GM provided player licenses

[EightBitz]

There was a question a while back (I can't find the thread right now) as to whether or not there would be an option for a GM to purchase licenses for the player client.

One of the suggestions in that thread (again, I can't recall who provided it) was that the GM could purchase a number of player licenses and share the account info with his or her palyers, and just change the account info when that's done.

I see two problems with that. 1) There are some players who would change the account info and appropriate the use of the license from the GM. 2) It's been recently stated that for the full product, it's part of the terms of service that account information cannot be shared. Will this be the same for the player client?

I know that D20 Pro has a licensing model where players can connect with their own licenses, or the GM can purchase a number of licenses and allow the players to connect with those, without exposing account information.

Could a similar model work for Realm Works? Where a GM could purchase a number of licenses that would allow a number of player clients to connect?

 

[thedarkelf007]

I'd love to have guest licences, but the problem I see with that is I run 5 games with 6 people in each game.

The d20Pro licence is for while the GM server is running during the game session. The Realm Works licence is for access during and between the game sessions.

So while they are similar they are different things.

I could have around 20 players wanting to connect to my Realms at any give time, and it could be with one guest pass using the d20Pro model and some players using it over multiple games.

As I could quite easily schedule an update time for each player, this would not breach the d20Pro model, but would definitely be more than the fair go model I'd assume with Realm Works.

If players who are in more than one game "buy" a licence, then that cuts down on the number of players I would need a guest licence for. Though that would still be about 6 players who would need a licence.

And as most of them have bought Hero Lab already, I don't see them having trouble with Realm Works.

btw - I also run d20Pro at my table and as yet, only 1 player for 1 session (I run 5 different a fortnight all with d20Pro, and have been for at least 3 years) has actually used the 6 guest licences I have attached to my account. So who knows how many of them will use Realm Works at the table (especially as it requires server syncing via a slow international connection speed)

 

[EightBitz]

Thanks for your answer. I know it's not necessarily official, but it is insightful.

 

[rob]

@thedarkelf007 pretty much nailed it. The d20Pro model assumes the only usage is during the game. The Realm Works model assumes usage outside of the game. If you only allow your players to access the Player Edition while at your table during the game, sharing might work. However, I'm not sure how useful that will ultimately be.

The moment that you start allowing multiple players to access the one account, you'll run into assorted problems, including (but not limited to) the following:

* The potential for players to appropriate the account, as you identified above.

* Access collisions when multiple players attempt to utilize the account concurrently, with one user forcibly logging another user off when they login. The one login per account applies to all accounts, whether Player or GM accounts.

* Inability to utilize the private messaging mechanism that will be a part of the product once Player Edition launches. This includes invitation handling and the like.

* Once we provide the ability to share content with individual players, there will be no way to leverage that capability with the shared account model.

* Players should have the ability to take notes within their personal accounts. If two players share an account and both take independent notes, those notes will clobber each other when synced to the server (just like happens when GMs make changes on two different computers).

* In the unlikely event that a player becomes unruly within the game, there is no way to restrict the access of that player with a shared account. That means the player could become a liability outside the game through the shared account, even if the player is dropped from actual game sessions.

I'm sure there are more, but those are the ones that came to mind while I was typing this response. The usage model for Player Edition is quite different from d20Pro, so there are some significant implications to using the product in the expanded manner that it enables.

As for the legality of sharing accounts, users will adhere to the rules or not, at their own discretion. To me, the real question is usefulness.

Hope this helps...

 

[EightBitz]

Thanks, Rob. I appreciate the reply. I do have to say you have a very user friendly licensing model. I've brought two friends on board, with both Hero Lab and Realm Works, who were willing customers due, in no small part, to your licensing terms.

They've grown averse to more draconian models (e.g. "you can only use this license key five times").

 

[Gord]

Perhaps the solution is to have two kinds of player accounts. The first is bought by the player and is under his full control so it could be used to access multiple games by multiple GMs. Obviously, the GM would have to have the ability to restrict access to this player if he was removed from the game.

The second account type would be bought by the GM and under his full control. He would be able to issue passwords and account names to players in the game but would also have administrator rights to remove them (changing passwords, player account names, etc.) and give access to a new player. This would work best for GMs who are only running one game but have players come and go.

 

[EightBitz]

And if they do that, great. If not, there's always the web interface. So players without a license won't be left out.

 

[Bidmaron]

I like Gord's idea. One of the great potentials for RW when the player version hits is to really improve the role vice roll playing part of the game, if you are into that. Without RW, it is very difficult to keep a system (paper or computer), where players have ready access to the stuff their characters would/should know. In the real world, all but the geekiest players can't be expected to study all their handouts (whether real or digital) before every game to remind themselves of all the loose ends they have and just what was the name of that bartender that knew the guild head (or even that the bartender existed).

RW has the potential to solve that. I like Gord's solution because it gives the GM the ability to let people try out the GM's game (you could even put a timer on the account, where, after a certain timeframe, if the player was still interested, he had to upgrade to the 'normal' player version).

As a backup, give us the ability to gift an account to a player (for those destitute but devout players out there).

I don't like EightBitz web interface solution only because that's not my game style. I want my players to have the virtual game knowledge that the full player version gives you but the web does not (otherwise, why would there be two versions?) At least that's what I think without having seen either version yet. For the 'roll' players, the web interface will probably work just fine.