|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looking forward, assuming we adopt the points-based rewards system being tried in the playtest, we could eliminate chronicle sheets entirely and leave it up to the individual player to track their play history and to keep their characters up to date, like we largely do already albeit with some minor documentation that generally goes unchecked by anyone other than the player to whom it is assigned.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue here isn’t really what 2nd edition should do. I’m hopeful 2nd edition will find a better way to handle things, and it sounds like it’s headed that direction.
The issue here is that GMs were deemed to be “doing it wrong” by allowing players to complete the fields on their sheet that don’t require signatures/initials. Based on the old rules in the Guide that was technically correct, but not used in practice in more locations than it was (I would guess many more, but it’s all anecdotal). A crackdown was imposed in one region (online, though not originated by the RVC as I understand it) as a result, but not anywhere else. The 10.0 Guide was updated in an attempt to make things easier, but instead introduced the even more cumbersome idea of a GM needing to sign a previous chronicle (or purchases on a previous chronicle, whatever was intended). That now requires access to the previous chronicle, which is once again more difficult to accomplish online than in person. Though it’s not a good situation in person, either.
All of this to solve what issue? I still don’t understand that part of it. What was happening that was causing a problem at tables? Players showing up with incomplete chronicles? Wouldn’t an easier solution to that just be to tell them they have to have complete chronicles to play that character? Rather than imposing additional work on the GMs? No one has tried to explain why the system used by the majority of GMs, — right or wrong by the rules — that has been working, isn’t sufficient.
Well, in my mind, having 'paperwork' means nothing if there is no real assurance that the information on said paperwork is valid. That's really the whole point of chronicles. I would much rather they adjust the methods so that it is easier to do them in a consistent and still trustworthy (trusting the paper, not necessarily the GM of Player) way, than to just eliminate the detailed tracking altogether. I think removal of the purchase/sale entries from chronicles was a bad idea - they should have instead made them easier to use, so that they were productive, and provide a way to track all the purchases, and not just a pain that often got ignored.
The ideal system, in my mind, would be to have the sale and purchase lines restored to the scenario chronicles, which should be enough to track purchases made IN that chronicle's session, as well as the use of the 'downtime' chronicle I posted to track the, often more extensive, between-session purchases. This means GM's aren't touching another GM's chronicle sheets; they are handling just their own, plus the player's downtime generated sheets.
|
|
All of the fields on the chronicle are verifiable. The GM signs off on anything that is granted by the scenario. If they need to write in an expenditure, they can, and they can initial it if they want (raise dead, etc.). The fields that have been left blank are things like final gold spent, which you can easily verify by looking for any notes form the GM and looking at the ITS. Beginning Prestige, Beginning Fame, Total Prestige, and Total Fame are all verifiable by looking through the past chronicles. None of those fields require a GM's initials, nor should they.
A new, separate sheet for downtime is something to consider for 2.0, though I share BNW's concern about adding more paperwork. Especially adding a second sheet that requires a GM signature or initials.
The issue in this thread continues to be trying to figure out what exactly we're supposed to be doing right now, and why that has to be different than what we've always done. Because I have no idea what I'm supposed to fill out on a chronicle at the moment. So I'm just continuing with the status quo until there's some clarity (fill out the "GM" fields for in person games, fill out everything for online games).
Why is the practice for online games different?
Venture-Lieutenant, Online—PbP
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They need to just accept that players will finish chronicle sheets themselves. The GM needs to make sure that the complete top, complete bottom, and all GM only boxes are filled out before signing. The player fills the rest out before the next game, and no GM checking is required.
edit: Rereading that, it's a bit unclear. I'm not saying that's what the rules say now; I'm saying that's what the rules need to be changed to. That also means removing the nonsensical rule that purchases have to happen in a GM's presence.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is the practice for online games different?
