|
You can call it what you want, but the fact remains that many people who use it for the majority of their character generation and knowledge will wind up with stuff that is wrong on their character sheet and not know if until someone else points it out to them.
Dont get me wrong, HeroLab has its uses. It is mostly correct, and I think the HeroLab stations at Gencon and other big cons are a good idea, mostly, but Ive seen some pretty wild mistakes come out of it.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty good at the rules, and I double check Herolab all the time. It's VERY good, but it's not perfect.
Most of the time herolab has the exact text from the book, again NOT ALWAYS, but it's pretty darn good at it.
I have a couple players that I am exceedingly happy that they use herolab. I honestly believe that 50% of their stuff would be wrong if they didn't.
Herolab prevents many very common mistakes.
Things herolab does, that a LOT of players without simply don't do.
Carrying capacity
Character weight
Item Weights
Armor check penalties
proper skills
Favored class (lots of 3.5ers still don't know what that is)
Spell prep, bonus spells.
Adjusting to add spell effects
Not allowing multiples of the same bonus
Not allowing people to take things without pre-reqs
Calculating spell DCs
POINT BUY (correctly)
Calculating hit points (correctly)
Leveling animal companions (saw a guy who thought the table was cumulative... his animal companion was impressive lol)
That's a list of things that Herolab does, that I saw done incorrectly, or not done at all, at gencon.
Currently, it's applying a save DC penalty for magical lineage and Wayang spellhunter, and if you're a Zen archer, the flurry calculation doesn't factor in point blank shot. I have 12 characters those are the only issues on any of my characters at the moment.
Can we stop demonizing herolab, and accept that it's an exceptional tool, but like any tool people will make mistakes with it.
The people who act dumb and say "but herolab says" are the same people that would say "but this guy on the forum said" or "d20pfsrd says" or whatever. People that don't do their research, or understand their character are at fault. The program doesn't make people stupid, people being lazy or stupid makes them stupid.
|
All the justifications I keep seeing as to why it should be okay to make things harder on the players and DMs by enforcing unfun paperwork rules doesn't change the fact that you are enforcing unfun paperwork rules."Enforcing unfun paperwork rules" doesn't make things nearly as hard on me as a GM as when players can't show me rules that I can trust to be accurate when I need to understand how their abilities work.
I can't agree with that. I would much rather have the inconvenience of occasionally having to deal with not having all the info on a rule than the constant inconvenience of having to do character audits. Especially when most of the rules are available to me via the PRD.
|
|
You can call it what you want, but the fact remains that many people who use it for the majority of their character generation and knowledge will wind up with stuff that is wrong on their character sheet and not know if until someone else points it out to them.
Dont get me wrong, HeroLab has its uses. It is mostly correct, and I think the HeroLab stations at Gencon and other big cons are a good idea, mostly, but Ive seen some pretty wild mistakes come out of it.
My personal experience is that people who use manually filled in character sheets have far more errors on them than people who use Hero Lab. Requiring people to use the books over a software program is no guarantee of increased accuracy.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
All the justifications I keep seeing as to why it should be okay to make things harder on the players and DMs by enforcing unfun paperwork rules doesn't change the fact that you are enforcing unfun paperwork rules."Enforcing unfun paperwork rules" doesn't make things nearly as hard on me as a GM as when players can't show me rules that I can trust to be accurate when I need to understand how their abilities work.I can't agree with that. I would much rather have the inconvenience of occasionally having to deal with not having all the info on a rule than the constant inconvenience of having to do character audits. Especially when most of the rules are available to me via the PRD.
How did "you need to show me the actual resource" turn into constant character audits?
|
|
My personal experience is that people who use manually filled in character sheets have far more errors on them than people who use Hero Lab. Requiring people to use the books over a software program is no guarantee of increased accuracy.You can call it what you want, but the fact remains that many people who use it for the majority of their character generation and knowledge will wind up with stuff that is wrong on their character sheet and not know if until someone else points it out to them.
Dont get me wrong, HeroLab has its uses. It is mostly correct, and I think the HeroLab stations at Gencon and other big cons are a good idea, mostly, but Ive seen some pretty wild mistakes come out of it.
