Finding solution for "Alternate Means of showing ownership of materials."


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 230 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

It could also be on the wishlist of changes that his replacement may have in mind.

I wouldn't expect too many policy changes from Mike Brock before his departure next month. Plus, with GenCon coming up, I'm sure he's busy anyways.

It'd just be easier for a new Campaign Coordinator to take over and implement new changes then and there, especially with the beginning of Season 7 and the release of the new Guide (which, who knows, may already have something about this in it).

Liberty's Edge 3/5 5/5 **** Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

Seth,

Thank you for the support and information.

Maybe you know some other VOs would be willing to drop by and offer their opinion? :)

4/5 ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hi Gary.

I don't like it.

From what I can tell your proposal is to allow photocopies if they have been checked and signed off on.

Story Time

One of the things that surprised me most about being a VC was that I lost all my in between slots free time.

Whenever I'm around before or after or in between slots people always have quick questions for me. It's their chance to talk with me and suggest a new venue or a better way to do a bit of organization or just ask about organized play rules etc. It also lets me ask them casually how things are going, who's new and awesome, what we can do to make their game even better.

This time is important for community building/engagement. Knowing and being friendly with PFS players/gms/organizers in the area is a huge part of my job.

I don't have the time to give it up and instead read/sign off on people's photocopies.

Grand Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a VO, my job is not to verify your book purchases. I have a multitude of other things to do as Pirate Rob mentioned.

This thread is the same as the last bunch of threads that Nefreet posted campaign leaderships responses too.

There are solutions, you don't like them. From the previous threads it seems that most of the Venture Officers that have chosen to chime in are also supportive of the current rulings.

To sum it up, I do not want to be the Paizo book police.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There was a thread about paying for more content to try to raise the amount of money PFS generated for Paizo in order to possibly increase staff to handle increasing scenario output.

I had recommended having some sort of opt-in program similar to what RPGA did where players could have some sort of paid PFS membership that would provide some sort of non-mechanical benefit. Having some sort of way to vet actual book purchases would be worth the $ to me to be able to use photocopies rather than having to haul around crazy amounts of physical product. From what I understand this might actually help Paizo since physical, rather than .pdf, product is a main part of their financial strategy (see the many many posts by Vic about why there is no .pdf subscription plan) and continue to support PFS as their main tool for marketing at the same time.

I'm not sure what specific form it would take, but might be an alternative to "have VO's sign off" (especially as there are hundreds of VO's out there and it's doubtful a VO from CA would recognize the signature of a VO from GA).

-TimD

Sovereign Court 4/5 ** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Southwest

So apparently the California VO team is commenting here, I guess I will as well.

There seems to be this disconnect where people assume that VOs don't really do anything. I say this as someone who's made that same mistake. I recently took over the VC position from Robyn Nixon (I was a VL before and knew that job was a lot of work) and I've been floored at the level of additional work that has cropped up.

Asking me to now start verifying people's books? That's just not going to work. I spend about 10-12 hours a week doing PFS stuff - not playing or GM prep mind you, but planning, scheduling, writing emails, meeting store owners, corraling kittens for new locations, printing fliers, going to meetings for conventions (we have 3 a year here in LA and I stupidly decided I wanted to add 2 more).

That's just the things I do BEFORE landing at an event. Once there - even if it is NOT my event - I'm still in high demand for questions about society. So I'm always in a "No" position when people start suggesting that VOs or GMs take on MORE tasks. That's a non-starter for me.

Switching gears a little bit, I've noticed a lot of people talking about buying books supports the FLGS. To be honest, the stores that have closed in my area have ALL made the crucial mistake of focusing on book sales. The War House in Long Beach is my home store. They are the longest running game shop in Los Angeles county (and according to the OC Register in Southern California, I don't know that they did their due diligence on that one though). They do carry PFS books, specifically you can always get the Core Rulebook and the APG. But when new books come out, they only have maybe 2 or 3.

Basically, they know, when the Pathfinder crew comes in, we're not really there to buy books. We buy lots of HeroClix, Magic the Gathering, Warhammer, miniatures, paints, dice... and yes, when a new book comes out we have a few hardcore peeps who like a physical copy and will pick one up (my brother is the big one there). Every store I talk to always starts by saying they'll buy a bunch of Pathfinder stuff and I always tell them, no, don't do that. Keep the CRB in stock and the core stuffs but otherwise focus on the stuff that sells for you already. We buy that stuff too.

I don't really thinks this hurts Paizo because A.) We seat 2-3 tables every Sunday and another table Monday and then one on Friday. People come in and want to know what we're doing and that's how we get new PFS players who then pick up the books either PDF or physical. And B.) Everyone still buys the books from them (I'm a bit of a stickler on ownership). The difference is, all the other stuff we need, we get that from our FLGS.

I'll give another example. We added a second store on Sundays earlier this year. This has helped thin the herd a bit at the War House. The other store: The Guild House (yes, that DOES get confusing) focuses on boardgames. They sell basically every board game you can think of. They stock I think just the CRB for Pathfinder. They love us because we come through and buy board games. I spend about $50 every time I'm in there because they have some new game they're telling me about.

This concept that the genre will die if we stop buying books needs to stop. This isn't the case at all. I used to run the local Games Workshop and we KNEW that books were NOT the bread and butter. Any GW store that tries to survive off selling books fails. The bread and butter are the miniatures, tools, paints, novels. All the things AROUND the books. Those are the things you make money on. The same applies for Pathfinder.

