Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play: Guide 5.0 and Changes to Organized Play

Monday, August 5, 2013

With Gen Con just 10 days away, I wanted to release the new and improved Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play today so everyone has an opportunity to review it and discuss it before Gen Con. With the help of the Venture-Captains and Venture-Lieutenants, we have added several much-needed changes that we think will improve your experiences in Pathfinder Society play.

Most notably, the following changes will go into effect on August 15 when Season Five kicks off at Gen Con:

There are quite a few other updates and you should reference the change log for a detailed list of all changes from version 4.3 to 5.0.

I look forward to seeing folks at Gen Con and am looking forward to an even more awesome campaign in the upcoming Year of the Demon. I sincerely appreciate everyone who provided feedback for the changes to the Guide and worked together to make our organized play the best it can be for the player base, GMs, coordinators, and Venture-Officers. Feel free to pull me aside at Gen Con to chat about any or all of the above changes.

Mike Brock
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Society
451 to 500 of 676 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber
Michael Brock wrote:
rknop wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
his is not something new. Why are you shocked by it?
He's shocked by it because even though it's been in the rules for a long time, it's not common current practice.
So because the same rule that has been in place is being tweaked now to make it easier, it causes a rant now and not anytime in the past five years? Ok.....

Yes and no. Your statement of facts is correct, but the "causes" is not.

It's causing a rant because, due to this thread, some people are realizing for the first time that GMs are supposed to oversee their purchases. Yes, it's in the rules. Did people know that? No. Did people follow it? No. People aren't following and don't know the current rules. That's the problem.

I've posted this in a bunch of different threads, and as far as I can tell you're ignoring it. There's a bigger problem than the details of how and where inventory is tracked. That bigger problem is that people aren't following the rules right now. Adding more rules isn't going to magically fix that. Somehow you have to think about what needs to be done. In another thread, I suggested that you remove the requirement that GMs sign off on purchases; let players do it whenever, but also ask them to use the ITS sheet so that GMs are able to audit it. People will probably fail to follow this as well, but at least it brings the rules a bit more in line with what people are doing already.

Since people aren't following and don't know the rules, either the people need to be fixed, or the rules need to be fixed so that they work with PFS in reality. This being the real world, you're not going to fix the people, so the only option left is to fix the rules-- and adding more rules and a new tracking sheet doesn't fix them. Or, if you think that the rules can't be fixed, then perhaps it's time to admit that PFS doesn't work. Demonstrably, that last bit isn't true, so I think it's clear that PFS works even though the rules as written aren't entirely being followed. The obvious thing to me then is to adjust the rules so that they are something people will actually follow. It sounds like giving in-- "everybody steals, so we might as well make stealing legal". But it's not that. Things work, and you can make it so that audits are required. But the fact that very few people follow, or even know about the current written requirement that GMs have to sign off on purchases is at the very least a suggestion that that requirement might be too overbearing for realistic PFS play.

I'm also not convinced that this is being tweaked to make it easier. It makes some things easier (e.g. an audit), yes, and it gives more room and makes it more organized than cramming everything into the little boxes we had before. Yes. But it also now means that purchase are getting written in potentially three places (on the chronicle sheet, perhaps just as a summary, on the ITS sheet, and on the character sheet). While this makes it easier for an audit, it's more to do in the first place. Really, it is. Is it a big deal? No. But given that people already aren't doing what they're supposed to do, why do you think that adding more that they're supposed to do will suddenly make them start doing anything? Even if the new system is more organized and easier for audits, players aren't used to the idea that GMs have to be aware of and sign off on purchases. Now that they're supposed to write it in three places, instead of just two, chances that they'll screw it up are going to go up.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

So, if a large majority of players feels not using character sheets is a good idea, we should abandon that rule? Because I have one region now where a good number of players don't show up with character sheets.

And we are not adding more rules. We are adding a sheet to help facilitate the rule in place for five years to make it easier for GMs.

And since you have advised it is more to do, how much extra time is it? 30-60 seconds at most in almost every case. And if people are going to screw it up writing in three places instead of two, even though they are writing the same exact thing if they like, there isn't much I can to do to fix that.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I spend, on average, about 4-6 hours in a given week prior to a scenario getting everything ready. Maps, print outs, chronicles, the scenario with highlights and notes, pre-reading everything two times or more, as well as creating and printing hand outs for new players.

I don't think it's too much to ask for a player to spend a few minutes before or after a game doing their part to total their purchases and provide them to me in a simple and easy to manage format. It beats me going around the table and entering purchases for each character on the chronicle sheet after a game, when people are ready to get out of dodge for the evening.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

Walter Sheppard wrote:

Ironically, in the time a person has spent reading and posting throughout this entire thread, they could have probably retroactively applied an ITS to most of their characters.

I know I could have.

I'm unemployed right now so I've been doing both :-).

My chronicles are in ATROCIOUS state. I've never bothered to track purchases on them at all (I use Herolab). Nothing was being carried forward, not XP, not prestige, nothing (again, I use Herolab for that).

I've been going through my characters and doing what I can. Guessing when I bought things. Making sure that the end result (the character that I'm playing) is actually legal (ie, has bought everything).

That is taking on the order of an hour or 2 per character, depending mostly on level.

In that process I've found some errors. In both directions. Reasonably minor. The worst was 1 character who had about 4k extra equipment (out of a total wealth of ~50k).

But those errors have firmly convinced me that I should have been doing a better job. And I'm pretty sure that most local players should also be doing a better job.