Im sure you are correct there, but the mistakes made on a handwritten character sheet that was created using the books are because the PLAYER made a mistake, which can then be corrected by the PLAYER. Its not wrong cause someone made a coding error or paraphrased the rule.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My personal experience is that people who use manually filled in character sheets have far more errors on them than people who use Hero Lab. Requiring people to use the books over a software program is no guarantee of increased accuracy.Im sure you are correct there, but the mistakes made on a handwritten character sheet that was created using the books are because the PLAYER made a mistake, which can then be corrected by the PLAYER. Its not wrong cause someone made a coding error or paraphrased the rule.
Not to mention that when you point out a manual error, players don't put their hands in the air and say "Hey, I'm just going by what the pencil wrote".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention that when you point out a manual error, players don't put their hands in the air and say "Hey, I'm just going by what the pencil wrote".My personal experience is that people who use manually filled in character sheets have far more errors on them than people who use Hero Lab. Requiring people to use the books over a software program is no guarantee of increased accuracy.Im sure you are correct there, but the mistakes made on a handwritten character sheet that was created using the books are because the PLAYER made a mistake, which can then be corrected by the PLAYER. Its not wrong cause someone made a coding error or paraphrased the rule.
Are you kidding? All my writing utensils are sentient and they apparently hate me.
|
|
How did "you need to show me the actual resource" turn into constant character audits?All the justifications I keep seeing as to why it should be okay to make things harder on the players and DMs by enforcing unfun paperwork rules doesn't change the fact that you are enforcing unfun paperwork rules."Enforcing unfun paperwork rules" doesn't make things nearly as hard on me as a GM as when players can't show me rules that I can trust to be accurate when I need to understand how their abilities work.I can't agree with that. I would much rather have the inconvenience of occasionally having to deal with not having all the info on a rule than the constant inconvenience of having to do character audits. Especially when most of the rules are available to me via the PRD.
How else would you enforce the rule they have to have the necessary resource to play their character if not without audits? There is a difference between expecting players to follow the rules and forcing them to follow them.
|
How else would you enforce the rule they have to have the necessary resource to play their character if not without audits? There is a difference between expecting players to follow the rules and forcing them to follow them.How did "you need to show me the actual resource" turn into constant character audits?All the justifications I keep seeing as to why it should be okay to make things harder on the players and DMs by enforcing unfun paperwork rules doesn't change the fact that you are enforcing unfun paperwork rules."Enforcing unfun paperwork rules" doesn't make things nearly as hard on me as a GM as when players can't show me rules that I can trust to be accurate when I need to understand how their abilities work.I can't agree with that. I would much rather have the inconvenience of occasionally having to deal with not having all the info on a rule than the constant inconvenience of having to do character audits. Especially when most of the rules are available to me via the PRD.
Outside of an audit, during a game, a player wants to use Feat X, a Feat with which I am unfamiliar. I ask them to provide me with the actual resource from which they got the feat. If they show me herolab they are out of luck ...
|
|
Outside of an audit, during a game, a player wants to use Feat X, a Feat with which I am unfamiliar. I ask them to provide me with the actual resource from which they got the feat. If they show me herolab they are out of luck ...
Is that true even if you can easily access that information on the PRD?
What you are talking about is an example of exactly what I mean by "occasionally having to deal with not having all the info on a rule." Doing what you are doing above is far more preferable to me than doing character audits, which is how the organized play guide says you are supposed to enforce it.
|
|
Outside of an audit, during a game, a player wants to use Feat X, a Feat with which I am unfamiliar. I ask them to provide me with the actual resource from which they got the feat. If they show me herolab they are out of luck ...Is that true even if you can easily access that information on the PRD?
What you are talking about is an example of exactly what I mean by "occasionally having to deal with not having all the info on a rule." Doing what you are doing above is far more preferable to me than doing character audits, which is how the organized play guide says you are supposed to enforce it.
As a GM, I am not required to have internet connection, nor the PRD at the table.
I happen to have the PRD app on my tablet, which allows me to access many of the books contained within the PRD.
All I'm required to have is the information necessary to run the scenario being run at that moment.
