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

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?

They....don't....have....to...sign....off....on....both.

I answered a question that I quoted.

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?

The store closes at 10pm sharp. The employees try really hard to get us out then. Not objecting, they were very clear that this would be the case when they agreed to run PFS. And they're very cooperative and friendly. They just want to go home :-)

It is located downtown in Toronto. Getting there from work for the 6pm start is difficult for many people. They legitimately try but can often get there a little late. Almost everybody comes in on public transit and that makes travel times a little unreliable.

Add in all the usual mustering issues and we very rarely start before 6:15. On particularly bad days things don't get going until 6:30.

The other potential venues already run PFS games on different days. So switching venue isn't a good option

Yes, we're currently not following the rules.

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.

Why are you playing a game and knowingly ignoring the rules? If you don't want to follow the rules, play a different game. Now. Seriously.

According to Ultimate Campaign, Kyle, animal companions act on their own initiative.

Jiggy wrote:

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?

The store closes at 10pm sharp. The employees try really hard to get us out then. Not objecting, they were very clear that this would be the case when they agreed to run PFS. And they're very cooperative and friendly. They just want to go home :-)

It is located downtown in Toronto. Getting there from work for the 6pm start is difficult for many people. They legitimately try but can often get there a little late. Almost everybody comes in on public transit and that makes travel times a little unreliable.

Add in all the usual mustering issues and we very rarely start before 6:15. On particularly bad days things don't get going until 6:30.

The other potential venues already run PFS games on different days. So switching venue isn't a good option

Not every venue is a perfect fit for PFS. You could run Quests (more are coming) or Beginner Box events. You are not entitled to play PFS exactly when and where and how you want to.

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.

I don't know if I agree with Mike's statement on this one. Maybe it's just me, but the only full audits I've seen have come from a GM deciding that he wants to start auditing people more often, and picking random players at his table to audit. It has nothing to do with item discrepancies.

When a GM does check up on how a player is doing something specific in game, it's usually asking about a combination of stats, feats, items, etc give them the really high bonus on whatever they're doing. You can consider those mini-audits, since the GM is auditing the PC's insanely high bonus. Again, not tied to item discrepancies.

I'm not saying that item discrepancies don't happen, but are they really the main thing people look for in an audit?

According to Ultimate Campaign, Kyle, animal companions act on their own initiative.

I read his sentence as "own" not "owners"

I don't know if I agree with Mike's statement on this one. Maybe it's just me, but the only full audits I've seen have come from a GM deciding that he wants to start auditing people more often, and picking random players at his table to audit. It has nothing to do with item discrepancies.

When a GM does check up on how a player is doing something specific in game, it's usually asking about a combination of stats, feats, items, etc give them the really high bonus on whatever they're doing. You can consider those mini-audits, since the GM is auditing the PC's insanely high bonus. Again, not tied to item discrepancies.

I'm not saying that item discrepancies don't happen, but are they really the main thing people look for in an audit?

My experience also doesn't line up with Mike's, but so what? And who is in the best position to know? It certainly isn't a big enough issue to start another tangent debate, agreed?

Andrew Christian wrote:

According to Ultimate Campaign, Kyle, animal companions act on their own initiative.

I read his sentence as "own" not "owners"

Ah... chuckle... I almost did as well.

Fromper wrote:

I don't know if I agree with Mike's statement on this one. Maybe it's just me, but the only full audits I've seen have come from a GM deciding that he wants to start auditing people more often, and picking random players at his table to audit. It has nothing to do with item discrepancies.

When a GM does check up on how a player is doing something specific in game, it's usually asking about a combination of stats, feats, items, etc give them the really high bonus on whatever they're doing. You can consider those mini-audits, since the GM is auditing the PC's insanely high bonus. Again, not tied to item discrepancies.

I'm not saying that item discrepancies don't happen, but are they really the main thing people look for in an audit?

My experience also doesn't line up with Mike's, but so what? And who is in the best position to know? It certainly isn't a big enough issue to start another tangent debate, agreed?

But I like tangential debates... spoil sport!

pauljathome wrote:

Yes, we're currently not following the rules.

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.

