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


Pathfinder Society

151 to 200 of 230 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
4/5 *

Sometimes, things are the way they are because they are the best (or least worst) solution.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I just wanted to point out that one reason that the PDFs of the hardcover books are so cheap ($9.99 for 300-600 pages) is so that it's practical for some people to buy both (without being a subscriber). Erik Mona says so here (see his point 3).

I know that for some people suffering from financial hardship, that won't help much, but for those who are lugging a lot of Additional Resources (including several hardcovers) plus the CRB to multiple conventions/game days, it's something to consider, especially as it's likely that the hardcovers represent much of the weight they're carrying.

4/5 *

Buying PDFs of the CRB, APG, ACG, ARG, UM, and UC costs $60 and saves probably 30-40 pounds. It's a one-time expense. Yes, more books come out, but you still save 30-40 pounds.

At the risk of pointing out the elephant in the room, it should be noted that people traveling to lots of conventions obviously have *some* level of disposable income... obviously not everyone can afford this, but I think many people can. It's a convenience fee, essentially, to buy the PDF as well as the book.

That's why this hasn't changed, and why it likely isn't going to change. There is no solution that protects Paizo (and the PFS campaign) from losing more than they gain.

EDIT: clarified second paragraph's meaning.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Gary Bush wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


Doing it every year, makes it a very unattractive idea. And frankly, while I know most of the VOs in my area, I have no way to check if the tracking sheet was filled out by the a 5 Star GM, if the signature is genuine etc. so you might have to make accepting such a sheet optional too.

Sebastian,

The concern has been raised about doing this once and basically giving players the ability to get rid of the resource. This is why I proposed having the sheet updated on a regular basis.

Something you may not have considered, that I don't think you would like either, is that if a player buys a new book/PDF, then they should update their Resource Tracking Sheet. This could make updates come more often.

I am unfamiliar with how stars are tracked but I thought I saw a list someplace that shows all the 5 star GMs. 4 star GMs may be a different problem.

Thank you for taking the time to post.

Sounds like a golden opportunity to sell PFS branded branding irons, so I can properly "mark" those books. Alternative let the GM/VO rip out a specific page (maybe the index).

I would not expect, frequent PDF purchases to matter all that much, after all, if you buy a PDF chances are that you will have some way to display it.

The time of GMs and VOs is pretty valuable and we are volunteers: If a player has the resource tracking sheets prepared (or maybe we get one that has all the product names printed inside) adding my signature doesn't take that long, but when you consider rules like this one, you don't expect the best case scenario.

You should consider an exhausted GM, who after hauling quite a lot of stuff to the event in question just ran two 4 hours slots and now has 10 minutes before his next time slot starts.... I have been in that position, and signing anything (and/or being polite about it) is a really tough order.

Of course before or after my regularly scheduled games, it is a completely different situation. When asked ahead of time, I it is very much possible for me do this.

Regarding the GM issue, the fact that a certain PFS number has a name and perhaps a couple of stars attached to it unfortunately proves nothing. Someone might have faked the signature, or faked the entire GM, I can see something like this working on a local level (like the area covered by a VC, but once you want to cover whole countries it becomes complicated).

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

Thea Peters wrote:


The previous rulings were made available to you regarding this; you dismissed them as they didn't have this exact proposal. End the end you are asking for exactly the same thing as has been asked in the past

..snipped..

Considering the PRD isn't a viable option for players it shouldn't even be a consideration in this case.

In any case, I wish you luck. I don't see this gaining any ground and I'm done debating past issues.

I did not dismiss them, I just don't see how they are same as what I am proposing. After I had a chance to look in the depths of the forums, I may find out differently.

You missed my point about the PRD. I never said it was a viable options for a player to use as resource. But is an option to lookup something faster than looking in a book or trying to find on PDF.

I think you are dismissing the proposal too quickly. That is your right.

A closed mind is very hard to open.

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

GM Lamplighter wrote:
Sometimes, things are the way they are because they are the best (or least worst) solution.

