Since you seem so intent on arguing semantics....
The following definition was approved by the American Marketing Association Board of Directors:
Marketing:
Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large. (Approved October 2007)
As I see it ... Paizo
has created a product for us to buy
has communicated with us that they have a product for us to buy and if we buy said product we can play PFS
has delivered said product
and with us paying for it, we have exchanged offerings with paizoergo ... ipso facto .... MARKETING
PFS is a product in of itself.
Youtube is not marketing for internet providers.
The sport of Golf is not marketing to sell clubs.
The sport of Tennis is not marketing to sell rackets.
Cars are not marketing to sell gas.
|
Blink...
So a company who sells a game and a book, wants to make money by selling that book so they can make more books to sell, and thus make more money.
So they come up with a concept, by which they foster a public gaming environment, that requires people to buy their book to play it.
PFS isn't marketing itself. It is marketing the Pathfinder line of books.
But regardless what you call it... it is still true that Paizo requires you to buy a book to play PFS, so that they can make money.
I'm not sure how a service that a company provides to others makes that company any money, unless they charge specifically for the service.
Since Paizo doesn't charge an entry fee specifically to play PFS, and doesn't make any money specifically and directly off of PFS... how is it a service?
The telephone company provides me a service. I pay them, and I get to use my phone. They may also sell me a phone.
The company I work for sells doors and frames. We also have a service department that can go to the jobsite and either fix frames or doors that are incorrectly built, or work on an existing door and frame that needs to change its current configuration. We charge for those services.
But to equate PFS with phone service in which I have to buy a book to be able to use it, is akin to saying that just because I by a phone, I can suddenly get phone service.
To call it a service, you have to pay the company specifically for the service. Not for any product that allows you to use the service. Since Paizo doesn't charge specifically for the service, and only charges for their product, which can be used elsewise... it cannot be called a service.
|
I understand the need for the requirement to buy books/PDFs, and I have no problem with it. I ended up buying PDFs myself, so that I don't have to bring out several books to various PFS games.
Of course, there are some people who prefer books to plain PDFs. And these are the people I feel sympathetic to. The need to have to carry around the books all over the place.
While I understand photocopied books are not allowed, and understand the reasons why, I wonder if a compromise can be reached in that area? Something along the lines of bringing the book along with photocopied pages from said book to a game, and having the GM sign said copies? In the end it might not be practible, and may or may not have come up in the past, just figured I'd throw that out there.
It has been discussed, and remains a reasonable possibility.
Along those lines, bringing once to a game day your physical resources which are then recorded on some manner of record sheet with a signed witnessing from a GM remains a workable notion as well.
I'm not sure how a service that a company provides to others makes that company any money, unless they charge specifically for the service.
League of Legends and other free to play MMO's make a lot of money without charging for their service.
If PFS was a digital game, it would be like Guild Wars 1. You buy the game and you buy expansions. That is how the company makes money. They don't charge you for using the server.
|
|
I understand the need for the requirement to buy books/PDFs, and I have no problem with it. I ended up buying PDFs myself, so that I don't have to bring out several books to various PFS games.
Of course, there are some people who prefer books to plain PDFs. And these are the people I feel sympathetic to. The need to have to carry around the books all over the place.
While I understand photocopied books are not allowed, and understand the reasons why, I wonder if a compromise can be reached in that area? Something along the lines of bringing the book along with photocopied pages from said book to a game, and having the GM sign said copies? In the end it might not be practible, and may or may not have come up in the past, just figured I'd throw that out there.
It has been discussed, and remains a reasonable possibility.
Along those lines, bringing once to a game day your physical resources which are then recorded on some manner of record sheet with a signed witnessing from a GM remains a workable notion as well.
While that may be well and good .... if you as a player decide then that you don't need to have the information at had to describe the *shiny* you want to use... how does the GM adjudicate what you want to do based on the rules... just take your word for it how it works?
We've seen time and time again how interpretations on the boards go .. imagine that in public with the different interpretations. Is it not just better to have the rules at hand and avoid the interpretations and the hassles that go with trying to decide how a *shiny* works?
|
|
Since you seem so intent on arguing semantics....
The following definition was approved by the American Marketing Association Board of Directors:
Marketing:
Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large. (Approved October 2007)
As I see it ... Paizo
has created a product for us to buy
has communicated with us that they have a product for us to buy and if we buy said product we can play PFS
has delivered said product
and with us paying for it, we have exchanged offerings with paizoergo ... ipso facto .... MARKETING
PFS is a product in of itself.
