feylund |
As a proud owner of paperbacks i love the idea of a product confirmation boon... though do believe it should be limited to what is in the prd as that covers most hardcovers and the rules are readily avaible for anyone with a phone made in the last 5 years....
edit: As a way to keep people from buying books and selling after confirmation, what if the sheets expired after so long, say 2-3 months...at the very least it would help with the situation at conventions.
JohnF Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West |
How is copying the book not a violation of copyright law?
Well, for one thing, copyright law isn't exactly the same in different jurisdictions.
For another, copying a small part of a book that you own is generally held to be 'fair use'.Note, too, that many library systems have an arrangement where they pay an annual fee to a central copyright system, in return for which they can make copies for library clients. They probably won't make you a copy of the whole of the Advanced Class Guide, but they may well copy a few pages.
The rules in effect here are the ones that Paizo chooses to put in place to govern their Organized Play campaign. They can (and do) put additional restrictions in place beyond what the copyright laws permit. Printing out pages from the PRD, for example, is perfectly legal, but it is not an approved source for material used in PFS.
JohnF Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West |
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.
Your proposal for an Additional Resources tracking sheet pretty much matches what I had suggested a few days earlier (in that same thread). As we both noted, this is information that a player is supposed to have ready to present to the GM before the game.
Having a box for a GM to initial (possibly with PFS#) on each line would solve the "proof of ownership" issue. Yes, it's slightly more annoying than being able to get one signature to attest that you presented the book. But it's still a lot more convenient than having to carry that book with you to every PFS game.
(I agree with others in this thread that a GM's checkoff is more than good enough; if we trust them to hand out chronicles, we can trust them on this)
I've yet to see anything suggested in this thread which I consider superior to that proposal.
It does nothing, however, to solve the "make rules available for reference" problem
GM Lamplighter |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mr. Lich:
First, thanks for trying to provide a solution to a perceived problem. As we have seen, there are many sides to this issue, and it has been discussed before several times. To avoid rehashing, I suggest we step back for a moment and look at *why* things are the way they are.
1. PFS is a marketing effort for Paizo. (Hence the "you have to own it" part of the issue.)
2. PFS depends on volunteer GMs. This is the key issue for this proposal, so allow me to repeat: PFS depends on volunteer GMs.
A huge amount of PFS presence world-wide depends directly on people who volunteer to run scenarios for other people. Those are also the people who step up to run regular events, conventions, or become Venture-Officers, and increase the PFS brand even more. (Yes, players are important as well, but as someone who has recruited both I can tell you unequivocally that new GMs are much harder to find or create than new players.) With over 10,000 pages of material in the hardcover books alone, the only thing that makes the idea of GMing even possible for most of us, is the knowledge that players must bring their rules with them.
Alas, the proposal does not adequately address this. If I as a GM need to check a rule at the table, I don't want someone's edited version, or a photocopy of a page without the references used in the rule - I want the book there so I can check it, cross-reference it to the prerequisites, look up a definition I might forget, and read the related text.
As an example (from the CRB, so not a real one), bringing me a photocopy of the "Monster Summoning V" spell description doesn't help me unless you also bring the description for Monster Summoning I which it refers to, the summoning list, and the bestiary entries for each creature. But you might also need the summoner section if you're using it as a class feature, and also the section of the bestiary which describes the fiendish/celestial templates. But remember, you should also bring copies of the definitions of DR, energy resistance, and special abilities, plus the creature types definition from the bestiary, plus... etc. This goes for each spell, feat, magic item, trait, archetype, and class feature. That's a lot of photocopying, and unless you already know what your GM will need to look up you are bound to miss something.
So alas, this proposal would make my job as a GM harder, and my job as a GM recruiter and mentor much harder. It doesn't solve any issues that I see here (although I understand the desire to not lug books around, I also have seen some excellent characters which don't cherry-pick from 20 books.)
In summary: Bring your books if you prefer books, and remember that you when you carry them, you are supporting not only your PC, but your GM and the health of the PFS campaign as a whole.
claudekennilol |
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.
Richard's idea won't work. My wife and I have the same books. If she shows up one weekend and gets it stamped (or signed or whatever), that locks me out of showing up with it somewhere else and having the same done for me. As it is now, the campaign management has said it's fine to share books in this way.
And there's nothing wrong with reselling a book when done with it. This would also lock the following owners out of it.
@GMLamplighter You may prefer the whole reference. And while I haven't been playing a long time, of the dozen or so GMs I've had, they have all either taken my (or whomever's) word for it or looked it up on their phone (unless I already had the page in question opened in front of me). If the players can somehow provide a copy after already proving ownership, whether it's the real book, or the pages copied that should be sufficient. You obviously pulled an extreme out as an example. If my wife wants a character and wants the Butterfly's String feat (which has the entirety of its effect listed in one place with no references required) should she be forced to carry around the entire Inner Sea Gods book if there's a way that can be used to verify she already owns it?
Hollister Gorgonton the Lich |
1. PFS is a marketing effort for Paizo. (Hence the "you have to own it" part of the issue.)
This is exceedingly understood; thus my often made point that the current system does not represent Paizo's interests very well.