Our group can't buy enough of the Pathfinder Battles boxes. The War House literally cannot keep them in stock. One of us comes in and buys their lot regularly. And pretty much every store in my area that is successful is the same way. They have very few books but lots of everything else.

1/5

Gary - here is a suggestion for your push.

Drop the 'VO' requirement; instead, allow any GM to sign off on the document. GM's already have established importance in PFS, as they sign off on Chronicle Sheets already, which is of HUGE importance and is a task that already demands integrity. Given that they already have this critical responsibility, allowing them to sign off on some form of product verification seems reasonable (imho).

Doing this will bypass the issue of VO's understandably feeling overburdened and not wanting to take on a new task, while also tucking the responsibility in a reasonable place - with the GM's themselves.

It should also always be an 'optional' thing for a GM to do, so that any GM who is feeling overburdened does not feel a mandatory obligation.

Good luck!


TimD wrote:

There was a thread about paying for more content to try to raise the amount of money PFS generated for Paizo in order to possibly increase staff to handle increasing scenario output.

I had recommended having some sort of opt-in program similar to what RPGA did where players could have some sort of paid PFS membership that would provide some sort of non-mechanical benefit. Having some sort of way to vet actual book purchases would be worth the $ to me to be able to use photocopies rather than having to haul around crazy amounts of physical product. From what I understand this might actually help Paizo since physical, rather than .pdf, product is a main part of their financial strategy (see the many many posts by Vic about why there is no .pdf subscription plan) and continue to support PFS as their main tool for marketing at the same time.

I'm not sure what specific form it would take, but might be an alternative to "have VO's sign off" (especially as there are hundreds of VO's out there and it's doubtful a VO from CA would recognize the signature of a VO from GA).

-TimD

I would pay for this.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Tabletop Giant wrote:


It should also always be an 'optional' thing for a GM to do, so that any GM who is feeling overburdened does not feel a mandatory obligation.

Good luck!

As much as I want to avoid looking like a pack mule tommorow, VOs ARE going to feel obligated to do this when people ask, and probably get people angry if they refuse.

Scarab Sages 3/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Thefurmonger wrote:
TimD wrote:

There was a thread about paying for more content to try to raise the amount of money PFS generated for Paizo in order to possibly increase staff to handle increasing scenario output.

I had recommended having some sort of opt-in program similar to what RPGA did where players could have some sort of paid PFS membership that would provide some sort of non-mechanical benefit. Having some sort of way to vet actual book purchases would be worth the $ to me to be able to use photocopies rather than having to haul around crazy amounts of physical product. From what I understand this might actually help Paizo since physical, rather than .pdf, product is a main part of their financial strategy (see the many many posts by Vic about why there is no .pdf subscription plan) and continue to support PFS as their main tool for marketing at the same time.

I'm not sure what specific form it would take, but might be an alternative to "have VO's sign off" (especially as there are hundreds of VO's out there and it's doubtful a VO from CA would recognize the signature of a VO from GA).

-TimD

I would pay for this.

There already is a voluntary opt-in program to pay extra to avoid carrying books to PFS. They're called PDFs and don't even require the VOs or GMs to do any extra work.

Silver Crusade Venture-Agent, Florida–Altamonte Springs

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seth Gipson wrote:

Posting here is as good a way as any. I would imagine Mike will likely have seen this thread already, and there have been times when there is enough support for something that he will change his stance and the rule.

That is not to say that will be the case here, but who knows.

Mike has seen this thread. Also, Nefreet has restated Mike's stance from the post of the month lists. Personally, I don't want to burden anyone else with this. I also know people who would GM to sign off on their own sheets, or if someone else presented it to them they would just sign off and hand wave being shown the book. I for one have all the books I use in PDF form on a laptop, I also bring the hard copies when I go anywhere because I like books. As a GM if I have a choice between a pdf of the bestiary, the prd, a bestiary ap on my phone, or the book the book wins every time. I say this even though at my FLGS I have access to all the above.

3/5

Duiker wrote:
There already is a voluntary opt-in program to pay extra to avoid carrying books to PFS. They're called PDFs and don't even require the VOs or GMs to do any extra work.

Not a solution, unless you're volunteering to buy me a .pdf of every book I own and offering print services for all of them in perpetuity or a tablet to use them with.

Duiker wrote:
TimD wrote:

an alternative to "have VO's sign off" (especially as there are hundreds of VO's out there and it's doubtful a VO from CA would recognize the signature of a VO from GA).

-TimD

and don't even require the VOs or GMs to do any extra work.

You're not even reading before you post, are you?

We'll try this once more...
Paizo does not support .pdf only. They consider print crucial to their business model.
PFS is (ostensibly) Paizo's primary / most successful marketing device. It does not currently support folks who just want books, but find the weight / space limit of hauling around all of the books cumbersome.
Some of us don't have the option to buy all of our books twice (once in print, once in .pdf).
Therefore, we are seeking a PFS solution to hauling around having 50+lbs of books we have purchased to support Paizo / PFS. (Especially as PFS is the ONLY reason I've bought most of the Paizo books I own and I doubt I'm alone in that cateogry).

I get that VO's have a lot on their plate.
I get that .pdfs are a great solution for some folks.
Please understand .pdfs are not a solution for all folks.

-TimD


Have you thought of it as a workout :-) every time you haul those 50 lbs of books you're bulking up, without having to pay a stupid gym membership :-)

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Have you thought of it as a workout :-) every time you haul those 50 lbs of books you're bulking up, without having to pay a stupid gym membership :-)

Heh, nice. :)

One of the GMs in the area tells me they can hear my spine decompressing when I set down the bag.