Youtube is not marketing for internet providers.
The sport of Golf is not marketing to sell clubs.
The sport of Tennis is not marketing to sell rackets.
Cars are not marketing to sell gas.
You keep using arguments that such-n-such is not marketing for company X.
When Such-n-such is run by Company Y, not Company X. Of course You Tube is not specifically marketing for internet providers (although it can work that way if someone really wants to use You Tube, they might choose to buy internet service).
And some sporting events can be used as marketing for product. The entire sport, no. But some events are create specifically to market. Why do you think that Sprint puts their name on the NASCAR primary series? Marketing. They want to sell phones and service by using car racing as a marketing tool. They have a partnership with another company.
It is possible that some internet provider could partner with You Tube to sell internet service too. That's marketing.
But when you have a single company, selling a product, and they create a phenomenon for the sole purpose of selling that product. That's marketing.
Your analogies are bad ones.
|
|
I'm not sure how a service that a company provides to others makes that company any money, unless they charge specifically for the service.League of Legends and other free to play MMO's make a lot of money without charging for their service.
If PFS was a digital game, it would be like Guild Wars 1. You buy the game and you buy expansions. That is how the company makes money. They don't charge you for using the server.
This isn't an MMO. Stop using other business models to define this one. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There appears to be so much vitriol and a general "all or nothing" attitude permeating both sides of this conversation that it's no wonder Mike, Jessica, and others keep having to remove posts.
When you go to a restaurant that has a policy of 'no shoes, no shirt, no service' without a shirt, and they say they are considering changing the policy but have not yet, you either put on a shirt or go somewhere else. You can discuss it at the table all you want, but you better wear a shirt.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I understand the need for the requirement to buy books/PDFs, and I have no problem with it. I ended up buying PDFs myself, so that I don't have to bring out several books to various PFS games.
Of course, there are some people who prefer books to plain PDFs. And these are the people I feel sympathetic to. The need to have to carry around the books all over the place.
While I understand photocopied books are not allowed, and understand the reasons why, I wonder if a compromise can be reached in that area? Something along the lines of bringing the book along with photocopied pages from said book to a game, and having the GM sign said copies? In the end it might not be practible, and may or may not have come up in the past, just figured I'd throw that out there.
It has been discussed, and remains a reasonable possibility.
Along those lines, bringing once to a game day your physical resources which are then recorded on some manner of record sheet with a signed witnessing from a GM remains a workable notion as well.
While that may be well and good .... if you as a player decide then that you don't need to have the information at had to describe the *shiny* you want to use... how does the GM adjudicate what you want to do based on the rules... just take your word for it how it works?
We've seen time and time again how interpretations on the boards go .. imagine that in public with the different interpretations. Is it not just better to have the rules at hand and avoid the interpretations and the hassles that go with trying to decide how a *shiny* works?
Last time it was discussed, the idea was that you would copy the cover page, Write your name on it, have it signed by a GM, and then bring that and a copy of the page with the rules you need on it.
This isn't an MMO. Stop using other business models to define this one. There is more than one way to skin a cat.I'm not sure how a service that a company provides to others makes that company any money, unless they charge specifically for the service.League of Legends and other free to play MMO's make a lot of money without charging for their service.
If PFS was a digital game, it would be like Guild Wars 1. You buy the game and you buy expansions. That is how the company makes money. They don't charge you for using the server.
No PFS is a MMT (massively multiplayer tabletop). I can see how that is completely different from an MMO, silly me.
|
|
I understand the need for the requirement to buy books/PDFs, and I have no problem with it. I ended up buying PDFs myself, so that I don't have to bring out several books to various PFS games.
Of course, there are some people who prefer books to plain PDFs. And these are the people I feel sympathetic to. The need to have to carry around the books all over the place.
While I understand photocopied books are not allowed, and understand the reasons why, I wonder if a compromise can be reached in that area? Something along the lines of bringing the book along with photocopied pages from said book to a game, and having the GM sign said copies? In the end it might not be practible, and may or may not have come up in the past, just figured I'd throw that out there.
It has been discussed, and remains a reasonable possibility.
Along those lines, bringing once to a game day your physical resources which are then recorded on some manner of record sheet with a signed witnessing from a GM remains a workable notion as well.