2. PFS depends on volunteer GMs. This is the key issue for this proposal, so allow me to repeat: PFS depends on volunteer GMs.
Volunteer GMs who already fill out chronicle sheets as part of their volunteer effort. Being empowered to also fill out Product Confirmation boons doesn't really conflict with this volunteer status.
Alas, the proposal does not adequately address this.
Yes, it does. A player should provide a legible version of the mechanic involved to the GM, to the satisfaction of the GM. If the mechanic directly references a sub-mechanic, then the player would be wise to also bring a copy of that workable material (now a whole shattering two pages of paper).
As stated, copies of this mechanic should be "...to the satisfaction of the GM", meaning, a GM would be empowered to say "no...this doesn't quite describe the spell for me..." if they feel this is true. This doesn't mean the rule doesn't work - instead, it means the rule works perfectly!
The current system is broken. Keeping it means accepting a broken system. Personally, I don't think this is acceptable. Broken things should be fixed.
Richard's idea won't work. My wife and I have the same books. If she shows up one weekend and gets it stamped (or signed or whatever),
I think you (and others) raised a good counterpoint - buying used books is valid. A stamp won't work.
If concern over people being validated and then selling their books is strong, then perhaps Product Verification boons could be good for one year only. Meaning - you lug your books in once a year to a friendly GM who will fill one out for you. This is still 'more than once' - but it is a lot better than the current process.
GM Lamplighter |
You obviously pulled an extreme out as an example. If my wife wants a character and wants the Butterfly's String feat (which has the entirety of its effect listed in one place with...
I did, to illustrate the reason why it doesn't work in general. Of course it *might* work, for certain feats, etc. and conscientious players who photocopy everything... but that isn't good enough. The onus needs to remain on the player to provide the rules, not the GM. Since few players even bring the Additional resources listing as required by the rules, I don't have faith that many will photocopy everything I need to adjudicate the situation.
You can always not do it and hope you don't get caught, but the rules are there for a reason that outweighs any version of "my arms get tired".
GM Lamplighter |
[...stuff]
Let's imagine for a moment the proposal happens. A player makes up a PC, gets the ownership boon signed, and photocopies (what they believe to be) the relevant pages. Then at the table, the GM asks to see the rule, and the player has forgotten to copy a prerequisite feat, or some other reference for the object that the GM wants to read. What happens? You say the GM can just say, "no"... but that puts the GM in an awkward place, made worse if they are a new GM who is unsure of themselves, and/or faces a player who is very aggressive in defense of their opinions. PFS runs on "Rules-as-Written", so it is better to adjudicate based on having the necessary rules at the table, rather than asking a GM to say, "I don't know, so no."
As to being broken: you seem to think so. I think it is a minor concern compared to some we have seen, and not really worthy of a major rules changes which helps only a few people while inconveniencing every GM in the campaign who doesn't already have eidetic memory.
One more note: when trying to get a community to supoprt a proposal, it's usually not a good idea to reply to every single dissenting post immediately - if your idea really works for the broader community, they will take it up and make those points for you. A thread that is 50% one person refuting any and all opposing opinions tends to get ignored fairly quickly.
Hollister Gorgonton the Lich |
I did, to illustrate the reason why it doesn't work in general.
You did not. You illustrated an exceptional case in which a player may have to copy more than one page of the source material. This is not the same as showing that it does not work "in general".
A photocopy of the page involved would be sufficient for the vast majority of GMs, the vast majority of the time. There would be exceptions. That is why the rule should be drafted so as to allow GMs to make that call at the table.
but the rules are there for a reason that outweighs any version of "my arms get tired".
If you reread trollbill's post a page ago, he pointed out that the cost of flying around with books when he attends convention causes him financial distress, among other things. That is significant. And sincerely, with all respect, I have to say that flippantly dismissing the concern of having to carry so much weight does not benefit your argument.
I strongly believe it is ridiculous to force the healthy among us to carry so much raw weight just to prove that we are honest. But there are even more galling causes than that. There is an individual on the Facebook forums who is physically disabled, who buys the books, and recently complained there about this problem. Is anyone really going to say "the physically disabled should stick with PDFs, since they might have trouble carrying 80 pounds of books"? What a terrible notion.
Book buyers are not pariahs. We should have a system in place so that we can verify we are honest supporters of Paizo, and structured so as to not literally overburden us.
There is a reason this issue comes up over and over - that is because it is broken. For those of you who have gasped in exasperation that someone dare bring this problem up 'yet again', know this - this problem isn't going away. You have an opportunity to join the discussion here, positively, and come up with a new process that can solve it and make it better, for once and for all. Don't tolerate problems - fix them! Help us, here. Don't dismiss this issue. You won't regret doing so.
trollbill Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne |
Let's imagine for a moment the proposal happens. A player makes up a PC, gets the ownership boon signed, and photocopies (what they believe to be) the relevant pages. Then at the table, the GM asks to see the rule, and the player has forgotten to copy a prerequisite feat, or some other reference for the object that the GM wants to read. What happens? You say the GM can just say, "no"... but that puts the GM in an awkward place, made worse if they are a new GM who is unsure of themselves, and/or faces a player who is very aggressive in defense of their opinions. PFS runs on "Rules-as-Written", so it is better to adjudicate based on having the necessary rules at the table, rather than asking a GM to say, "I don't know, so no."