Why are you playing a game and knowingly ignoring the rules? If you don't want to follow the rules, play a different game. Now. Seriously.

I'll answer this question for myself.

When I started GMing PFS, I would hand out unsigned chronicle sheets, make players do all the accounting on the right, and only then sign them.

Then I discovered that no other GM I played with did this. This included online GMs, and multiple-star GMs at PaizoCon. I started to feel like a chump for doing all the back-and-forth required in an online game to do the signatures right, and a jerk for making my players go through that, when no other GM ever did it.

The point is that a lot of people ARE in fact playing PFS without following these rules. It's very easy to say "just don't play if you don't follow the rules". If, instead of looking at the principle, you look at the practice, you have just told most people who play PFS to stop playing it. This is clearly not good for PFS.

It's similar to speed limits. Would you tell everybody that they should't keep up with the flow of traffic, but must obey the posted speed limits, and if they don't want to do that, they should just stop driving on freeways? Is that realistic? The current reality of the PFS is very much like that.

The release of Guide 5.0 offers the possibility to make things a lot better. The moving of all inventory to the ITS and off the chronicle sheets will help, tremendously. But, it will still leave us in a situation of people not really following the rules unless we're also wiling to remove the need for GMs to initial purchase lines on chronicle sheets-- because I predict that many GMs won't do that. And, it's not clear to me really what it adds and why it's necessary, no matter how simple and short it is.

I just realized,

This new system is going to be tested next week under the most arduous conditions know to roleplaying, Gen Con.

Maybe we should see what happens there before complaining further.

pauljathome wrote:

Yes, we're currently not following the rules.

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.

Why are you playing a game and knowingly ignoring the rules? If you don't want to follow the rules, play a different game. Now. Seriously.

pauljathome wrote:

I let animal companions act on their owners initiative.

That's actually how the rules work. Sorry, you'll have to try harder to break the rules on this one.

Ummm Kyle, you may want to read the Handling Your Companion section of the Animal Companion Blog Post. It indirectly clarifies that companions roll their own initiative.

Further along, Mark Moreland clarifies it with this post.

Edit: I see I have been ninjaed several times, but I'll leave this here because the links are helpful.

The only problem is, the final release of Guide 5.0 will be codified before GenCon.

So, if there's any changes we want to see, time is running out to argue for them.

Fromper wrote:

I don't know if I agree with Mike's statement on this one. Maybe it's just me, but the only full audits I've seen have come from a GM deciding that he wants to start auditing people more often, and picking random players at his table to audit. It has nothing to do with item discrepancies.

When a GM does check up on how a player is doing something specific in game, it's usually asking about a combination of stats, feats, items, etc give them the really high bonus on whatever they're doing. You can consider those mini-audits, since the GM is auditing the PC's insanely high bonus. Again, not tied to item discrepancies.

I'm not saying that item discrepancies don't happen, but are they really the main thing people look for in an audit?

My experience also doesn't line up with Mike's, but so what? And who is in the best position to know? It certainly isn't a big enough issue to start another tangent debate, agreed?

It's not a tangent debate. The need for item auditing is a large part of the main debate.

Your right.

The universe will instantly implode ending all life if any changes are made to the guide after Gen Con :p

The point is that a lot of people ARE in fact playing PFS without following these rules. It's very easy to say "just don't play if you don't follow the rules".

My point is, if you're unwilling to try to follow the rules, why the heck are you even participating?

The need for item auditing is a large part of the main debate.

So now you want the debate to be, "should GMs need to review a player's item inventory at all?" WTF? That's been a rule since 2008!

Let's just say no! +5 Vorpal Holy Blades for every new character! Woooo!

The GM can audit for whatever reason they like. The inventory sheet makes item audits easier. Seems like a good idea to me. When I GM, there's always a bit of time where people are settling in where I can sign purchases. This doesn't seem like a big deal at all.

It's far more time consuming to figure out what happens after every effect that affects lighting gets cast. Yet, it doesn't stop the authors from putting in NPCs that can spam effects that change lighting conditions.

Edit: I see I have been ninjaed several times, but I'll leave this here because the links are helpful.

Give me a Fortitude save. Swift Death!