While that may be well and good .... if you as a player decide then that you don't need to have the information at had to describe the *shiny* you want to use... how does the GM adjudicate what you want to do based on the rules... just take your word for it how it works?
We've seen time and time again how interpretations on the boards go .. imagine that in public with the different interpretations. Is it not just better to have the rules at hand and avoid the interpretations and the hassles that go with trying to decide how a *shiny* works?
Last time it was discussed, the idea was that you would copy the cover page, Write your name on it, have it signed by a GM, and then bring that and a copy of the page with the rules you need on it.
So what then do I do as the GM when the player has the photocopy of the rules, but has forgotten his photocopy of the cover of the book? Do I assume that because he has the photocopy of the rules that it's all ok?
Or if he has the photocopy of the book cover, but has forgotten the photocopy of the rules...
There are tons of grey areas when we start playing with the rules like this... It's easier, in my opinion, to just state that if you want to use the *shiny* you need to have the book or the pdf. No grey area, no question about what the requirement is.
|
|
No PFS is a MMT (massively multiplayer tabletop). I can see how that is completely different from an MMO, silly me.This isn't an MMO. Stop using other business models to define this one. There is more than one way to skin a cat.I'm not sure how a service that a company provides to others makes that company any money, unless they charge specifically for the service.League of Legends and other free to play MMO's make a lot of money without charging for their service.
If PFS was a digital game, it would be like Guild Wars 1. You buy the game and you buy expansions. That is how the company makes money. They don't charge you for using the server.
Completely different business model and medium. So yeah, its way different.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So is there a particular reason that no fewer than 3 grown adults (assuming Marthkus is an adult) are arguing about whether or not PFS ia a marketing tool for PFS? Whether it is or not had no bearing on how the game functions.
I mean really? You guys have nothing better to do? :P
Edit: The other two, at least, who I am calling out for participating in this arguement are Andy and PFCBG.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
So is there a particular reason that no fewer than 3 grown adults (assuming Marthkus is an adult) are arguing about whether or not PFS ia a marketing tool for PFS?
No.
And actually they are arguing whether PFS is a Marketing Tool or a Service. (Cause obviously it can't be both.)
|
|
So is there a particular reason that no fewer than 3 grown adults (assuming Marthkus is an adult) are arguing about whether or not PFS ia a marketing tool for PFS? Whether it is or not had no bearing on how the game functions.
I mean really? You guys have nothing better to do? :P
Edit: The other two, at least, who I am calling out for participating in this arguement are Andy and PFCBG.
I feel like being amused today....
|
|
So is there a particular reason that no fewer than 3 grown adults (assuming Marthkus is an adult) are arguing about whether or not PFS ia a marketing tool for PFS? Whether it is or not had no bearing on how the game functions.
I mean really? You guys have nothing better to do? :P
Edit: The other two, at least, who I am calling out for participating in this arguement are Andy and PFCBG.
I suppose it goes to the whole "Someone on the internet is Wrong!" thing.
But more seriously, it goes to precedent. If we allow someone to define things the way they want to define them, rather than the way its already been defined... and they have some a propensity to try and manipulate words and definitions to attempt to strongarm and bully their way of doing things on everyone else... then I feel someone should take up the mantle of making sure the incorrect definition doesn't stand.
|
|
So what then do I do as the GM when the player has the photocopy of the rules, but has forgotten his photocopy of the cover of the book? Do I assume that because he has the photocopy of the rules that it's all ok?
Or if he has the photocopy of the book cover, but has forgotten the photocopy of the rules...
There are tons of grey areas when we start playing with the rules like this... It's easier, in my opinion, to just state that if you want to use the *shiny* you need to have the book or the pdf. No grey area, no question about what the requirement is.
Easier, sure. Better for PFS and Paizo? Not necessarily. It would be easier if we didn't have PFS at all, but it's clearly beneficial to both the players and the company, so even though it creates a mass of complications it's still done.
Most people have character folders. Asking them to have printouts of the relevant rules and proof of purchase (along the lines of what others are suggesting) isn't asking that much. We ask people to keep track of a lot of paperwork already, so adding one more thing isn't that big a deal. I think that's a pretty good compromise, actually, and would definitely support such a move.
I completely understand that it's easier to just have printouts... I'm talking about the propensity for people to forget to print things out ... but it on purpose on on accident.
