Special Announcement - Kickstarter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seycyrus

This whole "shared gm license" is just a thinly veiled attempt to get something for nothing (or practically nothing). I'm not fooled, the folks proposing it aren't fooled, and I'm sure that SW isn't fooled.

---

Maybe. And for some, probably. But you can't say that everyone has that motivation.

Even if people asking for it don't have this motivation I suspect that what you're saying would actually happen, eventually.

Smiteworks don't seem to be working on this, I also suspect there are more than technical obstacles. This would probably be a bad idea.

I mostly run pathfinder, I have most of their hardbacks and all of their Adventure paths. Paizo's policy of giving the price of the pdf off the cost of an FG module means I don't even consider it to be them double dipping me on the cost. Someone has to input the data and I'm very happy to pay smiteworks to do it. People running other systems may have a different view.

I advocate for a shared GM ability, largely because it emulates a real-world table where each person MAYBE has individual PHBs and shares everything else. I have the Ultimate plus all D&D official content. I want to DM for my group. I'm happy with those purchases, and don't regret a penny. I love DM'ing for my group.

Someone else in my group wants to DM a bit so I can have a short break and have fun with my friends as a player... But all they have is PHB and the adventure module. So now, we have the same exact people, at the same exact table, but my friends can't access the content I've bought because... well... I don't know why. So, I'm essentially stuck DM'ing in that position unless I want to get frustrated over the situation, or at least not doing something I could quite easily do in real life (share a book across the table as a player).

Yeah, I get it. People will abuse the system. There's no argument against that fact. There's also a whole lot of people out there that are simply trying to be reasonable and happen to have a different perspective than you. Please stop with this holier-than-thou, everyone is just trying to game the system nonsense. It's dismissive and disrespectful.

To the cost/hour analysis. Sure, in the long run it's cheap, but isn't it kinda ludicrous that someone with $1000 worth of books can't share his content with his table as a player, but he can as a DM? In order to take a break and let a friend run a one-shot or 3-4 session adventure, isn't it kinda silly to mandate that person buy all that content all over again when someone literally shared all of it as a DM just last week?

Of course, I'm completely willing to have it be strictly circumscribed to cases where all parties must be in the same table, all must stay online and connected to SW servers for the duration, only one instance of an account can be logged into SW servers and so on, to help prevent abuse.

TLDR: GM Swapping makes sense in a lot of ways, and just because you disagree doesn't mean you're morally better or that other people are just trying to cheat the system. Get off your high horses for a minute so we can see eye-to-eye and have a legitimate discussion.

GM sharing has been discussed before, and SW has said they have looked at it. It's probably something they will continue to look at in the future as well. They discussed it in part on today's stream.

Right now it's not something feasible given the existing architecture and licensing agreements. It can be discussed all people want, but it's not going to happen anytime in the near future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEntrails

Let's not getting into assigning or assuming motives of other people. That's a downward slope and all with little to no benefits.

---

It raises the issue. An issue that the *small* minority with a legitimate need should recognize, and acknowledge. Something more than "Yeah, it'll happen, but I'll be saving 50 bucks - that's what's important."

It seems to me that the people that are accusing me of being holier-than-thou and all high and mighty are REALLY the ones that have a problem with others disagreeing with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seycyrus

It raises the issue. An issue that the *small* minority with a legitimate need should recognize, and acknowledge. Something more than "Yeah, it'll happen, but I'll be saving 50 bucks - that's what's important."

It seems to me that the people that are accusing me of being holier-than-thou and all high and mighty are REALLY the ones that have a problem with others disagreeing with them.

---

Well I'd like to thank you very kindly for being the altruistic, upstanding individual that points it out to the misguided plebians. Obviously, as you point out, nobody who advocates for such a thing could possibly have considered that or they have and are obviously looking to cheat SW out of hard-earned dollars. (In case it isn't clear, that was satire meant to illustrate how ridiculous your assumptions are.)

Listen, you would have a point if, and only IF, it is assumed the people advocating for this type of functionality are against some form of comprehensive anti-piracy control measures being implemented. I have seen nothing to justify such an assumption, much less prove it. Instead, what you're doing is virtue signalling and denigrating other members of the community at the same time.

Disagreement is strongly encouraged, otherwise there's no way to make progress. Drawing negative assumptions about the motivations of people who disagree with you is toxic. I understand the point you're making, but you could have made the same exact point about the potential for piracy without assuming the character of those advocating against you. I'm simply quoting and describing your messages for the attitude they convey to the people you are essentially accusing of being dishonest criminals. If it makes you uncomfortable then perhaps you should adjust your tone or message.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEntrails

GM sharing has been discussed before, and SW has said they have looked at it. It's probably something they will continue to look at in the future as well. They discussed it in part on today's stream.

Right now it's not something feasible given the existing architecture and licensing agreements. It can be discussed all people want, but it's not going to happen anytime in the near future.

---

Agreed entirely, which is why I stopped commenting about this months ago until someone decided to wholesale question the ethics of people that disagree with them. It's that kind of toxicity that damages a community, and I took personal affront to that insinuation as I do believe a shared GM license ability is not unreasonable, unethical, or unachievable in the long run. This same "point" comes up every time this gets suggested. It's irritating, disrespectful, and counter-productive to many members of the community, so I decided to try and nip it in the bud.

Anyway, I think my involvement has gone on long enough. I've said what I needed to and we're detracting from the purpose of the thread. Have a good day everyone.

Good Day All :)
Just my 2 cp in the “sharing books across the table” argument. You can absolutely do this in face to face gaming utilizing FG just let whoever is going to DM use the computer.

So you are more paying for the access to play with others around the world versus those just in your immediate area. :)

Discussion is fine - as long as it's polite and civil. Please keep it so.

If people really want to illegally avoid the current licensing model and pay only once per group, they can do that right now (illegally). People asking for a more flexible licensing model for groups are asking for a legal way of playing and sharing the GM role and associated materials. Asking for such a change is not asking to get something for nothing/practically nothing or bordering on illegal activities, it is requesting a legal way to replicate what usually happens at the gaming table - sharing of materials during the game. Like I said earlier, it's fine to ask for new/changed functionality in FG - it's up to SmiteWorks to make the decision on if they want to implement it, what restrictions they place on it, how it impacts current licensing and publisher agreements, what it costs, etc..

We all know that FG is more than just a replication of "what happens at the gaming table". It is much more and it is the additional utility that warrants the extra cost. Yes, I am sure that potential for skullduggery exists now, but giving additional opportunities for such activity will only encourage it further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seycyrus

We all know that FG is more than just a replication of "what happens at the gaming table". It is much more and it is the additional utility that warrants the extra cost. Yes, I am sure that potential for skullduggery exists now, but giving additional opportunities for such activity will only encourage it further.

---

I trust SmiteWorks (if they ever implemented this) to do it in a way that would make it similar to what we have now, or probably even more restricted. It's incredibly easy for "skullduggery" right now, so I highly doubt that SmiteWorks would implement something to make it even easier.