[OOC] The Pathfinder Lodge

[Tanuki]

In case anyone here is interested, I'm starting up a new game (which hopefully won't die like the last one did!) which will follow the Rise of the Runelords Adventure Path. Application thread is here if you're curious!

[Elucidus]

Oh sure put up a new game while I am out.

[ElCee]

Ah, we tried running RotR...it's been on indefinite hiatus because it wasn't quite going the direction we'd hoped. We didn't get that far anyway(about level 4). Good luck with that.

[OwenQuillion]

I was the one DMing that, and we had a blast with the first adventure. I knew the second one was going to be a bit hard for me to pull off (for various and sundry reasons I won't mention lest it be spoilers), and between that and a host of life-related issues (not to mention my own DMing issues), we've yet to get back on the horse.

I highly recommend the AP; there's a lot of fun stuff.

[Elucidus]

I plan to submit a character actually.

[Tanuki]

The 2nd and 3rd chapters are all kinds of awesome.

[Tanuki]

Soooooooo.

According to this thread, apparently I'm no longer allowed to:

a) use text from modules that is not boxed text,
b) show maps from modules,
c) show images from modules.

I find this patently ridiculous, but apparently this is the new site policy on this. There may be some problems with these games as a result.

[barelyundead82]

I think a lot of what was said in that thread is ******** and conjecture honestly Tanuki. I would not follow it for one moment. Until the company has a problem with it, we should not have a problem with it. As far as I can tell, they would not print it if they didn't want people to use it. If we were not allowed to use direct examples of the module we were running FROM the module book, then what was the point in buying the module to begin with? It just does not make sense to disallow information based on the fact it is not matching an over stringent guideline that has no bearing on outside of the basic D&D module setup. We are truly not playing D&D here, we are playing Pathfinder and they do it differently. So keep posting as you were until a problem is had with it.

[barelyundead82]

Did some searching of my own and found this: http://paizo.com/paizo/about/communityuse

I would like to know what their usage of the term descriptively reference means for one. But it may be that my original take on it was incorrect and we may have to comply.

[Tanuki]

Nice to see someone that agrees with me at least.

Paizo's community use policy is very open. I totally forgot about it, but now that you bring it up... Well, if you look at the type of material that goes up on the Pathfinder Wiki and the PbP games on the Paizo forums, "descriptively reference" covers a vast amount of things. So at the very least the PbP games should be okay. I'm still pissed off about the maps especially though. What the heck is the point of me paying for these modules if I can't use them to their full extent?

[barelyundead82]

I concur, what is the point of them printing maps if you are not going to use them. Or heck, what is the point of having to hand draw a copy just so the players have a visual reference. I know when I DM(which isn't much at all in PbP) I always have xeroxed copies of any map that was predesigned. It is just easier to use as my artistic skills are absolutely atrocious and my descriptions are someone watered down. If anything, the maps are the primary concern in this. The nifty lil tidbits from our faction leaders are nice, in fact I have come to love that idea its very personable, but they can be worked around.

[idilippy]

I think the mods will figure something out that will let you continue to use your Paizo mods, since it would be pointless for Paizo to specifically allow for Living Pathfinder games to be played by PbP and then at the same time not allow you to use any information from the necessary modules. Perhaps there is a similar thread on Paizo's site with an interpretation of the rules for you, otherwise this entire game will be impossible to run.

I, for one, have a somewhat modified module going on in one of my games and a modified interpretation of the Baldur's Gate computer game series going on in another, so the eventual ruling of this affects me greatly. If we end up with a strict interpretation of no modules, no pre-made worlds, and no settings based on movies/books/video games, this site is going to be pretty badly devastated by it. I believe that common sense and our staff will work this out to where we can hopefully continue on much as we've been doing.

[Tanuki]

The discussion seems to be headed in a more sane direction, thankfully. A complete banning is not something I wish to deal with. That being said, I think, after reading over my posts the day before, I probably seem a lot more hostile than I am now.

[barelyundead82]

I am just hoping that the Mods are actually listening to everyones opininons. So far, I do not recall seeing a single person giving a completely affirmative stance on it. Everything I have read has been a comment on how the attempt to conform would eventually snowball into oblivion. I do not think anyone but the Mods are worried about this, but then I think I can understand their stance. They are are greater risk of actually getting charged then the players as they are actually taking in donations to host the games.

[Tanuki]

Probably my last posts for a few days here--linguistics exam tomorrow, biology exam Tuesday, Japanese exam Wednesday. If I'm lingering around here from now, I'm definitely not doing the right thing.