The best option for who? Seems to me that it is the way it is because it is the best option for someone other than the player.

Every system needs to be looked at every so often just to see if any changes need to be made.

The Exchange 5/5

Gary Bush wrote:


I think you are dismissing the proposal too quickly. That is your right.

A closed mind is very hard to open.

You are very mistaken, my mind is not closed, please refrain from the illusion personal attacks.

In contrast, my mind is open to many possibilities, however, you do need the backing of the community GMs and as one said before, it'll depend on when and how the GMs are asked.

If one is asked during limited time; the GM may or may not be gracious about it.. and once there is one GM that cops an attitude then you'll have numerous posts on the forums about how a player was treated when they were trying to get their sheet signed and that deters others from picking up the GM gauntlet.

The community is run by volunteers, anything that even gives the illusion of creating more work for the volunteer is going to be met with skepticism.

I've been one of those GMs, I've hauled all my books, and minis and etc to run several scenarios over the course of a weekend. I've had just the 10 minute break between games to run and tinkle, get a drink and have a smoke, because I've had to pack everything up and move tables to run the next game.

There are options in place ... my suggestion is to be happy with them. This is a topic that has been beaten to death and has yet to be changed.

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

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Sounds like a golden opportunity to sell PFS branded branding irons, so I can properly "mark" those books. Alternative let the GM/VO rip out a specific page (maybe the index).

I would not expect, frequent PDF purchases to matter all that much, after all, if you buy a PDF chances are that you will have some way to display it.

The time of GMs and VOs is pretty valuable and we are volunteers: If a player has the resource tracking sheets prepared (or maybe we get one that has all the product names printed inside) adding my signature doesn't take that long, but when you consider rules like this one, you don't expect the best case scenario.

You should consider an exhausted GM, who after hauling quite a lot of stuff to the event in question just ran two 4 hours slots and now has 10 minutes before his next time slot starts.... I have been in that position, and signing anything (and/or being polite about it) is a really tough order.

Of course before or after my regularly scheduled games, it is a completely different situation. When asked ahead of...

I don't think it is unreasonable to set up limits on when these sheets could be signed.

I also appreciate the time freely given so I can enjoy a few hours using my imagination and enjoy the company of like minded individuals.

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

My purpose for starting this thread was to open an honesty discussion on a topic that seems to be in need of review.

From the the discussion that has been had it appears that the ones with the loudest voice and most sway are content with the current rule and not interested in an alternative.

I think my proposal is a good balance of Paizo goals and of players desires.

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

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Regardless of any solution, the onus of presenting sources needs to always be on the player. I don't care if they have hardbacks I don't care if they have PDFs, but I do want all of my players to be able to consistently show me what sources they used to make their characters. I want to see the printed text from Paizo and verify that whatever your abilities their character has or whatever weird rules their character uses, they are interpreting the text correctly. Is because of this reason that I dislike verify character abilities using the online PRD's that are available. And it's because of this reason that I'm wary of any solution that replaces that printed material from Paizo with a single sheet.

The Exchange 5/5

Walter Sheppard wrote:
Regardless of any solution, the onus of presenting sources needs to always be on the player. I don't care if they have hardbacks I don't care if they have PDFs, but I do want all of my players to be able to consistently show me what sources they used to make their characters. I want to see the printed text from Paizo and verify that whatever your abilities their character has or whatever weird rules their character uses, they are interpreting the text correctly. Is because of this reason that I dislike verify character abilities using the online PRD's that are available. And it's because of this reason that I'm wary of any solution that replaces that printed material from Paizo with a single sheet.

Very well put Walter

4/5 *

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gary Bush wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Sometimes, things are the way they are because they are the best (or least worst) solution.

The best option for who? Seems to me that it is the way it is because it is the best option for someone other than the player.

EDIT: Tried to remove some of the smarmy bits.

This is an important point - the player is NOT the only side involved. Aside from GMs and VOs, who you have mentioned, the other side of the coin is PAIZO. PFS is a marketing tool for Paizo.

