (I only know a handful personally), do their best to do the job and apply the rules as best they can, in the best interest of the game and the players. This proposed solution, in my view, actually encumbers a VO in that process. Perhaps, just perhaps, we should let VOs make the call at the table and move on. There is nothing in the proposed solution that I find that is either desirable or in any demonstrable way more efficient than the current rule.

No, dragging a lot of books around is no fun. I do it for home games (and by that, I mean when I game at my house, or the house of friends.) I don't drag books to a con, so I use .pdfs for that on my iPad. But, if you can't afford an iPad, but can afford the .pdfs, just print off the relevant pages from the watermarked .pdf.

This proposed solution places the responsibility on the VO, not the player, and it is on the player that this responsibility rightfully belongs.

And while some might think it is insulting, the decision to use material outside of the CRB rests solely with the player. A player who chooses to use such material chooses to accept the responsibility that goes with it.

I don't support the proposed solution, and my opposition isn't rooted in that it would require more time on my part (it would, of course, but that's not my objection.) It is because it shifts the player's responsibility to the VO *and* does nothing to require that a player show up to a game with relevant rules that may need to be read, verbatim and in context, during a game session.

Happy gaming, all.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Auke Teeninga wrote:
trollbill wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to other concerns.
Who said anything about malice? There may be other legitimate business concerns for this decision, but if there are, I am not seeing them. That's why I asked.

Well, there currently isn't a way to gift the pdf with the sale of a physical book at a FLGS.

This would require something like scratch cards with confirmation codes for every product which would require investments and a logistic nightmare.

A generic scratchcard for a certain amount of non-physical product on paizo.com that can be included with the sale of any rulebook might be a solution.

This is, somewhat, missing the point. I am not asking if Paizo should institute a potentially cumbersome procedure to circumvent the potential harm to FLGSs' their policy incurs. I am asking if the potential harm to FLGSs' their policy incurs outweighs the potential harm of having a different policy.

Dark Archive 1/5

Mark Stratton wrote:


This proposed solution, in my view, actually encumbers a VO in that process. Perhaps, just perhaps, we should let VOs make the call at the table and move on.

This is no longer an issue - giving the sole responsibility to VO's has already been dismissed. We are now discussing the possibility that any GM may issue a Product Confirmation boon. If we can trust any GM to sign off on a chronicle - which is the very backbone of PFS play - then we should be able to trust them to fill out a Product Confirmation boon.

This is a common thread problem; people read the first post, and then respond without reading the conversation that follows. I realize your post was heartfelt and sincere and that is appreciated.

Dark Archive 1/5

trollbill wrote:


This is, somewhat, missing the point. I am not asking if Paizo should institute a potentially cumbersome procedure to circumvent the potential harm to FLGSs' their policy incurs. I am asking if the potential harm to FLGSs' their policy incurs outweighs the potential harm of having a different policy.

I want to repeat that I think your point is valid. I don't think denying FLGS any sales was intended by Paizo (nor do I think you're suggesting that), but I do see that it can happen as a side effect of this PDF preference.

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

Hollister Gorgonton the Lich wrote:
Mark Stratton wrote:


This proposed solution, in my view, actually encumbers a VO in that process. Perhaps, just perhaps, we should let VOs make the call at the table and move on.

This is no longer an issue - giving the sole responsibility to VO's has already been dismissed. We are now discussing the possibility that any GM may issue a Product Confirmation boon. If we can trust any GM to sign off on a chronicle - which is the very backbone of PFS play - then we should be able to trust them to fill out a Product Confirmation boon.

This is a common thread problem; people read the first post, and then respond without reading the conversation that follows. I realize your post was heartfelt and sincere and that is appreciated.

I have read the entire thread, and saw some discussion about allowing GMs to do this as well, but I didn't see where you had changed your formal proposal to do that. I presumed allowing GMs to do it was a discussion point, and not an actual change in your proposal. If it was an actual change, then my apologies for missing it.

I had read every post before posting my comments. I apologize if I missed something.

And, I would add, this doesn't address my fundamental objection: it transfers the responsibility from the player to some other person who should not bear that responsibility, whether it is the VO, GM, or someone other than the player.

