|
Our online policy, to show ownership, from the start has been any of the following can be used to prove ownership of material:
* Screen shot or screen share of Paizo downloads or screen shot of the inner cover page of the PDF with the players watermark on it
* Paizo Receipt of purchase
* Picture of physical books with a sheet of paper with the date and name of game written on it (or some similar note to show it's current)
* Any other agreeable method offered that satisfies the GM
|
A screenshot of your Downloads works easiest for PDF ownership. The date and time are typically part of the file name.
Paizo is very aware of the sharing of personal information. That's why sign-in sheets are no longer supposed to ask for real name or email, and why GMs are no longer required to sign Chronicles.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We've gone almost entirely to the honor system for chronicle history. There is no reason to go to great lengths to prove ownership. Ask the person if they own it. If they say yes, move on. If they say no, remind them of the ownership policy and move on. If a GM asks me if I own a book and after I say yes, they insist on proof, I'd probably just bail given that level of distrust.
|
|
And there are people who create characters without actually playing them in order to play at higher-level scenarios. And there are people who rebuild parts of their character up to and including a complete rebuild between sessions because who can track all the characters they are exposed to? And there are players who report empty tables in order to "cheat" themselves chronicles for scenarios they never played? Or organizers who have kept boons and/or gift certificates for themselves that should have gone to the players. And...
For a number of years we have had to deal with boon pirates in the Midwest and little was done. The general consensus was "cheaters gonna cheat" and the frequency is so low that its not worth the incredible amount of oversight and inconvenience to the general community just to deal with a handful of cheaters. So, why isn't that a consistent application across the Society? Why are some things treated like we cannot trust our participants and need restrictive oversight, while other issues are simply left to the honor system? And if all you have to do is provide the chronicle code its not like people who want to cheat aren't going to be able to get that piece of information. It doesn't actually prove ownership, it just proves knowledge of the code.
Besides, who is PhoxDev LLC and why do they have the right to question my ownership? Maybe because they are a private entity and can ask whatever they want? I guess, but it's just heavy-handed, IMHO.
Additionally, after all the complaints recently about private information security, I find it "interesting" that this site that has little to no information about who it is, who owns it, what their privacy rules are, etc. and they are asking for names, email addresses, org play numbers and Discord names. And there isn't a way to unregister once you've done so. There is no contact information provided (no "about us" page), just a link to join a public Discord server.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Besides, who is PhoxDev LLC and why do they have the right to question my ownership? Maybe because they are a private entity and can ask whatever they want? I guess, but it's just heavy-handed, IMHO.Additionally, after all the complaints recently about private information security, I find it "interesting" that this site that has little to no information about who it is, who owns it, what their privacy rules are, etc. and they are asking for names, email addresses, org play numbers and Discord names. And there isn't a way to unregister once you've done so. There is no contact information provided (no "about us" page), just a link to join a public Discord server.
They are the organisation who run the RPG Chronicles website for automated filling out of chronicle sheets. They were promoted in the last GM Update email for Paizocon.I have started using them but the information on their website is extremely sparse. They have no privacy policy, no information on who they are, what they do wit your data, no account page and no apparent way to unregister once you sign up.
When setting up a sign up sheet it asks players to provide name, email and discord addresses, org play number and various other bits of information to create the chronicle. However, it looks like you can sign up providing only the information you want to, only PFS no, faction and level are mandatory.
In terms of proof of ownership for GM's showing they own scenarios the only thing you have to provide is the code at the bottom of the chronicle.
There's no way to contact them, either. I noticed when their checkbox for Slow Track wasn't working, and the GM had to manually fill out my Chronicle separate from the other players. I wanted to email them feedback, but there's no address anywhere on their site.
This is all specific to one service, and not the general topic, but I can provide a little clarity for those interested, and then maybe we can move this to a more specific thread.
This is all important feedback from the community, and I know the developer will appreciate it.
As of now, RPG Chronicles is one developer who took a pain point in the reporting process (chronicle generation) and developed a tool to help himself, then shared it with the community based on a lot of requests for access. Over the last few months, it has spiraled in both usage and capabilities, and people from around the world are using it on a regular basis. When he talked to Organized Play representatives about what they wanted to see, the confirmation of scenario ownership was a requirement. That started as a requirement to upload the entire pdf so the watermark could be processed, and then after a time changed (again by OP representative suggestion) to simply asking for the Chronicle Code).
I can honestly say that while every attempt was made to keep data private, no thought was given towards an official privacy or cookie policy.
Again, let me say I appreciate your concerns about data privacy, and will relay them to the dev.
Any further discussion about RPGChronicles and its data policy should be taken to DMs or another thread, so as not to hijack the original poster's intent. Please visit the discord server linked at the bottom of the rpgchronicles website, or feel free to DM me on discord directly bigrin42#2231.
|
|
The requirement for the chronicle ID#, as that relates directly to the general discussion of proof of ownership is not effective for its stated purpose. As the code proves is you know the code. There are a multitude of ways a person can obtain that code without actually owning the scenario. It is no more effective at stopping cheaters as our other honor-system based controls. While I understand the requirement is out of the control of the developer given Paizo's requirement, but the requirement itself is not effective at its intended purpose and Paizo should reconsider their position.