The problem with your proposal is not that all of the experienced people have closed minds. The problem is, you have failed to address the basic issue: WHY should Paizo change the rules, when past leniency has been abused so badly? At what point is it better for them to just say no? The biggest problem with the proposed systemis that it allows pirates to cover their tracks perfectly.

It doesn't matter if *you* won't use it that way. Expereince has shown that thousands of people *will* pirate copyrighted materials if they can get away with it. As it stands, the people doing it now (and there are people doing it now) are running the risk of getting caught without the proper resources and not being able to play. Your proposal removes that risk entirely.

If the book or watermarked PDF is there, there is no doubt that the material is legal. *Any* other system depends on trust: a trust that has been broken so many times in the past. I am personally aware of several situations where piracy was rampant, including one where a person was literally sharing all their materials with hundreds of other people. (Past episode, long since dealt with.)

Sovereign Court 2/5

Rarely does being condescending help make a conversation productive.

4/5 *

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not a conversation when one person refutes everything anyone says.

5/5 5/55/55/5

GM Lamplighter wrote:
The problem with your proposal is not that all of the experienced people have closed minds. The problem is, you have failed to address the basic issue: WHY should Paizo change the rules to make it slightly easier for a few players, when past leniency has been abused so badly? At what point is it better for them to just say no, rather than allow thousands of players to pirate their materials and not get caught at it because the proposed system allows them to cover their tracks perfectly?

I think a barrier is in place to solutions because people want one solution for two different problems, without admitting that they're linked together.

The DM needs to see the rules on occasion.

Paizo is a friend. Its also a business. It needs to make money. To do that it has to sell stuff, so we have to show that we're buying the stuff.

If you separate them, the abilities themselves are easy enough to look up online, and accurate enough in most cases.

A "hostage photo" with the hardcover and a newspaper evidence of ownership.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
The problem with your proposal is not that all of the experienced people have closed minds. The problem is, you have failed to address the basic issue: WHY should Paizo change the rules to make it slightly easier for a few players, when past leniency has been abused so badly? At what point is it better for them to just say no, rather than allow thousands of players to pirate their materials and not get caught at it because the proposed system allows them to cover their tracks perfectly?

I think a barrier is in place to solutions because people want one solution for two different problems, without admitting that they're linked together.

The DM needs to see the rules on occasion.

Paizo is a friend. Its also a business. It needs to make money. To do that it has to sell stuff, so we have to show that we're buying the stuff.

If you separate them, the abilities themselves are easy enough to look up online, and accurate enough in most cases.

A "hostage photo" with the hardcover and a newspaper evidence of ownership.

I'd disagree on the hostage photo. It's child's play to wander into Barnes and Noble, pick up a book and a newspaper, snap the photo and never buy either. The hostage photos proves little to me than you had access to a camera at some point.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, if "hostage photos" were being considered, then taking one with the title page clearly and largely marked with the owner's name and PFS# would eliminate the "Barnes and Noble" effect.

Grand Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gary Bush wrote:

Seth,

Thank you for the support and information.

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

Please do not see my assistance in offering advice for how to get your suggestion some attention as support for the idea itself. If Mike/Paizo chose to go this route, I wont stomp my feet in protest, but overall, I think its a bad idea, as it opens for more abuse than the current system allows and puts more work on people who are already spending a lot of time dedicated to the campaign.

That said, I do know several of the other VOs who have posted in this thread already. Most of them disagree with you as well, it seems.

Nothing personal, I just dont see this as a necessity.

Edit: After rereading my initial post on the first page, Id like to clarify that I support the idea of finding a way for players to not need to bring all their books, but without the use of the pdfs. What I am not supporting is the idea of a sheet for each character that would need to be signed off on by a GM and/or VO. I like the idea of less paperwork, not more. If some other idea comes up, I might support that, but that would depend on what it was.

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

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Acedio wrote:
Rarely does being condescending help make a conversation productive.

Says you jerk face!

5/5 5/55/5 ***

Walter Sheppard wrote:
Acedio wrote:
Rarely does being condescending help make a conversation productive.
Says you jerk face!