It's more of an issue if I want to go to a con where space is at a premium, a 50+lb book bag is a tripping hazard, and I have a good chance of giving small children a concussion if they run into it while I'm taking a corner.
At this point, I just don't go to cons or if I do, I don't play there except with people I know so that I don't have to worry about the drama. I would like to have a solution that doesn't involve me needing to make yet more characters or playing CORE.

-TimD

Liberty's Edge 3/5 5/5 **** Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

Robert Hetherington wrote:

Hi Gary.

I don't like it.

From what I can tell your proposal is to allow photocopies if they have been checked and signed off on.

Story Time

One of the things that surprised me most about being a VC was that I lost all my in between slots free time.

Whenever I'm around before or after or in between slots people always have quick questions for me. It's their chance to talk with me and suggest a new venue or a better way to do a bit of organization or just ask about organized play rules etc. It also lets me ask them casually how things are going, who's new and awesome, what we can do to make their game even better.

This time is important for community building/engagement. Knowing and being friendly with PFS players/gms/organizers in the area is a huge part of my job.

I don't have the time to give it up and instead read/sign off on people's photocopies.

Robert,

Thank you for your insight. I have seen how my local VOs interact with the players and GMs so to help with "oh great, something more that I have to do" situation my proposal includes allowing high star GMs to also sign off on the Resource Tracking Sheet. I have not offered a definition to what a "high star GM" is but I think it would be safe to say that 4 or 5 stars is a high star GM.

Additionally, if this alternative was adopted, I can see an initial rush from players to get their sheets completed. But after that, I don't think there would be "a lot" players needing updates in a short period of time.

Thank you again!

Liberty's Edge 3/5 5/5 **** Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

Michael Thompson wrote:

As a VO, my job is not to verify your book purchases. I have a multitude of other things to do as Pirate Rob mentioned.

This thread is the same as the last bunch of threads that Nefreet posted campaign leaderships responses too.

There are solutions, you don't like them. From the previous threads it seems that most of the Venture Officers that have chosen to chime in are also supportive of the current rulings.

To sum it up, I do not want to be the Paizo book police.

Michael,

My proposal is to try and find a middle ground, not to make VOs into "book police". It appears that duty is already on GMs. My proposal is to try and balance stated needs of GMs have the resources they need to rule on a player's character against the real weight problems players are having.

I see my proposal as being different than the previous discussions provided by Nefreet because I have included a method of verifying the physical ownership of the resources. Up until that verification my proposal does not relieve the players from meeting all the current resource requirements.

Thank you for adding to the discussion.

4/5 *

Former V-C posting...

I also don't like the proposal that V-Os be required to sign off and that gets a free pass forever. The reason is, to really do the job properly, you pretty much have to audit the character and make sure they have all the resources for their character. If I put my signature on something, I'm going to make sure it's correct. If V-O's are just trusting players to have the stuff and then signing off, then what's the point of the signature?

I guess the issue is really one of a convenience for players, versus the actual point of the PFS as far as Paizo is concerned, which is largely to sell product. If you really can't (not "would rather not", not "won't", but "can't") carry books to a convention, you still have options: play characters with fewer books required, buy PDFs for only the heavy stuff, etc.

Again, players abusing the leniency is what got the rule changed to what it currently is. There are far too many players who feel that it is fine for them to pull stolen PDFs or free versions of rules, play all they want and never give Paizo a dime. ANY system that allows photocopies of non-watermarked pages allows for this (one could say encourages this). That is the problem. If the choice is between Paizo losing money so that it scales back PFS, and some players having to buy PDFs or carry stuff, it should be clear which is the lesser of two evils.

4/5 *

Gary Bush wrote:
My proposal is to try and find a middle ground, not to make VOs into "book police". It appears that duty is already on GMs.

Interesting point here - in actual fact, the issue is largely ignored by many GMs. I can count on one hand the number of GMs I know who check this before every game. So in fact, the status quo is that players can not have the books with them and probably get away with it. This should make it in Paizo's interest to endorse a solution that makes compliance easier to ensure.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 5/5 **** Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

TimD wrote:

There was a thread about paying for more content to try to raise the amount of money PFS generated for Paizo in order to possibly increase staff to handle increasing scenario output.

I had recommended having some sort of opt-in program similar to what RPGA did where players could have some sort of paid PFS membership that would provide some sort of non-mechanical benefit. Having some sort of way to vet actual book purchases would be worth the $ to me to be able to use photocopies rather than having to haul around crazy amounts of physical product. From what I understand this might actually help Paizo since physical, rather than .pdf, product is a main part of their financial strategy (see the many many posts by Vic about why there is no .pdf subscription plan) and continue to support PFS as their main tool for marketing at the same time.

I'm not sure what specific form it would take, but might be an alternative to "have VO's sign off" (especially as there are hundreds of VO's out there and it's doubtful a VO from CA would recognize the signature of a VO from GA).

-TimD

Tim,

Thank you adding to this discussion. I think your suggest does have merit. Maybe my proposal can be seen as a steeping stone by Paizo to implementing a process similar to what you outlined.

And the signature issue is a problem in my proposal. But that could be a problem now with chronicle sheets. I think that is why the GM has to include their number on the sheet. I believe VOs have a similar number and is easily verified if someone suspects a player is trying to pull a fast one.


GM Lamplighter wrote:

Former V-C posting...

