|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a silly frustration, but a frustration nonetheless.
Step 9: Have the player finish the calculations on the righthand
side of the Chronicle sheet (sections I, M–O and S–T).
Step 10: Review the completed Chronicle sheet and check
the player’s math. Ensure that the character has access to any
items bought and that the correct costs were paid. Verifying
this information now helps prevent errors from going
unnoticed on future Chronicle sheets. Once you’re satisfied
with the information on the Chronicle sheet, fill in the gray
box at the bottom of the sheet and sign (W).
Of note, sections S and T refer to the Gold Spent and Total boxes. Thus, according to the RGG, a GM should not sign a chronicle until the player has made all their purchases associated with the chronicle. There are two ways to address this as written:
- Scenario 1: The player knows in advance what they're purchasing, deducts the appropriate gold and notes it on their ITS, and the GM signs off. I know literally zero GMs or players who do this.
- Scenario 2: The player fills in S and T including only purchases and sales made during the scenario, then determines purchases after the session and records it on their ITS to the next chronicle. Again, I know literally zero players who do this.
So, if Step 9 and Step 10 are written as intended, which they seem to have very rational explanations included for requiring (i.e. session to session auditing), it would seem that the only logical thing to do would be to provide a more streamlined expectation set so that players know what they will buy in advance.
And so, the suggestion:
Have a set, non-varied gold value for each subtier.
This doesn't resolve every problem, mind you. Out-of-subtier play, for example, is still slightly messy, but if I know that my level 1 character will get either exactly 500gp or exactly 1000gp, I can confidently plan purchases in advance. I also don't have to worry about "trap chronicles" with gold values significantly lower than average. The net result of this is a greater likelihood of Scenario 1 above actually happening meaning that, even at conventions, I could actually follow the rules in the RGG for filling out chronicles.
Ultimately, this isn't a request for OMG MOAR GOLD, but instead more predictable gold that allows players and GMs to follow the expectations of the Roleplaying Guild Guide.
|
I don't think I've ever seen a gm check a chronicle after purchases. I mean, I too as a GM just fill out chronicles beforehand and sign as many boxes as possible to save time. It's an honor system afterall and if there's ever any doubt, in comes the ITS.
This was hashed out in another thread not too long ago. By RAW, the GM isn't supposed to sign the chronicle until all the boxes, including gold spent is filled out. Some GMs have stuck to the letter, here, but I would say a large number of GMs (myself and my local GMs included) can't be bothered, so we ignore what we consider a very inconvenient rule.
|
|
Agreed with Jason S. Let's update the published procedure to match the reality of what 99.9% of PFS players and GMs currently do.
I agree that, generally speaking, rules and actions should match. My interpretation here is that the rule is fine, but the processes surrounding it are not. Given that this is organized play, it makes sense to have "mini-audits" on a chronicle basis to ensure everyone is on a level playing field. The problem is that the process is onerous - players cannot reasonably anticipate their purchases and most players won't want to immediately make their purchases at the table, which is what the current rules require.
For the record, I absolutely hate the "reduce gold by x" sections in scenarios. In my mind, we're getting paychecks rather than selling the gear. I understand the logic there, too, but that creates some pretty big headaches.
And lets not forget Fame limits guys.. You need the 300 gold for your next neat toy and 2 fame to buy that level.. oops you only got 1 fame this time.. Guess you have to wait..
I have no sympathy for players on Fame limits, especially since you can rapidly reach a point where you're completely neglecting your other gear slots if you're bumping up against the Fame limit, even on the assumption of 3/4 Prestige earned. The only time that Fame stood in my way past 22 was the race to 40 Fame for Staff of the Master. That is to say that Fame, for many characters, is not a limitation on purchases past level 5. For many of my characters, it's not a concern past 9 Fame.
Sure, there are going to be screwballs thrown at players in the course of adventures that may alter their purchases. Maybe you need a Raise Dead or you diminished a critical stock of consumables that just have to be replaced immediately. Still, you'd at least know what you need to do then and have an idea of what you're looking at when the chronicles are being handed out.
|
|
I don't think this works because you can't assume that you won't miss something or get full gold.
Step 9 refers to a part of the chronicle sheet that no longer exists. If that isn't a clear sign that that part of the rules is an apendix they forgot to take out I don't know what is.
I'm looking at the diagram right now. Step 9 references I, M-O, and S-T. Those correspond to Experience Final Total (I), Prestige Spent, Prestige, and Fame (M-O), then Gold Spent and Total (S-T). Not sure what you're referring to here.
I oppose any change that would make scenarios more of a stamp it out cookie cutter format, including uniform gold for scenarios / subtiers.
