Hollister Gorgonton the Lich |
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello. I am Hollister Gorgonton the Lich.
"Ahhh!" you might say, "It's a lich!". Well, stop that. I am not here to use my vast and timeless command of Necromancy to force you and your loved ones to grovel before my whimsical will, no! At least, not right now. Later. I'll let you know when. It'll be a surprise. There will be balloons and cake to go with the tears of the oppressed. Chocolate cake. Muahahaha!
Anyhoo, at the moment, I wish to tackle a more nefarious issue than merely conquering a ragtag group of mortals; and that issue is, the problem with buying hardback Pathfinder books and then the necessity of having to lug those books to games to prove that I own them, so that I might use their arcane power to better subjugate my opponents and command their very realities.
This effort really isn't for me. This is for my minions. "GAH!" says my minion, "Why do you have to base your character on twenty different books, and then only buy hardback, forcing me to lug 100 pounds of paper pulp to every single game?" At this point, I typically disintegrate my minion for being a complainer. Minions should know better. As I said, fixing this problem is really for my minion, so that I have one less reason to cast disintegrate upon them. My heart is in the right place.
As the issue is currently understood, there are two competing forces. First, there is the desire of Paizo to want to confirm ownership of their product in order for it to be used within their organized gaming system. The opposing force are those mortals who prefer the purchasing of such products through actual paper, and this paper has a weight and mass that is objectionable to carry. We realize that buying a PDF makes things easier, but many of us love a physical book and find that to be preferable. All good Lich prefer actual books, rather than digital. When was the last time you saw one of my kind look something up on a kindle? Part of that is our skeletal hands - touch screens misbehave with bony fingers.
But, there is a better way. BEHOLD my DARK and TWISTED POWER!
The current system can appease the interests of both sides, and it can do this using the existing infrastructure of the Pathfinder Society. The tool to resolve this problem is a simple concept that I call a "Product Confirmation Boon".
"WHAT IS THIS TERRIBLE MAGIC!" you might say, followed by "PLEASE GET THIS POISONOUS SNAKES OFF OF ME!" Sorry about that, but the snakes stay. Anyhoo. A Product Confirmation Boon is exactly what it sounds like - it is a boon, signed off by a GM of a minimum rank of 'Venture Lieutenant", which confirms that the player has proven owner ship of a list of products.
This boon sheet can have a similar structure to the current inventory/purchase tracking sheet. Just a list of boxes and rows, and a VL can write in (or, check off) the names of the products confirmed to be owned and then sign off on it. They can also draw a squiggly line following the names of products so that meddling mortals won't feel tempted to 'write in' additional items on the sly.
The workflow of this new device is similarly simple. VL's can just set an hour aside before or after games at your LFHS to confirm ownership for their players. Players will dutifully bring in their physical books (without complaining, or I will magic missile you) for their VL to sign off on.
The reason such a boon requires a minimum of VL is a nod toward Paizo; only those held particularly accountable, who have particularly noted loyalty to Paizo, should have this great and dark power of being able to issue such helpful boons.
The beauty of this is that ownership will be confirmed, which fulfills Paizo's interest - but the books need only be carried in ONCE. After that, the player needs to make sure to bring their Product Confirmation Boon which can be used for future GM's to confirm product ownership.
The existing rule structure would then become something like:
Players referencing mechanics outside of the Core Assumption must provide the following:
* A watermarked PDF of the originating source material, or a physical copy of the originating source material, or a copy of a Product Confirmation boon listing the originating source material, signed off by a VL (or higher).
* The player must also provide a clear and legible copy of the mechanic involved, so that the GM may read all rules involved for their understanding and adjudication.
Creating this Product Confirmation Boon can have some very positive results for the Pathfinder Society.
* It is fair to Paizo - using this method, they would have VL confirmation that their products are being purchased.
* It is fair to the players - I don't think players would have much complaint over having to bring in their physical books *once*.