I'm asking how I as a GM adjudicate when they forget the print out in the way that people are wanting them to have a photocopy of the book cover and the rule for the shiny if they forget one. As it is now, it's easy no book = no use of shiny (please note I'm simplifying for the purpose of this discussion)...
with the photocopies as a GM I'm then put in a position of trying to figure out the accurate information -- be it the ruling because the player forgot the photocopy of the rule, or the validity of them being able to use the shiny because they forgot the photocopy of the book cover.
So is there a particular reason that no fewer than 3 grown adults (assuming Marthkus is an adult) are arguing about whether or not PFS ia a marketing tool for PFS? Whether it is or not had no bearing on how the game functions.
I mean really? You guys have nothing better to do? :P
Edit: The other two, at least, who I am calling out for participating in this arguement are Andy and PFCBG.
One of my friends supports PFS ownership of rules requirement. But he only does this, because he does not consider PFS marketing. If PFS really is marketing, then allowing players access to the PRD just seems obvious.
ASIDE: Being an adult is a matter of age. It says nothing about a person's maturity or wisdom. That being said, I am an adult. Although I can't rent a car yet in most states.
|
|
There appears to be so much vitriol and a general "all or nothing" attitude permeating both sides of this conversation that it's no wonder Mike, Jessica, and others keep having to remove posts.When you go to a restaurant that has a policy of 'no shoes, no shirt, no service' without a shirt, and they say they are considering changing the policy but have not yet, you either put on a shirt or go somewhere else. You can discuss it at the table all you want, but you better wear a shirt.
Truth. My comment of all or nothing was in reference to the potential for change. Some folks do not seem open to the possibility.
|
|
Truth. My comment of all or nothing was in reference to the potential for change. Some folks do not seem open to the possibility.There appears to be so much vitriol and a general "all or nothing" attitude permeating both sides of this conversation that it's no wonder Mike, Jessica, and others keep having to remove posts.When you go to a restaurant that has a policy of 'no shoes, no shirt, no service' without a shirt, and they say they are considering changing the policy but have not yet, you either put on a shirt or go somewhere else. You can discuss it at the table all you want, but you better wear a shirt.
I'm open to the possibility of change to some degree.
But opening up the PRD as an allowable source seems counter-productive to selling product.
|
|
While that may be well and good .... if you as a player decide then that you don't need to have the information at had to describe the *shiny* you want to use... how does the GM adjudicate what you want to do based on the rules... just take your word for it how it works?
We've seen time and time again how interpretations on the boards go .. imagine that in public with the different interpretations. Is it not just better to have the rules at hand and avoid the interpretations and the hassles that go with trying to decide how a *shiny* works?
The present proposal has two schools of thought.
Option 1: I carry my physical collection to a game day. I have something resembling an official sheet, upon which I write the collection of books I own. Game day GM or VC/VL verifies what I have written on my sheet is in my possession, and signs off.
Moving forward, I carry that signed sheet with me, as well as a photocopy of all AR my character uses, and this combination is legal.
Option 2: I take photocopies of my physical resources along with the physical resource itself to a game day. I present both to my game day GM and/or VC/VL. They verify I own the physical book, and then sign off on the photocopy only. That individual photocopy is now a legal resource.
If someone claims to own a resource they have forgotten a signed photocopy or signed ownership sheet + photocopy for, you treat it just like anyone else missing the appropriate resource - said ability, feat, spell, whatever is not usable for that session.
|
|
While that may be well and good .... if you as a player decide then that you don't need to have the information at had to describe the *shiny* you want to use... how does the GM adjudicate what you want to do based on the rules... just take your word for it how it works?
We've seen time and time again how interpretations on the boards go .. imagine that in public with the different interpretations. Is it not just better to have the rules at hand and avoid the interpretations and the hassles that go with trying to decide how a *shiny* works?
The present proposal has two schools of thought.
Option 1: I carry my physical collection to a game day. I have something resembling an official sheet, upon which I write the collection of books I own. Game day GM or VC/VL verifies what I have written on my sheet is in my possession, and signs off.
Moving forward, I carry that signed sheet with me, as well as a photocopy of all AR my character uses, and this combination is legal.
Option 2: I take photocopies of my physical resources along with the physical resource itself to a game day. I present both to my game day GM and/or VC/VL. They verify I own the physical book, and then sign off on the photocopy only. That individual photocopy is now a legal resource.
If someone claims to own a resource they have forgotten a signed photocopy or signed ownership sheet + photocopy for, you treat it just like anyone else missing the appropriate resource - said ability, feat, spell, whatever is not usable for that session.