I also don't like the proposal that V-Os be required to sign off and that gets a free pass forever. The reason is, to really do the job properly, you pretty much have to audit the character and make sure they have all the resources for their character. If I put my signature on something, I'm going to make sure it's correct. If V-O's are just trusting players to have the stuff and then signing off, then what's the point of the signature?

The VO wouldn't be auditing the character, just the books. The GM at a given table then checks the character against the list as needed. The list is for all the resources owned by the player, used at the table to verify he actually owns any given book he's using for a particular character.

4/5 *

thejeff wrote:
The VO wouldn't be auditing the character, just the books. The GM at a given table then checks the character against the list as needed. The list is for all the resources owned by the player, used at the table to verify he actually owns any given book he's using for a particular character.

Who makes the list? Or do I have to know what feats come from which books by heart? I need to look at the PC sheet, look at all the non-core options, find what book they're in, and make sure they have the book. Otherwise, i'm just assuming the player has done it all correctly and rubber-stamping it.

A system that is based on trusting the player to be honest and accurate about what books they need, doesn't need the additional complication of a signature.


GM Lamplighter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The VO wouldn't be auditing the character, just the books. The GM at a given table then checks the character against the list as needed. The list is for all the resources owned by the player, used at the table to verify he actually owns any given book he's using for a particular character.

Who makes the list? Or do I have to know what feats come from which books by heart? I need to look at the PC sheet, look at all the non-core options, find what book they're in, and make sure they have the book. Otherwise, i'm just assuming the player has done it all correctly and rubber-stamping it.

A system that is based on trusting the player to be honest and accurate about what books they need, doesn't need the additional complication of a signature.

Who? At the table or when signing the list?

When signing the list, you don't care. You just say, "Yes, he's showed me these books." It's not a list of books for a particular character. It's a list of books the player owns.

At the table, the player still needs something to reference each non-core option - whether that's a real book, a pdf, a photocopied page or even an online source - you still need the text of the option available. That source, the photocopied page for example, is used to figure out which book it's from and then you check to see if that's on the list. It's not really any different for the GM. It's just that the player doesn't have to show up with the giant stack of books.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 5/5 **** Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

Jon-Enee Merriex wrote:

So apparently the California VO team is commenting here, I guess I will as well.

There seems to be this disconnect where people assume that VOs don't really do anything. I say this as someone who's made that same mistake. I recently took over the VC position from Robyn Nixon (I was a VL before and knew that job was a lot of work) and I've been floored at the level of additional work that has cropped up.

Asking me to now start verifying people's books? That's just not going to work. I spend about 10-12 hours a week doing PFS stuff - not playing or GM prep mind you, but planning, scheduling, writing emails, meeting store owners, corraling kittens for new locations, printing fliers, going to meetings for conventions (we have 3 a year here in LA and I stupidly decided I wanted to add 2 more).

That's just the things I do BEFORE landing at an event. Once there - even if it is NOT my event - I'm still in high demand for questions about society. So I'm always in a "No" position when people start suggesting that VOs or GMs take on MORE tasks. That's a non-starter for me.

Jon-Enee,

Thank you for providing your insight to the life of a VO. I have never made the assumption that VOs are not busy but I don't think that comment was directed at me.

VOs time is important. Since my proposal is an alternative, not a complete rewrite, I don't see it as unreasonable to put limits to when players can get a Resource Tracking Sheet signed off on. And until that sheet is signed, the player still would need to have the book on hand.

And I yes, I acknowledge that my proposal is extra work for VOs, GMs and players. My suggestion actually puts more work on players if they choose to use the alternative. The player, after getting the resource sheet signed, has to then make copies and/or printouts of all the support resources because those would be required to have on hand. And if they add new resources they have to carry that until an update resource sheet and be signed.

Just to clarify, my proposal would not allow players to come to a game with just a character sheet and a signed Resource Tracking Sheet. The information from the resource is still needed by the player.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TimD wrote:
It's more of an issue if I want to go to a con where space is at a premium, a 50+lb book bag is a tripping hazard

I usually load up a file crate of my books when I head to Cons as well. It probably weighs at least 50lbs. I own just a handful of PDFs, and I think only one is of a hardback. But I never bring that file crate inside the Convention.

Most of my characters don't need 50lbs of books. They need maybe a couple hardbacks and a couple splatbooks. And since I'm only playing one character per slot, I just grab the books I need for that character and leave the rest in my trunk.

If it looks like one of my characters requires a lot of books, a quick audit usually reveals I'm only using a source for consumables. My Kineticist, for example, only needs the APG because I bought her a couple Antiplagues. Next time I go to a Con with her, I'll probably leave my APG in the car. If I encounter a GM that audits every character at the table (has only happened a few times), then darn, I'm out a +5 bonus vs Disease. Oh well.

I agree you shouldn't be lugging around 50lbs of books. I don't see why you have to. Rarely do I ever encounter anyone who does. And I go to Conventions somewhat regularly.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 5/5 **** Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

GM Lamplighter wrote:

Former V-C posting...

I also don't like the proposal that V-Os be required to sign off and that gets a free pass forever. The reason is, to really do the job properly, you pretty much have to audit the character and make sure they have all the resources for their character. If I put my signature on something, I'm going to make sure it's correct. If V-O's are just trusting players to have the stuff and then signing off, then what's the point of the signature?

I guess the issue is really one of a convenience for players, versus the actual point of the PFS as far as Paizo is concerned, which is largely to sell product. If you really can't (not "would rather not", not "won't", but "can't") carry books to a convention, you still have options: play characters with fewer books required, buy PDFs for only the heavy stuff, etc.