Not every venue is a perfect fit for PFS. You could run Quests (more are coming) or Beginner Box events. You are not entitled to play PFS exactly when and where and how you want to.

This is not what is happening! Paul and all struggle to get scenarios to execute in under the expected window of 4 hours, but they succeed because of hard work and scenario prep.

If Paul and others like him weren't willing to work hard to run PFS within the constraints of the most popular game stores in their city, fewer people would be participating in PFS (including me). Paul's site is a success, and he is not trying to be entitled to playing it when and how he wants to.

Mike, I think the new policy is fair. But I would suggest that players fill in the "Additional Gear - XXXX GP" line on the chronicle sheet as they do with everything else. Let the GM just initial that. It reduces it from 5 words to a scrawled initial. Surely that is enough :)

The GM can audit for whatever reason they like. The inventory sheet makes item audits easier. Seems like a good idea to me. When I GM, there's always a bit of time where people are settling in where I can sign purchases. This doesn't seem like a big deal at all.

It's far more time consuming to figure out what happens after every effect that affects lighting gets cast. Yet, it doesn't stop the authors from putting in NPCs that can spam effects that change lighting conditions.

Dammit David. I was going to favorite one of your posts for the first time ever... and then you had to bring up your continual rant about darkness/light. :D Keep that crap on the rules board!

Kyle Baird wrote:

Fromper wrote:

I don't know if I agree with Mike's statement on this one. Maybe it's just me, but the only full audits I've seen have come from a GM deciding that he wants to start auditing people more often, and picking random players at his table to audit. It has nothing to do with item discrepancies.

When a GM does check up on how a player is doing something specific in game, it's usually asking about a combination of stats, feats, items, etc give them the really high bonus on whatever they're doing. You can consider those mini-audits, since the GM is auditing the PC's insanely high bonus. Again, not tied to item discrepancies.

I'm not saying that item discrepancies don't happen, but are they really the main thing people look for in an audit?

My experience also doesn't line up with Mike's, but so what? And who is in the best position to know? It certainly isn't a big enough issue to start another tangent debate, agreed?

It's not a tangent debate. The need for item auditing is a large part of the main debate.

Ok,. then let me clarify. MOST of the auditing I have observed in the more than 100 conventions and/or game days I have been to were initiated because a player pulled out their 9th potion of the day, or their 14th scroll of the day, or burned through two and a half wands. The GM, wanting to confirm all of that had been purchased had to slog through 28 Chronicles and a character sheet instead of just looking at one sheet where those purchases would all be noted.

Paul and all struggle to get scenarios to execute in under the expected window of 4 hours, but they succeed because of hard work and scenario prep.

If your target window is less than 4 hours, you shouldn't be playing PFS Scenarios or at the very least shouldn't EXPECT to be able to play, finish them and have a good time.*

*Unless Thea's running your table.

That's not a rant, in my opinion. I suspect we have very different bars for what consists of a rant. I was merely providing an example of something that actually is time consuming. And it is, or you're not doing it right.

That's not a rant, in my opinion. I suspect we have very different bars for what consists of a rant. I was merely providing an example of something that actually is time consuming. And it is, or you're not doing it right.

What makes it a rant is that you bring it up in nearly every thread. Like I said, it'd be better to bring it up in every PFRPG rules thread instead. But that's neither here nor there. Or is it there? I don't know. Tongue-in-cheek and all that.

Kyle Baird wrote:

Not every venue is a perfect fit for PFS. You could run Quests (more are coming) or Beginner Box events. You are not entitled to play PFS exactly when and where and how you want to.

This is not what is happening! Paul and all struggle to get scenarios to execute in under the expected window of 4 hours, but they succeed because of hard work and scenario prep.

If Paul and others like him weren't willing to work hard to run PFS within the constraints of the most popular game stores in their city, fewer people would be participating in PFS (including me). Paul's site is a success, and he is not trying to be entitled to playing it when and how he wants to.

Mike, I think the new policy is fair. But I would suggest that players fill in the "Additional Gear - XXXX GP" line on the chronicle sheet as they do with everything else. Let the GM just initial that. It reduces it from 5 words to a scrawled initial. Surely that is enough :)

And I don't have a problem with that at all. And, the GM doesn't have to initial by that line. Since he is signing the bottom of the Chronicle, he is already acknowledging he is aware of that line and agrees with it.