I don't have all of the information, but my understanding is that someone (or someones) showed up to some in-person games with incomplete chronicles from playing online. Someone from the in-person location complained, and so the online region was directed to require complete chronicles from all GMs.
That is, as noted, what the previous guide technically required. But it has not been enforced by the campaign since the campaign began. Individual areas may have enforced it, because that is what they wanted to do. The point being that a) the crackdown was targeted at the online region instead of being directed at everyone, and b) the crackdown was not necessary, because the issue in that situation lies with the player not filling out their chronicles, not with the GMs.
EDIT: To put it another way, no one is going to complain if I, as a GM, don't total up purchases at a face to face game, because that's how everyone in our area does it. Online, I don't know where the players are, and someone at that player's local gameday might complain because they feel I'm doing it wrong. Since the online venture officers were directed to require completed chronicles, I'll give out completed chronicles, because I know they're only asking us to do what they were told to ask us to do. Even though it's significantly more time consuming, and even though it certainly seems like in that instance online was treated differently than everywhere else. I see the season 10 guide as an attempt to correct that, but a misguided one. We don't need a new rule. We just need the ok to do things the way that (most) everyone has already been doing them. While PFS 1.0 will continue beyond next August, we're in the late stages of the system and campaign. Please don't invent new processes to try to solve problems that don't exist with a year left before 2.0 kicks in.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is the practice for online games different?
In person "hand me your last chronicle"
Look. take. sign
Online, hand me your last chronicle
Find it. Scan it. file. save as. Send it.
Dm then downloads it. File. save as. Finds it and opens it. Writes on it. Re saves it. Finds it again and then sends it back.
Its a pain in the but to do 12 times a session
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My basic premise is that the chronicle has all the purchases up to the time I leave the table. I can fill out the chronicle there, though typically I fill it out after getting everything straight in the ITS and Herolab. Then I make purchases that I will put on the next chronicle that I will get when I play the next session.
This is how I have done it since the ITS has come out. It has made it simpler than trying to write the fiddly bits on the notes section of the old chronicles, and waiting to make further purchases until I have room on the next chronicle.
Now, I believe it is within the spirit of the game and I am not "cheating" in doing it in this manner. The main thing is, it isn't what is in the guide, nor I think was it denoted in this way, though it was closer than this latest notation.
I hope this can be clarified to be used as it has been for most of the time we have been playing, and we are able to make the in-between session purchases without having to do it at the table or sitting on a chronicle without a signature in able to do so.
Organized Play Manager
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the conception behind the current change was to go to the system you describe: purchases between sessions OK, show the new GM what you purchased, no signature required. So, I think it was well conceived, but the writing ended up with something different.
Yep. You have the gist of it.
We didn't read the steps close enough. Goof on our end. Not that there will be a Guide 11, but we will note this for when we put the PFS v2 guide together.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tonya --
I'm going to ask a question, and I'm trying to ask it gently. I'll do so in a spoiler.
How many of you fill out chronicles as per the guide when you yourselves GM?
Please understand that this is an honest question that I want you all to consider. It's not meant as an attack, and none of you have to answer this question here on the forums. But if this is something that is too cumbersome when everyone's at conventions and out visiting in Organized Play, perhaps it is time to just drop this requirement from the guide.
At the moment: we have two locations in the whole of Organized Play that enforce completely filling out chronicle sheets -- Online and Omaha. I'd like it if the guide actually reflected what is the common practice for GMs in every other location.
Let's not impose barriers. Let's not add paperwork on GMs, who are often frantically trying to fill out chronicle sheets before the store closes. Please. Can we drop this unenforceable mandate?
Hmm
|
|
I can echo HMM's request, remembering our FLGS' last game where the stickler GM had us around the opened trunk of his car filling Chronicle Sheets in the dark at 10:15pm after the store kicked us out. My requests to 'just email it to us later' fell on deaf ears.