* It will encourage audits - currently, there are a lot of softy GM's who do not really pursue the confirmation of ownership of source material, because we are all aware that it can be difficult to do. There is a definite population of GM's who are sympathetic to the owners of physical books, and are likely to gloss over product confirmation entirely because they don't want to 'be a jerk'. With Product Confirmation boons, however, this process becomes much easier - so much, that GMs will be encouraged to request evidence of product ownership.
So, that's it, really. I'm going to go back to my other task, which involves making some chocolate cake and filling up some balloons. There's a party next week! Invitations will be sent soon.
claudekennilol |
Well, that was definitely very wordy.. But I approve. This is an excellent idea. I do think you have good intentions on forcing a VL or higher to sign it, but I don't think that's very doable. At least, I've never seen a VL at the store I frequent. Our area is too big and there are (I don't know their titles or if they even have titles) underlings that do the coordinating for each different store.
Auke Teeninga Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic |
Rogue Eidolon |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Auke Teeninga wrote:How will the VO in question know that those books are actually owned by that player and that he won't sell them after the sheet is signed?Well, so much for that idea. But even if that's the case, it can't be more cost effective than buying the PDFs.
That would depend. Let's consider the most degenerate case: All 25 regulars at a local gamestore chip in and buy a copy of the book together. They each get their VO to sign off on the sheet in turn, trading the book around behind the VO's back. Then, they generate their own (inaccurate) version of the rules text that favors them, and provide it in a clear and legible manner to the GM. When they are all done getting it signed, they resell it, let's say for half, and split that. So effectively everyone paid 1/50 of the full price, and the GM doesn't have the correct version of the rule in question available to consult.
Clearly, this is not something most people would do, but at the point that it is possible, it's not much better than just using the honor system.
Hollister Gorgonton the Lich |
How will the VO in question know that those books are actually owned by that player and that he won't sell them after the sheet is signed?
They don't; but who would do that? This would have to be an exceptionally dedicated little worm of a player (they make good minions).
Even with this point, balance that with the idea that this would make audits easier, and therefore audits could become more common and expected. The increase in audits based upon this plan would likely force many into groveling submission compliance.
Even with those strange oddballs who 'temporarily' purchase books just for an audit, this increase in audits would achieve an increase in overall compliance.
That would depend. Let's consider the most degenerate case: All 25 regulars at a local gamestore chip in and buy a copy of the book together. They each get their VO to sign off on the sheet in turn, trading the book around behind the VO's back. Then, they generate their own (inaccurate) version of the rules text that favors them.
My ancient brain has decided you left out the part where they could also cut off the hand of their VO, and then use that hand to sign off on as many boons as they wish, thus achieving ultimate power.
I think there may be a line across where suspected foul play should no longer be speculated. There will always be outliers. There are outliers right now. The current rules are not for the outliers; they are for respectable, 'normal' players, of which make up the great volume of the PFS playerbase.
Ascalaphus Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden |
Andrew Christian |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about you just take photos of all your books on your mobile device. Boom—proof.
This doesn't provide me with a verifiable source to look up the rule that you are presenting me with.
Despite my stars and longevity in PFS, there are still many splat books and rules that I have never read. I need a verifiable source to look up that rule.
Your printout of d20PFSRD.com and a picture of a book does me no good.
Hollister Gorgonton the Lich |
You are assuming a lot in that VOs just automatically have an extra hour to sign said boons.
What I am suggesting may take some time on the front end, but is a significant time saver for the remainder; plus, it encourages audits by simplifying the verification process. *No one* should grumble about producing a Product Verification boon - it is just a piece of paper. Given that grumbling is absurd over a piece of paper, *no one* should have a problem auditing their players either.
It is also optional for VO's - they do not have to do this. VO's are - by definition - a volunteer force. They may volunteer their time to sign off on Product Verification boons as they desire and in order to help their player base. Doing so is good for Paizo, and good for the players.
This plan can work.