Exactly how is that any different from the way things work right now if the prerequisite feat comes from a different book rather than a different page and the player forgot to bring the other book?
Alex McGuire |
Hollister Gorgonton the Lich wrote:[...stuff]Let's imagine for a moment the proposal happens. A player makes up a PC, gets the ownership boon signed, and photocopies (what they believe to be) the relevant pages. Then at the table, the GM asks to see the rule, and the player has forgotten to copy a prerequisite feat, or some other reference for the object that the GM wants to read. What happens? You say the GM can just say, "no"... but that puts the GM in an awkward place, made worse if they are a new GM who is unsure of themselves, and/or faces a player who is very aggressive in defense of their opinions. PFS runs on "Rules-as-Written", so it is better to adjudicate based on having the necessary rules at the table, rather than asking a GM to say, "I don't know, so no."
As to being broken: you seem to think so. I think it is a minor concern compared to some we have seen, and not really worthy of a major rules changes which helps only a few people while inconveniencing every GM in the campaign who doesn't already have eidetic memory.
One more note: when trying to get a community to supoprt a proposal, it's usually not a good idea to reply to every single dissenting post immediately - if your idea really works for the broader community, they will take it up and make those points for you. A thread that is 50% one person refuting any and all opposing opinions tends to get ignored fairly quickly.
Your argument also works against those who print selected sections of PDFs. Do you think people should only be allowed to use PDFs if they print the whole book, or bring it on a tablet?
GM Lamplighter |
I have stated that there are good reasons for having the complete rulebook at the table to support the GM. Does anyone disagree with this? Just trying to find common ground, if any...
"Bring the book" is simple, and players can gran them and go. Not every player spends hours organizing their character's additional resource documents. It is hard enough to get Chronicles and ITS forms filled out. The issue of traveling to cons is the only place where this can't be solved easily by other means, though. Locally, I just ask characters for their sheet the day before if they have characters that are compicated, and I do my homework.
At a con, it sure would be nice to be able to have the rules without them weighing anything. The only way that will happen is if Paizo makes the PRD a legal source for rules at the table; then you could have "ownership boons" for hardcovers and the GM could have the PRD to look up rules. Oh, but then every GM must have a smartphone or tablet, and every venue must have wifi.
Mekkis |
I have stated that there are good reasons for having the complete rulebook at the table to support the GM. Does anyone disagree with this? Just trying to find common ground, if any...
There are some reasons why the entire book would be a good thing to have. However, the current additional resources rules don't require it:
n 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
I think we can agree that the only difference between a printout of the relevant pages of a watermarked Paizo PDF and a photocopy of the relevant pages of a Paizo book is the possible ambiguity in ownership.
JohnF Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West |
I think we can agree that the only difference between a printout of the relevant pages of a watermarked Paizo PDF and a photocopy of the relevant pages of a Paizo book is the possible ambiguity in ownership.
You may very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment ...
O.K. - House of Cards references aside; one big difference is one that Mike Brock has repeatedly stated in his objection to photocopied pages, namely the fact that there is nothing on the photocopy to indicate just where it was actually photocopied from. At least with a page from a PDF printout there's the magic header/footer line with a mystical code.
Oath |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem here is that what is essentially a bad rule isn't being enforced, much like the speed limit on an Interstate. If speed limits were strictly enforced, say by shutting down your car if you break them, then the rule would have to be revisited. (If you'll forgive the analogy)
There are several examples of why this rule might be bad, the foremost is, of course, families. Families share things and any reasonable company would not expect a parent to buy three copies of the Advanced Class Guide just to let everyone play the new classes.
Now, the model PFS has been following in spirit, if not actually RAW, is that PFS is essentially the same model as a Free To Play MMO.
Paizo's success has been based largely on how they don't act like a Big Bad Evil Greedy company. They publish most of their stuff for free themselves. The core of why people buy their stuff is because they want to.
If some folks want to circumvent the system, is it realy hurting the playerbase or the company? Just like the Free-to-Play system for video games, a lot of the players don't pay anything (or pay little), but it gives the rest of us more people to play with.
If PFS required regular auditing would they actually make more money, or just have fewer players? I submit that they will have fewer players, and those of us who do spend a money will then be less inclined to do so, lacking the incentive of participation.
pH unbalanced |
Mekkis wrote:I think we can agree that the only difference between a printout of the relevant pages of a watermarked Paizo PDF and a photocopy of the relevant pages of a Paizo book is the possible ambiguity in ownership.You may very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment ...
O.K. - House of Cards references aside; one big difference is one that Mike Brock has repeatedly stated in his objection to photocopied pages, namely the fact that there is nothing on the photocopy to indicate just where it was actually photocopied from. At least with a page from a PDF printout there's the magic header/footer line with a mystical code.
Hmmm. These problems are always solvable -- it's just a question of how much paperwork you want to require. So let's consider...