If I would have been a cop on patrol I would have stopped and asked questions about such a... gathering. It certainly made me feel uncomfortable.
|
|
I don't think there has ever been a version of the Guide that didn't have the GM signing only after the whole chronicle sheet is filled out. You are probably remembering the change around then that said you no longer had to itemize your purchases on the chronicle sheet, only in the ITS. But, it didn't change anything about filling out the sheets vs. GM signature.
I believe the conception behind the current change was to go to the system you describe: purchases between sessions OK, show the new GM what you purchased, no signature required. So, I think it was well conceived, but the writing ended up with something different.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given the obvious changes that will be coming with PFS2, I don't really want to see a fundamental change in how we manage PFS1. Certainly, the wording needs to be cleared up in the Guide, but we should not abandon chronicles for PFS1. It might be time for a significant change in how we manage this process for PFS2. Maybe we can get away from chronicle sheets entirely, or at least in the form they take now.
While there might not be a lot of audits going on, it is still a thing and the very "threat" of an audit should strongly encourage a player to keep their records up to date. I have always found it [not] funny that when a GM dares to even request the last chronicle, let alone feels the need to audit a character, and the player says they either do not have their paperwork up to date or even with them at all the GM is blamed for disrupting the game or is vilified for not allowing the character to be used. Its called personal responsibility. Granted there are times when a full audit is not recommended even if it is warranted, I've had players get pissed at me for daring to ask for the their most recent chronicle when all I wanted to do was verify the PC was up to date and to transfer the necessary info from the sheet to the chronicle I was going to issue at the completion of the session. Sorry, but its not my fault if the player's records are not maintained.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the conception behind the current change was to go to the system you describe: purchases between sessions OK, show the new GM what you purchased, no signature required. So, I think it was well conceived, but the writing ended up with something different.Yep. You have the gist of it.
We didn't read the steps close enough. Goof on our end. Not that there will be a Guide 11, but we will note this for when we put the PFS v2 guide together.
The lack of Guide 11, or even 10.1, is understandable; but a Blogg post to clarify matters would be helpful.
|
|
While there might not be a lot of audits going on, it is still a thing and the very "threat" of an audit should strongly encourage a player to keep their records up to date.
This is a pipe dream. A large majority of F2F FLGS PFS players can't even remember where they put their character sheets. The only hope to keep things in order is to buy a file folder carry case with dividers for each character but most people don't go there. I've personally reached the point where I find the experience a bit too time consuming, and some of my friends have lost track of a lot of their chronicles and gave up on their character. The nature of PbP is, in that regard, a saving grace as it forces players to put their house in order, but such a task is a huge barrier to entry for PbP for many players who have played F2F for many years and lost their documentation.
It would be much easier for GMs to Audit a PC if the campaign would come up with a simple character wealth by XP table. It would also be much easier for players to keep track of everything. If you die, you lose 3 XP, and your total character value is adjusted accordingly (guy takes off mithral armor and puts back the vintage MW steel fullplate).
XP Gold
0 150
1 750
2 1250
3 1750
etc.
(adding the standard gold for tier 2-4 next, etc. actual gold rewards as determined by campaign staff)
|
|
I don't think there has ever been a version of the Guide that didn't have the GM signing only after the whole chronicle sheet is filled out. You are probably remembering the change around then that said you no longer had to itemize your purchases on the chronicle sheet, only in the ITS. But, it didn't change anything about filling out the sheets vs. GM signature.
I believe the conception behind the current change was to go to the system you describe: purchases between sessions OK, show the new GM what you purchased, no signature required. So, I think it was well conceived, but the writing ended up with something different.