Hollister Gorgonton the Lich |
How about you just take photos of all your books on your mobile device. Boom—proof.
I would agree with you - however, the powers above do not. They insist on players carrying weighty books around with them - for every single game. It doesn't matter if you were verified to own last week - you may have to verify again, and so you must lug those books around every single game you play.
This is silly, and it is why audits are rarely ever done. No GM wants to be a jerk. Simplify, improve the system, make it something that is reasonable - and you will improve the auditing system and thus increase the integrity of the society.
Andrew Christian |
Andrew Christian wrote:You are assuming a lot in that VOs just automatically have an extra hour to sign said boons.What I am suggesting may take some time on the front end, but is a significant time saver for the remainder; plus, it encourages audits by simplifying the verification process. *No one* should grumble about producing a Product Verification boon - it is just a piece of paper. Given that grumbling is absurd over a piece of paper, *no one* should have a problem auditing their players either.
It is also optional for VO's - they do not have to do this. VO's are - by definition - a volunteer force. They may volunteer their time to sign off on Product Verification boons as they desire and in order to help their player base. Doing so is good for Paizo, and good for the players.
This plan can work.
Just like the ITS sheet didn't produce any grumbling?
I am not a fan of creating something like this that will essentially require me to spend extra hours per week of my time that I could be spending prepping a scenario, GM'ing, or otherwise doing other VO duties.
The solution is quite simple. If you don't want to go digital, and you don't want to lug lots of books around, then don't make a character using lots of books.
Until I got my tablet a couple years ago, I used to lug all my books all over the place. And I survived quite fine.
I'd probably actually do better at losing the weight I want to lose if I stopped using my tablet and started carrying my books everywhere again.
Lormyr |
This plan can work.
A version of this idea has been discussed in the past, as well as other ideas. I to believe something along these lines can work, but the first (and most difficult from what I have witnessed) hurdle is to convince our leadership and VO's to even entertain the possibility of something along these things. Far more of them have voiced opinions against this general idea than for.
Andrew Christian |
Mazlith wrote:How about you just take photos of all your books on your mobile device. Boom—proof.
I would agree with you - however, the powers above do not. They insist on players carrying weighty books around with them - for every single game. It doesn't matter if you were verified to own last week - you may have to verify again, and so you must lug those books around every single game you play.
This is silly, and it is why audits are rarely ever done. No GM wants to be a jerk. Simplify, improve the system, make it something that is reasonable - and you will improve the auditing system and thus increase the integrity of the society.
The number of books you have really has absolutely nothing to do with auditing a character.
Auditing doesn't happen, for the same reason that VOs won't want to spend an hour signing a paper. Very often they don't have the time to do an audit at all. And if they don't have the time to audit, they aren't going to have the time to do an audit in order to sign this paper.
Hollister Gorgonton the Lich |
I am not a fan of creating something like this that will essentially require me to spend extra hours.
Optional. I said optional. Not required - optional. If you don't want to do it, then don't. I do not know how I can be clearer than 'optional'.
The solution is quite simple. If you don't want to go digital, and you don't want to lug lots of books around, then don't make a character using lots of books.
This is a terrible - even insulting - suggestion. If people paid for the books, then they have a right to use them. An even better 'simple' suggestion than yours is to not play games with GM's who are jerks.
Hollister Gorgonton the Lich |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I to believe something along these lines can work, but the first (and most difficult from what I have witnessed) hurdle is to convince our leadership and VO's to even entertain the possibility of something along these things.
Traditionally, people hate change. 'The rules are good enough for me; they should be good enough for you uppity kids!' seems to rule.
Personally, I think perfection comes from iterative improvements. This process can seriously be improved. As it is, it is a failure - audits are extremely rare and Paizo's interests are not being upheld. Sure - your lawful good VC type might do audits, but rank and file GM's never do, and the reason they do not is because they are currently unreasonable. This can be improved.