I actually quite like the tracking sheet (especially as I can now use my own). I plan on using it going forward in order to reduce my mistakes.

I'd LOVE a statement in the guide something like "It is the responsibility of players to carefully track their purchases and expenditures. It is essential that the information on when items were purchased be easily accessible to the GM in the event that a GM audits your character. How you do it is up to you but we have provided a form that may make it easier for you."

I think that solves all the issues. It means that neither the player nor the GM have anything more to do at the table than they currently do. It reduces errors. It enables audits.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber

You are adding more rules. "You must keep this additional sheet" is a new rule.

And, don't be ridiculous. You're doing a reducto ad absurdum thing. Of course people should have character sheets. You can't play the game without them. You can play the game without the GM having to sign off on each and every individual purchase. They're not comparable at all.


pauljathome wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:


So if it takes an extra 30-60 seconds by the player to make the GMs job easier, then it isn't worth the extra work. That is what I'm reading from all of the uproar.

Mike, I mean this as respectfully as I possibly can. You're a smart person who obviously has the best interests of PFS at heart. You also listen and change your mind on many occassions. You're doing an excellent job as campaign coordinator.

But if that is what you're getting from the uproar then I think that you're too close to the issue and, unconsciously, are getting defensive.

A lot of people have raised quite reasonable points.

The store where I'm the coordinator has a VERY tight schedule. People often find it hard to get there on time so we tend to start a little late. The store closes at 10pm sharp. We almost always have a little less than 4 hours to complete the scemario.

We have a mix of GMs. Some quite inexperienced.

On at least 2 occassions that I am aware of the game ran a little long and even the basic signing of chronicle sheets did not happen in the store. Instead, they went to a nearby food court. It is VERY common for the GM to be frantically signing the chroniole sheets while the store employees are standing there hurrying us up.

That is the kind of time pressure that we're under.

We currently ignore the current rules. The GM signs the chronicle sheets, the players fill it in later (if at all). We have essentially no audits of characters.

So yes, I'm concerned about extra overhead. Just following the current rules is extra overhead. Following the new rules will be still more extra overhead.

The issue really isn't "What is the change from the current rules to the new rules" it is "What is the change from the current practice to the new rules".

I think that concern is valid.

OTOH, the same concern exists with the current rules, which you aren't following. So the issue isn't the change in the rules, but what new practice will evolve as a response.

One thing that happens, with the official inclusion of "before the scenario" as a valid time to purchase items is that the official rules become closer to practice. Players can officially lay out their purchases between games and be sure to get them at the start of the next.

In actual practice in time crunches like yours, what will probably happen is exactly what happens now except that after you sign off players will write "Total Spent = XXXgp" on their Chronicles (or not) instead of writing purchased items on their Chronicles (or not).

Shadow Lodge 5/5 5/5

rknop wrote:
You can't play the game without them. You can play the game without the GM having to sign off on each and every individual purchase. They're not comparable at all.

Actually, as Mike pointed out, you can't. Those are the rules, and have always been the rules.

3/5

Michael Brock wrote:
Netopalis wrote:
Question: Given that it has been previously clarified that it is sufficient to write "Purchases - 4625 gp" in the notes area of the chronicle, why is it not acceptable to just not write anything in the notes portion, notate the gold spent in the "Items Bought" section of the chronicle, then write everything in the ITS regardless of gp value?
If you will look at the Chronicle sheet that is in Guide 5.0, you will notice that the Items Bought section has been removed.

I suggest that the Items Bought section be restored to the Chronicle sheet so that the GM only has to initial/sign the Chronicle, not also initial the ITS. Just a thought.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber
Chad Newman wrote:

I don't think it's too much to ask for a player to spend a few minutes before or after a game doing their part to total their purchases and provide them to me in a simple and easy to manage format. It beats me going around the table and entering purchases for each character on the chronicle sheet after a game, when people are ready to get out of dodge for the evening.

The problem is not the time involved (which is not very much), the problem is not whether it's too much to ask of the players (it's not).

The problem is that the players aren't doing what they're supposed to do now, and I don't see why adding a new sheet is supposed to fix that.

Also, the GMs aren't doing what they're supposed to do now. Almost nobody does audits (and in the current Guide they're required-- I'm happy to see that changed to suggested in the new guide). GMs by and large are not approving and signing off on player purchases.

The problem isn't whether in an abstract sense what's being asked is reasonable. It is! I don't debate that!

The problem is this willfull blindness to the observational fact that a substantial fraction of people aren't obeying the current rules on purchase, that the part people aren't obeying isn't being addressed, and that yet PFS seems to work somehow.

Perhaps the goal is to have lots of written rules that it's OK to violate. I don't like this, because it opens up players to saying "Why can't I PVP? It also says that GMs have to sign off on all my purchase, but no GM has ever done that, they've always just given me a pre-signed chronicle. So, since that rule isn't followed, why should I also follow the no PVP rule?" Or whatever else. When the written rules are at odds with standard practice, it undermines the rules.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber
Chad Newman wrote:
rknop wrote:
You can't play the game without them. You can play the game without the GM having to sign off on each and every individual purchase. They're not comparable at all.
Actually, as Mike pointed out, you can't. Those are the rules, and have always been the rules.

Yes you can!

Are you supposed to? No.

Is it possible to have a character that's correct, has inventory, and can make it through a game even though no GM has ever signed off on the purchases? Yes, absolutely. It would be much harder without a character sheet at all to get through a scenario.

So, be careful about "can". I'm talking about what's possible, not about what you're supposed to do under the rules.