Don't be an A.S.S.

That's our job.

Dark Archive 2/5

Axebeak Sanctuary Society wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:
Acedio wrote:
Rarely does being condescending help make a conversation productive.
Says you jerk face!

Don't be an A.S.S.

That's our job.

Can I join?!

5/5 5/55/5 ***

Currently membership is limited to one: the Grand A.S.S. Master.

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

GM Lamplighter wrote:


This is an important point - the player is NOT the only side involved. Aside from GMs and VOs, who you have mentioned, the other side of the coin is PAIZO. PFS is a marketing tool for Paizo.

The problem with your proposal is not that all of the experienced people have closed minds. The problem is, you have failed to address the basic issue: WHY should Paizo change the rules, when past leniency has been abused so badly? At what point is it better for them to just say no? The biggest problem with the proposed systemis that it allows pirates to cover their tracks perfectly.

It doesn't matter if *you* won't use it that way. Expereince has shown that thousands of people *will* pirate copyrighted materials if they can get away with it. As it stands, the people doing it now (and there are people doing it now) are running the risk of getting caught without the proper resources and not being able to play. Your proposal removes that risk entirely.

If the book or watermarked PDF is there, there is no doubt that the material is legal. *Any* other system depends on trust: a trust that has been broken so many times in the past. I am personally aware of several situations where piracy was rampant, including one where a person was literally sharing all their materials with hundreds of other people. (Past episode, long since dealt with.)

I guess I am not seeing how my proposal would allow cheaters to cover their tracks any easier than they can now. Even with a book there, there is no way to know for certain THAT player is the owner of the book or just borrowed it from a buddy for the session. Besides a name and PFS number in the book, my proposal is open to the say problem as now.

I don't want something like what you describe returning. And if my proposal would be worse than what we have now than I wouldn't like it either. I just don't see how it would be worse.

The only real way to combat cheaters is to do the audits. But because that takes too much time (more than my proposal) it is not done on a regular basis either.

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

GM Lamplighter wrote:
It's not a conversation when one person refutes everything anyone says.

Lamplighter,

I agree. I am not trying to refute what anyone is saying. I am trying to provide a counterpoint to what is being said in support of my idea.

BTW, I didn't take your comment as condescending.

Dark Archive 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Axebeak Sanctuary Society wrote:
Currently membership is limited to one: the Grand A.S.S. Master.

Dangit! Why are all the fun clubs always full?

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

Please stay on target all... Even I am a bit off my usual self this morning.

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

Seth Gipson wrote:


Please do not see my assistance in offering advice for how to get your suggestion some attention as support for the idea itself. If Mike/Paizo chose to go this route, I wont stomp my feet in protest, but overall, I think its a bad idea, as it opens for more abuse than the current system allows and puts more work on people who are already spending a lot of time dedicated to the campaign.

That said, I do know several of the other VOs who have posted in this thread already. Most of them disagree with you as well, it seems.

Nothing personal, I just dont see this as a necessity.

That is ok. I am seeing a pattern emerge here. One I really can't discount lightly.

And there is no necessity. I am looking for an acceptable alternative to the current rule, not a replacement of the current rule.

5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

places the dead horse sign and skips out spraying glitter behind her

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

BigNorseWolf wrote:


I think a barrier is in place to solutions because people want one solution for two different problems, without admitting that they're linked together.

I think you may be right Sir.

Scarab Sages 3/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Gary, I'm not one to argue that authority or experience is automatically correct and should be blindly followed, but according to your own comments elsewhere, you have only played PFS for a couple of months, and have nine whole levels between your couple of characters. You posted 20 times on various things, and then your next 50 messages have been on the subject of this proposal.

Earlier in this thread you indicate that you haven't read through the message boards on this topic, despite multiple long-time VOs and GMs telling you that this has been discussed repeatedly over the years, and explaining in various ways why your proposal is a lot of added work for them with little benefit to the campaign.