Is your feeling that the RGG needs to be updated to remove the "requirement" of reviewing player math by the GM?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not everyone plans out their purchases in such detail, and other things can change the plan. Personally, I like to read through sources, search the advice board, and look over past chronicles for just a few examples. And I like to do that in response to how my character did in the last scenario. If I feel like I'm weak on saves, I might go out and look for the most efficient way to boost saves. Maybe it's a cloak, or maybe I want to find something else.
And, maybe I use consumables or decide that I might need additional consumables in response to a situation that came up in play. Maybe I don't even know what those are yet. For example, what's a non personal spell I can get as a potion/oil to boost my natural attacks? Maybe I don't know Strong Jaw is a legal potion until I go scouring the message boards and find Mike's post making it so. Having the time to sit with the character and all my sources to decide on the right mix of things to purchase is helpful. Being rushed at the end of the game to make a decision is not.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I oppose any change that would make scenarios more of a stamp it out cookie cutter format, including uniform gold for scenarios / subtiers.Is your feeling that the RGG needs to be updated to remove the "requirement" of reviewing player math by the GM?
My feeling is that this is another non-issue being stirred up because why not? Different areas will do things differently, and that is okay.
Edit: Tried to make post less accusatory.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that's not at all what you said in your previous message. Serisan said people aren't generally ready to make their purchases (at the end of the scenario) at the table. You responded that people have a list already. I gave reasons why I don't have a list (at the end of a scenario).
Yes, players could (and do) bring their list of items they would like to purchase to the next scenario. Those purchases could be recorded on the next chronicle. But generally, GMs at the shops I game at don't have time to review every purchase at the start of the scenario. Definitely not at conventions. So if the GM isn't reviewing things, then why does it matter which chronicle it gets recorded on? There was a very lengthy thread about this just a few months ago. It basically came down to all the GM is really checking is the math on the character sheet. That is far too little benefit to try to force compliance on something like this.
And beyond all of that, if I've got a limited time to actually play a scenario, and 15 minutes of that time is taken up doing paperwork that the player can take care of on their own time, I'm going to feel a little disappointed if we have to rush the role playing or a combat. The realities of limited slots mean any paperwork than can be done between sessions is better done between sessions, when it isn't wasting all of the other player's time.
|
|
I oppose any change that would make scenarios more of a stamp it out cookie cutter format, including uniform gold for scenarios / subtiers.Is your feeling that the RGG needs to be updated to remove the "requirement" of reviewing player math by the GM?My feeling is that this is another non-issue being stirred up because why not? Different areas will do things differently, and that is okay.
Edit: Tried to make post less accusatory.
Have you ever met a GM who follows steps 9 and 10 as written? That's my entire point in bringing this up.
Organized play is predicated on everyone following the rules. This specific section of rules is one that I've seen universally ignored. It is my opinion that players and GMs are more likely to follow the rules in this case if some sort of process accommodation is made. I think the rules here make sense and should be followed if possible.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I oppose any change that would make scenarios more of a stamp it out cookie cutter format, including uniform gold for scenarios / subtiers.Is your feeling that the RGG needs to be updated to remove the "requirement" of reviewing player math by the GM?My feeling is that this is another non-issue being stirred up because why not? Different areas will do things differently, and that is okay.
Edit: Tried to make post less accusatory.
Have you ever met a GM who follows steps 9 and 10 as written? That's my entire point in bringing this up.
Organized play is predicated on everyone following the rules. This specific section of rules is one that I've seen universally ignored. It is my opinion that players and GMs are more likely to follow the rules in this case if some sort of process accommodation is made. I think the rules here make sense and should be followed if possible.
I am a GM that follows steps nine and ten as written, as well as the other GM's in my area. It's standard practice here. This is my last post in this thread, we have already had one 240-post thread about this in the past couple of months, I see absolutely no need to waste time on another.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've got 140+ played games and 150+ GM credit.
I've played and GMed at GenCon, DragonCon, Origins, Dicesiege, Connooga, ShadowCON, Con-on-the-Cob, Lexicon, and a bunch more.
I've just reviewed my 140 sheets over 10 characters to get them ready for bring organized by character. Sad times, I've somehow lost two sheets. I had to fill out PFS number, character number, event code, and event name for about half of the played sheets.
Of all my sheets, exactly two of my played sheets had anything audited by the GM for section 9 and 10. Two out of over One Hundred Fourty. So whoever said 99% was very close to accurate.
So 98.6% of GMs I've played locally and at way too many cons ignore these rules.
Edit: For the sake of the conversation I rechecked my piles. Exactly 3 GM's filled out some of these sections on 4 sheets (2 did just the XP part and 2 did XP and Gold parts.) UndeadMitch was one of the GM's that did all parts, I played 6-97 at his table!