Fromper wrote:

Kyle Baird wrote:

Fromper wrote:

I don't know if I agree with Mike's statement on this one. Maybe it's just me, but the only full audits I've seen have come from a GM deciding that he wants to start auditing people more often, and picking random players at his table to audit. It has nothing to do with item discrepancies.

When a GM does check up on how a player is doing something specific in game, it's usually asking about a combination of stats, feats, items, etc give them the really high bonus on whatever they're doing. You can consider those mini-audits, since the GM is auditing the PC's insanely high bonus. Again, not tied to item discrepancies.

I'm not saying that item discrepancies don't happen, but are they really the main thing people look for in an audit?

My experience also doesn't line up with Mike's, but so what? And who is in the best position to know? It certainly isn't a big enough issue to start another tangent debate, agreed?

It's not a tangent debate. The need for item auditing is a large part of the main debate.

Ok,. then let me clarify. MOST of the auditing I have observed in the more than 100 conventions and/or game days I have been to were initiated because a player pulled out their 9th potion of the day, or their 14th scroll of the day, or burned through two and a half wands. The GM, wanting to confirm all of that had been purchased had to slog through 28 Chronicles and a character sheet instead of just looking at one sheet where those purchases would all be noted.

Wow. I'm too cheap to even pretend to have that many consumables. My ranger has like three potions of darkvision, and I consider that excessive. The amount of variation in experiences is impressive.

Kyle Baird wrote:

Not every venue is a perfect fit for PFS. You could run Quests (more are coming) or Beginner Box events. You are not entitled to play PFS exactly when and where and how you want to.

This is not what is happening! Paul and all struggle to get scenarios to execute in under the expected window of 4 hours, but they succeed because of hard work and scenario prep.

If Paul and others like him weren't willing to work hard to run PFS within the constraints of the most popular game stores in their city, fewer people would be participating in PFS (including me). Paul's site is a success, and he is not trying to be entitled to playing it when and how he wants to.

Mike, I think the new policy is fair. But I would suggest that players fill in the "Additional Gear - XXXX GP" line on the chronicle sheet as they do with everything else. Let the GM just initial that. It reduces it from 5 words to a scrawled initial. Surely that is enough :)

Unless I am mistaken, GMs do not even need to initial this specific line. The signature on the bottom of the Chronicle is all Mike is talking about when he mentions a signature. Correct, Mike?

Not every venue is a perfect fit for PFS. You could run Quests (more are coming) or Beginner Box events. You are not entitled to play PFS exactly when and where and how you want to.

My local VC is quite aware of the situation and seems quite happy to have me run PFS at the store. His opinion on the matter seems a whole lot more relevant than yours.

Michael Brock wrote:

Fromper wrote:

Kyle Baird wrote:

Fromper wrote:

I don't know if I agree with Mike's statement on this one. Maybe it's just me, but the only full audits I've seen have come from a GM deciding that he wants to start auditing people more often, and picking random players at his table to audit. It has nothing to do with item discrepancies.

When a GM does check up on how a player is doing something specific in game, it's usually asking about a combination of stats, feats, items, etc give them the really high bonus on whatever they're doing. You can consider those mini-audits, since the GM is auditing the PC's insanely high bonus. Again, not tied to item discrepancies.

I'm not saying that item discrepancies don't happen, but are they really the main thing people look for in an audit?

My experience also doesn't line up with Mike's, but so what? And who is in the best position to know? It certainly isn't a big enough issue to start another tangent debate, agreed?

It's not a tangent debate. The need for item auditing is a large part of the main debate.

Ok,. then let me clarify. MOST of the auditing I have observed in the more than 100 conventions and/or game days I have been to were initiated because a player pulled out their 9th potion of the day, or their 14th scroll of the day, or burned through two and a half wands. The GM, wanting to confirm all of that had been purchased had to slog through 28 Chronicles and a character sheet instead of just looking at one sheet where those purchases would all be noted.