I would strongly recommend that the developer add an "about us/me" page to the website informing the public who they are, where they are located (goes to what privacy laws would impact them, up to and including GDPR), what their data sharing and protection methodology is, and a "contact me" option for people who do not want to use Discord as their primary form of discussion. Email remains the primary form of communication for the vast majority of customer service. As these topics affect the greater community and not just me, I am chosing not to discuss them in a private message.
Of course these are just the opinions of one sole voice in the aether so YMMV
Organized Play Manager
|
Would it be possible to implement a way for GMs to search your Org Play ID and see a list of your digital resources, without sharing any personal information? While I understand the need for accountability and proof of ownership, I agree that in the digital age, sharing a real name or e-mail address is something that shouldn't be compulsory. If a GM can't trust the word of the Paizo/Org Play website in this matter, then in my opinion, it's the GM's problem.
While I appreciate your suggestion, our tech developer resources are slim and a tool that does what you recommend is not a small lift. Since there are several ways to provide proof of ownership, not just watermarked pdf, we would like to use our limited resources to tackle other program items.
If you are concerned about your email being used, I would encourage you to make an email that is just for paizo.com/pdf usage that doesn't have identifying information.
|
Organized Play Manager
|
The requirement for the chronicle ID#, as that relates directly to the general discussion of proof of ownership is not effective for its stated purpose. As the code proves is you know the code. There are a multitude of ways a person can obtain that code without actually owning the scenario. It is no more effective at stopping cheaters as our other honor-system based controls. While I understand the requirement is out of the control of the developer given Paizo's requirement, but the requirement itself is not effective at its intended purpose and Paizo should reconsider their position.
Barriers, however small, will deter most people from negative actions. As with all our tools, we try good faith/minimal impact until we get to a level of issue that we cannot ignore, then we have to change our processes. We could implement stricture/more rigorous controls from the start, but that puts up other barriers to entry, so we would prefer to keep them at a minimum.
As noted above, the tool was a community member trying to alleviate a pain point. There is no demand that you use the tool (or any of the others available), just an awareness that it exists and you can utilize it if you prefer.
The developer is open to feedback, but this is not the thread. If you want to continue to discuss Chronicle tools, I suggest creating a new thread.
|
There's no way to contact them, either. I noticed when their checkbox for Slow Track wasn't working, and the GM had to manually fill out my Chronicle separate from the other players. I wanted to email them feedback, but there's no address anywhere on their site.Hi there, I'm the developer and I've added an email link to the footer of the site. I didn't realize that I didn't have one up so thanks for pointing it out. Feel free to send any and all feedback my way, I want this tool to be useful to as many people as possible!
Thanks!
I've much appreciated the app, it has been quite helpful to me since I found out about it!
|
|
sharing a real name or e-mail address is something that shouldn't be compulsory.
It isn't. Create a mail drop account, and change your Paizo account to use that address.
You can re-download all your PDFs, and the watermark will reflect your new address.
There is no reason to go to great lengths to prove ownership.
I pretty much fist-pumped when I read "great lengths." That is exactly it.
It's all about proportional response, not a binary all-or-nothing. I'm not saving receipts or bringing in my credit card statements from 2019 to a F2F convention to prove I bought a book; I'm not screen-sharing a GM and logging into my Paizo account on live stream to prove pfswaterysoup at gmail is my account. I'm more willing to go to greater lengths to prove I own some esoteric source that makes my characters super powerful than I am to prove I own the Core Rulebook. I'm more willing to go to greater lengths to prove I own sources to a group I've played 10 sessions with, than a group I just met.
If Paizo wants me to present notarized proof of purchase before I'm allowed to GM a Tier 9-12 special scenario at a Premium Plus convention, I'd grit my teeth and agree; if I drop in to a FLGS and play a Tier 1-4 repeatable with a pregen and were demanded the same level of proof, I'd probably have some unkind words to say about it.
If a GM asks me if I own a book and after I say yes, they insist on proof, I'd probably just bail given that level of distrust.
I might actually show them the proof, then walk away, to underscore how it's 0% about me not having the proof, and 100% about setting such an adversarial tone pretty much dooms any chance of having fun while playing.
|
|
I might actually show them the proof, then walk away, to underscore how it's 0% about me not having the proof, and 100% about setting such an adversarial tone pretty much dooms any chance of having fun while playing.
Better, at least you're not confirming their suspicions.
But I wouldn't construe that as adversarial. Organized play isn't one organization. It's an amalgamation of a lot of different local groups. How they interpret or emphasize the rules of society play has as much effect on how the rules actually work as the rules themselves. In all likelyhood he's just doing things the way "everyone" does them, with everyone being his local scene. It happens a lot with organized play rules and the game rules too.
|
|
The only time I saw a GM ask for proof of ownership was at PaizoCon a couple years ago when a player was using some SF item he didn't have the full rules for and couldn't explain how it worked. It turns out it was from an AP, and he player didn't have the the volume, and had skipped 1-3 sentences in his description of how it worked to the GM.