As such, if I ask you for a source for a feat that I don't know, that happens to be in Ultimate Combat, you can't just look it up in the PRD to give me the info. You have to show me what it says in the book.
|
|
Just to try to get things back on track, the purpose of this thread isn't:
- to argue why there's a rule to prove ownership
- to argue whether there should be a rule for proof of ownership
- to argue over the reliability of 3rd party sources
We're trying to find ways to make hard copies usable when they're not physically present (which will almost certainly involve photocopies of relevant pages).
Third party solutions, whatever their merits and limitations, will likely not solve the problem, since the player must present a digital or physical copy from an official source to make this work (that said, I'm open to any and all ideas).
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I feel a photocopy of a physical copy should be fine, and I hope this is the way it ends up going. It does have potential for abuse (but so does the current system ... pdf printouts have similar capabilities for abuse). It does, however, solve one issue (folks who have purchased hard copies) and solves one non-issue that continues to be raised and then answered (families needing only one copy).
As has been said, cheaters are going to cheat, but we should have at least some measure of trust that the players of the game will not be stealing content.
|
|
I’m someone that actually carried around the majority of my books in a backpack this Gencon as proof that I owned them. THAT WAS NOT FUN. It weighed more than my luggage, about 50 pounds of books and broke the strap on my (formerly) durable backpack.
Edit: I also had print outs of watermarked pages from a PDF (with my name on it) for Ultimate Combat and Magic, which is also valid.
Btw, at Gencon I was the only one I saw carrying around 50 pounds of books. If you audited almost all players, there is no way in hell they were carrying all of their resources on them (unless they own all of the PDFs and brought a mobile device).
I also wanted to mention that not a single GM asked to see an additional resource, even though I brought almost every book, printed several PDFs, and some obscure traits were used. The reality is that most GMs don't want to audit and don't have time to audit. <<< Reality check.
This will no longer be a problem for me since I’m buying a Kindle soon, loading it with PDFs, and will be bringing it to conventions in the future. Having said that, I’m pretty sure it will be a problem for many other people, especially if you get a GM that wants to audit. Like I said, I highly doubt anyone but players toting mobile devices will even have a chance to pass if a GM really wants to run “by the letter”.
My suggestion is that watermarked print outs from a PDF (with your name stamped on it) should be valid. I also suggest that a VOs initials and ID # on a photocopy from a book should also be valid evidence that you've purchased the book.
My suggestion is that watermarked print outs from a PDF (with your name stamped on it) should be valid.
A watermarked PDF print out is a valid reference document, as per Mike's clarification pre-GenCon.
Where are you getting that it isn't a valid one?
|
|
This proposal sounds entirely reasonable. I would suggest to have a sheet like the item worksheet where a judge could certify that the player owns the resource in question. Each book could be signed off individually as they get added to the character. To try to prevent book sharing the owner of the book should have their name written in permanent ink on or near the inside cover prior to the verification.
As someone who rides a motorcycle to most games having to bring the entire pile of books is ponderous. A way to lighten my load would be appreciated.
Mr Brock, please take this suggestion seriously.
Den
And I'll kick things off:
For a bunch of reasons, I'd like to see an official "Chronicle 0" that captures characters' initial equipment and purchases. It would also be a good place to list any Additional Resources used in character creation.
The sheet could have something like this:
Additional Resource:.......Source:........................Proof of Ownership:
____________________ __________________ ___________________Where the player would fill out the first two fields, present any sources listed to their GM, and the GM would sign off that physical (or digital) copies were present.
Additional Feats or items purchased would be similarly captured on subsequent chronicle sheets. Players would only need to bring physical copies once for each Additional Resource.
The biggest issue I see with this is the obvious one: someone borrows a book, gets the sign-off, and then uses a photocopy from that point on without ever purchasing the book. I don't have a solution for this, other than accepting that there will always be people willing to do what they have to do to cheat the system.
|
|
I hate it when I hear that.Well, making the product PFS legal would improve the overall quality of the product for all their customers and would thus justify some of the price increase, but I do see your point.More people using a produce =/= the prodction value of the product increases.
The problem is that HeroLab makes mistakes, and even if they can be corrected, its just another layer of mistakes on top of the little bit Paizo feels the need to correct.
Also, HeroLab makes players stupid, IMO. They stop looking at what the books actually say and just give a 'but HeroLab says...' response.
