So, I have a quick question regarding how the additional materials rules work in terms of pdf/material ownership. When I play online games with my group of friends (non-PFS), we typically tend to own a single physical or PDF copy, and look at the PRD/Nethys during character generation. We play with each other fairly extensively and play together, so if one of us needed to look something up from a PDF, it is a fairly simple matter for the owner of the PDF to look up the relevant details in a book.
However, I am not entirely clear how the sharing rules work in the following situation:
1. Player A owns Pathfinder books containing non-Core materials.
2. Player B works with Player A to create a character using non-Core content, with the understanding that they would play with Player A.
3. At the table, Player A and Player B play together. Player A owns the non-Core material and can present it as necessary for Player B, similar to printing up specific pages for Player B's specific use cases.
Is this valid for PFS Play in general (physically, at a store/convention/etc)? Is this valid for PFS Play Online, where it would have to be documented with screenshots?
You need to own the stuff yourself - sharing isn't allowed except for family members.
"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."
This line is the part from the Pathfinder Society FAQ that confuses me. At a physical table, it seems the key is that you have to be able to guarantee that there is access to the rules and you cannot depend upon the GM/other players/etc having access to non-Core material. This is obviously not the online/virtual tabletop case, but it would seem to me that this should also be fine provided that there is no distribution of PDFs, which would violate the copyright.
While the sharing rules are a little more lax than Lamplighter stated, those rules are intended for in-person sharing; you obviously can't share a physical book with someone not in the same room, and you're not allowed to send copies of the copyrighted PDFs out to other people, seeing as that would be a violation of copyright law. Even in the case of in-person sharing, only the owner of the actual PDF can use the PDF; anyone else would need to use a printed copy of the relevant section.
Basically, the source sharing rules were written under the assumption of in-person play, so you probably shouldn't push things by trying to use them in online play.
Yeah, my concern with things is in keeping everything on the level if I were to work with something on PFS in the future and the FAQ from 2011 probably did not anticipate quite the rise in Virtual Tabletops that has happened since then.
My thought - which is quite possible not correct - is thus:
1. Let us consider material on the PRD, which includes non-Core material, but is not a valid source since you cannot bring a copy of it with you (say internet dies at a Convention, site goes down during game, etc).
2. Their sharing rules for a physical table seem to primarily relate to making sure there is an available copy for rules checking so that the GM is not buried under having to own fifty thousand books. You have to make certain that you have access to these rules, since you cannot assume the GM has the material.
3. It seems in the case that as long as no Watermarked PDFs were being distributed, that two players who worked together during character generation using something like the PRD may play together at a virtual table, knowing that they bring at least one copy of the rules for reference as necessary.
Again, I could be horribly wrong with this, but my reading of intent is: do not distribute watermarked PDFs, because this is piracy + make sure there is a legal copy of the rules available for referencing, because the burden is not on the GM to own all non-core material.
Is this same group the only group you play with for PFS?
We actually do not play PFS currently, but it came up when looking at how Adventure Paths are sanctioned. Since I am Lawful Neutral, I was wondering exactly how these rules would be applied to online tabletops. For the sake of this hypothetical argument, let us say the Player B ONLY intends to play in games with Player A, thus guaranteeing that the legal copy would always be available for reference.
Organized Play Coordinator
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"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."
The above quote is from an older version of the RPG guide.
From page 5 of Season 8's guide:
Paizo produces a wide range of sourcebooks that further explore the game rules and world of Pathfinder. These volumes contain a huge variety of options to help customize your character. You can view the list of all campaign-legal additional resources online at paizo.com/pathfinderSociety/about/additionalResources. In order to use content from sources outside the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, a player must bring a physical copy of the resources or a name-watermarked Paizo PDF of the relevant pages, as well a current copy of the additional resources listing. You must inform the GM that you plan to use additional resource material before play begins and allow the GM to use your material to familiarize herself with any new material.