If you really couldn't play through a PFS scdenario without following the rules, then I have a hard time understanding everything that was happening in the PFS room during PaizoCon. All the GMs I had there (and others have reported the same thing) handed out pre-signed chronicle sheets without waiting to look over player purchases. It's very clear that PFS games do happen even though people don't follow the rules. That's what I'm saying. By claiming that "you can't because the rules don't say that" is at all comparable to the difficulty of playing an RPG without a character record present, you're denying reality.

5/5

Maybe my understanding of what the current iteration is wrong but my current understanding has both me and one of our store liaisons pretty concerned. Not because we don't think we will be able to make time to get this done, we will. But because we are concerned about what we will need to cut to make time to do this.

From what we understand a GM will have to spend 2-3 minutes er player filling out what players want they want to purchase before they can sign and give them the chronicle sheet.

Now if the GM does this personally that is anywhere from 6 to 21 minutes spent filling in items for players either before or after. By my estimation it will probably be most likely around 10 minutes if people are on top of what they want to get.

Now ten minutes, assuming there are no problems, may not seem like a very long time, but it is still cutting into something, likely the role-playing. And this is what makes us uncomfortable.

Honestly I really liked the rendition where players would fill out a tracking sheet and GMs would initial it because that helps me keep track of what players have but also did not take much time. Initialing can happen very quickly.

But it will take a lot more time for me listen to what each player wants, and then write it down. I confess I do not write terribly fast. At least not if I want it to be legible.

Edit: After rereading a bit of this thread it seems my current understanding is incorrect. I will download the guide again and reread it after work.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

rknop wrote:

You are adding more rules. "You must keep this additional sheet" is a new rule.

And, don't be ridiculous. You're doing a reducto ad absurdum thing. Of course people should have character sheets. You can't play the game without them. You can play the game without the GM having to sign off on each and every individual purchase. They're not comparable at all.

Sure, call it a new rule if you want. I can live with that. The new rule is players must be responsible for tracking their characters purchases so it makes the GM's job easier.

And as I said, we have a region where people don't think they need character sheets to play. Just out of curiosity, if a player isn't keeping track of equipment they purchase, and consumables such as charges on their sheet then how do they know when the wand runs out?

Finally, I think I've made it quite clear a half a dozen times, that the GM does not have to sign off on each and every individual purchase. I can link yet again if you need me to.

5/5

I really like the idea of players keeping track of their items. I also like the sheet that will help with this.

5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
pauljathome wrote:
The issue really isn't "What is the change from the current rules to the new rules" it is "What is the change from the current practice to the new rules".

Paul - take a moment to consider "What is the change from the current practice to the new practice". I think you'll find it actually will save you time at the game table in the store, if it impacts you at all.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

Mahtobedis wrote:

Maybe my understanding of what the current iteration is wrong but my current understanding has both me and one of our store liaisons pretty concerned. Not because we don't think we will be able to make time to get this done, we will. But because we are concerned about what we will need to cut to make time to do this.

From what we understand a GM will have to spend 2-3 minutes er player filling out what players want they want to purchase before they can sign and give them the chronicle sheet.

Now if the GM does this personally that is anywhere from 6 to 21 minutes spent filling in items for players either before or after. By my estimation it will probably be most likely around 10 minutes if people are on top of what they want to get.

Now ten minutes, assuming there are no problems, may not seem like a very long time, but it is still cutting into something, likely the role-playing. And this is what makes us uncomfortable.

Honestly I really liked the rendition where players would fill out a tracking sheet and GMs would initial it because that helps me keep track of what players have but also did not take much time. Initialing can happen very quickly.

But it will take a lot more time for me listen to what each player wants, and then write it down. I confess I do not write terribly fast. At least not if I want it to be legible.

Edit: After rereading a bit of this thread it seems my current understanding is incorrect. I will download the guide again and reread it after work.

Please advise where you are finding the GM spending a minimum 10 minutes, at maximum 21 minutes, for the following to occur:

When people go home, after a session, pour through all of the books at their disposal, find the items they want to buy, and then write that item down on the ITS at the same time they find it, and THEN they show the ITS to their next GM at the start of the next game, so he can mark on the Chronicle "Items purchased - XXXX GP" how much extra work is this adding on the players' behalf. Just curious.

I'm counting 3 minutes tops - 30 seconds per player.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber
Michael Brock wrote:

And as I said, we have a region where people don't think they need character sheets to play. Just out of curiosity, if a player isn't keeping track of equipment they purchase, and consumables such as charges on their sheet then how do they know when the wand runs out?

Finally, I think I've made it quite clear a half a dozen times, that the GM does not have to sign off on each and every individual purchase. I can link yet again if you need me to.

Players do keep track of it. They keep track of it on their character sheet, just like in every other non-PFS Pathfinder game that people play in. This is very different from only doing purchases in the presence of a GM. The latter is what I'm saying people aren't doing in practice right now, and that doesn't really need to be done for PFS to work.

And, yes, you have said that GMs don't have to sign off on each and every individual item (most recently; originally, it was different), but GMs are still supposed to sign off on bulk purchases. You still have people writing purchases on chronicle sheets (even if it's in a big group), and the GM is supposed to initial that. I suggest you entirely remove this requirement, remove purchases altogether from the chronicle sheet, and just have them on the ITS. And, remove the requirement that a GM must be present for the player to be allowed to add any inventory. The GM should have the right to audit the ITS at any time, but the players should be able to fill them out whenever without any need for GM initials anywhere.