Andrew Christian |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Andrew Christian wrote:Optional. I said optional. Not required - optional. If you don't want to do it, then don't. I do not know how I can be clearer than 'optional'.
I am not a fan of creating something like this that will essentially require me to spend extra hours.
As a VO, I frankly wouldn't be doing my job if I chose to not give myself time to do this. Since you aren't a VO, then you likely don't know how much time an average VO already spends per week away from their family and other life loves and situations to help organize PFS for their community. Its quite bold to suggest adding more time to their schedule, when you don't know how much extra time they might actually have, or haven't personally experienced how much time it takes to be a VO.
I'm not complaining. I love what I do. But I don't think my wife (who participates in PFS with me--just not the same amount of time I participate) would appreciate me spending another 4 hours a week or so to do this.
But saying its optional is misrepresenting what you are suggesting. Because as a VO, I would feel obligated to do this for my community should it be offered up in the way that you've suggested. And while I can't speak for all the other VOs, I would wager that many of them would also feel obligated.
Andrew Christian wrote:This is a terrible - even insulting - suggestion. If people paid for the books, then they have a right to use them. An even better 'simple' suggestion than yours is to not play games with GM's who are jerks.
The solution is quite simple. If you don't want to go digital, and you don't want to lug lots of books around, then don't make a character using lots of books.
How is it insulting? If you buy the books and you want to use them, and you make the choice to refuse all the other options available to you, then you are the one choosing to lug all those books around with you.
That's your choice. That isn't Paizo making you do anything.
And if you don't want to lug all those books around, and you refuse to entertain all the other options you have, then the solution is simple. Don't use all those books.
How is a GM being a Jerk by requiring you to follow the rules?
For me personally, I've only ever disallowed something at the table twice.
1) PaizoCon 2012 a guy had his buddy show up with him and they played at my table. He helped his buddy build a character with Hero Labs, which had all the options toggled. He helped him choose some options and didn't have a full understanding of how something worked. They also did not print out the descriptions of the options or even what book those options were in. I was like, "I can't let you use this if you don't know what it actually does. I can't just take a guess at what it does and go with that." Eventually we found the book it was in, and it didn't even come close to doing what the guy said it did. I was willing to allow it, based on the circumstances (brand new player, Hero Labs having all the options toggled, we were at a con), but if I'd allowed it based on his guess of what he thought he remembered it did, It would have changed the game.
2) This last Sunday. I had a guy who's grasp of the rules is growing, but being a relatively new player to this particular version of the game, doesn't know them real well yet. So when his 7th level character who had 6 Wizard caster levels was throwing out a Fireball for 8d6+19 damage, I had to have him explain that to me. Apparently Crossblooded sorcerer (orc/red dragon) + pyromancer gnome + evoker + Varisian Spell Tattoo allowed him to do this. But I wanted to read the text of the various abilities myself. I already knew about the crossblooded shenanigans and I also have a pyromancer gnome myself, but I wanted to read Varisian Spell Tattoo. He didn't have the book with him. He didn't even have a printed out copy. I might have allowed him to get away with it just that one time if he'd had anything that told me what the ability did and warned him that the next time he'd need to have a legal source with him. Since he plays at my table quite often, and all the GMs, coordinators, and VOs in my area talk to one another, he wouldn't have been able to get away with that again. I had to deny him the Varisian Spell Tattoo. He wasn't 100% happy, but he didn't argue and he accepted it and we moved on and fun was had for the rest of the scenario.
A GM following the rules does not make them a Jerk. The jerk is the person who puts their GM in a position where they have to make a choice to follow the rules or let someone get away with not following the rules.
Lormyr |
Lormyr wrote:I to believe something along these lines can work, but the first (and most difficult from what I have witnessed) hurdle is to convince our leadership and VO's to even entertain the possibility of something along these things.Traditionally, people hate change. 'The rules are good enough for me; they should be good enough for you uppity kids!' seems to rule.