Wow. I'm too cheap to even pretend to have that many consumables. My ranger has like three potions of darkvision, and I consider that excessive. The amount of variation in experiences is impressive.

I have GMed almost 200 games, played in another 50 or so, and have been to more than 100 conventions and game days on 3 continents and 34 states. My job allows luckily allows me those experiences so I can see PFS all over the world.

Jiggy wrote:

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?

[snipped for space]

Then the issue is not "I don't have time for the bookkeeping", the issue is "I can't simultaneously play this game at this store on this day and play combats out to the last HP and roleplay every scene extensively and do appropriate bookkeeping, therefore out of those six variables I am choosing to adjust one of them instead of the others and dislike the suggestion that a different choice might be more appropriate".

Other choices you could have made include (but are not limited to):
• Play a different game at that venue/time/day (maybe even a private campaign)
• Determine that the slot is not conducive to PFS and do something else with your time on those evenings, scratching your PFS itch elsewhere (since apparently all the other possible venues are already running it, so it should be pretty accessible)
• Enforce stricter combat etiquette (such as "If you're not announcing an action within 15 seconds of your name being called, you delay")
• Split scenarios into two sessions (or run APs/modules over multiple sessions)
• Run games at home

The list goes on.

If your target window is less than 4 hours, you shouldn't be playing PFS Scenarios or at the very least shouldn't EXPECT to be able to play, finish them and have a good time.

Funny, because Toronto's been successfully doing this for quite a while now at most of its PFS nights... I should probably stop expecting to go out and have fun at them! :)

nik_the_avatar wrote:

Kyle Baird wrote:

Not every venue is a perfect fit for PFS. You could run Quests (more are coming) or Beginner Box events. You are not entitled to play PFS exactly when and where and how you want to.

This is not what is happening! Paul and all struggle to get scenarios to execute in under the expected window of 4 hours, but they succeed because of hard work and scenario prep.

If Paul and others like him weren't willing to work hard to run PFS within the constraints of the most popular game stores in their city, fewer people would be participating in PFS (including me). Paul's site is a success, and he is not trying to be entitled to playing it when and how he wants to.

Mike, I think the new policy is fair. But I would suggest that players fill in the "Additional Gear - XXXX GP" line on the chronicle sheet as they do with everything else. Let the GM just initial that. It reduces it from 5 words to a scrawled initial. Surely that is enough :)

Unless I am mistaken, GMs do not even need to initial this specific line. The signature on the bottom of the Chronicle is all Mike is talking about when he mentions a signature. Correct, Mike?

LINK

And I don't have a problem with that at all. And, the GM doesn't have to initial by that line. Since he is signing the bottom of the Chronicle, he is already acknowledging he is aware of that line and agrees with it.

David Bowles wrote:

That's not a rant, in my opinion. I suspect we have very different bars for what consists of a rant. I was merely providing an example of something that actually is time consuming. And it is, or you're not doing it right.

What makes it a rant is that you bring it up in nearly every thread. Like I said, it'd be better to bring it up in every PFRPG rules thread instead. But that's neither here nor there. Or is it there? I don't know. Tongue-in-cheek and all that.

Yes, well, unnecessarily clumsy mechanics make me bitter. It's a mechanic that has to be addressed every time a PFS group sits down, or else the table risks TPK from lack of consumables, etc.

So I use it as an example often, because its on my PFS-mind a lot. I happened to use it here as example of something that is time consuming. And it is, because it must be addressed when the party is setting out, and then it has to be managed when it pops up in the actual scenario.

Fromper wrote:

The need for item auditing is a large part of the main debate.

So now you want the debate to be, "should GMs need to review a player's item inventory at all?" WTF? That's been a rule since 2008!

Let's just say no! +5 Vorpal Holy Blades for every new character! Woooo!

Nobody ever said that GMs shouldn't be able to audit every part of a character. But this entire discussion seems to have started from an assumption on Paizo's part that auditing items is somehow more important than auditing feats, spell selection, point buy, skill points, etc. Why shouldn't we question that assumption?

As I said in an earlier post that everyone seems to have ignored, the big disconnect here is between theory and practice. Just because something is a rule, it doesn't make it the best way to do things. There's nothing wrong with debating whether or not a rule serves a purpose, or if it can be changed/eliminated.