Again, players abusing the leniency is what got the rule changed to what it currently is. There are far too many players who feel that it is fine for them to pull stolen PDFs or free versions of rules, play all they want and never give Paizo a dime. ANY system that allows photocopies of non-watermarked pages allows for this (one could say encourages this). That is the problem. If the choice is between Paizo losing money so that it scales back PFS, and some players having to buy PDFs or carry stuff, it should be clear which is the lesser of two evils.

Lamplighter,

Thank you for joining the discussion. I have seen you post a lot on the forums so I, for one, value your input.

To your comment about "a free pass forever", my proposal, point 2, includes a provision for the Resource Tracking Sheet to be updated/reviewed on a regular interval. To me this means having all original resources available to verify ownership. I suggest annually but it could be shorter.

To your second point, I don't see how my proposal would have a negative impact on the sale of product by Paizo. A player must still OWN the resource. All the Resource Tracking Sheet is intended to do is make it easier for the players to show ownership and to carry those already owned resources around.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 5/5 **** Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

GM Lamplighter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The VO wouldn't be auditing the character, just the books. The GM at a given table then checks the character against the list as needed. The list is for all the resources owned by the player, used at the table to verify he actually owns any given book he's using for a particular character.

Who makes the list? Or do I have to know what feats come from which books by heart? I need to look at the PC sheet, look at all the non-core options, find what book they're in, and make sure they have the book. Otherwise, i'm just assuming the player has done it all correctly and rubber-stamping it.

A system that is based on trusting the player to be honest and accurate about what books they need, doesn't need the additional complication of a signature.

This is the point I am trying to address and make. Maybe a glimmer of support here? :)

As a "high star GM" how do you feel about being able to verify and sign a Resource Tracking Sheet?

Scarab Sages 3/5

TimD wrote:
Duiker wrote:
There already is a voluntary opt-in program to pay extra to avoid carrying books to PFS. They're called PDFs and don't even require the VOs or GMs to do any extra work.

Not a solution, unless you're volunteering to buy me a .pdf of every book I own and offering print services for all of them in perpetuity or a tablet to use them with.

Duiker wrote:
TimD wrote:

an alternative to "have VO's sign off" (especially as there are hundreds of VO's out there and it's doubtful a VO from CA would recognize the signature of a VO from GA).

-TimD

and don't even require the VOs or GMs to do any extra work.

You're not even reading before you post, are you?

We'll try this once more...
Paizo does not support .pdf only. They consider print crucial to their business model.
PFS is (ostensibly) Paizo's primary / most successful marketing device. It does not currently support folks who just want books, but find the weight / space limit of hauling around all of the books cumbersome.
Some of us don't have the option to buy all of our books twice (once in print, once in .pdf).
Therefore, we are seeking a PFS solution to hauling around having 50+lbs of books we have purchased to support Paizo / PFS. (Especially as PFS is the ONLY reason I've bought most of the Paizo books I own and I doubt I'm alone in that cateogry).

I get that VO's have a lot on their plate.
I get that .pdfs are a great solution for some folks.
Please understand .pdfs are not a solution for all folks.

-TimD

You said that you were willing to pay Paizo extra in order to not carry your books around. I pointed out that all you have to do is pay Paizo extra for the PDFs of the books you already have. Now you don't have to carry the books.

The fact that Paizo's core business isn't based on selling PDFs or the fact that you're not willing to pay $10 per book on top of your existing books is irrelevant to the conversation. You want to pay extra to not carry books, here is how you pay extra to do exactly that.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

Gary Bush wrote:
As a "high star GM" how do you feel about being able to verify and sign a Resource Tracking Sheet?

As a (soon to be 5-star) GM, my initial reaction is that I'd be fine signing off on such a Tracking Sheet. But when you really imagine the nitty gritty of it, it could become an annoying nightmare.

(this post will assume all players and GMs are honest and legitimately own/legitimately signoff on these sources, which is a different discussion)

I have 30 characters. Most average 4-6 sources each, though some are 10+ (usually due to having consumables). Bringing all of those characters at once to get signed off is going to take an hour or more. So, the reasonable thing to do would be to signoff the one I'm playing that day. But that's still just me. Everyone else at the table will be needing the same attention. That's going to eat up table time.

And that also means I'm bringing my books for the next 30 sessions, which really isn't an improvement if I've been doing that already. Plus, every time I buy a new "thing" from another sourcebook that means another audit.

That amount of time and work adds up.

Plus, that's another piece of paper that's required. You probably weren't around when the ITS was rolled out as a requirement, but I fought it tooth and nail for months (and I wasn't alone at the time). Although I eventually grew to love it, it serves a practical purpose during the game (streamlining use of items).

A resource tracking sheet would just be another piece of paper.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 5/5 **** Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

GM Lamplighter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The VO wouldn't be auditing the character, just the books. The GM at a given table then checks the character against the list as needed. The list is for all the resources owned by the player, used at the table to verify he actually owns any given book he's using for a particular character.

Who makes the list? Or do I have to know what feats come from which books by heart? I need to look at the PC sheet, look at all the non-core options, find what book they're in, and make sure they have the book. Otherwise, i'm just assuming the player has done it all correctly and rubber-stamping it.

A system that is based on trusting the player to be honest and accurate about what books they need, doesn't need the additional complication of a signature.

Here is a good opportunity to show my proposal. It is modified a little from my original post at the beginning of the thread but that is because of the discussion we have had.