You have been unswervingly polite and I think your eagerness is a credit to the game, but you're just not listening to what people, especially those with experience, are saying.

Paizo Employee 5/5 Contributor—Canadian Maplecakes

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Forgive me if I seem dismissive, but this strikes me as another growing "Be careful what you wish for" thread. The current system, seems completely fair to both GMs and Players, as all it asks for is that the player to bring the material required to play their character when playing their character.

Ok. Fine. So your character requires 4 different hardcovers, and an additional 4 (soon 5) bestiaries because you opted to select a summoner with a bunch of variant summoning from other books. Maybe... JUST MAYBE... those choices should factor into your decision to play that character.

We all know that GMs hand waive the "you need every book at the table". The only time I've really seen it come up, is when someone pulls out a complicated or 'tricksy' ability. I would hope that most characters wouldn't have more than 1-2 of those odd-ball abilities. Of course, my hopes have been dashed on more than one occasion. :)

I just worry that the more emphasis that gets put into this thread and "we want an official answer" the closer we get to an answer... and possibly not one that people will like. At least, compared to the current way of handling things.

Just my 2 cents.

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

Duiker wrote:

Gary, I'm not one to argue that authority or experience is automatically correct and should be blindly followed, but according to your own comments elsewhere, you have only played PFS for a couple of months, and have nine whole levels between your couple of characters. You posted 20 times on various things, and then your next 50 messages have been on the subject of this proposal.

Earlier in this thread you indicate that you haven't read through the message boards on this topic, despite multiple long-time VOs and GMs telling you that this has been discussed repeatedly over the years, and explaining in various ways why your proposal is a lot of added work for them with little benefit to the campaign.

You have been unswervingly polite and I think your eagerness is a credit to the game, but you're just not listening to what people, especially those with experience, are saying.

Agreed. I am beginning the process of finding the previous threads now.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

A question about the "hostage photo" scheme:

Two guys who know one another go to a convention. They will not be sitting at the same table. One of the players owns, and has brought, Ultimate Magic.

If you think they should be able to both use the book during the convention, I will bow to you and excuse myself. Campaign management has said no, you'll want to take the matter up with them, and I have other matters which require my attention.

If you think that they should not both be able to use Ultimate Magic, then explain how we can prevent them from doing so. Player A takes a "hostage photo" of the book and a newspaper. Hell, the book has the player's name on it. Player B takes the book to his table. Player A takes the hostage photo and looks up stuff on the PRD.

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

Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
places the dead horse sign and skips out spraying glitter behind her

Well there it is... Sort of like when the Supreme Count does not take up a case the already existing ruling is maintained. And since Paizo has not made any comments, there is likely no comments coming.

Still think it is a problem and will need to be looked at in the future.

My proposal stands. Even if it is because it has been stuck to a pole.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Chris Mortika wrote:

People in the same immediate family (fathers and children, or spouses) yes. But if regular gaming companions each want to play an ACG class at my convention table, each needs to bring his or her own copy of the ACG.

If you have a quotation from the campaign leadership that corrects me, I'm of course open to that.

John Francis wrote:

As quoted by Nefreet earlier in this thread:

Mike Brock wrote:
If it is a group of friends that always plays together at the same table, as long as there is at least one sourcebook that covers each rule for every character at the table, it fulfills the requirement. For example, if they all play Chelaxian characters and utilize rules from the Cheliax book, and they are all playing at the same table, then they only need one Cheliax book at the table, and that book can be either physical or an electronic, watermarked copy. However, if they are playing at different tables, each person at a different table will need a physical copy, a PDF copy, or a printed watermarked copy of the relevant pages with them, that covers anything they choose to utilize in the build of their charactert.
It is unclear whether this is intended to be a case of "other members of the same household living together (such as college room mates)", as mentioned in the preceding sentence, or a separate example. I choose to take the more liberal interpretation. I also see nothing to say that the rules for conventions are in any way different from the rules for private games (other than GMs of private games not being required to allow all classes, races, etc., in their games); PFS is supposed to provide a uniform experience.