But as I said in that post, I think we need to separate that debate from the ITS, since the new form really doesn't change anything with regards to that rule. And with the crunch to get everything done for GenCon, I'd certainly be ok with having that debate in two weeks, instead of right now, and having any rules change that's decided on end up in version 5.1 of the Guide instead of being immediate. But since the debate's already happening, here I am participating.

Kyle Baird wrote:

Not every venue is a perfect fit for PFS. You could run Quests (more are coming) or Beginner Box events. You are not entitled to play PFS exactly when and where and how you want to.

My local VC is quite aware of the situation and seems quite happy to have me run PFS at the store. His opinion on the matter seems a whole lot more relevant than yours.

Does your VC know that you don't require players to track inventory? Don't ever perform audits? Are they going to be okay that you couldn't possibly be bothered to look at an ITS because of your rushed time slot? If so, I bet a certain someone would like to have a word with them.

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.

This. I think the uproar has nothing to do with the Inventory Tracking Sheet per se, and everything to do with the fact the published rules are, and always have been, impractical (and consequently largely ignored). The ITS is merely the catalyst. Heck, I personally like the ITS, because I understand it to simply be a single, clear place to track purchases. That's a good thing.

However, I've played ~30 tables across two GenCons and two PaizCons. I've been GM'ed by VCs, VLs, and five-star GMs (some of whom were fantastic -- Doug Miles, I'm looking at you). I've GM'ed about 30 tables myself. In all that time, at my own table and at those around me, I've seen a GM require the entire chronicle be filled out prior to signing it exactly once. And the one time it did happen, every player at the table expressed surprise.

My point is that, whatever the rules are, it isn't happening that way in the real world. And it isn't going to. Ever. You can kick me from the campaign tomorrow, but I absolutely guarantee that at 99% of games in the state of Arizona, things will go on as they have. You can even kick every current member of PFS in AZ...it won't change anything. Why? Because it's not necessary. Yes, we need to carefully track gold, prestige, and experience. They have their own fields, and they are initialed separately. That works. Everything else worth auditing (equipment access, etc.) can be audited with just that information.

rknop wrote:

The point is that a lot of people ARE in fact playing PFS without following these rules. It's very easy to say "just don't play if you don't follow the rules".

My point is, if you're unwilling to try to follow the rules, why the heck are you even participating?

Because playing what they believe to be PFS is fun, even if it isn't exactly PFS because they get some rules wrong.

I'm not sure that the major issue is people wilfully failing to adhere to the rules. I think most people just simply don't know what they should be doing and have copied their behaviour from their first PFS GM. This makes me wonder if a more simplistic, Beginner Box like, guide on how to run a PFS game is needed. Something with checklists.

Kyle Baird wrote:

Fromper wrote:

The need for item auditing is a large part of the main debate.

So now you want the debate to be, "should GMs need to review a player's item inventory at all?" WTF? That's been a rule since 2008!

Let's just say no! +5 Vorpal Holy Blades for every new character! Woooo!

Nobody ever said that GMs shouldn't be able to audit every part of a character. But this entire discussion seems to have started from an assumption on Paizo's part that auditing items is somehow more important than auditing feats, spell selection, point buy, skill points, etc. Why shouldn't we question that assumption?

As I said in an earlier post that everyone seems to have ignored, the big disconnect here is between theory and practice. Just because something is a rule, it doesn't make it the best way to do things. There's nothing wrong with debating whether or not a rule serves a purpose, or if it can be changed/eliminated.

But as I said in that post, I think we need to separate that debate from the ITS, since the new form really doesn't change anything with regards to that rule. And with the crunch to get everything done for GenCon, I'd certainly be ok with having that debate in two weeks, instead of right now, and having any rules change that's decided on end up in version 5.1 of the Guide instead of being immediate. But since the debate's already happening, here I am participating.

No, I CLARIFIED that most audits, in my experience, start from an item issue.

Kyle Baird wrote:

Fromper wrote:

The need for item auditing is a large part of the main debate.

So now you want the debate to be, "should GMs need to review a player's item inventory at all?" WTF? That's been a rule since 2008!