[puts auditor hat on]
So what you would want to have on hand, all at the same time:
The Ownership Certificate Boon
The photocopy of the relevant pages you will use in the future
A physical copy of the book -- to prove ownership *and* to cross-reference to the photocopies to prove they match the printed rules
The Witness (VO/GM/whomever the campaign authorizes to signoff on such things) verifies you have the book and the photocopies, and that the photocopies are legitimate. Then the Witness signs the Ownership Certificate Boon, initials the photocopies, and staples them together.
Now you have an official "Rule Packet" which proves both ownership and the legitimacy of the rules copied.
[/takes auditor hat off]
Seems like an awful lot of work. I'm not saying the benefit is worth it. But it would satisfy the listed reservations. And the resulting packet would weigh less than a hardback.
JohnF Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West |
I understand this.
In fact, if you refer back to the discussion thread from 13 months ago, you'll find quite a bit of discussion of this very point. In that thread, I suggested that rather than requiring a separate document/boon/whatever, it might just be easier for the GM (or VO) to simply sign the printed page(s), attesting that this was an accurate copy from a legal source.
Whenever a thread like this re-occurs, I really wish that people would take the trouble to research what had been suggested before. While I agree that just because a topic has already been discussed doesn't mean it can't be discussed again, in the absence of any substantially new suggestions it seem rather naive to expect a different decision will be made even if campaign management should decide to respond to the thread.
WalterGM RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8 |
Perhaps the proper tactic would be to revive the old thread with some new ideas? As a relatively impartial follower with notoriously bad memory, I would benefit a lot more from seeing the previous argument laid out alongside any updates being suggested here.
I think others (Paizo staff included) might appreciate that in the future.
Ascalaphus Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden |
WalterGM RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8 |
Perhaps, but reviving with a post that starts something like this is a good step to prevent those issues...
"Cast Raise Thread -- I realize this has come up before, but after witnessing events X, Y, and Z recently I think it's work discussing again. While I support arguments A, B, and C made previously, I find points D, and E to be unnecessary, which is why I propose the following..."
Or maybe just link to that older thread in the first post of a newer thread? Something to tie the conversations together.
Thanks to John for finding the previous discussion, this helps me catch up.
GM Lamplighter |
I think pH Unbalanced has summarized nicely as to what would be needed to make the system functional.
Then, we would need to implement it, which is a non-trivial problem due to the importance of it being accepted by other GMs. If a local GM signs off on my character's AR documents and I go to a con with that document, and the table GM says it is not sufficient... then I can't play, for the entire con. So, the document requirements need to be iron-clad. Every GM in the world would need to know exactly what is required for this documentation, so it would pass muster at every other GM's table in the world, or the system doesn't work (and in fact causes more problems than it solves).
Once those requirements were developed, they would have to be vetted by campaign leadership, developed, laid out, designed, and published. Something as big as this is not just going to be a community project - Paizo has to do it.
And that is my main objection to the proposal, even if we could figure out a system that would solve the issues presented. I don't think "squeaky wheel getting the grease" is really progress at all - decisions on allocation of staff time should be made on merit and priority, not just the volume of the request.
I understand a small minority really wants this. I really want to ban gunslingers and playtest material, but I accept that not everyone agrees with me and it would be a huge project with limited world-wide appeal, and probably not worth the trouble. So I rant, then let it drop, grin and bear it and go through the hardships I have to so I can play the game I love.
Hollister Gorgonton the Lich |
They're right about bumping old threads confusing things. The proposal in this thread has changed over its course, and even that was difficult. New posters kept replying to the op instead of the new(er) version.
That this has been discussed before is not a show stopper. Never settle for a solution that sounds like 'we don't know the answer, so let's just all be quiet about it.' That's what congress does; don't be like congress.
What this effort needs is a few brave champions who are more known to the community than this dried up old lich. I know there are a few of you who are quietly agreeing that this is an issue, and that something can be done to improve things. Help us book buyers, and so help to put this issue to rest, truly, so that it never need be raised again.
I do appreciate being heard out to the extent that I have. Thank you.
WalterGM RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8 |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure what others might take away from this post, but for anyone just now joining the conversation hopefully it helps bring you up to speed.
The last thread had a bit of tangent about HeroLab, but that aside there was still a lot of good discussion. Here's what I took away from it
- The purpose of the last thread was, according to the OP: "We're trying to find ways to make hard copies usable when they're not physically present"
- Two major suggestions to make that happen in that thread were to either have GMs sign printouts of PDF resources/photocopies of hardcovers or to have an "additional resources tracking sheet." The latter is more or less identical to what Hollister is re-proposing in this thread.
- Reservations about one suggestion or the other, or a combination of both seemed to be centered around proving authenticity. A common response to such concerns was that the system is already an honor-based environment, so implementing a process that continues to hinge on that assumption is nothing new. Another reservation about just having an additional resources tracking sheet is that there is no way to reference the text should a GM have question. This is why a combination of the two suggestions (or support of signed copies of pages) appeared to be gathering momentum.
What can we take from this previous discussion into this thread?