My proposal:

[1] VOs and high stars GM would have the ability to "sign off" on the resources that a player can prove ownership. This form would be known as a Resource Tracking Sheet. This means having the book in hand or be able to show a PDF with proper watermark. Books would need to be signed, in ink, on the inside cover for all owners of the resource. This is intended to cover the household rule.
[2] This form would have to be updated on a regular basis. I suggest annually but could be updated more often.
[3] If the player purchases a new resource than they would have to bring the book or PDF printout with them until they can get their Resource Tracking Sheet properly updated.
[4] A Player would need to bring photocopies of the complete pages in the book related to their character. Failure to bring a photocopy would be the same as not owning the resource. This would allow a GM to audit the character and have the resources needed to do that audit. The Resource Tracking Sheet is needed to verify the physical ownership of the resource.

To clarify, the Resource Tracking Sheet is for the player show ALL resources owned, not just the resources being used for a specific character. It is still up to player to have the COMPLETE resource for the GM. A photocopy of the page(s) of the book would be needed. Otherwise something could be different.

My proposal does not allow a player to use PRD or some other source of information. My proposal would REQUIRE a photocopy of the page(s) of the book. That way a GM and see the actual page, not some cut and paste.

My proposal places the duty to prepare a Resource Tracking Sheet on the player and also requires the player to have a COMPLETE copy of the needed page(s) for the GM.


Nefreet wrote:
Gary Bush wrote:
As a "high star GM" how do you feel about being able to verify and sign a Resource Tracking Sheet?

As a (soon to be 5-star) GM, my initial reaction is that I'd be fine signing off on such a Tracking Sheet. But when you really imagine the nitty gritty of it, it could become an annoying nightmare.

(this post will assume all players and GMs are honest and legitimately own/legitimately signoff on these sources)

I have 30 characters. Most average 4-6 sources each, though some are 10+ (usually due to having consumables). Bringing all of those characters at once to get signed off is going to take an hour or more. So, the reasonable thing to do would be to signoff the one I'm playing that day. But that's still just me. Everyone else at the table will be needing the same attention. That's going to eat up table time.

And that also means I'm bringing my books for the next 30 sessions, which really isn't an improvement if I've been doing that already. Plus, every time I buy a new "thing" from another sourcebook that means another audit.

That amount of time and work adds up.

Plus, that's another piece of paper that's required. You probably weren't around when the ITS was rolled out as a requirement, but I fought it tooth and nail for months (and I wasn't alone at the time). Although I eventually grew to love it, it serves a practical purpose during the game (streamlining use of items).

A resource tracking sheet would just be another piece of paper.

Again, as Gary repeats in more detail, it's one list per player. Not one per character. Bring all the books once, get them signed off on, then don't bring them any more, just the photocopies of the bits each character needs.

No audits, or no more than usual. You'll need to update it when you get more books (Or more than you want to carry around), not everytime you update a character.

I'm not even a big proponent of this proposal, but if you're going to argue against it, it's nice to actually be arguing against the actual proposal.

3/5

So to find a similar metric to what was suggested: to those that have already suffered the onerous duty of doing this for Pathfinder Tales Chronicle Sheets (ie novels that a GM is required to sign off on showing proof of ownership), how much of your time is regularly wasted on this?

[edited to remove response that was more inflammatory than intended]

-TimD

Liberty's Edge 3/5 5/5 **** Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

Nefreet wrote:
Gary Bush wrote:
As a "high star GM" how do you feel about being able to verify and sign a Resource Tracking Sheet?

As a (soon to be 5-star) GM, my initial reaction is that I'd be fine signing off on such a Tracking Sheet. But when you really imagine the nitty gritty of it, it could become an annoying nightmare.

(this post will assume all players and GMs are honest and legitimately own/legitimately signoff on these sources)

I have 30 characters. Most average 4-6 sources each, though some are 10+ (usually due to having consumables). Bringing all of those characters at once to get signed off is going to take an hour or more. So, the reasonable thing to do would be to signoff the one I'm playing that day. But that's still just me. Everyone else at the table will be needing the same attention. That's going to eat up table time.

And that also means I'm bringing my books for the next 30 sessions, which really isn't an improvement if I've been doing that already. Plus, every time I buy a new "thing" from another sourcebook that means another audit.

That amount of time and work adds up.

Plus, that's another piece of paper that's required. You probably weren't around when the ITS was rolled out as a requirement, but I fought it tooth and nail for months (and I wasn't alone at the time). Although I eventually grew to love it, it serves a practical purpose during the game (streamlining use of items).

A resource tracking sheet would just be another piece of paper.

Nefreet,

Thank you for providing more insight. I also see you post alot on the forum as well and value you being part of this discussion.

However, you are missing the point of my proposal. I did repost what my proposal is just before reading your post so I will be repeating myself a little. Sorry for that.

My proposal is only to show ownership of the resource for the PLAYER. Once that ownership has been verified and the PLAYER has a signed Resource Tracking Sheet, the PLAYER would not need to have the whole physical book. Instead, they would be REQUIRED to have a photocopy of the WHOLE page(s) of the book that related to the a specific ability or item of a CHARACTER.

Not every character would need to have a review. Only the PLAYER's Resource Tracking Sheet would need to be reviewed. And if they don't have it and don't have the books.. well they are playing a pregen I guess.

And yes, I was not around for the debate of ITS but I LOVE that sheet. It is kind of the basis for my proposal.

4/5 *

Gary Bush wrote:

This is the point I am trying to address and make. Maybe a glimmer of support here? :)

As a "high star GM" how do you feel about being able to verify and sign a Resource Tracking Sheet?