The issue i can see with option 1... the guy that has his random buddy sign off on the sheet with the books ... they can say anything about what the player actually has {yes i know we want to assume the best of the PFS community, but to be honest there will be someone out there that does this so we have to think of that}
The issue i have with option 2 is that it still puts me in the position of explaining to the player that despite having the rule printed out, that because he doesn't have the photocopy of the book cover he can't use it.
I'd rather have the way it is now... no physical resource, no use of the shiny
I have yet to see an option that is going to make me deviate from my opinion.
Well that's completely counterintuitive. How does that make any sense?If PFS really is marketing, then allowing players access to the PRD just seems obvious.
If PFS was marketing for Pathfinder, then it would have the same barriers to play as Pathfinder. PF does not require rules ownership to play. All the rules are freely available online. Paizo makes it's money from people deciding to buy books and contribute to the hobby that is PF. If PFS existed solely to support and expand PF, then it would follow some money making model as PF.
PFS is a service that Paizo offers consumers. It's money making strategy is different than their strategy for non-PFS PF.
Services make money directly. Marketing gets people to use services and makes money indirectly.
|
|
Truth. My comment of all or nothing was in reference to the potential for change. Some folks do not seem open to the possibility.There appears to be so much vitriol and a general "all or nothing" attitude permeating both sides of this conversation that it's no wonder Mike, Jessica, and others keep having to remove posts.When you go to a restaurant that has a policy of 'no shoes, no shirt, no service' without a shirt, and they say they are considering changing the policy but have not yet, you either put on a shirt or go somewhere else. You can discuss it at the table all you want, but you better wear a shirt.I'm open to the possibility of change to some degree.
But opening up the PRD as an allowable source seems counter-productive to selling product.
I agree. While I am sympathetic to that wish, Paizo needs to make money from it's players too.
The change I seek is a middle ground between:
1). Paizo profiting from it's product and verifying legitimate resources (all perfectly reasonable).
vs.
2). Players who own legitimate physical product but not PDF being able to employ their purchased product with a similar level of ease and courtesy as PDF owners (also perfectly reasonable).
I for one would have no problem spending an extra 5 minutes before or after a session to look over a player's collection and sign a few pages for them.
|
|
Well that's completely counterintuitive. How does that make any sense?If PFS really is marketing, then allowing players access to the PRD just seems obvious.
If PFS was marketing for Pathfinder, then it would have the same barriers to play as Pathfinder. PF does not require rules ownership to play. All the rules are freely available online. Paizo makes it's money from people deciding to buy books and contribute to the hobby that is PF. If PFS existed solely to support and expand PF, then it would follow some money making model as PF.
PFS is a service that Paizo offers consumers. It's money making strategy is different than their strategy for non-PFS PF.
Services make money directly. Marketing gets people to use services and makes money indirectly.
PFS doesn't make money directly. Your definition doesn't work for this business model.
|
If someone claims to own a resource they have forgotten a signed photocopy or signed ownership sheet + photocopy for, you treat it just like anyone else missing the appropriate resource - said ability, feat, spell, whatever is not usable for that session.
That would be reasonable in my opinion.
As an aside, I've faced a situation once where I forgot to print out the relevant pages from a PDF. I just accepted that I couldn't use that item for that session.
The campaign staff will make the decision in the end, and I'm confident they'll make the right one, whichever way it goes. (Everyone involved with PFS that I've dealt with, from local GMs to campaign staff here on these boards, are just plain awesome.)
PFS doesn't make money directly. Your definition doesn't work for this business model.Well that's completely counterintuitive. How does that make any sense?If PFS really is marketing, then allowing players access to the PRD just seems obvious.
If PFS was marketing for Pathfinder, then it would have the same barriers to play as Pathfinder. PF does not require rules ownership to play. All the rules are freely available online. Paizo makes it's money from people deciding to buy books and contribute to the hobby that is PF. If PFS existed solely to support and expand PF, then it would follow some money making model as PF.
PFS is a service that Paizo offers consumers. It's money making strategy is different than their strategy for non-PFS PF.
Services make money directly. Marketing gets people to use services and makes money indirectly.
You are required to buy books to play it. That is a direct money making model. You are guaranteed that everyone playing it(legally) has generating some money for Paizo.
|
|
So what then do I do as the GM when the player has the photocopy of the rules, but has forgotten his photocopy of the cover of the book? Do I assume that because he has the photocopy of the rules that it's all ok?