Dark Archive 1/5

Mark Stratton wrote:
but I didn't see where you had changed your formal proposal to do that.

It was intended in the following quote - I should have made it 'louder'. :)

It is very clear that VO's are not comfortable with this additional task, and so I think evolving the proposal to being open to all GM's is natural. I am not a VO, however I would be more than happy to help fill out such paperwork for my fellow players at my LFHS.

Hollister Gorgonton the Lich wrote:


I'd like to re-emphasize this particular idea to help the discussion get back on track. I apologize for my own side-tracking.

What if we created a Product Confirmation boon as described, but *any* PFS GM could fill it out? If we trust rank-and-file GM's to fill out chronicle sheets, which are the very backbone of PFS integrity, then why shouldn't we trust them with a Product Confirmation boon?

Allowing this to occur - with any GM being allowed to fill one out - should alleviate concerns of already overburdened VO having more work to do, and would also considerably improve the state of product validation.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Mark Stratton wrote:
*and* does nothing to require that a player show up to a game with relevant rules that may need to be read, verbatim and in context, during a game session.

They would still be required to provide rules, only now they could provide photo copies of pages or the online PRD that they used to not be able to use once ownership has been verified. Yes, it is possible to cheat and edit such documents. Yes, there have been a few isolated confirmations of people having done this in the past. But at least in my experience, the number of people who would actually do this is so statistically insignificant as to be irrelevant.

Grand Lodge 2/5

Hollister Gorgonton the Lich wrote:
Mark Stratton wrote:


This proposed solution, in my view, actually encumbers a VO in that process. Perhaps, just perhaps, we should let VOs make the call at the table and move on.

This is no longer an issue - giving the sole responsibility to VO's has already been dismissed. We are now discussing the possibility that any GM may issue a Product Confirmation boon. If we can trust any GM to sign off on a chronicle - which is the very backbone of PFS play - then we should be able to trust them to fill out a Product Confirmation boon.

This is a common thread problem; people read the first post, and then respond without reading the conversation that follows. I realize your post was heartfelt and sincere and that is appreciated.

It's mostly just a problem here--with the stupid 'no edit after an hour' policy.

Dark Archive 1/5

trollbill wrote:
Yes, it is possible to cheat and edit such documents.

It would be extremely difficult to stop dedicated cheaters, within the current system as well as in this proposal.

There is nothing stopping me from printing out various chronicles from various scenarios, scribbling in different Paizo member numbers and signing forged signatures, and then trotting off to my local convention with a 'fake' level ?? character. No one would question it.

That said, doing such a thing would be just lame. Lame, lame, lame. I think the standard assumption is that the vast majority of players are better than that; I believe this assumption is correct.

Mark Stratton wrote:
At that point, I explained to him that, by the rules, I shouldn't let any of those characters play (or, at the least, disallow anything that was not in the CRB.)

I just realized another positive advantage of implementing this Product Confirmation boon effort - it would start conversation.

Your post implies the players did not realize that they needed to own the products. I think this is surprisingly common. If rank-and-file GM's started an effort to fill out Product Confirmation boons for their attendee's, then this alone would educate the players that such a thing is needed. People would talk and learn. This is a good thing.

5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Your post implies the players did not realize that they needed to own the products. I think this is surprisingly common. If rank-and-file GM's started an effort to make sure their attendee's knew to read the Guide to Organized Play and the requirements for use of Additional Resources, then this alone would educate the players that such a thing is needed. People would talk and learn. This is a good thing.

Changed it slightly...

Dark Archive 1/5

Sniggevert wrote:
Quote:
Your post implies the players did not realize that they needed to own the products. I think this is surprisingly common. If rank-and-file GM's started an effort to make sure their attendee's knew to read the Guide to Organized Play and the requirements for use of Additional Resources, then this alone would educate the players that such a thing is needed. People would talk and learn. This is a good thing.
Changed it slightly...

Lol. Very smooth. :)

'Go read this thing' sounds great in an academic sense; in practice it will usually be ignored. I doubt the majority of new players get around to reading the guide until several levels into their first character - and, sadly, maybe not even then.