More than a glimmer - the concept is great, it's just that no one has come up with a way to make Paizo happy enough to endorse it. A simple system that gives the GM confidence that all is in order, without requiring table time, is a good goal. It just can't be something that unscrupulous players will abuse to cheat Paizo out of revenue - that hurts the whole campaign.

As far as checking forms as a high-star GM - I already find people ask various questions in the gaps between games, so doing this wouldn't be simple. We have 200 players or so, 1 five-star GM (with 1 more pending) and about 4 4-star GMs, plus our 4 V-Os. That probably averages about 2 hours of time a year, but it will all be clustered at game nights and conventions when time is at a premium. Were a rule like this introduced, I could see us having a special session to do as much of this as possible off-line.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 5/5 **** Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

GM Lamplighter wrote:
Were a rule like this introduced, I could see us having a special session to do as much of this as possible off-line.

And I don't see that being an unreasonable decision being made by VOs, GMs, or convention staff.

As I said in an earlier post, initially the demand for sheets being signed would be high but after I think the demand would be much less.

Mike did post in this thread but it was to comment on an off-topic post so I have no idea how he feels. And, as pointed out earlier, with him stepping down it may be a little bit before someone can actually take a look at this proposal.

I will be happy with a yes or no. Or even we are thinking about...

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

Nefreet wrote:

Plus, that's another piece of paper that's required. You probably weren't around when the ITS was rolled out as a requirement, but I fought it tooth and nail for months (and I wasn't alone at the time). Although I eventually grew to love it, it serves a practical purpose during the game (streamlining use of items).

A resource tracking sheet would just be another piece of paper.

I believe that's another piece of paper you would grow to love, too :-)

As I pointed out in an earlier post, you're pretty much supposed to have the equivalent of that piece of paper, anyway.

Guide to PFS Organized Play, p 5 wrote:
You must inform the Game Master that you plan to use Additional Resource material before play begins, so he has a chance to familiarize himself with the new material.

In fact I originally came up with the idea for my version of a Resource Tracking sheet (with a line item for each feat/ability/item/..., and the source and page number to make it easy to find the description if needed) purely as a quick way to satisfy that requirement - I intended to make such a sheet for each of my characters so that I could hand it to the GM at the start of play. It was only later that I thought it would be useful to ask other players at the stores where I GM to create such a sheet, too, so that if I did have to look something up it would be faster. This would also help to educate players as to what the requirements were; on a handful of occasions I've found players who had built their characters using all sorts of abilities for which they didn't have sources (and even, in some case, abilities not legal for PFS) because they hadn't understood this wasn't permitted.

As a sweetener for players doing this I was going to offer that if they were seated at my table I'd allow anyone with such a form to share my copy of the PDF as a reference; I've got a netbook with PDFs for all the hardback rulebooks, and all the player companions and campaign settings published in the last four years (plus any of the earlier ones that my wife and I need for our own characters) so that I don't have to carry a trunk full of books.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 5/5 **** Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

Tabletop Giant wrote:


Gary - here is a suggestion for your push.

Drop the 'VO' requirement; instead, allow any GM to sign off on the document. GM's already have established importance in PFS, as they sign off on Chronicle Sheets already, which is of HUGE importance and is a task that already demands integrity. Given that they already have this critical responsibility, allowing them to sign off on some form of product verification seems reasonable (imho).

Doing this will bypass the issue of VO's understandably feeling overburdened and not wanting to take on a new task, while also tucking the responsibility in a reasonable place - with the GM's themselves.

It should also always be an 'optional' thing for a GM to do, so that any GM who is feeling overburdened does not feel a mandatory obligation.

Good luck!

T Giant (Can I call you that??)

I am open to all suggestions that would help to maintain the goal of Paizo (sale of their products), the need for GMs to have resources available, and for the backs of players.

Grand Lodge 3/5

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, rather than debate I thought I would go and gather some evidence regarding the use of PDFs vs. books.

This week, myself and another GM took the painstaking task of verifying our players characters and resources used to create them. With 2 GMs and 9 PFS players- 5 failed to own the necessary materials which were needed to 'build' their characters and a 6th player could show they had the necessary PDFs (on their Paizo Downloads)but hadn't brought in a print copy or their i-pad for play.

It was disheartening to see. 3 of the players in question lacked only 1 or 2 items which would have been necessary to complete their character- such as for a specific trait, feat or piece of equipment. 2 others, had completed characters formulated from a complex array of books/supplements and possessed only the Core Rules and/or 1 or 2 additional books (such as Advanced Players Guide and Ultimate Combat). When asked, a few of the players stated that they planned on buying the necessary materials in the future, but could not afford it currently. This was in stark contrast to 2 players who said they 'didn't care' if PFS had rules requiring the ownership of materials for use in games and said that it was too easy to get everything off the internet for free.

I didn't sign up to be a member of the PFS Police, but after taking the time to get a better understanding of it myself- I am much more sympathetic to Paizo's policy. This experience helped me dramatically change my opinion on the ownership of materials in regards to PFS play. When I think of the hundreds of dollars I have invested in PFS materials, the apathy displayed towards Paizo by some players was rather sobering. As of now, I support the status quo- bring it if you own it- otherwise you don't get to use it.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that this is an important datapoint, but I disagree with your conclusion.

Socalwarhammer wrote:

Well, rather than debate I thought I would go and gather some evidence regarding the use of PDFs vs. books.