John, let me see if I understand you correctly.

You're running a scenario at a convention, and six players sit at your table. You don't know any of them. A player at your table is running a Hunter. You ask to see the stats for it, and the player admits she doesn't own the book. Player B at the same table offers that he does own the book, and offers to show it to you.

At my table, that's not good enough. Player A needs to bring her own materials. (Exception: if she and Player B are closely related.)

Do I understand you correctly, that you're fine with that as long as Player A and B assert that they play together back at their local game day?

(I suppose that Mike's restriction is that they *always* play together, so you could look at their Chroinicles and make sure the PCs have identical histories.)

5/5

Gary Bush wrote:
Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
places the dead horse sign and skips out spraying glitter behind her

Well there it is... Sort of like when the Supreme Count does not take up a case the already existing ruling is maintained. And since Paizo has not made any comments, there is likely no comments coming.

Still think it is a problem and will need to be looked at in the future.

My proposal stands. Even if it is because it has been stuck to a pole.

The third post in this thread has all the threads listed where "solutions" to this problem have been discussed ad nauseum .. just because they do not cover your exact "solution" does not mean that the opposition will be different than what is in the other threads.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Thurston Hillman wrote:


Ok. Fine. So your character requires 4 different hardcovers, and an additional 4 (soon 5) bestiaries because you opted to select a summoner with a bunch of variant summoning from other books. Maybe... JUST MAYBE... those choices should factor into your decision to play that character.

5 books seems silly for A character, but at a convention you can easily play 4-6 characters. 10 books between them is pretty realistic.

A large part of what i love about pathfinder is bouncing weird ideas off of each other to make a character concept that couldn't work under other game systems. (wild empathy focused druid, a fox form fighter, melee wizard) You don't need additional resources to break the game you need them to make characters you couldn't have played 15 years ago under 3.5.

5/5

I think this would be workable with a few tweaks. First, PDFs should never need a sign off because they should already include the owner's name. Second, the resource tracking sheet should never expire. Third, any GM should be able to sign the tracking sheet; we already trust them to run the game and fill out the chronicles correctly after all.

I think some folks have missed one key requirement, that the player is still responsible to bring a copy of the rules with them to the table, either a PDF print out or a photocopy of the relevant page(s) from the book. So the GM still has the official text to use for rulings.

As far as abuse of the rules goes I don't really see how it would be worse than now. In particular you can change the name on a PDF you didn't buy if you are intent on cheating, which isn't much different than making an extra photocopy of a book page for a friend. The people that would intentionally cheat the rules, such as forging someone else's name, whether on a PDF or a tracking sheet, are probably already fudging their die rolls, "misunderstanding" how their abilities work, etc. I don't think it's a good idea to make honest peoples' lives more difficult because some people suck.

I acknowledge that the time taken to sign the sheets is an additional burden on the GM, but if they don't have time (such as at a convention), they can just ask the player to have it signed at a later date. After all the player must have the resource available at that time to get it signed off anyway so it does not prevent them from playing their character.

I myself was bitten by the removal of photocopies as a legal rules source. I owned everything in hard copy and was tired of lugging it all to every game, so I photocopied every bit of rules I used outside the CRB. Not long after that photocopies were made illegal and I once again had to start carrying all my books to games. That was pretty annoying. I wasn't active on the forums at the time and never saw anyone else in my area using photocopies, so I don't know how much this was truly being abused, but that experience does make me empathize with Gary on this.

5/5 5/55/55/5

If one person has pfsrd and the other has a printed adventurer's armory they're both about as accurate.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I understand the desire to avoid carrying around tens of pounds of books. I do. And, someone upthread (Thurston, I think it was) said something about players making "choices."

As I see it, and this is only my opinion, if player chooses to use something from a book, then he or she is choosing the cost of doing so which requires two things: (a) the purchase of that book (either physical copy or .pdf) and (b) bring that source to the game table with the character who uses the material from it.