Personally, I think perfection comes from iterative improvements. This process can seriously be improved. As it is, it is a failure - audits are extremely rare and Paizo's interests are not being upheld. Sure - your lawful good VC type might do audits, but rank and file GM's never do, and the reason they do not is because they are currently unreasonable. This can be improved.
I personally do not audit for legal AR material unless something is being brought into play that I do not know the mechanics of and need to take a look at to make a call of some kind.
As far as my own AR, it greatly depends on the situation at present and my mood. Most often, I have a core group of friends I play with, and we are all aware of what we have. When we occasionally play at Cons or game days, sometimes we haul a huge amount of books with us so everything is kosher. Other times we show up with the bare essentials, and if something gets called into question that we chose not to bring, we just don't use it, or we politely excuse ourselves before game gets under way.
Hollister Gorgonton the Lich |
As a VO, I frankly wouldn't be doing my job if I chose to not give myself time to do this.
You don't sound like you want to be a VO, Andrew. Your primary complaint is that you don't have the time for it.
How is it insulting?
Because it is smug, arrogant, and dismissive of the actual problem. If you want to dismiss the problem, fine; but don't act surprised that no one does audits and Paizo's interests continue to not be upheld.
Andrew Christian |
Lormyr wrote:I to believe something along these lines can work, but the first (and most difficult from what I have witnessed) hurdle is to convince our leadership and VO's to even entertain the possibility of something along these things.Traditionally, people hate change. 'The rules are good enough for me; they should be good enough for you uppity kids!' seems to rule.
Personally, I think perfection comes from iterative improvements. This process can seriously be improved. As it is, it is a failure - audits are extremely rare and Paizo's interests are not being upheld. Sure - your lawful good VC type might do audits, but rank and file GM's never do, and the reason they do not is because they are currently unreasonable. This can be improved.
I'm not sure how your solution helps make sure audits happen.
Can you explain to me in a step-by-step way, how this helps make sure audits happen more often?
Andrew Christian |
Andrew Christian wrote:As a VO, I frankly wouldn't be doing my job if I chose to not give myself time to do this.You don't sound like you want to be a VO, Andrew. Your primary complaint is that you don't have the time for it.
Andrew Christian wrote:How is it insulting?Because it is smug, arrogant, and dismissive of the actual problem. If you want to dismiss the problem, fine; but don't act surprised that no one does audits and Paizo's interests continue to not be upheld.
Chuckle... I've been a VO for 3 years now. I wouldn't have accepted promotion to VC in July if I didn't have the time or didn't want to do it. Ask my wife if she thinks I spend more time on this game than she would prefer.
I just think its very presumptuous to start adding time to anyone's docket without actually knowing how much time they already spend within the framework of the game and its rules as it currently sits.
An extra hour for you may not be that much. But not everyone's time availability will be the same as yours.
And I'll ask again.
How does your idea help make sure audits happen? I am failing to see how your idea has anything to do with audits at all.
Acedio |
Unsure if it would promote more audits, but it would save the convention goers who like to purchase hard copies of books a lot of baggage!
Someone made a post a couple weeks ago about how they wanted to go to a con, but didn't want to take all of their physical books and didn't want to spend the money to get pdf versions. I sympathize.
I typically buy the PDFs because, like Andrew, I have a tablet which is incredibly convenient. For the hardbacks, I typically buy the physical copy and a PDF version. I like having the hardbacks for my bookshelf because they feel special, but it's impractical for me to carry them around to gameday (much less cons) so I get PDFs. I'm not overly fond of buying the same product twice, but I justify it as "paying for the convenience."
But not everybody can do that, or wants to do that.
The core of this suggestion is creating an alternate, easier mechanism to provide proof of purchase. I would like to think there's a good way to do this.
Nymeria |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mazlith wrote:How about you just take photos of all your books on your mobile device. Boom—proof.
I would agree with you - however, the powers above do not. They insist on players carrying weighty books around with them - for every single game. It doesn't matter if you were verified to own last week - you may have to verify again, and so you must lug those books around every single game you play.