A lot, I think. It's the same issue we're discussing now because there hasn't been a rules change in the last 13 months, as John mentioned. That said, in this new discussion there have been some previously unvoiced concerns that have been raised.
- Will more auditing lead to fewer players? Nobody likes doing taxes, and given the blowback surrounding the ITS, how confident are we that this will be any different? Making this an optional form/solution would remove the feeling of mandatory audits, but for smaller communities with only a few GMs, it would still place an onus of additional form filling on their likely overburdened shoulders.
- A photocopy is all well and good to prove ownership, but if a rule references another page in the book, or if I need to check it against something else from that book, I'll be unable to as a GM. The suggestion of photocopied sheets or an additional resources tracking sheet does not adequately address this. This has been responded to be suggesting the tracking sheet include a clause where if a player fails to provide all the sheets needed to explain an additional resource, the table GM can refuse to allow it. An issue I see with this is the potential for GM / player disagreement. At least with a physical copy, we can go through the book to figure it out. With only a few pages, it will fall to the GM to be "the bad guy" and prevent a player from using their neat ability. That's an uncomfortable situation to be in.
- Forcing players to provide additional resources has i) a negative impact on PFS members with large collections of physical books ii) seems to punish players that did not invest in PDFs iii) reduces interest in convention play, or any event requiring travel for players with large amounts of books. While the rule requiring players to provide the additional resource when using an additional resource at a table is nothing new, it's one that some players were certainly unaware of. Now those players feel as if they need to buy PDFs and a tablet in order to have playable characters, or they are forced to not use Pathfinder sourcebooks specifically purchased for use in PFS. This is a troubling situation for such individuals, and I'm not seeing an easy solution that doesn't include some sort of additional resources tracking sheet. In an ideal world, these participants would have been aware of the rules before making any purchases, but clearly this hasn't happened in all cases.
- As with the previous discussion, there are also concerns around players providing a hardcopy to qualify for it's proof of ownership on the tracking sheet, and then returning the book or loaning it out to all their friends in order for them to qualify. This defeats the purpose of the tracking sheet entirely. However, since this is an issue with the honor-system that is at the heart of the Pathfinder RPG anyway, I don't see it as a real issue with the suggestion. As they say, "cheaters gonna cheat." Those people likely already have torrented or edited PDFs already, or don't have the additional resources they claim to.
- There are other suggestions that involve Paizo, as a company do something. These vary from handing out free PDFs with a book proof of purchase, enabling players to log in and verify ownership on the website, and so forth. Previous suggestions also included getting Hero Lab involved. While these are legitimate suggestions to try and resolve the issue (and some likely would), Paizo isn't likely to change any business models or practices because of their organized play campaign. We are and have been fueled by an incredibly motivated group of volunteers that understand that any change they wish to see in the campaign starts with them. While these suggestions do have merit, they are likely things that could come into play after an alternative suggestion that requires Paizo to do little to no work has already been implemented.
There is more information out there, but these seem to be the more heavily discussed points. That's a lot of data to compress and ration with. Unfortunately, at least from my reading of everything, there isn't a cut and dry "this fixes everything ever!" solution that volunteers can easily implement. With any solution, someone is getting left out in the rain. This is likely why this discussion is so volatile and reoccurring.
Fearspect |
I would suggest that, if you want this idea put forward, perhaps you could properly write exactly the process it would entail. Let's say, as if it were to appear in a future PFS Guide. As it stands, it is difficult just in three pages to capture exactly what you are proposing.
1) What must a player bring to a game?
2) What are a GM's exact duties when filling out this form?
3) What other co-ordinating details are there? (Can GMs override this? Is there an expiry date?)
I'm losing track of your point in all of the random roleplaying you're throwing into your posts; it's hard to take a lich seriously in matters not directly related to necromancy.
I would also appreciate if you could make it clear to me whether this entire proposal is based solely on your proposition that players must carry too much weight (stated to be in excess of 80-100 lbs) to play their characters the way they would like if they prefer hardcover books over pdfs.
claudekennilol |
Then, we would need to implement it, which is a non-trivial problem due to the importance of it being accepted by other GMs. If a local GM signs off on my character's AR documents and I go to a con with that document, and the table GM says it is not sufficient... then I can't play, for the entire con. So, the document requirements need to be iron-clad. Every GM in the world would need to know exactly what is required for this documentation, so it would pass muster at every other GM's table in the world, or the system doesn't work (and in fact causes more problems than it solves).
Just like now because every GM follows the same rules and there's absolutely no table variance whatsoever in PFS...
JohnF Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West |
I decided to go back to the beginning of last year's thread, and go through everything both there and here one more time.
Once I'd done that, the first question I asked myself was: "Who is any proposed solution principally intended to benefit?"
The answer, fairly obviously, is "not a player who has purchased a PDF", because owning a watermarked PDF satisfies both the "proof of ownership" and "reference source to show the GM" requirements. Even if you don't have a portable electronic device that you can bring with you to a game, almost all players can get access to a printer (even if it's at FedEx/Kinko's or some such location).