Thanks... but that’s not a change, then. That’s how it always worked. So I’m now not sure why the language in the Guide changed at all.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
stuff
To be fair if they cannot even keep track of their character sheet then it doesn’t matter what program features we use it won’t work. At some point personal responsibility trumps Play! Play! Play! and you simply have to turn the player away. Public gaming has a social contract that includes responsibilities for all participants from the campaign leadership down to the player. We allow some exceptions for new players so they can aclimate to the rules of the campaign. I’m sorry but I have no sympathy for experienced players who refuse to invest even the minimum levels of effort. I wouldn’t tolerate a complete disregard for paperwork to my best friend or significant other in a home game, I’m certainly not going to accept it from strangers. YMMV
|
|
stuffAt some point personal responsibility trumps Play! Play! Play! and you simply have to turn the player away. [...] I wouldn’t tolerate a complete disregard for paperwork to my best friend or significant other in a home game, I’m certainly not going to accept it from strangers. YMMV
It is a good thing you're not running things in our neck of the woods then... with that kind of attitude the local Pathfinder Lodge would have never taken off. While this may be frustrating to some, irregular paperwork has not been - and should never be - a reason to kick or ban people away from a Pathfinder game. Out here the leadership has been very helpful, patient and understanding. The game caters to true nerds like me who want to keep things all tidy and in order, but it also attracts people whose chronicle sheets end up in the recycling bin after a few weeks. One must try to be accepting of all styles of players, especially when the quick fix for fun is to simply 'play a pregen' when the player doesn't have his character documentation.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're right that it's no reason to "kick or ban" people. It is, however, a very good reason to keep a well-stocked folder of pregens on hand for them to play.
My local store used to work like that before I showed up. Then I started auditing people. Now everyone has their Chronicles on hand and character sheets in order. A little enforcement goes a long way.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think what's needed is an approach from both sides:
1) The setup of how a chronicle is designed should be optimized so that it can be filled in with a minimum of passing it back and forth. Likewise, the timing/logistics of when you can buy stuff should be utterly crystal clear.
2) When we've made the process as easy as it can possibly be, we do need to enforce it. It's a lot easier to enforce rules that people perceive as realistic.
Achieving #1 is certainly a nontrivial task, but we can certainly try to do better in PF2.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't help noting the irony of "A little enforcement goes a long way" and your avatar's name "Tyrant Princess" :P
It started out as a joke, admittedly. Now, I use it more ironically - the idea being that enforcing rules like "have your Chronicle sheets and sourcebooks on hand" or "don't select a religion trait from a deity you don't worship just because nobody ever calls you on it" makes me the most oppressive form of tyrant.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The most ridiculous part of this discussion is how it always seems to divided into extremes of black and white with no area of gray and those on the “other side” of the argument are BadWrongFun. The occasional paperwork problem is expected and no one is going to fret over an isolated issue, but if you suggest that someone who is routinely no compliant to the point they cannot even keep track of their character sheets on a regular basis, I’m sorry but not only is the player wrong, but so is the organizer, VO, etc who continues to allow it. We play a game and games have rules. Most people do not want to participate in a game if players are constantly allowed to ignore and even encouraged to break the rules by clear lack of enforcement. If that paints me as a tyrant so be it. Organizers and community leaders are responsible for the integrity of the game and while they should temper enforcement of the rules with some understanding for occasional issues, that does not mean we get to simply ignore the rules entirely out of some perceived overpowering idea that allowing someone, anyone, to play trumps all other considerations. That idea is not only wrong, it’s unhealthy for public community based on the trust that everyone is following the same rules in good faith.
|
|
In some games I've been, we've seen people walking in from the streets to join us, out of nowhere, and I suspect in some cases just to get somewhere warm for the next four hours and out of the rain/snow.
Pregens were handed out. PFS numbers were given. And somehow everyone survived the experience. Some of these itinerant players were seen again once or twice, without Chronicle Sheets or PFS numbers. The same process was applied. The GM tried to be as inclusive as he/she could, and answered questions patiently. If the game is in a store and opened to the public, inclusion trumps enforcement. Plain and simple. We are all human beings worthy of a basic level of respect. Rules and enforcement are there to protect the playing community from abusers and not meant as a wide-ranging, encompassing of the entire gaming population repetition jackhammer.
|
|
In some games I've been, we've seen people walking in from the streets to join us, out of nowhere, and I suspect in some cases just to get somewhere warm for the next four hours and out of the rain/snow.