The problem is that your system would prove ownership, but it fails at the second reason players are required to bring primary sources to the table: namely verification of the rules. How do I, as a GM, know that your interpretation of how something works is correct unless I can see the rules from the source myself? It's not my responsibility to own all the books you build your character from, it's yours. If you don't want to carry around all those books, limit yourself to building from less resources or get a mobile device with the pdfs.
Hollister Gorgonton the Lich |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you explain to me in a step-by-step way, how this helps make sure audits happen more often?
If you lessen the negative stigma of audits by simplifying the process, then you will see an increase in their occurrence.
The current system requires individuals carry in their books. Rank and file GM's know this is absurd, and therefore do not do audits. No one wants to be a jerk. I have never - and I mean never - seen an audit at my friendly local hobby store, and I game there most Sundays. Nor even one at a convention! I've been to the last five (I believe) conventions near LAX in California, played nearly every day of all of those, and did not see a single audit.
However, if something like a Product Confirmation boon were available, this 'jerk' status would be removed. Suddenly, there is an alternative to carrying in your books. It is reasonable to carry a piece of paper, therefore it is reasonable for someone to ask to see it. The stigma of an audit is less, and therefore GM's will feel more inclined to do them.
I wouldn't have accepted promotion to VC in July if I didn't have the time or didn't want to do it.
A VO is an individual who spends time to make the Pathfinder Society better (you do not need to be a VO to do this, but that's a side topic). Given this formal declaration of offering their time to improve the game, they should be willing to do so if an opportunity to make things better does arise. "I don't have time to do this thing that would make the Pathfinder Society better" is silly. Let's make time. Let's make this better. Let's be positive and constructive. The first step is to admit there is a problem.
And yes - while I kind of don't want to - I'd be willing to be a VL *just so* I could fill out the sheets for my friends at my FLHS. Or - why is the lowest rank a VL? Can't we make a 'Venture Sergeant'? Delegate the responsibility down the line if you must.
The core of this suggestion is creating an alternate, easier mechanism to provide proof of purchase. I would like to think there's a good way to do this.
Exactly! The current mechanism can be improved. I am surprised that some think things are truly fine as they are.
Acedio |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that your system would prove ownership, but it fails at the second reason players are required to bring primary sources to the table: namely verification of the rules.
This is absolutely correct! But now that you have proof of purchase, is there something wrong with providing a scanned page of the physical book? Or then using an online source?
My understanding of the current rules is that you can provide a printed page of the PDF document containing the rules you are using because the watermark with your name and email address provides proof of ownership.
If you have proof of ownership from another document, is the intention of the watermark constraint not satisfied?
Seems to me like it would be.
Edit: Sorry, I have this bad habit of editing stuff after I post it.
Hollister Gorgonton the Lich |
The problem is that establishing ownership is only half the reason. If you bust out some bizzare ability from Oozes I have known and loved the dm has to be able to see how it works.
The volume of my initial post perhaps hid the suggestion that players would still be required to bring some means to allow the GM to read the mechanics of the ability, to the satisfaction of the GM involved.
Hollister Gorgonton the Lich |
Nymeria wrote:The problem is that your system would prove ownership, but it fails at the second reason players are required to bring primary sources to the table: namely verification of the rules.Certainly. Is there something wrong with proving ownership, then providing a scanned page of the physical book? Or then using an online source?
I think both ideas are fine. I would say it is up to the GM, as in "to the satisfaction of the GM involved". I think both of your ideas would be fine with the majority of GM's.
Prethen |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would you guys mind if I step in here to say I applaud this idea?!
Thank you, Mr. Lich. Thank you.
This is a viable idea and I think it's great and a step towards helping many who have a gazillion books and are trying to keep with the spirit of legality with Paizo's organized rules.
THANK YOU!
[For the record, is this the first time a Paladin has been grateful to a Lich?]