I hate it when I hear/read "HeroLab makes players stupid". I use Hero Lab, I also own every book I use for a character. I spot check my Hero Lab sheets. Almost every single time that I have thought Hero Lab was wrong, after searching the rules in my books, I discovered that I was wrong and Hero Lab was right. I still spot check my Hero Lab sheets and double check things that seem off.
I might say "HeroLab said..." but I would also accept when I was shown, or told by the GM if in a session, that I was wrong.
Personally I use printouts from my pdfs for the books I have pdfs for, yes they are watermarked. I bring along the books I don't have pdfs for. This is a new thing I started after my last Con, Berserkon in Duluth. Prior to this change I lugged my whole collection with me every Con. It was heavy, it sucked, but I did it because that was the rule. I completely support the Campaign Staff looking into a method to verify ownership of your resources so that people don't need to cart all of their books to use the 26 pages they need from them for a character.
I like the chronicle 0 sign-off sheet idea proposed somewhere above. I agree it needs to be Venture Officers who sign off. If you don't have a Venture Officer near you, blink and that will likely change. Mike has been working hard recruiting new V-Os all over the place.
|
|
Now, people are often saying that it is totally fine for families and whatnot to share books, but whenever I see that post what jumps out to me is the at the same table part.
Are you actually ok if you play two games at once?
Within reason, yes. For me you must have a printout of some kind so you don't have to run across the room looking for something. At a large con you may get some push-back, though I have never seen it when it involved younger players.
|
|
Now, people are often saying that it is totally fine for families and whatnot to share books, but whenever I see that post what jumps out to me is the at the same table part.
Are you actually ok if you play two games at once?
Sharing physical books is limited to being at the same table.
If families have watermarked PDFs they all can print copies of the pages they need to run their characters, but only the owner of the PDF can have it on their electronic device. The owner of the PDF can not share the digital file with others.
I would say though, to keep things as honest as possible with a system such as this, that the signatures should come from a Venture-Officer, Paizo Staff member, or some other Paizo recognized representative.I'd have to get a rubber stamp with my signature made.
Can you get two made and give one to me?
I'll pay for them!*innocent look*
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you come up with stuff like this you need to base it on why the rule is there in the first place and any ideas that come up need to be based on why that rule is there.
So for this particular thread it is finding and alternative to carrying books or PDFs. So why is that rule there?
I see two reasons for it, for Paizo it is there to accurately show proof of ownership and for GMs it is so the players have a trusted source on hand that accurately reproduces the rules in question.
Any idea that comes from this thread needs to be able to do both of those or it is a dead idea before it even started.
So for example Allowing PRD use for players does not shows Pazio's proof of ownership they are looking for so that idea is a no go.
Allowing HeroLabs as a source does neither show proof of ownership or accurately reproduce the rules. HeroLabs does an excellent job of implementing the rules but not at reproducing them accurately (typos, not having full text)
I think the best idea I have seen is to allow photocopies of owned books with a signed chronicle verifying proof of ownership. That said this chronicle needs to be trusted and accurate and I agree with Andrew it should be limited in who can sign it to VOs who by their very job are required to be trusted.
This may be an inconvenience for some but it opens an option they did not have before for for a rule that when not followed could be an inconvenience to an entire table of players and GM.
|
As a GM, I am not required to have internet connection, nor the PRD at the table.
I happen to have the PRD app on my tablet, which allows me to access many of the books contained within the PRD.
All I'm required to have is the information necessary to run the scenario being run at that moment.
As such, if I ask you for a source for a feat that I don't know, that happens to be in Ultimate Combat, you can't just look it up in the PRD to give me the info. You have to show me what it says in the book.
We know how the rules currently work. This is a thread with ideas about how to change them.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston
|
…I think the best idea I have seen is to allow photocopies of owned books with a signed chronicle verifying proof of ownership. That said this chronicle needs to be trusted and accurate and I agree with Andrew it should be limited in who can sign it to VOs who by their very job are required to be trusted.
This may be an inconvenience for some but it opens an option they did not have before for for a rule that when not followed could be an inconvenience to an entire table of players and GM.