Or if he has the photocopy of the book cover, but has forgotten the photocopy of the rules...
There are tons of grey areas when we start playing with the rules like this... It's easier, in my opinion, to just state that if you want to use the *shiny* you need to have the book or the pdf. No grey area, no question about what the requirement is.
The answer here is, the same thing you do now if they don't have the current requirements.
I am allowed to use a print out from a PDF, and I only have to print the relevant pages. What would you do if I forgot to print out the relevant pages, or forgot to bring the relevant pages. No real difference between that scenario or the one you described. Just sayin'
Me, I have pdf's for almost all of my Paizo books, and I am getting more pdfs to make up the difference as time goes on, so it makes little difference to me. I don't see a plan that allows someone to photocopy pages from their book and use them in PFS, for proof of ownership as well as understanding of the rules, is a bad thing.
PRD not so much.
|
|
The issue i can see with option 1... the guy that has his random buddy sign off on the sheet with the books ... they can say anything about what the player actually has {yes i know we want to assume the best of the PFS community, but to be honest there will be someone out there that does this so we have to think of that}
The issue i have with option 2 is that it still puts me in the position of explaining to the player that despite having the rule printed out, that because he doesn't have the photocopy of the book cover he can't use it.
I'd rather have the way it is now... no physical resource, no use of the shiny
I have yet to see an option that is going to make me deviate from my opinion.
You are entitled to that opinion, and will not have hard feelings from me for it. I appreciate you considering the prospect and conversing about it.
Regarding option 1: That could certainly happen. If we want to be very strict about it, we could make it a VC/VL signature only. I personally do not think that is necessary though. I want Paizo to receive it's due share of spoils from the hard work it puts into it's product as much as anyone else who cares for this game. But I also realize two factors in this.
First, at some point, we have to just give the common fella the benefit for the doubt. Some jerks will no doubt slide through, but I do believe most people care about this game and want to see the company who funds it succeed.
Second, we cannot stop people from pirating or stealing. We can knock them out of PFS when we catch them, but I can't imagine PFS players are the main culprits there.
Regarding option 2: Forgive me, but I am not sure where the book cover thing came from. But if we wanted to add that stipulation in, the way you handle it would in the same way many in favor of the present method have been voicing the reasons against some of the other presented ideas/complaints:
"I'm sorry guy, I am sympathetic, but these are the rules for the campaign that must be followed to use your AR in this particular manner. Make sure to bring your cover photocopy next time and you'll be golden."
In my mind it's pretty much the same thing that would get said to anyone else missing an legitimate AR resource.
|
|
The issue i can see with option 1... the guy that has his random buddy sign off on the sheet with the books ... they can say anything about what the player actually has {yes i know we want to assume the best of the PFS community, but to be honest there will be someone out there that does this so we have to think of that}
The issue i have with option 2 is that it still puts me in the position of explaining to the player that despite having the rule printed out, that because he doesn't have the photocopy of the book cover he can't use it.
I'd rather have the way it is now... no physical resource, no use of the shiny
I have yet to see an option that is going to make me deviate from my opinion.
You are entitled to that opinion, and will not have hard feelings from me for it. I appreciate you considering the prospect and conversing about it.
Regarding option 1: That could certainly happen. If we want to be very strict about it, we could make it a VC/VL signature only. I personally do not think that is necessary though. I want Paizo to receive it's due share of spoils from the hard work it puts into it's product as much as anyone else who cares for this game. But I also realize two factors in this.
First, at some point, we have to just give the common fella the benefit for the doubt. Some jerks will no doubt slide through, but I do believe most people care about this game and want to see the company who funds it succeed.
Second, we cannot stop people from pirating or stealing. We can knock them out of PFS when we catch them, but I can't imagine PFS players are the main culprits there.
Regarding option 2: Forgive me, but I am not sure where the book cover thing came from. But if we wanted to add that stipulation in, the way you handle it would in the same way many in favor of the present method have been voicing the reasons against some of the other presented ideas/complaints:
"I'm sorry guy, I am sympathetic, but these are the rules for the...
I would love to give people the benefit of the doubt, the fact of the matter is there are enough people that will take the mile if given the inch that all aspects and all work-arounds have to be considered and the merits of them discussed in the vein of circumvention which in the end hurts the majority.
If this was a perfect world, I would say yep it's a good idea. the player shows up with photocopies, saves their back and we all have a good time. This is not a perfect world.