Acedio |
Perhaps the OP's definition of audit is different than mine?
I'm still not seeing how this idea will help make audits happen.
I think he's talking about the part of the audit where you prove that you've bought all of the source books your build comes from.
EDIT: I've only been asked that when I try to do something jenky.
EDIT 2: I'd also like to mention that I sympathize with the concern that this may be time consuming for the VOs.
Andrew Christian |
Andrew Christian wrote:Can you explain to me in a step-by-step way, how this helps make sure audits happen more often?If you lessen the negative stigma of audits by simplifying the process, then you will see an increase in their occurrence.
The current system requires individuals carry in their books. Rank and file GM's know this is absurd, and therefore do not do audits. No one wants to be a jerk. I have never - and I mean never - seen an audit at my friendly local hobby store, and I game there most Sundays. Nor even one at a convention! I've been to the last five (I believe) conventions near LAX in California, played nearly every day of all of those, and did not see a single audit.
However, if something like a Product Confirmation boon were available, this 'jerk' status would be removed. Suddenly, there is an alternative to carrying in your books. It is reasonable to carry a piece of paper, therefore it is reasonable for someone to ask to see it. The stigma of an audit is less, and therefore GM's will feel more inclined to do them.
I asked you to explain why your idea would promote audits. I did so before explaining why I felt audits aren't done regularly.
The main reason I feel audits are not done, is because generally nobody has time to do them. They take several minutes up to maybe half an hour depending on the level and complexity of the character.
It literally has nothing to do with whether people have books with them or not.
I run 4 game days a month. I GM at almost all game days I coordinate (and if I don't GM and rarely get a chance to play, I still am at the game day for the entire 5+ hours). I try to get there early to make sure all the tables are set to go and get people into their tables efficiently and answer any questions that need answering.
To do an audit of even one character I would need 2 things to happen. I would need to get to the game day about 30 minutes earlier than normal (on my Tuesday game day, this is often not possible as I work a regular 9-5 job) and I would need the players to arrive 30 minutes early (often not possible for them either for the same reason).
And this extra time to audit their character has nothing to do with whether they have a character built on just the core rulebook or 20 different sources.
So can you please explain to me why your idea would cause audits to happen more often?
Andrew Christian |
Andrew Christian wrote:I wouldn't have accepted promotion to VC in July if I didn't have the time or didn't want to do it.A VO is an individual who spends time to make the Pathfinder Society better (you do not need to be a VO to do this, but that's a side topic). Given this formal declaration of offering their time to improve the game, they should be willing to do so if an opportunity to make things better does arise.
That's pretty much what I said, isn't it?
I also said that its awful presumptuous to impress extra time on other people when you haven't walked in their shoes.
Until you know how much time this volunteer job takes, please stop trying to add time to it.
Andrew Christian |
Andrew Christian wrote:Perhaps the OP's definition of audit is different than mine?
I'm still not seeing how this idea will help make audits happen.
I think he's talking about the part of the audit where you prove that you've bought all of the source books your build comes from.
EDIT: I've only been asked that when I try to do something jenky.
EDIT 2: I'd also like to mention that I sympathize with the concern that this may be time consuming for the VOs.
So he's not really talking about an audit?
He's talking simply about verifying that players have their sources?
Frankly, I don't do this because I like to assume everyone is being honest unless they prove otherwise.
It has nothing to do with whether they bring bags of books or not.
But if I ask for how something works, and you can't provide me the source, and you don't have the book with you... then I gotta disallow you the use of it.
Acedio |
But if I ask for how something works, and you can't provide me the source, and you don't have the book with you... then I gotta disallow you the use of it.
Right. As far as I understand, the reason we can't use online sources (such as archives of nethys and the paizo prd) is because that doesn't prove proof of ownership of those documents. This would allow someone to present you with those online documents, while also proving to you that they own these books, without having to have them with them at all times.