I like this idea too. Bring the book in on e to a gameday or first slot of a con, get it signed off, and you're taken care of. It would cover my physical books for physical games and a scan of the chronicle could cover my physical books for when I'm online (I have a mix of PDFs and physical books).
And heck, a chronicle sheet that signs off on PDF copies as well could be a backip to cover someone who forgot to print out the PDF page (or who leveled/found out about something new and brought the PDF right then and there only to have the Internet connection go away 30 minutes later…). Granted, one would need to get this one updated/replaced on a regular basis.
|
|
We know how the rules currently work. This is a thread with ideas about how to change them.As a GM, I am not required to have internet connection, nor the PRD at the table.
I happen to have the PRD app on my tablet, which allows me to access many of the books contained within the PRD.
All I'm required to have is the information necessary to run the scenario being run at that moment.
As such, if I ask you for a source for a feat that I don't know, that happens to be in Ultimate Combat, you can't just look it up in the PRD to give me the info. You have to show me what it says in the book.
Sniping at me when I was correcting an incorrect assertion, especially without at least including that incorrect assertion in your reply, is beyond rude.
Please stop sniping.
|
|
I hate it when I hear/read "HeroLab makes players stupid". I use Hero Lab, I also own every book I use for a character. I spot check my Hero Lab sheets. Almost every single time that I have thought Hero Lab was wrong, after searching the rules in my books, I discovered that I was wrong and Hero Lab was right. I still spot check my Hero Lab sheets and double check things that seem off.
I might say "HeroLab said..." but I would also accept when I was shown, or told by the GM if in a session, that I was wrong.
You, amazing typing wulfe, are the exception then, not the rule. At least in my experience.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Im sure someone on here has already said something like this, but I am goign to make the point again, just in case. And please dont take this as me just dismissing anyone's suggestions without even considering it.
There have been several good suggestions made already, but most of them are the wrong kind of suggestions.
The proof of ownership issue is an issue for PFS ONLY. With PFS play presumabley being a small percentage of all the people who buy and play the game, Paizo is probably not likely to agree to any of the suggestions being made here that increase the cost of what they are doing in any way. Anything that will add a step to their production or cost them or someone they do business with (retailers, Lone Wolf, etc) are likely not going to get approved.
If this idea is going to actually gain some traction and get approved, then it is likely going to need to be something that Paizo doesnt have to spend money on (other than maybe pay to have their web team upload something onto the site) and/or something Mike can decide himself.
A good example of that is the 'Photocopy with approved signature by VO' type stuff. No, it's not perfect, but implementing that will not cost the company anything, so they might go for something like that.
SO, if you are interested in actually helping get this thing going, and not just posting to voice your opinion on how you think the current rule is dumb, then maybe consider trying to come up with ways that wont cost Paizo money.
Just my 2cp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am going to re-affirm my vote for a chronicle sheet (or other official Paizo sheet) for Venture Officers to sign once they have seen the physical books, and from there allow photocopies of those books to be used.
Proposal for the official sheet:
Have all of the current hardcover books on it (and perhaps those that are scheduled to be released this year), with a space for the VO's signature and PFS number.
Have blank lines for other products to be hand written in, again with a space for the VO's signature and PFS number.
Pros:
Low cost to implement.
Minimal logistics to set up.
Those signing the sheets already have the trust of PFS staff, and are motivated for the community to succeed and grow.
Easy for players to bring the chronicle, along with photocopies, with them - including travel by bus, plane, motorcycle or pedal bike.
Cons:
An extra piece of paper for players to keep track of.
Subject to cheaters forging signatures and/or multiple people using the same books.
Further proposal:
That the list of those who can sign the chronicle be expanded to include event organizers and/or store owners/managers that have an active PFS community (best example that I have here is Drogon, owner of Enchanted Grounds).
And if there is no sign of real abuse, that in a year's time PFS management consider expanding the list to include 4 star GMs (and perhaps 3 star GMs), as they too have demonstrated a willingness to help the PFS community.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You, amazing typing wulfe, are the exception then, not the rule. At least in my experience.I hate it when I hear/read "HeroLab makes players stupid". I use Hero Lab, I also own every book I use for a character. I spot check my Hero Lab sheets. Almost every single time that I have thought Hero Lab was wrong, after searching the rules in my books, I discovered that I was wrong and Hero Lab was right. I still spot check my Hero Lab sheets and double check things that seem off.