Filling out a Product Verification boon sheet is an activity and drives the point home. If players see GM's filling out a Product Verification boon for others, they will realize that this is something they can also do. It also drives home the point that this is a rule that needs to be considered and thus will spark conversation.

High visibility will beat 'go read this thing - it has rules in it' any day of the week.

5/5

Hollister Gorgonton the Lich wrote:
Sniggevert wrote:
Quote:
Your post implies the players did not realize that they needed to own the products. I think this is surprisingly common. If rank-and-file GM's started an effort to make sure their attendee's knew to read the Guide to Organized Play and the requirements for use of Additional Resources, then this alone would educate the players that such a thing is needed. People would talk and learn. This is a good thing.
Changed it slightly...

Lol. Very smooth. :)

'Go read this thing' sounds great in an academic sense; in practice it will usually be ignored. I doubt the majority of new players get around to reading the guide until several levels into their first character - and, sadly, maybe not even then.

Filling out a Product Verification boon sheet is an activity and drives the point home. If players see GM's filling out a Product Verification boon for others, they will realize that this is something they can also do. It also drives home the point that this is a rule that needs to be considered and thus will spark conversation.

High visibility will beat 'go read this thing - it has rules in it' any day of the week.

Also why GM should have a copy of the Guide with them so they can also just show it to the player...just like the form.

EDIT: changed tenor of post

Dark Archive

Hollister Gorgonton the Lich wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:
I have been keenly following your perspective through this thread and I think you do your legitimate points a disservice by getting sidetracked by rallying against a VO polycracy that doesn't exist.

Most fair and well said; I do see that VO's may have access to NDA information which does give them an advantage on raw information accessible. My grump is that they are not superior in avenues of reason and that a non-VO may certainly come up with a good suggestion, worthy of consideration, just as well as someone with formal rank.

*But* - let's not pursue that point. Please, even. As you said, getting sidetracked into a mire is not productive. The originating main point, and the point of the thread, is that there is a sincere issue with how products are confirmed to be owned, and my real goal is to help offer suggestions - or at least start the conversation towards - real change which can help to alleviate the problem.

Walter said not to get sidetracked by a paranoid anti VO rant, not to ignore the point that VO's have access to knowledge and experience that you don't possess. You would be wise to take their input on this issue very seriously. Now one is saying that only a VO's opinion can have merit, and you reacting as if that's the issue does a whole lot of damage to your credibility.

I think my biggest problems I have with your arguement are some of the assumptions that go behind it.

1. That the current system is unjust. Asking people to bring hardcover books or legalally purchased PDFs with them is not unjust. It might be a pain in the butt, but you really need to learn some perspective if you think this is a matter of justice. Resenting someone who is required to enforce the rules is the only thing close to injustice presented on this thread.

2. That GM's who enforce the rules are big meanies. This is a very self entitled opinion, one that is a huge disrespect for the people who volunteer their time to make sure you have a fun game to play. Players who expressed this veiwpoint to me would not be welcome in games I run in the future. It's very rude to either not be aware of the rules of the game that you're playing, or to deliberately ignore those rules because you don't like them, and make the volunteer GM be the bad guy. Players who I witness doing so quickly get added to the list of players I refuse to sit at a table with.

Let's assume we developed a feasible way to implement your system(and I'm not sure having GM's signing off on book ownership meets that assumption).

Personally, I don't think that printouts from the PDF should be an acceptable, even with your system. Making a photo copy from the book you have verified that you own sounds more reasonable, because it can't be easily edited. Allowing the PRD will make people think or argue that any online source should be accepted, like the SRD or Herolab, opening that door will lead to a lot of trouble.

Dark Archive 1/5

Victor Zajic wrote:


Walter said not to get sidetracked by a paranoid anti VO rant

I'm all for not getting sidetracked; though Walter didn't mention anything about a 'rant', nor did he use language such as 'paranoid' or 'anti'. Let's please drop such rhetorical techniques. We can talk about this without sniping one another. I am honestly trying to offer helpful solutions here and truly offending anyone is the last thing I want to do.

Victor Zajic wrote:


Asking people to bring hardcover books or legalally purchased PDFs with them is not unjust.