If the cost of doing so is too great, can not that player say, "you know, I'll choose something from a source I do own"? Why is it going be the GM's job (which, effectively, is what this proposal does) to pay a cost for the player's choices?

The cost of such choices rest squarely with the player who incurs the cost - that cost shouldn't be transferred to anyone else. And lest you think it's easy, if a GM has to suddenly go through and look through the resource sheet for 6 players to make sure it's all on the up and up, that's less time that GM has for other game-related tasks.

The cost of making those choices must rest with the player, and this proposal seeks to transfer that cost from the player to the GM. I cannot support that.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 *** Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant

Nefreet wrote:
Well, if "hostage photos" were being considered, then taking one with the title page clearly and largely marked with the owner's name and PFS# would eliminate the "Barnes and Noble" effect.

Do you know how easy it would be to photoshop that? The answer is very.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Well, if "hostage photos" were being considered, then taking one with the title page clearly and largely marked with the owner's name and PFS# would eliminate the "Barnes and Noble" effect.
Do you know how easy it would be to photoshop that? The answer is very.

About as easy as spoofing a PDF watermark?

5/5 5/55/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Professor Herp wrote:
Axebeak Sanctuary Society wrote:
Currently membership is limited to one: the Grand A.S.S. Master.
Dangit! Why are all the fun clubs always full?

We're still accepting new members.

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

Chris Mortika wrote:


John, let me see if I understand you correctly.

You're running a scenario at a convention, and six players sit at your table. You don't know any of them. A player at your table is running a Hunter. You ask to see the stats for it, and the player admits she doesn't own the book. Player B at the same table offers that he does own the book, and offers to show it to you.

At my table, that's not good enough. Player A needs to bring her own materials. (Exception: if she and Player B are closely related.)

Do I understand you correctly, that you're fine with that as long as Player A and B assert that they play together back at their local game day?

(I suppose that Mike's restriction is that they *always* play together, so you could look at their Chronicles and make sure the PCs have identical histories.)

That's about it, yes. I'd permit it if A said "No - I don't own it. But he does (pointing to Player B), and back home he always lets me refer to his books; we play at the same store".

That doesn't mean I'm totally fine with it; I'll point out that at a convention there's no way you can guarantee you'll both be seated at the same table, so they do really each need their own copy (and if B's source is only a PDF, there's no way they can legally share that at separate tables). I'll also make sure they both understand that this is at best a grey area, and there are other GMs (such as yourself) who take a more hard line position. But until we do a better job of educating the player base as to just what is expected of them (see, for example, Socalwarhammer's experience; he's far from the only GM to be abused for wanting to audit characters), and taking steps to ensure compliance at a local level, I'm reluctant to be too aggressive in turning characters away from my table, especially at a convention.

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

Walter Sheppard wrote:
Regardless of any solution, the onus of presenting sources needs to always be on the player. I don't care if they have hardbacks I don't care if they have PDFs, but I do want all of my players to be able to consistently show me what sources they used to make their characters. I want to see the printed text from Paizo and verify that whatever your abilities their character has or whatever weird rules their character uses, they are interpreting the text correctly. Is because of this reason that I dislike verify character abilities using the online PRD's that are available. And it's because of this reason that I'm wary of any solution that replaces that printed material from Paizo with a single sheet.

My proposal would do everything you say you want.

It is different from the way things are so for that alone it deserves careful consideration.

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

Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
Gary Bush wrote:
Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
places the dead horse sign and skips out spraying glitter behind her

Well there it is... Sort of like when the Supreme Count does not take up a case the already existing ruling is maintained. And since Paizo has not made any comments, there is likely no comments coming.

Still think it is a problem and will need to be looked at in the future.

My proposal stands. Even if it is because it has been stuck to a pole.

The third post in this thread has all the threads listed where "solutions" to this problem have been discussed ad nauseum .. just because they do not cover your exact "solution" does not mean that the opposition will be different than what is in the other threads.

I don't disagree. Nor should my proposal be simply dismissed because it is just another on of those threads about not having to have the physical resource. (Which my proposal is not that.)