I might say "HeroLab said..." but I would also accept when I was shown, or told by the GM if in a session, that I was wrong.
I understand that I am the exception. That doesn't change the fact that I get angry when people start generalizing and lumping me in with people who are nothing like me.
I must admit, I would at least be tempted to argue if I thought I was right. I just would not, consciously, use Hero Lab as a source to justify my argument. I might us it as an excuse to justify my mistake. But if I am justifying a mistake this way, I, in my mind, am explicitly not trying to say Hero Lab is right.
I hope this did not come off as argumentative. My intent was to add clarity to my earlier post.
|
|
You, amazing typing wulfe, are the exception then, not the rule. At least in my experience.
1) Their lack of game knowledge, particularly about their own PC, is extremely noticeable.
2) And their chance of self-auditing is close to 0%.
3) Using Hero Labs gives them a sense of entitlement that they don't need the additional resources, that the other players don't have.
This is just my observation on my small group. Obviously if the player reads the rulebooks and uses Hero Labs, this doesn't apply.
Unfortunately Hero Labs gives most players the impression they don't need to read the rulebook, which definitely applies to my casual players.
Should probably make a new thread if you want to discuss further.
A chronicle sheet certifying players own a resource plus photocopies is about as far removed as I think is workable: You can have the chronicle out and the page with the rule out on the table at the same time so it doesn't slow down verification too much......
Something like signed photocopies or photocopies that incorporate the player's PFID card are a much more reasonable, they solve the problem of book owners having to carry heavy books
My preference is for the signed chronicle sheet over signed photocopies.
This will allow much more flexibility for the players. The players could make the necessary photocopies for the books, as they needed them for various characters (replacing tattered ones, gaming table food stained ones, etc), without having to continually get a VO to sign the new or additional page.
One player said that he had 12 characters that he took to conventions, only deciding which one he would play depending on the tier of the table and what the group had most need of. To me, this means a wide variety of feats, spells, items, class abilities, archetypes, etc., that is, lots of photocopied pages that need to be signed by the VO, as opposed to having a VO sign once for each book, on the same sheet, and the player making as many unsigned photocopies as needed.
|
As much as I do not want to RE-purchase PDFs of my paper books, frankly that us what I suspect is going to happen. I am hoping that come black friday or cyber Monday, I can RE-purchase them at a dis punted price. That is what I did with the most heavy offender of the core rulebook when it was only $7.50 during the 10th anniversary sale of Paizo. At least I know I am.supporting the company this way, even if I think lowly of most of their production, I do still want them publishing and showing me.the rare gems I do lo e from them. I think PFS should focus on keeping the money coming in and giving GMs a accurate source of rules to reference. I love d20pfsrd but we do not always have WiFi. We do not always have a. Battery life either, a problem with PDFs also.
I do not believe getting VO sign offs is a solution. The player could hand their friends book over or sell their own right afterward. I think this will take up wayyy tooooo much time. They are already volunteers. Please don't waste their time on this.
Funny thing happened yesterday. I was so keen on making sure I had all my paper books I might need along with dice and minis that I forgot to pack both my tablet. Got to the game and realized I did not have the above mentioned CRB PDF! Thought I could download it on my smart. Phone and realized I left that at home also! Do I understand right, if I forget my tablet athome, I am supposed to just play a pregen, but than cannot apply credit at that same subtler? Sounds similar(not exactly the same) to a catch 22 to me. Judges who know you have the stuff should just hand wave it? Wouldn't that seem like favortisim when at the same table, a visitor to your city said they could not fit their books in their luggage?
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I don't really want to see another form.
The player is already supposed to have the sourcebook (hardcopy or PDF) at the table. We are discussing ways to also allow photocopied pages from a hardcopy book. If the player doesn't have those pages available when the GM request them, that's pretty cut-and-dried. So, in my opinion, that's where the signature needs to be. It also avoids any problems about what book the photocopy was made from; when I look at an arbitrary page in my hardcopy rulebooks, I don't see anything that shows me which book this is. Does a signature showing I own <Ultimate Splats> allow me to use this particular ability? It's hard to know. At least with a signed photocopy somebody is saying that the sheets with their signature match a physical book that was shown to them when they signed.