PDFs? - no. They're quite fine. I've never spoke against them. Hardcover books are an obvious problem. I don't know where ones head may lay that they'd think that it is acceptable to require people to carry around so many pounds of books. It's simply not acceptable. 'Unjust' might not be the right adjective though; I prefer 'absurd', 'ridiculous', and/or 'unenforceable'; this last one because no one does audits.

Being that we are all smart people - and we are - we should be able to come up with a process that is both appreciative to the interests of Paizo while also being reasonable for those who must follow it.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

The current system isn't unjust, but it is impractical (lugging around lots of weight), and has unintended but significant negative side effects for FLGS.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Victor Zajic wrote:
Asking people to bring hardcover books or legalally purchased PDFs with them is not unjust.

Expecting people to buy the product they use is not, in any way, unjust. Requiring them to spend more money to prove it is another issue, entirely.

Here is an example why:

Let's say I am going to GenCon (the only Con I have been to where I actually had a judge ask to see my source materials) and I am taking several characters that all have things from non-core sources and I own all the books but not the PDFs because:

a) I bought them before I joined PFS.
b) I impulse bought them when they first came out.
c) I prefer to browse them in a printed version.
d) I like to support my local FLGS.
e) They were gifts.
f) I won them at a previous Con.
g) Books are cool.
h) Any combination of the above.

I have the following choices:

1) Pay the extra luggage fee to fly with all my books to GenCon and then schlepp them around the entire Con through crowds of people and the narrow gaps between gaming tables.
2) Spend $10 to $20 extra per book I need to use to purchase the PDF version so I can either just print out the pages I need with watermarks or bring the whole thing electronically.
3) Do neither and pray no one at the Con calls me on it so that I can't play my character, or at least can't play it the way I want to.

Note that under none of the above conditions is my character actually illegal. I own all the required materials. The problem I have is that the 3 options I have listed above are not to have a legal character, they are to prove that I have a legal character. And, yes, I do consider that unjust. I spent the money in the first place. Why must I spend more to prove I spent it in the first place?

Again, I don't have a problem with being legal. Hell, I want to be legal. Paizo, please make it easier for me to prove it.

Dark Archive 1/5

trollbill wrote:
Again, I don't have a problem with being legal. Hell, I want to be legal. Paizo, please make it easier for me to prove it.

We are totally on the same page. My desire to be legal - and to confirm my legality - is principle in my effort to promote change. I love buying Paizo books and giving them money - I want to find a reasonable way for this to be confirmed.

So folks, here is the current proposal for Product Confirmation boons, after bantering for two pages.

* A Product Confirmation boon may be filled out by any GM (other than the individual it is assigned to - can't fill out your own!). If we trust GM's to fill out chronicle sheets - which are the backbone of PFS - then we should trust them to properly handle Product Confirmation boons.
* An individual would then be required to furnish one item from each of the two following bullet points:

** A player must provide evidence of ownership of any source material outside of the core assumption, and this evidence can take the form of either a PDF with a proper watermark, a physical copy of the source material, or a properly filled out Product Confirmation boon referencing the source material
** A player must also, in addition to providing evidence as stated above, provide means to the GM to read the mechanics of the ability involved. In the case of a Product Confirmation boon, this may be a copy of the source material page involved, or other means as deemed reasonable by the GM.

Implement this, and then - six months or so later - promote a crunch in audits. Audits will be much easier once Product Confirmation boons are available. It's just a matter of carrying a piece of paper around with you.

If you hate, hate, hate this idea, then suggest an adaptation or a totally new idea. The current system is broken for those of us who love physical books (like proper lich do). Help us to make things right.


Here's an idea I came up with while reading through this thread.

You bring your big ol' heavy books in and show them to a VO. He fills out a chronicle-like sheet listing them as owned by you. Then he takes a rubber stamp and physically stamps a Pathfinder Society logo on the title page of each book. Books whose title pages already have a stamp can't be registered.

Yes, the book is no longer in mint condition, and if this bothers you don't register it. But it will be in better shape overall than after being lugged around in a backpack for a few months.

This would be unfortunate for those who buy books secondhand as some would be already registered. There are plenty of people who play regular Pathfinder and not PFS though, so you still have options.