This week, myself and another GM took the painstaking task of verifying our players characters and resources used to create them. With 2 GMs and 9 PFS players- 5 failed to own the necessary materials which were needed to 'build' their characters and a 6th player could show they had the necessary PDFs (on their Paizo Downloads)but hadn't brought in a print copy or their i-pad for play.

So, of the nine players, six are "taking advantage" of the fact that it is very difficult ("painstaking") to audit a character sheet to determine what additional resources they are using. One of whom probably would not have much trouble meeting the requirements.

A proposal that involves having the players list their additional resources before the game, would make the GM's job considerably easier in this regard.

Socalwarhammer wrote:


It was disheartening to see. 3 of the players in question lacked only 1 or 2 items which would have been necessary to complete their character- such as for a specific trait, feat or piece of equipment. 2 others, had completed characters formulated from a complex array of books/supplements and possessed only the Core Rules and/or 1 or 2 additional books (such as Advanced Players Guide and Ultimate Combat). When asked, a few of the players stated that they planned on buying the necessary materials in the future, but could not afford it currently. This was in stark contrast to 2 players who said they 'didn't care' if PFS had rules requiring the ownership of materials for use in games and said that it was too easy to get everything off the internet for free.

This is interesting: so the players didn't actually own the resources they were using. Were there any players who would be affected by the proposal (Did they own the books, but found it too arduous to carry them to the session with them?).

Socalwarhammer wrote:


I didn't sign up to be a member of the PFS Police, but after taking the time to get a better understanding of it myself- I am much more sympathetic to Paizo's policy. This experience helped me dramatically change my opinion on the ownership of materials in regards to PFS play.

I understand that noone really has signed up to be a member of the PFS police. The best we can hope for is a cultural change that will strongly encourage ownership of resources. Making it easier to audit ownership of materials would go a long way.

Socalwarhammer wrote:
When I think of the hundreds of dollars I have invested in PFS materials, the apathy displayed towards Paizo by some players was rather sobering. As of now, I support the status quo- bring it if you own it- otherwise you don't get to use it.

When I look at my bookshelf, and think of the hundred of dollars that went into purchase the 30+ kilograms of PFS materials, I feel that when someone representing Paizo comes out and says "If you don't want to get a hernia carrying them all around whenever you go to a PFS game, buy the PDFs as well as the books that you've already bought from us.", I feel that the system needs to change.

Noone here is suggesting that we let players who haven't bought the materials play.

We are just proposing methods that would make it easier to enforce this rule, and would allow people who have supported their FLGS by buying books from them to use the books that they have bought without being horribly inconvenienced.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/5

Socalwarhammer wrote:
When asked, a few of the players stated that they planned on buying the necessary materials in the future, but could not afford it currently. This was in stark contrast to 2 players who said they 'didn't care' if PFS had rules requiring the ownership of materials for use in games and said that it was too easy to get everything off the internet for free.

My concern with these ideas about tracking ownership through another sheet of paper is that the type of player described above may not have any qualms about forging a sign-off, or signing off someone else's sheet when they don't have a book (in return for that other person doing the same for them), or sharing a dozen photocopies of the same book page (snowball, or infernal healing, for example), or returning a book after photocopying the one page they need, etc.

After a while, it would just become worthless.

Grand Lodge 3/5

@Mekkis, I didn't know I offered a conclusion. I simply stated what I observed and how those observations changed the way I looked at the current PFS policy regarding ownership (and proof of ownership). Perhaps I should have stated that I previously had thought this kind of tracking or showing proof of ownership was unnecessary. On that issue, I have largely changed my mind. A tracking sheet would be a great idea which I would fully support, but still requires a fair amount of work and knowledge to keep players 'in-line', up to date and is not without a host of new problems.

The issue I was trying to address was what 'auditing' would show. Then again, this was JUST about verifying traits, feats, talents, spells and equipment for a group of 3-5 level characters.

As I stated, 1 player owned resources (a PDF in this instance) which he had not brought with him and had not brought his i-pad either- but I let him use my device to pull up his PFS account to show the numerous PDFs which he owned.

There were 2 cases in which players reported to have 'owned' the material in print format, but stated they had left them at home. The most common answer was either; "I forgot", "No one ever checks", and my favorite which was, "I didn't know we had to do that." Even with the players who said they owned some of the resources, but had left them at home they would have needed another resource(s) to complete their character, which they didn't own- so they owned less than what they would have needed.

Having PDFs downloaded or saved on a e-device or laptop really seems like a good way to go for those who want to save themselves from getting a hernia. My point was that the availability of PDFs didn't really seem to make that much of a difference- those who wanted to adhere to the PFS guidelines did so, others rationalized small infractions, such as "My best friend owns the Blood of Angels supplement, so I used it to take the alternate Aasimar type I wanted to play." In this case the rest of his character checked out. Another player had utilized a single trait from the Faiths of Balance Companion which they did not own, but had access to via a friend.

But there seems to be a hard balance to obtain with those folks, who might be more than just a few, who really don't feel the need to buy the resources necessary to build the character they want to play. This is the rather sad part.

Frankly, I don't know if I would ever do this sort of audit again unless it became more widespread amongst PFS- the gripes, groans and general whiny-ness displayed made for a rather sub-par PFS night.

Whatever Paizo decides to do in regards to this issue will have my support, if a checklist is the end result then so be it. If not, the enforcement might be more than the average GM should (or in some instances) or can deal with. With that, the status quo seems to be working- for now.

Grand Lodge 3/5

@Paz-

Great point!

51 to 100 of 230 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Finding solution for "Alternate Means of showing ownership of materials." All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.