5/5

Looks like very little extra work. Clearly I misunderstood what current procedure is.

Assuming everyone has their act together it wont take more than 3 minutes to take care of this at the start and if they don't I can tell them to get it ready by the end of the scenario.

This makes me much less worried than I was.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

2 people marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:

And as I said, we have a region where people don't think they need character sheets to play. Just out of curiosity, if a player isn't keeping track of equipment they purchase, and consumables such as charges on their sheet then how do they know when the wand runs out?

Finally, I think I've made it quite clear a half a dozen times, that the GM does not have to sign off on each and every individual purchase. I can link yet again if you need me to.

Players do keep track of it. They keep track of it on their character sheet, just like in every other non-PFS Pathfinder game that people play in. This is very different from only doing purchases in the presence of a GM. The latter is what I'm saying people aren't doing in practice right now, and that doesn't really need to be done for PFS to work.

And, yes, you have said that GMs don't have to sign off on each and every individual item (most recently; originally, it was different), but GMs are still supposed to sign off on bulk purchases. You still have people writing purchases on chronicle sheets (even if it's in a big group), and the GM is supposed to initial that. I suggest you entirely remove this requirement, remove purchases altogether from the chronicle sheet, and just have them on the ITS. And, remove the requirement that a GM must be present for the player to be allowed to add any inventory. The GM should have the right to audit the ITS at any time, but the players should be able to fill them out whenever.

And it is one of the key reasons that GM audits don't work the way they are supposed to. They have to go through numerous Chronicle sheets and/or a character sheet, instead of just looking in one place to find where a character's stuff is.

Doing a purchase in front of the GM is as simple as handing him a list on the ITS and saying, these are what I'm purchasing at the beginning of this scenario and to be applied on the Chronicle sheet at the end. Any problems with that, GM? The GM doesn't have to sit there while the player pours through 16 books to find the item he wants.

The GM signs off on purchases when he signs the bottom of the Chronicle sheet, something he is already doing. He or the player adds one sentence in the Notes section. "items purchased -XXXX GP - See ITS #X."

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Back when I used to be an active Magic: the Gathering player, an article I read cited a comment from a professional that stuck with me (quoting from memory). "Instead of complaining that you were mana-screwed in game 3, ask yourself why you didn't win games 1 and 2."

That keeps popping into my head when I see people posting about how unreasonable it is to require that we find time for this bookkeeping "when we're already being hurried out the door of the closing game store" or some such.

To paraphrase the MtG line, "Instead of complaining that you can't squeeze in the bookkeeping when you're already pushing the time limit, ask yourself why you're pushing the time limit in the first place."

How many ITS's could you have looked over in the time it took you to look up that NPC's spell that you could have made notes on ahead of time? How much time did you spend resolving the last two rounds of combat when you could have just called it because the enemy had 1HP and didn't really pose any remaining threat to the PCs? How much time did you spend waiting for the players to figure out a way around a minor obstacle when you could have given them a hint after the first couple of minutes?

How do you consistently get into situations where you don't have time for the bookkeeping?

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chad Newman wrote:
rknop wrote:
You can't play the game without them. You can play the game without the GM having to sign off on each and every individual purchase. They're not comparable at all.
Actually, as Mike pointed out, you can't. Those are the rules, and have always been the rules.

I'm quoting you but I'm really replying to lots of people who are making similar points.

Yes, we're currently not following the rules.

"Work to Rule" is an exceedingly effective technique because. almost always, things only work BECAUSE experienced people break the rules to the extent required to actually make things function as they are intended to.

I break all sorts of rules. I do not audit every character every session. I do not apply a -500 perception modifier to see the city a mile away. I let a player play the same pregen 2 games in a row and apply both chronicles to their own character. If I notice that a player has made a minor mistake in their character I'll let them play that character without using the feat as opposed to making them play a pregen. I let animal companions act on their owners initiative.

If you actually enforce all the rules then I expect PFS will rapidly implode. I KNOW that I won't be present to see that happen because I'll long since have quit.

3/5

Michael Brock wrote:
rknop wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
his is not something new. Why are you shocked by it?
He's shocked by it because even though it's been in the rules for a long time, it's not common current practice.
So because the same rule that has been in place is being tweaked now to make it easier, it causes a rant now and not anytime in the past five years? Ok.....

That's the rub methinks. It's not coming across as being easier. I'm not sold on it being easier myself...but quite honestly I've lost track of this conversation so I can't really say for certain where things currently stand; but I already keep detailed notes on when and where my gold and prestige points come from and when and how they are spent and will continue to do so.

I'm just unclear about the "why" of requiring GM's to initial purchases when there are already so many checks and balances in place on the chronicle sheet already.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

Deane Beman wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
rknop wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
his is not something new. Why are you shocked by it?
He's shocked by it because even though it's been in the rules for a long time, it's not common current practice.
So because the same rule that has been in place is being tweaked now to make it easier, it causes a rant now and not anytime in the past five years? Ok.....

That's the rub methinks. It's not coming across as being easier. I'm not sold on it being easier myself...but quite honestly I've lost track of this conversation so I can't really say for certain where things currently stand; but I already keep detailed notes on when and where my gold and prestige points come from and when and how they are spent and will continue to do so.

I'm just unclear about the "why" of requiring GM's to initial purchases when there are already so many checks and balances in place on the chronicle sheet already.

GMs don't have to intial every purchase. They make a one line note on the bottom of the Chronicle and sign the Chronicle. If it is too much trouble for the GM, the player can write a one line note. Refer to my post four above yours.