So a player who has purchased both the hardcopy book and the PDF has a solution. What can we or Paizo do to help out the player who has only purchased the hardcopy book? Previous suggestions have included supplying a free PDF with each hardcover purchase, but I believe that the reasons for Paizo not doing this have been adequately explained.
Another proposed solution, and one which has been much discussed, is how to allow photocopies of pages from a hardcover book to serve as a reference source. While I believe that there have been viable solutions to this problem put forward, they mostly suffer from the problem of putting a burden on GMs or VOs, rather than on the player.
Another suggestion was that any validation process for photocopies be restricted to copies made from the (heavy) hardcover rulebooks. In my opinion this is exactly the wrong choice; the PDFs for the rulebooks are pretty cheap, and it's quite likely that many different abilities, archetypes, items, etc. will be used from that book over time. A bigger problem comes from things like the softcover 'Player Companion' books - these are more tightly focused (so less likely to be generally useful), and the price ratio between the hardcopy and PDF is far less favourable. Having to shell out another 2/3 of the hardcover price just to be able to generate a PDF printout of 2 or 3 pages is tough.
"So", I asked myself, "What if Paizo made it possible to purchase a partial PDF of any product?"
Discuss ...
Andrew Christian |
I personally don't feel its a problem.
I personally feel that fantastic and powerful characters can be created from the Core Rulebook alone.
I personally feel that every player should know the rules of the campaign before they start playing. But I'll give people the benefit of the doubt that sometimes they hear about it, show up, and expect they will learn this information on their first night. That's fair. I don't mind teaching.
But at some point, a player is going to learn that they need to actually have some version of the book, and with them, for it to be legal.
I feel that if the player chooses to use so many books that it becomes difficult for them to tote their books around with them, then that is a choice they made. There are many options to alleviate this difficulty.
I feel that if a player is unwilling* to avail themselves of the other options, that is also their choice.
*Even when I was incredibly poor (I would often have $5 to eat for a week--try it, that doesn't go very far), if I really wanted something, I'd find a way to save up the money to pay for it.
Making suggestions you think will help the campaign is laudable.
Villainizing Paizo, Paizo's employees, or their volunteer representatives is, however, not ok.
Some of the language in this thread is becoming awful close to villainizing.
trollbill Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne |
trollbill Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne |
The solution already exists: buy pdfs. You just don't like it.
Yes, the entire point of this whole thread and previous ones on the same subject is that we don't like the current solution. Thank you for stating the obvious. Or are you just being incredibly dismissive of the people trying to improve the system?
JohnF Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West |
. . . your proposition that players must carry too much weight (stated to be in excess of 80-100 lbs) to play their characters the way they would like if they prefer hardcover books over pdfs.
While this is a bit of an exaggeration, it's not totally ridiculous. I just put the contents of my main PFS reference shelf (all the hardcover rulebooks, and a fair number of 'Player Companion' and 'Campaign Setting' softcover books) on the bathroom scale, and they weighed in at 68lbs. I can't put all of those in a case and stay under even a generous airline's weight allowance, so if I were to try to take those to a con I'd be looking at two additional checked bags each way.
Ascalaphus Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden |
The objections against photocopying pages from a physical book seem to be these:
1) The copy might be incomplete; it might reference something elsewhere in the book that the GM also wants to look up.
2) Unlike a watermarked PDF, you can't prove ownership through photocopy.
I think that #1 is a false argument, because that's no different from someone choosing only some pages to print from a watermarked PDF. It's a mistake by the player making the photocopy, but it's just as much a mistake for the guy printing a PDF. So I don't think we can hold this as an argument against photocopies.
#2 is the real argument. I've mentioned before that you could just write your name on the book, probably on the title page, to prove ownership. You could include a photocopy of that page to your photocopy stack to prove ownership. There are some arguments against that:
A) It doesn't help people who buy second-hand books. True enough. Although I suspect more people use first-hand than second-hand books.
B) It's a bit weird for people who buy books as a group. They couldn't use this option.
Even so, the people of objections A and B aren't actually hurt by this change. The change doesn't help everyone, but it does help a lot of people. I think partial improvement is better than no improvement.
Fearspect |
Trollbill: improve the system for who? Not Paizo, GMs, or people that believe a purchase of a book over a pdf is a choice.
You bought a home stereo system, but are now upset that you can't carry it around like a mp3 player. mp3 player owners are wondering why you think you can't still have one.
Finally, I think there is still some burden of proof to demonstrate that this proposal IS an improvement to the system. As it stands, the volunteers that PFS depends on to run would not have improved experiences.
Damanta |
I like my books. Whacking someone doing something stupid over the head with a Core Rule Book is so much more satisfying than doing the same with a single paper printout of the rule you are using.
That said, I'm planning on getting a cart or something similar for my books when I finally get around to going to a big convention just to make sure I have everything along.
Mark Stratton Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis |
I highly suggest reading the FAQ for Society play.
I found this little gem today:
"What do I need to bring to a game to use non-core material?