The original quote was to mitigate the need of schlepping heavy sourcebooks between locations, not to reduce the need to purchase a resource for oneself. While the burden of information is on the player, if the GM has the same book on their shelf, there is no need to bring two copies. But the player still has to own the resource to use the option for their character. Hence the change for Season 8.
Regarding the original example, at no time should Player B be copying anything for Player A, unless players A & B reside in the same household and are preparing for a convention or venue where they won't be at the same table.
Good to know! I will keep this in mind for if any of my friends decide to transition from our home games to PFS, so that they don't end up going to an event with anything illegal! With that additional context, I do see how the intent is to not require ten duplicates of material at the table, rather than share sourcebooks within a home group.
|
Organized Play Coordinator
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I encourage you to check PFS out. We have lots of fun and are always welcoming new players.
Or you can run things for them and give PFS credit. You do not have to be at a gaming store or convention to run PFS scenarios. You just have to run them according to the rules set out in the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait a second. Just checked the latest Guide, found the quote Tonya provided above, and I noticed that the exception to book ownership for family members playing at the same table is no longer there.
I have to assume that wasn't intentional. That's a pretty major mistake in the Guide.
Wait a second. Just checked the latest Guide, found the quote Tonya provided above, and I noticed that the exception to book ownership for family members playing at the same table is no longer there.
I have to assume that wasn't intentional. That's a pretty major mistake in the Guide.
Well, I found the exception in the Pathfinder Society FAQ, which is why I had this confusion to begin with. They mention a group of friends always playing around the same table and the wording is a little ambiguous about if they should all own their individual copies without the additional context that this is to prevent a needed for duplicate material at the same table.
However... this is the same section with the family member exception. So that does raise a certain confusion. Perhaps it would be better to break up that into two sections on the FAQ?
|
|
if you're all at the same table in your living room.. well you're the one checking sources to begin with.
if you're all at the same table at a convention people will just assume you're some sort of collective.
Yes, 99% of the time, people won't check sources, and just let sharing happen, whether you're family or not. It's the 1% who insist on enforcing the letter of the law that I'm worried about, since the letter of the law has changed to make my nephew's PC illegal. Previously, he would have been fine playing at the same table as me with my books, but the rule that says so has been removed in this year's Guide.
Venture-Agent, Minnesota
|
Fromper, you and your nephew are covered. If anyone gives your. Nephew trouble, show them the FAQ!
Hmm
|
|
I think the issue is that from what I'm understanding Tonya saying and that the FAQ quoted isn't giving a loophole for,
Each person still needs to own a source for all material used for their character and be able to show ownership.
Once that's established, there only needs to be 1 actual book at the table as the reference book.
Which does seem to be saying that a dad and his son would need to buy the books twice, once in the dad's name and once in the son's name so that both own the sources for their characters.
|
Organized Play Coordinator
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQs haven't been updated in quite awhile. The PFS team has taken the list we made a few months ago and turned it into decisions, but had to put the update on hold while we got further along with scenarios. It is on the agenda for updates soon. But Guide supersedes FAQ when they are in conflict.
Last year, we made radical changes to the format of the Guide in an attempt to organize it by user type. Since its release, we found several pieces that got dropped unintentionally. The family clause is one such piece. Which is why we have Guide 8.X in the works. But again, it takes back seat to some other tasks such as getting support to conventions and updating Venture-Officers so they have tools to to keep their regions running.
Regarding the family clause. It applies to family members in the same household. So I, my husband, and my children could use the same resource. But when my 20 year old moved out, he lost access to those resources (but on the plus side, I have gift ideas for years). As my husband and I are currently geographically separated, we both have to have resources to use them.
I've made a note to add the family clause back to the updated guide.
|
Venture-Agent, Minnesota
|
Can we get the family rule expanded to include all family members below adult age, even if they don't live in the same household? After all, we want to get the kidsaddictedinto the hobby as young as possible, right?