Jiggy speaks the truth.

In any case, while I haven't gotten a chance to look at the new inventory tracker sheets, I think I will like using them. It sounds like they'll make things more organized.

Silver Crusade 4/5

I think the breakdown here is between theory and practice. The rules say we've always had to have GMs approve purchases. In practice, I'd say 90% of PFS players and GMs have never done this. I would have said 99% before this thread, but apparently, Mike Brock, Kyle Baird, and a half a dozen other GMs worldwide actually knew about this rule and obeyed it, which is more than I would have expected.

The question is: Why is this a rule? If PFS chugs along with nobody obeying this rule, then what would be the harm in removing that rule? IMHO, that's the debate we should be having, which has nothing to do with the ITS or the new Guide.

I think the new ITS is a great replacement for writing out your purchases on the chronicle sheet, and making audits easier on the rare occasion they happen. But that's all it is. Let's not let the discussion about the ITS spiral out of control because of a secondary debate about whether or not an old rule is really necessary.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

rknop wrote:
Chad Newman wrote:

I don't think it's too much to ask for a player to spend a few minutes before or after a game doing their part to total their purchases and provide them to me in a simple and easy to manage format. It beats me going around the table and entering purchases for each character on the chronicle sheet after a game, when people are ready to get out of dodge for the evening.

The problem is not the time involved (which is not very much), the problem is not whether it's too much to ask of the players (it's not).

The problem is that the players aren't doing what they're supposed to do now, and I don't see why adding a new sheet is supposed to fix that.

Also, the GMs aren't doing what they're supposed to do now. Almost nobody does audits (and in the current Guide they're required-- I'm happy to see that changed to suggested in the new guide). GMs by and large are not approving and signing off on player purchases.

The problem isn't whether in an abstract sense what's being asked is reasonable. It is! I don't debate that!

The problem is this willfull blindness to the observational fact that a substantial fraction of people aren't obeying the current rules on purchase, that the part people aren't obeying isn't being addressed, and that yet PFS seems to work somehow.

Perhaps the goal is to have lots of written rules that it's OK to violate. I don't like this, because it opens up players to saying "Why can't I PVP? It also says that GMs have to sign off on all my purchase, but no GM has ever done that, they've always just given me a pre-signed chronicle. So, since that rule isn't followed, why should I also follow the no PVP rule?" Or whatever else. When the written rules are at odds with standard practice, it undermines the rules.

So we should just get rid of the rule because the various GM's and regional coordinators haven't been training their player base correctly in this particular rule?

I'm partially at fault, I haven't been training my player base correctly.

That will be changing, at least at the tables I GM.

If you don't have your ITS ready for me (or get it ready in a reasonable amount of time), you didn't purchase the item. Period.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Mike,

Can we get this thread locked, and a new one started with an update on where things stand, similar to what was done with the Inventory Tracking Sheet thread?

I a lot of folks still seem to be working on old information.

Silver Crusade 2/5

I absolutely agree with Mike on this. However, I'm still concerned about the efficacy of character audits. Any character audit where the GM has to look into feats will take more time than filling out a couple purchases on an inventory sheet. So, to me, the time filling out the inventory sheet is completely trivial compared to the effort for a GM to grok an entire PC for an audit.

Don't get me wrong here, I think this sheet helps a lot. But, ultimately, it goes back to my build >>> gear argument. The GM can only get a partial picture from the inventory sheet. But it's still a good idea.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber
Michael Brock wrote:
And it is one of the key reasons that GM audits don't work the way they are supposed to. They have to go through numerous Chronicle sheets and/or a character sheet, instead of just looking in one place to find where a character's stuff is.

Agreed, and for this reason I think the ITS is a great idea.

Michael Brock wrote:

Doing a purchase in front of the GM is as simple as handing him a list on the ITS and saying, these are what I'm purchasing at the beginning of this scenario and to be applied on the Chronicle sheet at the end. Any problems with that, GM? The GM doesn't have to sit there while the player pours through 16 books to find the item he wants.

The GM signs off on purchases when he signs the bottom of the Chronicle sheet, something he is already doing. He adds one sentence in the Notes section. "items purchased -XXXX GP - See ITS #X."

I will do this. I don't have a problem with it. It doesn't sound too onerous.

What I'm worried about is all the GMs who hand out pre-signed chronicle sheets without any player purchases or anything on it. What do I do as a player then? I have these purchases, the GM maybe even said they were OK, but now I don't have the GM signature.

For online play, this is worse. If the player writes it in, it adds one more back-and-forth iteration of a sheet having to be mailed back to the player, to the GM, to the player to acquire the signature. In person, no big deal, but online, that's a pain in the butt. The other way around (and what I will do as GM) is for the GM just to write what the player purchased on the sheet himself before sending out the sheets, so there's no iterating. I'm happy to do this myself, but I anticipate (based on what I observe GMs do now) that many GMs won't do this, so I'll be stuck again without the right signatures.

I'm also worried about players pushing back when I ask them, online, to show me somehow what stuff they've purchased. Already I get pushback on getting character sheets and chornicle sheets, although for the most part I've overcome that. It really helps that Joseph Caubo has made it very clear he has GMs backs, and I think I'm filtering out players who aren't willing to do that (they just won't sign up for my games by and large). But, given that it is a bit like pulling teeth for players to tell me that right now, it's also going to be a bit like pulling teeth to get them to tell me the information I need to write the purchases they've made on their chronicle sheet.