It looks like I misunderstood what you said for you option 2, there have been soooooo many options thrown about lol.
|
|
You are required to buy books to play it. That is a direct money making model. You are guaranteed that everyone playing it(legally) has generating some money for Paizo.PFS doesn't make money directly. Your definition doesn't work for this business model.Well that's completely counterintuitive. How does that make any sense?If PFS really is marketing, then allowing players access to the PRD just seems obvious.
If PFS was marketing for Pathfinder, then it would have the same barriers to play as Pathfinder. PF does not require rules ownership to play. All the rules are freely available online. Paizo makes it's money from people deciding to buy books and contribute to the hobby that is PF. If PFS existed solely to support and expand PF, then it would follow some money making model as PF.
PFS is a service that Paizo offers consumers. It's money making strategy is different than their strategy for non-PFS PF.
Services make money directly. Marketing gets people to use services and makes money indirectly.
It is indirect. You don't need to play PFS to use the book. You purchase the book and use anywhere, not just at a PFS game.
Little ID cards that come with the book, could be an easy way to prove purchases and save back pain.
It is indirect. You don't need to play PFS to use the book. You purchase the book and use anywhere, not just at a PFS game.You are required to buy books to play it. That is a direct money making model. You are guaranteed that everyone playing it(legally) has generating some money for Paizo.PFS doesn't make money directly. Your definition doesn't work for this business model.Well that's completely counterintuitive. How does that make any sense?If PFS really is marketing, then allowing players access to the PRD just seems obvious.
If PFS was marketing for Pathfinder, then it would have the same barriers to play as Pathfinder. PF does not require rules ownership to play. All the rules are freely available online. Paizo makes it's money from people deciding to buy books and contribute to the hobby that is PF. If PFS existed solely to support and expand PF, then it would follow some money making model as PF.
PFS is a service that Paizo offers consumers. It's money making strategy is different than their strategy for non-PFS PF.
Services make money directly. Marketing gets people to use services and makes money indirectly.
Yes, but to play PFS you must spend money. That makes it a service, not marketing.
|
|
It is indirect. You don't need to play PFS to use the book. You purchase the book and use anywhere, not just at a PFS game.You are required to buy books to play it. That is a direct money making model. You are guaranteed that everyone playing it(legally) has generating some money for Paizo.PFS doesn't make money directly. Your definition doesn't work for this business model.Well that's completely counterintuitive. How does that make any sense?If PFS really is marketing, then allowing players access to the PRD just seems obvious.
If PFS was marketing for Pathfinder, then it would have the same barriers to play as Pathfinder. PF does not require rules ownership to play. All the rules are freely available online. Paizo makes it's money from people deciding to buy books and contribute to the hobby that is PF. If PFS existed solely to support and expand PF, then it would follow some money making model as PF.
PFS is a service that Paizo offers consumers. It's money making strategy is different than their strategy for non-PFS PF.
Services make money directly. Marketing gets people to use services and makes money indirectly.
Yes, but to play PFS you must spend money. That makes it a service, not marketing.
You are not spending money directly to PFS to play PFS. There is no membership to play PFS. No monthly fee.
You are paying money to buy a product, for which if you want, allows you to also play PFS.
|
Yes, but to play PFS you must spend money. That makes it a service, not marketing.Actually, you don't have to spend money to play PFS. If you stick to Core Assumption options and never buy a scenario to run, you can play for years with a total investment of $0.00.
I was under the assumption that the Core Assumption assumed ownership of the Core Rulebook for every player. Not on the first day played of course, but within a few months at least.
|
|
I was under the assumption that the Core Assumption assumed ownership of the Core Rulebook for every player. Not on the first day played of course, but within a few months at least.Yes, but to play PFS you must spend money. That makes it a service, not marketing.Actually, you don't have to spend money to play PFS. If you stick to Core Assumption options and never buy a scenario to run, you can play for years with a total investment of $0.00.
Me too.
|
|
Me too.I was under the assumption that the Core Assumption assumed ownership of the Core Rulebook for every player. Not on the first day played of course, but within a few months at least.Yes, but to play PFS you must spend money. That makes it a service, not marketing.Actually, you don't have to spend money to play PFS. If you stick to Core Assumption options and never buy a scenario to run, you can play for years with a total investment of $0.00.
Me three.
Having read through a lot of these "I don't want to purchase/carry books threads" lately, I can see that there is some confusion regarding the "Core assumption."