Pregens were handed out. PFS numbers were given. And somehow everyone survived the experience. Some of these itinerant players were seen again once or twice, without Chronicle Sheets or PFS numbers. The same process was applied. The GM tried to be as inclusive as he/she could, and answered questions patiently.
It sounds like the rules were followed correctly, then, unless I'm missing something here. They showed up with no resources, they played pregens, they had fun. Success.
If the game is in a store and opened to the public, inclusion trumps enforcement. Plain and simple. We are all human beings worthy of a basic level of respect. Rules and enforcement are there to protect the playing community from abusers and not meant as a wide-ranging, encompassing of the entire gaming population repetition jackhammer.
Do you have anything to back this assertion up, just out of curiosity? Quotes from Leadership, that sort of thing? Because otherwise, it sounds like you're assigning intent where none is provided.
We don't let someone play a 40-point-buy kineticist with the prana ghost template because "it'd take too long to fix the character and he just wants to play". (Actual local example.) While that's a bit more extreme than "forgot Chronicle sheets", I don't really see why we should give repeat offenders a total pass either.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In some games I've been, we've seen people walking in from the streets to join us, out of nowhere, and I suspect in some cases just to get somewhere warm for the next four hours and out of the rain/snow.
Pregens were handed out. PFS numbers were given. And somehow everyone survived the experience. Some of these itinerant players were seen again once or twice, without Chronicle Sheets or PFS numbers. The same process was applied. The GM tried to be as inclusive as he/she could, and answered questions patiently.
No one is suggesting casual or as you said itinerant players, (or whatever else isolated issue) shouldn't be given a reasonable accommodation. Please stop acting like that is what we are saying.
If the game is in a store and opened to the public, inclusion trumps enforcement. Plain and simple.
No, this is misleading. If regular, experienced player continuously shows up without a legal character, meaning both the character sheet is complete and up to date and the chronicle sheet history is complete they should be asked to play a pregen. If the player refuses, then they should be denied a seat. That's not an inclusion issue. They were given an opportunity to be included and rejected it. If they do it often enough it would be reasonable to ask them to correct their behavior or stop coming to the event.
We are all human beings worthy of a basic level of respect.
Except this issue is not one of respect, it is a matter of personal responsibility. If you fail to fulfill your obligations as a player and are denied the ability to use an illegal character or refuse reasonable accommodation (pregen) and therefore not allowed to play, the player is not being disrespected. In fact, you could say the player is being disrespectful to the rest of the players who followed the rules and the organizers/community leaders who are investing additional time and effort to provide the games.
|
|
I, for one, truly appreciate hard copies.
This weekend I was playing in a game and something felt 'off' the entire scenario... it wasn't until I got home that I realized that I'd been effectively playing my character a level *lower* than they actually were, because the last chronicle I had was electronic.
It didn't change tiering or calculations enough to matter at the table. I had forgotten to download the chronicle that leveled up my character.
Our table didn't TPK or wipe. We had a lot of fun this weekend. I learned a *very* important lesson to make sure that I am fully leveled-up and printed while playing Characters and Chronicles.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not disagree that changing to a digital program would be a good leap forward in how we administer the needs of the program, but unfortunately we are not there yet. Until such time as it becomes a reality, we are expected to follow the rules of the campaign as they exist. We do not get to ignore them just because we don’t like them or they are inconvenient. That’s not how a public campaign operates. You wouldn’t be allowed to ignore the rules set down by the GM in a home game just because you don’t like them. You cannot do it in OP either just because Tonya’s not present at your table.
Are there times when it is reasonable to accept some level of exception? Absolutely. Are we suggesting otherwise? No. Do some people seem to suggest that no one, under any circumstances, should be denied the opportunity to play? Yes. It’s called compromise. No one is suggesting tyrannical enforcement of the rules, but neither are we going to agree that playing always trumps not playing.