Would it really be so terrible to move to inventory being on the ITS only and remove the requirement that any record at all of the purchases show up initialed by a GM on the chronicle sheet? What would be the harm in removing this last requirement?

Grand Lodge 4/5 Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

David Bowles wrote:

I absolutely agree with Mike on this. However, I'm still concerned about the efficacy of character audits. Any character audit where the GM has to look into feats will take more time than filling out a couple purchases on an inventory sheet. So, to me, the time filling out the inventory sheet is completely trivial compared to the effort for a GM to grok an entire PC for an audit.

Don't get me wrong here, I think this sheet helps a lot. But, ultimately, it goes back to my build >>> gear argument. The GM can only get a partial picture from the inventory sheet. But it's still a good idea.

Most, not all, but most audits occur because of item discrepancy.

4/5

If you give a mouse a cookie...

From what I can tell, people are clamouring that this unecessarily burdensome because it's a change from current common practice. Common practice doesn't make something right, unfortunately. And, as Mike pointed out, the change is actually to make the current rules less stringent than they currently are.

When I hear this, I think of the speed limit (poor example, I know). A lot of people are driving over the speed limit - which is against the rules and which can cause harm, however inadvertently, to themselves, others, the car, or the road infrastructure (feel free to draw parallels to the game, the player, other players, PFS, etc). So, along comes the folks in charge who decide to lessen the speed limit requirements, maybe let folks drive faster in areas or something. However, in the process, they reiterate the importance of following the speed limit. And what happens? Everyone starts yelling at them that the speed limit should be thrown out entirely because everyone speeds. Despite the fact that removing the speed limit entirely will have dire consequences.

In other words, the rules exist for the common good. It's a standard to make sure everyone is equal. If it's not perfect, then we can work to fix it; but those lobbying for such a change should at least try it the way intended and see how it works. Gather direct evidence to support your claims and then present them to those in charge in a concise and well-thought out manner. Maybe with a pie chart or two, because who doesn't love those things?

And now I'll get down off my soapbox. I'm tired, and I'm not even sure if all I've said is coherent. Good day!


I'm going to go ahead and add this in: the first half hour of my PFS games are often spent waiting for other players to come up. This will give our GMs plenty of time to approve purchases. This new rule will not cause us to run later at all.

5/5

Jiggy wrote:

Back when I used to be an active Magic: the Gathering player, an article I read cited a comment from a professional that stuck with me (quoting from memory). "Instead of complaining that you were mana-screwed in game 3, ask yourself why you didn't win games 1 and 2."

That keeps popping into my head when I see people posting about how unreasonable it is to require that we find time for this bookkeeping "when we're already being hurried out the door of the closing game store" or some such.

To paraphrase the MtG line, "Instead of complaining that you can't squeeze in the bookkeeping when you're already pushing the time limit, ask yourself why you're pushing the time limit in the first place."

How many ITS's could you have looked over in the time it took you to look up that NPC's spell that you could have made notes on ahead of time? How much time did you spend resolving the last two rounds of combat when you could have just called it because the enemy had 1HP and didn't really pose any remaining threat to the PCs? How much time did you spend waiting for the players to figure out a way around a minor obstacle when you could have given them a hint after the first couple of minutes?

How do you consistently get into situations where you don't have time for the bookkeeping?

Here in Boston we have a venue which provides us with 4 hours to do a scenario. Because of this we are very careful to only schedule scenarios which run on the shorter side. Our GM's who run there are really good about prepping well. However we are always pushing right up against the stores closing time because the people who play there really like to roleplay. Now I can and have cut roleplay short due to time contraints but I prefer not to.

Thankfully the latest procedure is not going to take very much more time and also looks like something that can be done after leaving the store at the worst.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Mahtobedis wrote:


Thankfully the latest procedure is not going to take very much more time and also looks like something that can be done after leaving the store at the worst.

Exactly.

If you leave the time consuming responsibility in the player's hands, to come to a game day prepared with their ITS fully filled out, then the GM really isn't going to spend much time on it.

And if you make sure that players understand that they won't be allowed to use their purchases without coming prepared, then they will soon start coming prepared.

3/5

Michael Brock wrote:
Deane Beman wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
rknop wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
his is not something new. Why are you shocked by it?
He's shocked by it because even though it's been in the rules for a long time, it's not common current practice.
So because the same rule that has been in place is being tweaked now to make it easier, it causes a rant now and not anytime in the past five years? Ok.....

That's the rub methinks. It's not coming across as being easier. I'm not sold on it being easier myself...but quite honestly I've lost track of this conversation so I can't really say for certain where things currently stand; but I already keep detailed notes on when and where my gold and prestige points come from and when and how they are spent and will continue to do so.

I'm just unclear about the "why" of requiring GM's to initial purchases when there are already so many checks and balances in place on the chronicle sheet already.

GMs don't have to intial every purchase. They make a one line note on the bottom of the Chronicle and sign the Chronicle. Refer to my post four above yours.

Right...but we're still filling out and signing a note on a form that we've already signed or initialed four or five times already.


rknop wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:


The GM signs off on purchases when he signs the bottom of the Chronicle sheet, something he is already doing. He adds one sentence in the Notes section. "items purchased -XXXX GP - See ITS #X."

I will do this. I don't have a problem with it. It doesn't sound too onerous.

What I'm worried about is all the GMs who hand out pre-signed chronicle sheets without any player purchases or anything on it. What do I do as a player then? I have these purchases, the GM maybe even said they were OK, but now I don't have the GM signature.