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

Mike Lindner wrote:

I think this would be workable with a few tweaks. First, PDFs should never need a sign off because they should already include the owner's name. Second, the resource tracking sheet should never expire. Third, any GM should be able to sign the tracking sheet; we already trust them to run the game and fill out the chronicles correctly after all.

I think some folks have missed one key requirement, that the player is still responsible to bring a copy of the rules with them to the table, either a PDF print out or a photocopy of the relevant page(s) from the book. So the GM still has the official text to use for rulings.

As far as abuse of the rules goes I don't really see how it would be worse than now. In particular you can change the name on a PDF you didn't buy if you are intent on cheating, which isn't much different than making an extra photocopy of a book page for a friend. The people that would intentionally cheat the rules, such as forging someone else's name, whether on a PDF or a tracking sheet, are probably already fudging their die rolls, "misunderstanding" how their abilities work, etc. I don't think it's a good idea to make honest peoples' lives more difficult because some people suck.

I acknowledge that the time taken to sign the sheets is an additional burden on the GM, but if they don't have time (such as at a convention), they can just ask the player to have it signed at a later date. After all the player must have the resource available at that time to get it signed off anyway so it does not prevent them from playing their character.

I myself was bitten by the removal of photocopies as a legal rules source. I owned everything in hard copy and was tired of lugging it all to every game, so I photocopied every bit of rules I used outside the CRB. Not long after that photocopies were made illegal and I once again had to start carrying all my books to games. That was pretty annoying. I wasn't active on the forums at the time and never saw anyone else in my area using photocopies, so I...

Thank you Mike.

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

Mark Stratton wrote:

I understand the desire to avoid carrying around tens of pounds of books. I do. And, someone upthread (Thurston, I think it was) said something about players making "choices."

As I see it, and this is only my opinion, if player chooses to use something from a book, then he or she is choosing the cost of doing so which requires two things: (a) the purchase of that book (either physical copy or .pdf) and (b) bring that source to the game table with the character who uses the material from it.

If the cost of doing so is too great, can not that player say, "you know, I'll choose something from a source I do own"? Why is it going be the GM's job (which, effectively, is what this proposal does) to pay a cost for the player's choices?

The cost of such choices rest squarely with the player who incurs the cost - that cost shouldn't be transferred to anyone else. And lest you think it's easy, if a GM has to suddenly go through and look through the resource sheet for 6 players to make sure it's all on the up and up, that's less time that GM has for other game-related tasks.

The cost of making those choices must rest with the player, and this proposal seeks to transfer that cost from the player to the GM. I cannot support that.

Again I don't see how this is shifting anything to the GM. Please see Mike Linder's post. He did a very good, better I have been doing, summary.

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

John Francis wrote:
I'll point out that at a convention there's no way you can guarantee you'll both be seated at the same table, so they do really each need their own copy (and if B's source is only a PDF, there's no way they can legally share that at separate tables).

Just wanted to interject with this from Mike Brock's quote way earlier:

Michael Brock wrote:
If two members of the same household wish to share a PDF, and find themselves playing at separate tables, one can utilize an electronic version on an iPad or similar item, while the other utilizes a printed watermarked copy.

Carry on.

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

Nefreet wrote:
John Francis wrote:
I'll point out that at a convention there's no way you can guarantee you'll both be seated at the same table, so they do really each need their own copy (and if B's source is only a PDF, there's no way they can legally share that at separate tables).

Just wanted to interject with this from Mike Brock's quote way earlier:

Michael Brock wrote:
If two members of the same household wish to share a PDF, and find themselves playing at separate tables, one can utilize an electronic version on an iPad or similar item, while the other utilizes a printed watermarked copy.
Carry on.

That's for members of the same household; here we're specifically discussing members of "a group of friends who always play together".

You can't distribute the electronic copy of a PDF, and most GMs aren't going to allow you to use a printout from a PDF if the name on it doesn't match the person presenting it, even if you were allowed to loan somebody a printed page made from your PDF (which is by no means clear).

151 to 200 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.