GMs might be able to certify book ownership too, possibly only ones with enough stars that they would have too much to lose if they unscrupulously certified someone has owning a book without stamping it.

Having a book registered to your account could qualify you for a free / half-price / whatever download of the PDF, since you're already known to have paid Paizo for a license to that copyrighted material once.

Having proven book ownership tied to your PFS account also opens up interesting possibilities. If one of your PFS characters is Bob the Tengu Gunslinger with such and such feats, traits, and items, there could be a link on Bob's profile that downloads a dynamically generated, watermarked PDF that contains the pages from any book you are registered as owning that contain something needed to play Bob (UC 9-12 and ARG 162-166 plus whatever else Bob has) concatenated together into one file. Now you know exactly what you need when you play Bob, and with only the pages that are relevant you don't have to scroll through hundreds of extraneous pages. Sure, someone could try to pirate these, but a watermarked hodgepodge of excerpts is nowhere near as appealing to them as a clean and complete copy of one of the hardbacks would be.

Liberty's Edge 2/5

A problem with a single sheet is that new PFS legal sources are added nearly every month. Many AP books contain a legal feat or spell, for example.

And what if you later buy a book that a GM had crossed out on that first signing? Make the next GM fill out the whole bloody form again? That would be inefficient.

Really, the best way I see to do this would be to include or create an Ownership Chronicle for each and every book. Get it signed once, and it stays with you. And ALL you characters.

But currently a Chronicle Sheet must be applied to a specific character, not PFS root number. And I don't know that John wants to crank out those extra chronicles.

I still need to see a Paizo source for rules text, though...

Dark Archive 1/5

Derek Weil wrote:
And what if you later buy a book that a GM had crossed out on that first signing?

I would suggest filling out a second Product Confirmation boon sheet with the new product, and just paper clip/bind them together. Carrying two - or even twenty - paper boons around is still much, much preferable to the vast weight of books.

If the second GM is kind, they could also re-confirm all items for the new sheet, but I would think that would be up to GM discretion and time availability. Also, for the record, I think transposing data from one sheet to a new one should be a no-go; I would tend to think any GM should only sign off on items that they have personally verified.

Richard Dowdy wrote:


Then he takes a rubber stamp and physically stamps a Pathfinder Society logo on the title page of each book.

Not a bad idea; but maybe instead of a stamp (issuing such stamps would be a pain for Paizo), perhaps make it a requirement that any player having their physical book confirmed must write their name in small print in the upper right hand corner of the inside cover (or, some other reasonable and very visible spot). By marking it as theirs, they effectively prohibit it from being usable for anyone else looking to confirm ownership. This does away with the 'what if people pass around a book?' concern. Nice!


Yeah, I was picturing my idea as stamping just because it leaves the book as nice and pretty as possible, but issuing the stamps would be kind of annoying for Paizo. Any modification of the book would work as long as it's a one-way process and recognizable whether it's already been done.

Putting the owner's name in a particular way is a good idea, since not only does it show that the ability to register this book has already been used up (as a stamp would), but makes it possible to check the process after the fact. This would help in the situation where someone has an already-registered book and swears they're the one who registered it, even though they don't have the chronicle sheet and aren't in the system online. With stamps it would be tough cookies, but if the mark in the book is a name you could tell from whether it matched the person's whether they fell through the cracks of the system or are trying to pass around a book.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

Anything that tries to somehow mark a book as "one owner only" is a non-starter. Try again.

People gift old copies of a book to other players when they purchase a newer one. Some players also buy cheap books at second-hand stores. Both of these situations satisfy all the requirements of ownership of a resource.

Come to think of it, I've got a book I bought secondhand - "Elves of Golarion". It's been out of print for several years now, but I was lucky enough to find a near-mint copy in the "Used Books" section at a nearby game store.

5/5

Ah, it's this time of year again.

It's been thirteen months since this has come up previously, and what I said then still applies.

Basically, we need to prove ownership and to make rules available for reference.

A photocopy will satisfy the latter, and the former should be satisfiable by some form of VO affirmation.

4/5 5/55/5 **

How is copying the book not a violation of copyright law?

51 to 100 of 159 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Hollister Gorgonton the Lich's Big Idea for PFS Product Confirmation All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.