You'll do exactly what you do now. You'll add that sentence yourself.

IT doesn't have to be signed off on by itself. Just by the main signature on the Chronicle.

If you don't have that signature, you have bigger problems.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
IT doesn't have to be signed off on by itself. Just by the main signature on the Chronicle.

Last I saw from a Mike Brock post, that line had to have a GM initial by it.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

Michael Brock wrote:


Sure, call it a new rule if you want. I can live with that. The new rule is players must be responsible for tracking their characters purchases so it makes the GM's job easier.

I think that I should follow my own advice and take a step back and reexamine why I'm arguing :-). I think that many of my concerns have actually been addressed (the current state is significantly different from the actual guide).

I have absolutely no problem with the above. None. Its a great idea. Especially with your post above clarifying that they can do this with their own sheets, electronic resources, etc.

And I have no problem at all if the GM is ACTUALLY expected to glance at that sheet before the session to make sure that it is kind of up to date. The mere fact that I'll be glancing at it is enough to greatly increase the chance that the player will actually keep it up to date.

And clearly a character sheet is a necessity. If it isn't on the character sheet, it doesn't exist (Is that actually explicitly stated in the Guide?)

My only remaining concern is, essentially, in the always existing rules. In what the GM is actually expected to do with chronicles (both Seasons 0-4 and 5+).

If the process is expected to be :
I hand out chronicle sheets.
Player fills in chronicle sheet with total of purchases, sales, etc
Player fills in with XP, Prestige, etc.
Player hands it back to me.
I THEN sign it.

That is clearly more work than I'm currently doing, But likely not much more work. I'm certainly willing to try it and actually SEE if it is an onerous burden or not. If it is, I can come back with that information.

But I now have a question. It is NOT rhetorical. I am genuinely asking for guidance

What am I supposed to do when the player does NOT have an up to date chronicle sheet listing their current gold, XP, etc for me to use as a baseline. When they do not have an inventory tracking sheet?

Lets assume for the moment that this becomes the actual lccal culture and 6 months from now the issue doesn't come up.

How do we handle the transition?

As I said in another post, I've been bringing my own chronicles up to date. They are in atrocious shape. Its taking on the order of an hour or 2 to bring them up to date and do a self audit in the process.

I strongly suspect that my atrocious chronicles are the norm. At least I had them all and had them all clearly assigned to character and placed in order. Others will be even worse off.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

rknop wrote:
Would it really be so terrible to move to inventory being on the ITS only and remove the requirement that any record at all of the purchases show up initialed by a GM on the chronicle sheet? What would be the harm in removing this last requirement?

If we did that, GMs would then have to sign both the Chronicle (for XP and PP) and the ITS for equipment purchases. People voiced serious concerns it would be too onerous on GMs to sign two sheets instead of just one.

5/5

Now that we know we itemize on the ITS instead of the Chronicle--in essence replacing the per-Chronicle itemization with one ongoing sheet because the space on the Chronicle was needed for other things--I don't see a problem. We aren't doing anything differently than we used to, we're just doing it on a separate piece of paper because the first one is full.

And frankly the people who have disregarded the rules on the past can continue doing so with the ITS. I'm not saying they should, just that the ITS doesn't change anything.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Michael Brock wrote:
David Bowles wrote:

I absolutely agree with Mike on this. However, I'm still concerned about the efficacy of character audits. Any character audit where the GM has to look into feats will take more time than filling out a couple purchases on an inventory sheet. So, to me, the time filling out the inventory sheet is completely trivial compared to the effort for a GM to grok an entire PC for an audit.

Don't get me wrong here, I think this sheet helps a lot. But, ultimately, it goes back to my build >>> gear argument. The GM can only get a partial picture from the inventory sheet. But it's still a good idea.

Most, not all, but most audits occur because of item discrepancy.

Oh, I did not know that. Well, I haven't seen many audits so I had no way to know that.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

Jiggy wrote:


To paraphrase the MtG line, "Instead of complaining that you can't squeeze in the bookkeeping when you're already pushing the time limit, ask yourself why you're pushing the time limit in the first place."

How many ITS's could you have looked over in the time it took you to look up that NPC's spell that you could have made notes on ahead of time? How much time did you spend resolving the last two rounds of combat when you could have just called it because the enemy had 1HP and didn't really pose any remaining threat to the PCs? How much time did you spend waiting for the players to figure out a way around a minor obstacle when you could have given them a hint after the first couple of minutes?

How do you consistently get into situations where you don't have time for the bookkeeping?

Well, in my case because I'm trying to run scenarios intended for 5 hours in 3 1/2 to 3 3/4 hours.

I already spend several hours preparing scenarios. Asking for more isn't going to happen.

I do tend to let players spend too much time having fun and roleplaying as opposed to keeping them firmly on track killing things and just reducing problems to dice rolls.

I've long been a very vocal opponent of the (IMO idiotic) assumption that sessions last 5 hours. Some sessions just have too much stuff in them. Yes, I can (and do) compress things. But that comes at a cost.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

Deane Beman wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Deane Beman wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
rknop wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
his is not something new. Why are you shocked by it?
He's shocked by it because even though it's been in the rules for a long time, it's not common current practice.
So because the same rule that has been in place is being tweaked now to make it easier, it causes a rant now and not anytime in the past five years? Ok.....

That's the rub methinks. It's not coming across as being easier. I'm not sold on it being easier myself...but quite honestly I've lost track of this conversation so I can't really say for certain where things currently stand; but I already keep detailed notes on when and where my gold and prestige points come from and when and how they are spent and will continue to do so.