But, equally, I don't feel it needs to be a VOs signature. We already trust the GMs to fill out a chronicle accurately; Maybe GMs should be able to sign off on photocopies, too.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I for one would like to allow GMs and or VLs sign off on books owned.
I'm on a computer at work 8 hours a day and like hard copies for gaming. I don't feel I should pay twice and a new policy would really go a long way supporting my long distance trip to Gen Con. I Don't want the airline cost or hassle of bringing all my books to be added to the already expensive trip. If you can prove that you own the books and can travel with a few organized notebooks I bet the GenCon/PaizoCon attendance would increase.
|
|
I would love to be able to use photocopies of the books I own instead of having to buy them again in PDF form or carry all the books I might need for my various characters. I'm a bit of an organizational freak and I already have printouts of every page I use (CRB or additional resource) that I keep with each of my characters. My problem is that I prefer real books and up to now have bought everything hard copy and will continue to due so (although getting a subscription means I will have a PDF as well for all future books). If I could get my additional resources signed off on by bringing in the books once instead of having to carry all of them every time I play that would be great.
|
|
They are pretty prevalent in most areas now. We have over 150 Venture Officers world-wide.
Wow, we have one poor guy who already works his behind off 24/7 getting games on the table for us, now he's going to have queues of players up to eight hours drive away lining up for book signings. Its going to look like J K Rowlings arrived in town :P
GM's we could get away with, 'noted officials' not so much.
I think for me the solution is just going to have to be to buy everything on PDF and print it out on 4 pages to a sheet double sided and bring everything ever printed in two binders. Its not too bad, books like Companions end up as 5 or 6 sheets only, CRB fits on about 50 A4 sheets.
IF ONLY Paizo would do a PDF only sub that would be great. Or a megasale on the backlog.
I can comfortably read a page reduced to 25%, my poor older friends struggle, but hey... better their eyes struggle than my back struggles! :)
|
|
I would say though, to keep things as honest as possible with a system such as this, that the signatures should come from a Venture-Officer, Paizo Staff member, or some other Paizo recognized representative.I think that such a system is pretty unnecessary since so much of PFS operates on the honor system anyway and I cannot believe that this kind of thing has been anything other than a non-problem.
specifically the problem that I have with it is the above. Lets say that I play PFS 95% online because there are no Venture-Officers assigned to within a 150 mile radius of where I live (I did this or two years). Who signs my "gave money to Paizo" sheet? Am I only allowed to start new characters in person with a VO present now? Do I have to send Mike an email with screenshots of all my PDF pages so he can sign? What happens when I add a spell or feat from a weird splatbook at a higher level? See how this creates orders of magnitude more problems than it solves.
The only way I would countenance something like this would be if it were a completely optional and voluntary system for those people who buy physical books instead of PDFs and also are reluctant to carry them around. In that case it is a perfectly good stopgap.
I HIGHLY doubt that you have a have to lug heavy books issue when you play online...just saying. So this wouldn't be an issue for that. Now IF your nearest VO is not easily reachable...maybe a provision for a GM or a store coordinator to do it maybe?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston
|
I HIGHLY doubt that you have a have to lug heavy books issue when you play online...just saying. So this wouldn't be an issue for that. Now IF your nearest VO is not easily reachable...maybe a provision for a GM or a store coordinator to do it maybe?
It's not so much "lugging books" around, but "how do I prove to a GM online that I have X physical book I purchased at a game store/won as a prize at a con so I can use it as a source." Just scanning the page(s) from your book isn't sufficient proof because its not a watermarked PDF.
A tracking sheet that can be signed by an approved authority can be scanned and emailed to the GM with page scan for the rule(s) in question I think is a good solution.
|
Don't Venture Officers already have enough responsibilities without adding having to check stacks of books to verify ownership including checking names written in them (and presumably IDs to verify that it is the person's name) and sign ownership sheets? How much time would this take up and how many of these would be piled on every VO at every con? Would our VO have to make a special trip to the venue on the day everyone brings their books just to check and sign sheets? This is an awful lot of hassle to put on volunteers just to make it easier for some players to avoid carrying books.