Let's just say no! +5 Vorpal Holy Blades for every new character! Woooo!

Nobody ever said that GMs shouldn't be able to audit every part of a character. But this entire discussion seems to have started from an assumption on Paizo's part that auditing items is somehow more important than auditing feats, spell selection, point buy, skill points, etc. Why shouldn't we question that assumption?

As I said in an earlier post that everyone seems to have ignored, the big disconnect here is between theory and practice. Just because something is a rule, it doesn't make it the best way to do things. There's nothing wrong with debating whether or not a rule serves a purpose, or if it can be changed/eliminated.

But as I said in that post, I think we need to separate that debate from the ITS, since the new form really doesn't change anything with regards to that rule. And with the crunch to get everything done for GenCon, I'd certainly be ok with having that debate in two weeks, instead of right now, and having any rules change that's decided on end up in version 5.1 of the Guide instead of being immediate. But since the debate's already happening, here I am participating.

As I said, I view the ITS as a tool. It makes questions about equipment far easier to answer, so I'm all for it. I personally have seen more problems with feats, but that is a tiny, tiny sampling of the PFS experience. I guess Ohio's not huge into the consumables :)

graywulfe wrote:

nik_the_avatar wrote:

Kyle Baird wrote:

Not every venue is a perfect fit for PFS. You could run Quests (more are coming) or Beginner Box events. You are not entitled to play PFS exactly when and where and how you want to.

This is not what is happening! Paul and all struggle to get scenarios to execute in under the expected window of 4 hours, but they succeed because of hard work and scenario prep.

If Paul and others like him weren't willing to work hard to run PFS within the constraints of the most popular game stores in their city, fewer people would be participating in PFS (including me). Paul's site is a success, and he is not trying to be entitled to playing it when and how he wants to.

Mike, I think the new policy is fair. But I would suggest that players fill in the "Additional Gear - XXXX GP" line on the chronicle sheet as they do with everything else. Let the GM just initial that. It reduces it from 5 words to a scrawled initial. Surely that is enough :)

Unless I am mistaken, GMs do not even need to initial this specific line. The signature on the bottom of the Chronicle is all Mike is talking about when he mentions a signature. Correct, Mike?

LINK

Michael Brock wrote:

And I don't have a problem with that at all. And, the GM doesn't have to initial by that line. Since he is signing the bottom of the Chronicle, he is already acknowledging he is aware of that line and agrees with it.

Erm ninja'ed by Mike. I must have been typing my response when Mike's post went up... Oh well.

rknop wrote:

The point is that a lot of people ARE in fact playing PFS without following these rules. It's very easy to say "just don't play if you don't follow the rules".

My point is, if you're unwilling to try to follow the rules, why the heck are you even participating?

Did you see the earlier post on "Work to Rule"?

This is how humans work. It's how we get stuff done. It's even how we spend our play time.
We take shortcuts. We do things more efficiently, even if it's not to the letter of the law.
It will always be that way. If you try to enforce full compliance in PFS, you will kill it.

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.

Thank you. I wanted to make sure. I mean we can use our own character sheets, but can't make our own chronicle sheets. ;-)

More seriously, this could easily be a boon for Herolab users. If we can keep it in text format, then putting the information in the journal enteries becomes viable. (Which I've been doing myself for a while.) So if I sign up for 5-37 The Decembervate Needs Antacid, I can write in my purchases and print out the sheet, have the GM note the purchases on the chronicle sheet, then I have it stored digitally as well.

I can even go back in and add the expenditures *afterward*

So I print/show the GM a sheet that reads Session: 5-37 with the date and my shopping list, then after the session I can note "Used: Breath of Life scroll, 12 charges from CLW wand, 30 GP in bribes." SO I know what I burned and it won't affect what the GM signed off on.

Kyle Baird wrote:

rknop wrote:

The point is that a lot of people ARE in fact playing PFS without following these rules. It's very easy to say "just don't play if you don't follow the rules".

My point is, if you're unwilling to try to follow the rules, why the heck are you even participating?

Did you see the earlier post on "Work to Rule"?