Of course with the new rules on not-needing ownership of AP volumes to use their contents would make that one a moot point now.
|
Venture-Agent, Online—VTT
|
Eh, it doesn't happen often, but I've been asked where something came from and to show ownership before. So I did and we went on and had a fun game. (A trait that was from a pathfinder companion volume, as I recall).
While someone actually demanding an unreasonable level of proof could be one thing (and unreasonable actions are always their own edge cases), the idea that being asked to show proof of ownership, when that is part of the rules of the campaign, is an aggressive, adversarial action is not very well grounded.
|
|
I've seen it more frequent in 2E because the rules seem to be more readily available and "official" on the Nethys website. I know quite a few players who use it to search for new rules and use them only later discovering they are from newly published books they don't actually own. Regardless, I am not the publishing police and its not my job to protect Paizo's IP (they pay expensive lawyers for that). I assume everyone owns whatever material they use and if there is something I need to see the text for, I can look it up on Aon on my phone/iPad and read it easier than someone can recall it from memory and recite it to me.
|
|
Giving me flashbacks to 1E, when someone would say they're using X feat or Y spell, and I'd tell them they'd have to stop playing that character, and grab a Pregen, because the names they gave belonged to d20pfsrd options.
Actually come to think of it, this almost happened in a 2E game the other day. Someone said they wanted to take the "Flip" feat, and I'd never heard of it. Turns out it was "Farabellus Flip", but they were reading it on some third party app.
(I want to say Pathbuilder?)
I recommended they stop using the app and explained the whole history of d20pfsrd having to rename everything on their site to remove Paizo's copyrighted material. Told them to use archivesofnethys instead (and to buy the actual source material).
|
|
I don't use Pathbuilder myself, but a few locals do, and I have found it does a good job of incorporating the core rules, but not org play specific ones. So, if one of my home campaign players uses it to level up their character and then translate that info to the Roll20 sheet, its good. However, if I know they used it for their org play character, I do at least an ancillary audit as it is likely to have some errors/omissions. YMMV
|
Venture-Agent, Colorado—Denver
|
Gonna chime in here to ask a question.
I've been doing a lot of PbP here on Paizo and it's really easy to view other players' character sheets/profiles. I like to look at other's sheets to get ideas for magic items to buy, feats, etc...
A few times I have noticed illegal options on sheets. I don't want to be "that guy" and call them out because I'm hoping the GM will notice it and say something, but, they never do or don't seem to care.
Should I say something, like in a PM to the other player, or just let it go?
I prefer to have my mistakes pointed out but some people seem to get offended if they are told they made a mistake on their PC.
|
I saw the proof of ownership being checked a lot more in 1E than so far in 2E, but it was as a method GMs used to try to limit options they didn’t like. Like lots of people carried around Wanda of infernal healing, but before it was included in the Inner Sea World Guide, it was in the Cheliax book (I think), which was far less commonly owned. Similar thing with spring-loaded wrist sheaths and Adventurer’s Armory. I got asked a couple of times for proof of ownership for that one.
I’m kind of glad that hasn’t seemed to carry over into 2E.
I did get tripped up by Pathbuilder once already. I had the Lumberjack background on a character and couldn’t figure out why I couldn’t find it on nethys. Because it’s the Lumber Consortium Laborer background, is why. I do own the source, but admittedly, I seldom open the actual PDFs.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer to have my mistakes pointed out but some people seem to get offended if they are told they made a mistake on their PC.
As long as you are polite about it shouldn't be an issue. As a player, if I see something, I usually approach it as from the position of inquiry, like where did you get that so I can buy the book and get it too. Would be perfect for my [character]. If they get s*$#ty with you about it, you can always notify the GM and let them deal with it.
As a GM, with the use of Roll20 I have access to a player's sheet long before the game so I can do a complete audit on nearly all my players. Not to confirm ownership but for accuracy. I can always reach out to the player directly if there ii something I don't understand or if they have something they can/should not have.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
\
Should I say something, like in a PM to the other player, or just let it go?
I prefer to have my mistakes pointed out but some people seem to get offended if they are told they made a mistake on their PC.
Say something, it is only going to get harder to fix the more they go on playing, and most mistakes are honest mistakes.
That said, if I am not the GM I will often wait till after the game.
--------------------------------------
Back on topic.
There were certain things in PFS1 (pre errata snowball, pre ban blood money) that were from such niche supplements that I always asked for proof. And yeah, if someone gave me the d20pfsrd name...
I am a little looser in PFS2, just because the PDFs are so cheap, most people don't cheat.
|
Venture-Agent, Online—VTT
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the only recent case I can think of where I felt the need to bring it up immediately as a player was a case where someone thought that the Bonded Animal feat provided any animal of choice to bond with, and that a level 4 character could have a level 9 roc just by having made a Nature check in downtime.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I adventured with such a character, actually. And before that he had a Smilodon.
A Roc is Common. There's nothing that currently suggests you can't choose one.
But I do wish there was a Campaign limitation on such powerful options. Maybe a CR cap based on Character Level.
|
|
Actually, Hammerjack, I see you participated in my original thread last year. Let's move this conversation over there, since it's off-topic here.