Andrew Christian |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Andrew Christian wrote:But if I ask for how something works, and you can't provide me the source, and you don't have the book with you... then I gotta disallow you the use of it.Right. As far as I understand, the reason we can't use online sources (such as archives of nethys and the paizo prd) is because that doesn't prove proof of ownership of those documents. This would allow someone to present you with those online documents, while also proving to you that they own these books, without having to have them with them at all times.
On the surface of it, I have no problem with coming up with a reasonable idea that allows people to show proof of ownership while also being willing to bring the actual rule to the table.
I just take umbrage with someone adding time to my day that I don't have, simply because its "voluntary" but "as a VO I should be willing to do it."
Paz |
I always thought that part of the reason the PDFs of the hardcovers were so ridiculously cheap ($10 for several hundred full-colour pages! Madness!) was to make it economical for people to buy both formats separately to get the advantages of both, e.g. the book from Amazon and the PDF from Paizo, rather than forcing them to get the subscription (sometimes uneconomical due to high shipping costs for such heavy books). Certainly that's the way I've been doing it.
Also, this plan doesn't take into account players who don't have a VO in their town/county/region/country.
Hollister Gorgonton the Lich |
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.
powell01 |
As someone who also spends a lot of time organising events as a VO, which is completely volountary, I would like to find a way to make it better. Personally I agree with Andrew though.
I used to carry a suitcase of rule books to every con and games day in previous organised play systems. I am absolutley glad that Paizo gives us the PDF format and as a result I can carry more flipmats, handouts ect to events. Also adding more time to VO's schedule, when it is already limited would possibly cause a drop in volunteer numbers which is a detriment to the Society as a whole.
For those that wonder how much time a VO puts in.
Our major local con is on in 2 weeks. I have spent most of the last four weekends either prepping scenarios to run as slot zero's, running them or playing in the slot zero. Just setting up the con schedule, which is likely to change to accomodate interstate players travelling in took about 3 hours. I am looking at spending most of this weekend printing maps and handouts for my GM's. All of this is on top of the normal scheduling for games days and GM/Player wrangling that normally occurs.
Just my two cents
BigNorseWolf |
BigNorseWolf wrote:The problem is that establishing ownership is only half the reason. If you bust out some bizzare ability from Oozes I have known and loved the dm has to be able to see how it works.The volume of my initial post perhaps hid the suggestion that players would still be required to bring some means to allow the GM to read the mechanics of the ability, to the satisfaction of the GM involved.
I saw that in your rambling yes, but you don't have any provided mechanism. You're not allowed to photo copy books and if you have a PDF you don't have a problem.
sanwah68 Venture-Captain, Australia—NSW—Greater West |
I personally think this could be a great idea, it may need some tweaking.
One big gap is some details around the mechanics of an ability for the DM to read. But to me, the advantage is that it could allow for photocopies of the ability from the book to be used. I don't think that I would like to allow the online sources (with exception, maybe, of the PFSRD), as they have the potential for errors. And printouts from an online source could be deliberately tampered with.
What do people feel about adding non-VO-DMs to the pool of potential authorisers?? After all, they are allowed to sign Chronicle Sheets.
Hollister Gorgonton the Lich |
You're not allowed to photo copy books
That's a strange thing to say. Of course you're allowed to photo copy the page of a book. It's the point of whether that's acceptable to demonstrate the mechanic involved that is the question.
At the games I attend, anything that needs be looked up is generally done by the GM using their Android (or similar mobile device). If they do not have one, typically a player provides one.
I thought the only reason you couldn't photocopy books is because it doesn't prove ownership of the book. If you can prove that you own a copy of the book, isn't it a non-issue?
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.
[For the record, is this the first time a Paladin has been grateful to a Lich?]
If I could just get you to put these four little letters in front of your class name, then I might just be able to make you the General of my army in the upcoming coup. [a...n...t...i...]
Jeff Merola |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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:
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).
Alex McGuire |
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.