In order to use additional resources for your character, you must bring a physical copy of the book with you or printouts of the appropriate pages detailing cost (if any) and explanations for each feat, item, spell, prestige class, and so on that you use. One need not prove ownership of said material but they must be from a legally obtained PDF or book printed by Paizo Publishing; content reproduced in other sources under the Open Gaming License (such as an online reference document or a homemade omnibus) is not legal with regard to use in sanctioned Pathfinder Society play. Since the core assumption for Pathfinder Society Organized Play is the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Pathfinder Society Field Guide, and the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary, we cannot assume that every Game Master will have the products included in the Additional Resources list. As such, it is each player's responsibility to bring to the game any necessary rules for running his or her character so that GMs may properly adjudicate the game during play."
See the part about ownership. Since one must not actually prove ownership, perhaps we can drop that part of the conversation.
In reading this before, I guess I just overlooked that part about ownership. But, proving ownership isn't a requirement.
trollbill Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne |
Trollbill: improve the system for who?
140 posts on this thread and another 106 on another one from a year ago and you can't figure out who it benefits? Oh, wait, you're just trying to be dismissive again.
Not Paizo,
If the current system discourages people from buying product, it is not beneficial to Paizo.
If the system becomes so frustrating people leave PFS, it is not beneficial to Paizo.If the current system encourages me to buy direct from Paizo rather than my local FLGS who supports our local PFS group, it is of arguable benefit to Paizo.
GMs,
Since GMs already are allowed to use online sources without having sources I agree the only benefit they get out of this is not having to deal with players who own the product but didn't want to lug 50 pounds of books or spend extra money on a product they already own.
or people that believe a purchase of a book over a pdf is a choice.
And those are the only people whose opinion matters, why?
You bought a home stereo system, but are now upset that you can't carry it around like a mp3 player. mp3 player owners are wondering why you think you can't still have one.
No, a better analogy would be more like I bought a stereo and used it to copy music onto an MP3 player and now I am being told I have to bring the stereo with me to use the MP3 player so that I can prove the source was the stereo I owned.
Finally, I think there is still some burden of proof to demonstrate that this proposal IS an improvement to the system. As it stands, the volunteers that PFS depends on to run would not have improved experiences.
Oh, I agree the OP's solution has some bugs in it. But that doesn't mean there isn't a problem in the first place. Certainly I welcome any suggestions you may have to improve the system.
claudekennilol |
I highly suggest reading the FAQ for Society play.
I found this little gem today:
"What do I need to bring to a game to use non-core material?
In order to use additional resources for your character, you must bring a physical copy of the book with you or printouts of the appropriate pages detailing cost (if any) and explanations for each feat, item, spell, prestige class, and so on that you use. One need not prove ownership of said material but they must be from a legally obtained PDF or book printed by Paizo Publishing; content reproduced in other sources under the Open Gaming License (such as an online reference document or a homemade omnibus) is not legal with regard to use in sanctioned Pathfinder Society play. Since the core assumption for Pathfinder Society Organized Play is the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Pathfinder Society Field Guide, and the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary, we cannot assume that every Game Master will have the products included in the Additional Resources list. As such, it is each player's responsibility to bring to the game any necessary rules for running his or her character so that GMs may properly adjudicate the game during play."See the part about ownership. Since one must not actually prove ownership, perhaps we can drop that part of the conversation.
In reading this before, I guess I just overlooked that part about ownership. But, proving ownership isn't a requirement.
That still doesn't solve the proposed problem of "what if I only have the physical book"? Let's face it, some of us (I'd like to think not myself) are incredibly antisocial and the only interaction we get is at the gaming table--so finding someone with a legal PDF may not work. Obviously this isn't the majority so it may be a moot point. But I'm sure there are people with books that don't have access to anyone with a PDF (again, probably not very likely, but I'm sure there are people out there..). Again, that's probably not the case since someone nearby has gotta have the core pdfs.
And am I the only one who read that and immediately thought about stripping down their physical books and bringing in individual pages?
trollbill Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne |
I highly suggest reading the FAQ for Society play.
I found this little gem today:
"What do I need to bring to a game to use non-core material?
In order to use additional resources for your character, you must bring a physical copy of the book with you or printouts of the appropriate pages detailing cost (if any) and explanations for each feat, item, spell, prestige class, and so on that you use. One need not prove ownership of said material but they must be from a legally obtained PDF or book printed by Paizo Publishing; content reproduced in other sources under the Open Gaming License (such as an online reference document or a homemade omnibus) is not legal with regard to use in sanctioned Pathfinder Society play. Since the core assumption for Pathfinder Society Organized Play is the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Pathfinder Society Field Guide, and the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary, we cannot assume that every Game Master will have the products included in the Additional Resources list. As such, it is each player's responsibility to bring to the game any necessary rules for running his or her character so that GMs may properly adjudicate the game during play."See the part about ownership. Since one must not actually prove ownership, perhaps we can drop that part of the conversation.
In reading this before, I guess I just overlooked that part about ownership. But, proving ownership isn't a requirement.
At which point I really have to ask why photocopies from books aren't allowed? I just cannot fathom that people cheating by modifying copies would be so prevalent as to justify inconveniencing everyone who owns a legal copy of a book but not the pdf.