This is how humans work. It's how we get stuff done. It's even how we spend our play time.
We take shortcuts. We do things more efficiently, even if it's not to the letter of the law.
It will always be that way. If you try to enforce full compliance in PFS, you will kill it.

What you're preaching is that you're unwilling to try to follow the rules. There's a difference. What I'm asking everyone is to try this out. Report back how it works.

BTW, I love you trying to make an argument that because we as humans take shortcuts, our laws should reflect those shortcuts. If that were the case, we wouldn't need lines or signs on our roads, or laws against theft or murder, because, well it's easier not to pay attention to those silly laws.

Ok,. then let me clarify. MOST of the auditing I have observed in the more than 100 conventions and/or game days I have been to were initiated because a player pulled out their 9th potion of the day, or their 14th scroll of the day, or burned through two and a half wands. The GM, wanting to confirm all of that had been purchased had to slog through 28 Chronicles and a character sheet instead of just looking at one sheet where those purchases would all be noted.

+1

Fromper wrote:

Kyle Baird wrote:

Fromper wrote:

The need for item auditing is a large part of the main debate.

So now you want the debate to be, "should GMs need to review a player's item inventory at all?" WTF? That's been a rule since 2008!

Let's just say no! +5 Vorpal Holy Blades for every new character! Woooo!

Nobody ever said that GMs shouldn't be able to audit every part of a character. But this entire discussion seems to have started from an assumption on Paizo's part that auditing items is somehow more important than auditing feats, spell selection, point buy, skill points, etc. Why shouldn't we question that assumption?

As I said in an earlier post that everyone seems to have ignored, the big disconnect here is between theory and practice. Just because something is a rule, it doesn't make it the best way to do things. There's nothing wrong with debating whether or not a rule serves a purpose, or if it can be changed/eliminated.

But as I said in that post, I think we need to separate that debate from the ITS, since the new form really doesn't change anything with regards to that rule. And with the crunch to get everything done for GenCon, I'd certainly be ok with having that debate in two weeks, instead of right now, and having any rules change that's decided on end up in version 5.1 of the Guide instead of being immediate. But since the debate's already happening, here I am participating.

No, I CLARIFIED that most audits, in my experience, start from an item issue.

Yeah, with the speed this thread is expanding, we crossed posts along the way. Obviously, you have more experience than I do, so perhaps you're right about items being a very large source of auditing. But in my experience, spontaneous mini-audits are MUCH more often brought on by "Can you explain to me exactly how you got a +16 bonus at level 3?" Maybe I just know too many munchkins. :P

And again, I like the idea of the ITS, and I think it will help with the type of auditing you're talking about. But I don't see how GMs approving purchases every session adds anything to that. That's the rule that's apparently been in place since day one that I don't see the need for, and which I think can be eliminated from the campaign without hurting anything. But again, I don't think debate needs to happen right now, even though it is, because the new ITS thrust that old rule into the spotlight unexpectedly.

rknop wrote:

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.

This. I think the uproar has nothing to do with the Inventory Tracking Sheet per se, and everything to do with the fact the published rules are, and always have been, impractical (and consequently largely ignored). The ITS is merely the catalyst. Heck, I personally like the ITS, because I understand it to simply be a single, clear place to track purchases. That's a good thing.

However, I've played ~30 tables across two GenCons and two PaizCons. I've been GM'ed by VCs, VLs, and five-star GMs (some of whom were fantastic -- Doug Miles, I'm looking at you). I've GM'ed about 30 tables myself. In all that time, at my own table and at those around me, I've seen a GM require the entire chronicle be filled out prior to signing it exactly once. And the one time it did happen, every player at the table expressed surprise.

My point is that, whatever the rules are, it isn't happening that way in the real world. And it isn't going to. Ever. You can kick me from the campaign tomorrow, but I absolutely guarantee that at 99% of games in the state of Arizona, things will go on as they have. You can even kick every current member of PFS in AZ...it won't change anything. Why? Because it's not necessary. Yes, we need to carefully track gold, prestige, and experience. They have their own fields, and they are initialed separately. That works....

Mike already said that the next session's GM can sign it. Just come prepared with purchases. This isn't that big of a deal. It just summarizes purchases for potentially 40+ chronicle sheets on a page or two.