+1
I have a nephew who plays with my son, both teens of 13.
Hmm
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we get the family rule expanded to include all family members below adult age, even if they don't live in the same household? After all, we want to get the kidsaddictedinto the hobby as young as possible, right?
For that matter, now that I think about it, we have at least one case where we have a non-custodial parent who does PFS with his kids. I'd never consider not letting them share resources, even though they don't live in the same household.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we get the family rule expanded to include all family members below adult age, even if they don't live in the same household? After all, we want to get the kidsFor that matter, now that I think about it, we have at least one case where we have a non-custodial parent who does PFS with his kids. I'd never consider not letting them share resources, even though they don't live in the same household.addictedinto the hobby as young as possible, right?
As long as an adult is at the table and they have a kid with them, I let them share resources with the kid. I always enjoy seeing new gamers in the works, and the best way is to let the adults in their lives take them to events. I would like to see this in the next update to the guide, however, because there are some VO's who wouldn't be so kind. Having the FAQ is good though.
|
Venture-Agent, Ohio—Columbus
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding the family clause. It applies to family members in the same household. So I, my husband, and my children could use the same resource. But when my 20 year old moved out, he lost access to those resources (but on the plus side, I have gift ideas for years). As my husband and I are currently geographically separated, we both have to have resources to use them.
I've made a note to add the family clause back to the updated guide.
May I make a suggestion regarding this, please don't define "family" but leave it open to reasonableness. I think household was a good neutral term that didn't trip over possible issues.
There are some of us who due to profession are 'family' but don't get married due to liability issues, or non-traditional families who have adopted in nieces/nephews/grandchildren -- let alone the complexities of fosters. I know I'm no where near covering all possibilities.
I'm not trying to make this difficult, just trying to head off future rules lawyers.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding the family clause. It applies to family members in the same household. So I, my husband, and my children could use the same resource. But when my 20 year old moved out, he lost access to those resources (but on the plus side, I have gift ideas for years). As my husband and I are currently geographically separated, we both have to have resources to use them.
I've made a note to add the family clause back to the updated guide.
May I make a suggestion regarding this, please don't define "family" but leave it open to reasonableness. I think household was a good neutral term that didn't trip over possible issues.
There are some of us who due to profession are 'family' but don't get married due to liability issues, or non-traditional families who have adopted in nieces/nephews/grandchildren -- let alone the complexities of fosters. I know I'm no where near covering all possibilities.
I'm not trying to make this difficult, just trying to head off future rules lawyers.
Excellent point.
My suggestion: Allow book sharing within households, and allow children (under 18) to use books owned by whatever adults are in charge of them at the game. Younger kids shouldn't be left alone without a responsible adult, and older teens who can take care of themselves should also have their own books, so it works all the way around.
This way, the exact family situation doesn't really matter.
|
Organized Play Coordinator
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding the family clause. It applies to family members in the same household. So I, my husband, and my children could use the same resource. But when my 20 year old moved out, he lost access to those resources (but on the plus side, I have gift ideas for years). As my husband and I are currently geographically separated, we both have to have resources to use them.
I've made a note to add the family clause back to the updated guide.
May I make a suggestion regarding this, please don't define "family" but leave it open to reasonableness. I think household was a good neutral term that didn't trip over possible issues.
There are some of us who due to profession are 'family' but don't get married due to liability issues, or non-traditional families who have adopted in nieces/nephews/grandchildren -- let alone the complexities of fosters. I know I'm no where near covering all possibilities.
I'm not trying to make this difficult, just trying to head off future rules lawyers.
Excellent point.
My suggestion: Allow book sharing within households, and allow children (under 18) to use books owned by whatever adults are in charge of them at the game. Younger kids shouldn't be left alone without a responsible adult, and older teens who can take care of themselves should also have their own books, so it works all the way around.
This way, the exact family situation doesn't really matter.
I like this train of thought. Will look it over and put it before the full team for discussion.