Sniggevert |
Mark Stratton wrote:At which point I really have to ask why photocopies from books aren't allowed? I just cannot fathom that people cheating by modifying copies would be so prevalent as to justify inconveniencing everyone who owns a legal copy of a book.I highly suggest reading the FAQ for Society play.
I found this little gem today:
"What do I need to bring to a game to use non-core material?
In order to use additional resources for your character, you must bring a physical copy of the book with you or printouts of the appropriate pages detailing cost (if any) and explanations for each feat, item, spell, prestige class, and so on that you use. One need not prove ownership of said material but they must be from a legally obtained PDF or book printed by Paizo Publishing; content reproduced in other sources under the Open Gaming License (such as an online reference document or a homemade omnibus) is not legal with regard to use in sanctioned Pathfinder Society play. Since the core assumption for Pathfinder Society Organized Play is the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Pathfinder Society Field Guide, and the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary, we cannot assume that every Game Master will have the products included in the Additional Resources list. As such, it is each player's responsibility to bring to the game any necessary rules for running his or her character so that GMs may properly adjudicate the game during play."See the part about ownership. Since one must not actually prove ownership, perhaps we can drop that part of the conversation.
In reading this before, I guess I just overlooked that part about ownership. But, proving ownership isn't a requirement.
Maybe Paizo doesn't wish to make a blanket statement that it is OK to photocopy their work? Protecting IP can be a tenuous thing, and the more openings you give for "legitimate" copying the harder it is to prove and limit illegitimate copying.
trollbill Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne |
Maybe Paizo doesn't wish to make a blanket statement that it is OK to photocopy their work? Protecting IP can be a tenuous thing, and the more openings you give for "legitimate" copying the harder it is to prove and limit illegitimate copying.
I would think this would already be covered by Fair Use laws, but I concede it is possible this was not a decision made by PFS but rather one made by a paranoid legal department (or possibly a marketing department that doesn't see the value of FLGSs). If that actually is the case, then no suggested change, no matter how reasonable, is likely to succeed.
Sebastian Hirsch Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria |
trollbill wrote:Mark Stratton wrote:At which point I really have to ask why photocopies from books aren't allowed? I just cannot fathom that people cheating by modifying copies would be so prevalent as to justify inconveniencing everyone who owns a legal copy of a book.I highly suggest reading the FAQ for Society play.
I found this little gem today:
"What do I need to bring to a game to use non-core material?
In order to use additional resources for your character, you must bring a physical copy of the book with you or printouts of the appropriate pages detailing cost (if any) and explanations for each feat, item, spell, prestige class, and so on that you use. One need not prove ownership of said material but they must be from a legally obtained PDF or book printed by Paizo Publishing; content reproduced in other sources under the Open Gaming License (such as an online reference document or a homemade omnibus) is not legal with regard to use in sanctioned Pathfinder Society play. Since the core assumption for Pathfinder Society Organized Play is the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Pathfinder Society Field Guide, and the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary, we cannot assume that every Game Master will have the products included in the Additional Resources list. As such, it is each player's responsibility to bring to the game any necessary rules for running his or her character so that GMs may properly adjudicate the game during play."See the part about ownership. Since one must not actually prove ownership, perhaps we can drop that part of the conversation.
In reading this before, I guess I just overlooked that part about ownership. But, proving ownership isn't a requirement.
Maybe Paizo doesn't wish to make a blanket statement that it is OK to photocopy their work? Protecting IP can be a tenuous thing, and the more openings you give for "legitimate" copying the harder it is to prove and limit illegitimate copying.
The right to make a photocopy for personal use is a matter that depends on the IP laws in your country, they tend to be different.
trollbill Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne |
JohnF Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West |
See the part about ownership. Since one must not actually prove ownership, perhaps we can drop that part of the conversation.
Note that this is predicated on presenting either a physical copy of the book in question, or a legally-obtained printout from a (watermarked) PDF.
If you turn up at the table with a copy of the Advanced Class Guide hardback, you don't have to prove that it's yours - it could very well belong to your room-mate. Fairly obviously, your room-mate can't be simultaneously using the same hardback at a different table.
A printout from a PDF will usually have your name and email address shown in the headers and footers. Paizo prohibit printing out copies of your PDFs for anything other than personal use, so if you're complying with the "legally obtained" restriction, ownership is already dealt with.
claudekennilol |
Mark Stratton wrote:See the part about ownership. Since one must not actually prove ownership, perhaps we can drop that part of the conversation.Note that this is predicated on presenting either a physical copy of the book in question, or a legally-obtained printout from a (watermarked) PDF.
If you turn up at the table with a copy of the Advanced Class Guide hardback, you don't have to prove that it's yours - it could very well belong to your room-mate. Fairly obviously, your room-mate can't be simultaneously using the same hardback at a different table.
A printout from a PDF will usually have your name and email address shown in the headers and footers. Paizo prohibit printing out copies of your PDFs for anything other than personal use, so if you're complying with the "legally obtained" restriction, ownership is already dealt with.
Are you telling me that my wife and I can't both use printed pages from our one PDF while sitting at different tables?