I'm just unclear about the "why" of requiring GM's to initial purchases when there are already so many checks and balances in place on the chronicle sheet already.

GMs don't have to intial every purchase. They make a one line note on the bottom of the Chronicle and sign the Chronicle. Refer to my post four above yours.
Right...but we're still filling out and signing a note on a form that we've already signed or initialed four or five times already.

You are just making a 5 to 6 word note for any player that wishes to purchase at least one item. EVERYTHING else is exactly the same as it has been in regard to the Chronicle.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Mike,

Did I understand correctly that the character needs a ITS but not the ITS sheet in the guide?

So, for example would it be possible to have an ITS that is text?

For example.

Bought: Potion of CLW, Potion of Darkvision, Scroll of Haste (total cost 1175 GP)
Used: 3 charges from Wand of CLW (37 remaining) Spent 30 GP in bribes, spent 170 GP for pooled Restoration.

Then the Chronicle sheet just reads "Purchases - 1375 GP" with the GM's initials.

Is that good?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber
Michael Brock wrote:
rknop wrote:
Would it really be so terrible to move to inventory being on the ITS only and remove the requirement that any record at all of the purchases show up initialed by a GM on the chronicle sheet? What would be the harm in removing this last requirement?
If we did that, GMs would then have to sign both the Chronicle (for XP and PP) and the ITS for equipment purchases. People voiced serious concerns it would be too onerous on GMs to sign two sheets instead of just one.

I fully agree that we do not want the GM to have to sign the ITS. That adds a host of problems.

What I'm suggesting is that the GM not need to sign off on purchases at all, anywhere.

Why do GMs need to sign off on purchases? What does it accomplish? Already, GMs don't have to sign off on class features when players level up. The place where errors in that are caught, at least nominally, is with GM audits. The ITS will make GM auditing of inventory much easier. Given that, I propose it's reasonable that, just as GMs don't have to sign off on class features when people level up, GMs don't have to sign off on purchases at all. They just have to be clear so that an audit is reasonably possible.

3/5

Michael Brock wrote:
rknop wrote:
Would it really be so terrible to move to inventory being on the ITS only and remove the requirement that any record at all of the purchases show up initialed by a GM on the chronicle sheet? What would be the harm in removing this last requirement?
If we did that, GMs would then have to sign both the Chronicle (for XP and PP) and the ITS for equipment purchases. People voiced serious concerns it would be too onerous on GMs to sign two sheets instead of just one.

But why would they have to sign both? If the goal is for ease of auditing, and the information on the ITS is clearly listed and accurate, haven't we accomplished the goal?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber
Matthew Morris wrote:

Mike,

Did I understand correctly that the character needs a ITS but not the ITS sheet in the guide?

I believe he's said that. (Or, rather, he has said that, and I believe that the rule hasn't changed.)

Here's what I'll be using (feel free to make a copy):

Google Docs Inventory Tracking Sheet

Here's an example of it in use for one of my low-level characters (being more anal than necessary, since I also listed <25gp purchases):

Sarallindia's ITS

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

pauljathome wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
How do you consistently get into situations where you don't have time for the bookkeeping?
Well, in my case because I'm trying to run scenarios intended for 5 hours in 3 1/2 to 3 3/4 hours.

Okay, why?

5/5

I plan on writing "ITS X,XXX GP" in the notes section. That's 2 words (well an acronym and a word) plus a number. Should take about 1.5 seconds.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

Matthew Morris wrote:

Mike,

Did I understand correctly that the character needs a ITS but not the ITS sheet in the guide?

So, for example would it be possible to have an ITS that is text?

For example.

Bought: Potion of CLW, Potion of Darkvision, Scroll of Haste (total cost 1175 GP)
Used: 3 charges from Wand of CLW (37 remaining) Spent 30 GP in bribes, spent 170 GP for pooled Restoration.

Then the Chronicle sheet just reads "Purchases - 1375 GP" with the GM's initials.

Is that good?

Just like the character sheet that is published in the Guide, it isn't required you use that exact character sheet. What is required is that you use something similar to that character sheet. Same with the ITS. You are not required to use the exact ITS out of the Guide. What is required is that you use an ITS similar to what is provided in the Guide.

4/5 *

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:

Back when I used to be an active Magic: the Gathering player, an article I read cited a comment from a professional that stuck with me (quoting from memory). "Instead of complaining that you were mana-screwed in game 3, ask yourself why you didn't win games 1 and 2."

That keeps popping into my head when I see people posting about how unreasonable it is to require that we find time for this bookkeeping "when we're already being hurried out the door of the closing game store" or some such.

To paraphrase the MtG line, "Instead of complaining that you can't squeeze in the bookkeeping when you're already pushing the time limit, ask yourself why you're pushing the time limit in the first place."

How many ITS's could you have looked over in the time it took you to look up that NPC's spell that you could have made notes on ahead of time? How much time did you spend resolving the last two rounds of combat when you could have just called it because the enemy had 1HP and didn't really pose any remaining threat to the PCs? How much time did you spend waiting for the players to figure out a way around a minor obstacle when you could have given them a hint after the first couple of minutes?

How do you consistently get into situations where you don't have time for the bookkeeping?

+1.

As a Society GM, I've noticed I tend to run long. Armed with that knowledge, I've tried to get better about it. In my view, this is no different.

451 to 500 of 676 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Paizo Blog: Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play: Guide 5.0 and Changes to Organized Play All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.