Pathfinder Society Organized Play assumes that every player has the following resources.
• Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook
• Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play (this document)
|
|
Pathfinder Society Organized Play assumes that every player has the following resources.
• Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook
• Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play (this document)
I only hope I don't run into a GM who'll enforce having the CRB. As I only have the PDF, that will mean I'll need to print out the entire CRB, and that's a lot of pages to print :-/
|
|
I would love to give people the benefit of the doubt, the fact of the matter is there are enough people that will take the mile if given the inch that all aspects and all work-arounds have to be considered and the merits of them discussed in the vein of circumvention which in the end hurts the majority.
If this was a perfect world, I would say yep it's a good idea. the player shows up with photocopies, saves their back and we all have a good time. This is not a perfect world.
It looks like I misunderstood what you said for you option 2, there have been soooooo many options thrown about lol.
No worries about the misunderstanding, there was no catastrophe involved. ;)
If that assessment you spoke of works for you, that is fair enough, and I respect your viewpoint.
I actually look at it from a similar viewpoint, but draw a different conclusion. As you say, there are people who are going to take a mile out of an inch. In terms of the PFS community though, there is very little that I can do to stop them with watermark alteration being the simple procedure it is.
Instead, I will choose to focus on honoring Paizo's wishes by serving as a reasonable deterrent to such things by asking for legal AR resources when I require a reference to something I am unfamiliar with, while operating under my personal belief that far more of us in this community are honest enough gamers than not.
Opening up some options for photocopies is likely to have little impact on PFS operation as far as guarding product. Those who would play PFS without legitimately purchasing product already do so. The rest of us only have aspirations to fit everything neatly into one binder.
|
|
Pathfinder Society Organized Play assumes that every player has the following resources.
• Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook
• Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play (this document)I only hope I don't run into a GM who'll enforce having the CRB. As I only have the PDF, that will mean I'll need to print out the entire CRB, and that's a lot of pages to print :-/
The PDF is a viable legal source.
You don't have to have it in paper or book form.
Having it on your tablet or laptop is completely acceptable.
|
|
The PDF is a viable legal source.
You don't have to have it in paper or book form.
Having it on your tablet or laptop is completely acceptable.
Well, I currently don't have a tablet. And with a 2 year old daughter plus some debt, won't be able to afford one for a while (maybe in 6 months?). And my laptop is constantly being used to entertain said 2 year old, so unless I want to anger my wife, I can't take my laptop away from her :)
Hence the reason why I just print out the revelant stuff from my PDFs, including the CRB. I just don't want to be forced to print out the whole CRB.
Unless you're generous enough to buy me a tablet/laptop? ;-)
|
|
The PDF is a viable legal source.
You don't have to have it in paper or book form.
Having it on your tablet or laptop is completely acceptable.
Well, I currently don't have a tablet. And with a 2 year old daughter plus some debt, won't be able to afford one for a while (maybe in 6 months?). And my laptop is constantly being used to entertain said 2 year old, so unless I want to anger my wife, I can't take my laptop away from her :)
Hence the reason why I just print out the revelant stuff from my PDFs, including the CRB. I just don't want to be forced to print out the whole CRB.
Unless you're generous enough to buy me a tablet/laptop? ;-)
You don't have to print the whole crb... printing the pertinent pages is enough....
When people are discussing photocopies, they are referring to photocopies out of the actual hardcovers which are currently not legal
|
|
The PDF is a viable legal source.
You don't have to have it in paper or book form.
Having it on your tablet or laptop is completely acceptable.
Well, I currently don't have a tablet. And with a 2 year old daughter plus some debt, won't be able to afford one for a while (maybe in 6 months?). And my laptop is constantly being used to entertain said 2 year old, so unless I want to anger my wife, I can't take my laptop away from her :)
Hence the reason why I just print out the revelant stuff from my PDFs, including the CRB. I just don't want to be forced to print out the whole CRB.
Unless you're generous enough to buy me a tablet/laptop? ;-)
Printing the watermarked pages of your CRB PDF that are pertinent to your character are sufficient.
You don't have to print all 600 pages.
But the 3 to 5 pages for your class, the 1 page for your race, and if you have spells, any pages with those on it.
I would suggest also printing any pages with difficult to understand skills like Ride, Handle Animal and Fly.
Also if you have any particular weirdisms with your character, like you can use Poison, have the rules for Poison printed. Or if you do mounted combat, have the rules for Mounted Combat printed.