I continue to argue this point in an attempt to ensure that readers do not get the wrong impression. That being it is okay to ignore the rules whenever it suits you so someone can play and play in whatever manner they wish. Is it happening? Most likely. Is it right? No, it isn’t. I’ve seen players get irate and yell at GMs, organizers, VOs, even game store owners because they were not allowed to play their character even though they could produce no substantive documentation. It’s not our fault you are not following the rules. This is not an issue of fairness or respect. It is an issue of personal responsibility.
This is really simple. If we all agree that the rules are to be honestly followed by the players and enforced by the organizers and leaders of the community while also accepting that on [i]rare[i] occasions reasonable accommodations should be provided when special circumstances arise, then the discussion can be closed. If however people insist on either tyrannical enforcement or the suggestion that rules are ignored whenever they are inconvenient, than some of us are going to continue arguing this subject.
|
|
I'm now even more confused than I was before.
Can somebody describe the proper procedure to me?
I’d love for the thread to get back to the question as well. Near as I can tell from Tonya’s message and the one she replied to, nothing really changed. Neither make any reference to whether or not a GM can sign a chronicle that doesn’t have the total filled in. Tonya seems to jndicate that it’s ok to make purchases between scenarios by listing them on the ITS, then showing that to your next GM. Which is how things have worked since the ITS was introduced. The only point that was clarified is that the new GM doesn’t need to sign the ITS. Which they’ve never needed to do.
So near as I can tell, the “correct” method remains what was in the previous guide, that almost no one was doing. If that’s not true, then a post from someone who does know how it is supposed to work now giving the actual steps and maybe an example would be extremely appreciated. The post that was replied to didn’t actually reference anything that addressed the core question. Just the side confusion about whether the new GM is supposed to sign anything. Maybe that’s enough to piece the process together with guesswork and the new wording, but I don’t think we’ll really know without a lengthier explanation.
|
|
YMMV
My Mileage DOES Vary :-).
Note, I'm NOT saying that you're wrong to feel the way that you do. But I also don't think that I am wrong for not really caring at all about the state of the persons paper work so long as their character is more or less legal AND vaguely balanced.
With the current power creep characters that are actual problems at the table are MUCH more likely to be the result of some twinked out monstrosity than the result of some errors on the players part caused by insufficient attention to paperwork. While there is merit to solving the minor problem I just don't CARE enough in the face of the much greater problem
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we are going to bother reporting games online, shouldn't there be an online auto-fill system that just calculates your XP, gold earned and boons?
The current online reporting system is VERY, VERY far from being able to do anything remotely like this.
It is cumbersome and data entry is extremely error prone. Part of the latter is inherent (trying to decipher players chicken scratches can be a challenge) and some caused by bad design on Paizo's part (the information that IS available is slow to load and often does NOT load).
Not to mention the fundamental issue that it takes time to enter scenarios (the fact that its such a chore contributes to this) and people sometimes forget.
Relying on the record system for ANYTHING would be a major, major problem.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’ve seen players get irate and yell at GMs, organizers, VOs, even game store owners
To complicate matters, sometimes the event organizers at a con will NOT let us follow the PFS rules.
Locally, the second largest (it may actually be the largest at this point) Con has stated in the past that GMs MUST allow players at their table to play their own characters even if those characters aren't PFS legal. There is some wriggle room for things like illegal point buy, illegal races, etc. But there is absolutely NOT wriggle room for things like missing chronicles.
Our solution (other reasons are also involved, as you know) has been to not offer PFS there for the last couple of years. Probably the best we can do but not by any means an ideal situation.
If all the other issues could be resolved, personally I'd far rather run PFS there without being allowed to audit chronicle sheets than not be allowed to run at all. And I think it would be far, far, far better for PFS as a whole