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

Also weapon blanches - are they expended when applied to weapons/ammo and then the won/ammo affected get put on the sheet?

It sounds to me that when you use the blanche it gets used and marked as such. If you added it to a weapon, you can list it as "longsword's weapon blanche applied" and chron. added/used. With ammo, I'd suggest it's a bit trickier. You mark off appropriate # of regular ammo, the blanche itself, then add appropriate # of blanched ammo type to the chronicle for tracking.

Bardez wrote:

Question for Mike Brock:

If we have "l33t Abode PHotosHop hakcing skillz" (sic) can we tack on an ammunition sheet or similar based off of the wand section? My archer wants arrows and blanches and so on, keeps a hoard and variety thereof, and that stuff is nasty to track; using the wand section as a basis would be nice.

Or you could go simpler and just cross wand off and write ammo next to it ;-)

Mike, my concern is admittedly a corner case and lame, but the wands section has only four entries. My archer has about 10 types of arrows between blanches, qualities, materials and so on. As he gains wealth, that selection is going to grow. Having 4 or 5 mostly blank pages just for ammo is less appealing than a page for ammo and a page for items & wands & so forth.

I'm not asking that you change it or add a page to the Guide, just asking if it's OK if I make an adjusted Inventory Track Sheet page for ammo.

Mike, my concern is admittedly a corner case and lame, but the wands section has only four entries. My archer has about 10 types of arrows between blanches, qualities, materials and so on. As he gains wealth, that selection is going to grow. Having 4 or 5 mostly blank pages just for ammo is less appealing than a page for ammo and a page for items & wands & so forth.

I'm not asking that you change it or add a page to the Guide, just asking if it's OK if I make an adjusted Inventory Track Sheet page for ammo.

My wizard has 10 wands. I just used 3 sheets.

Quick thoughts on the Inventory Track Sheet:

1) The Wands sections could work really well for ammo and alchemical weapons like acid flasks. And these will easily go pass 3 kinds.

2) I play an Alchemist. And this character is loaded with 10+ different alchemical weapons and remedies. I realize how messy it is to track the usage of these items.

Therefore, could the Items and Wands section be separated into 2 different sheets?
a) An Equipment item sheet - For items that are permanent, like equipment, ioun stones, weapons and armor.
b) A Consumables item sheet - A full page of wand like slots for ammo, wands, scrolls, pots and alchemical items.

It would really help the different classes out there.
Martial classes can make use of the first sheet more, while casters and ammo-users can print just a few of the second kind.

Oooh, I like this idea. Though it would add another page to the guide as a downside...

Oooh, I like this idea. Though it would add another page to the guide as a downside...

Agreed - that's a superb idea.

Does adding a page to the guide matter? It's going at the end, so anyone wanting a printed copy of the guide can just print pages 1-37 (skipping the list of VO's, OGL and sheets).

teribithia9 wrote:

Majuba wrote:

Is there an issue with the language for Slow progression on earlier seasons, or am I just missing something:

Guide, pg. 32 wrote:

Similarly, a Pathfinder using the slow advancement track may only earn a maximum of 1 Prestige Point for completing both mission objectives: 1/2 for the faction mission and 1/2 for the completion of the scenario.

Previously, unless you earned both prestige points, you got 0 prestige if you were slow track. Now, if you earn 1 you get .5, not 0. Which is a great change, in my opinion.

You never earned 0 if you only got 1. Its just more clearly written now.

I had several GMs give me 0 because we only got one mission done. When I asked if I shouldn't be getting .5, I was told no, you had to get both points to get 1. If that was a mistake, I'm grateful the wording has been clarified.

It was a mistake as far as I'm aware.

I think your best bet may be to just mark the purchase as "weapon blanched arrows" . If you loose a few gp buying more quivers of arrows than you can really use, meh. Its a GP.

I had several GMs give me 0 because we only got one mission done. When I asked if I shouldn't be getting .5, I was told no, you had to get both points to get 1. If that was a mistake, I'm grateful the wording has been clarified.

This used to be true.

Okay so it seems the official stance is that you can buy stuff before the next game and have it get signed off at that point. That makes it a bit more manageable. The before would be a really big help as otherwise, you have during and after which just would not work in half the game shop around here I believe. So with that, I am okay with the inventory tracking sheet. It seems a bit cumbersome to me, but meh, it may actually be a nicer way for me to manage all them consumables I am apt to have on hand.

I am still not sold on the 4/5 people unable to play up. I know with the out of tier gold rules, there is less reason for people to want to play up...especially if there is more people out of tier then in tier, but I think the players should ultimately have that choice if their APL is in the in-between area.

That said, I think we will see a rash of play down bullying and more complaints about cakewalks. Think about, a level 3 in a 1-5 gets the same gold if they do 1-2 or 4-5 now right? If they do 4-5, they have more risk, spend more consumables, and generally weaken themselves for no extra gain. There is no mechanical reason to play up for anyone 1-3. There is a social I want the challenge aspect...but mechanically, your actually hurting your character in the long term to play up. That means the odd 4 or 5 gets bullied to play down. Having one level 3 in a 1-2 is a cakewalk. Having a 3 and a 5...and yeah.... So then what? Do we in season 6 make 1-2 sub-tiers hard enough to challenge a group that has a level 5 in it as the norm?

It is definitely a valid question. We will just have to wait and see how the tables look when the rules become official and everyone has had some time to see the results. I don't think it will be as bad as it sounds. A 5 shouldn't need to play down to 1-2. Play a pre-gen and apply it to a new character so you have some stuff available for lower tier as well maybe? I do think people who get tunnel vision on a single character and refuse to play anything else will find themselves in some situations where they will be playing down in a less than ideal situation. But there are obviously ways to solve that.

Okay so it seems the official stance is that you can buy stuff before the next game and have it get signed off at that point. That makes it a bit more manageable. The before would be a really big help as otherwise, you have during and after which just would not work in half the game shop around here I believe. So with that, I am okay with the inventory tracking sheet. It seems a bit cumbersome to me, but meh, it may actually be a nicer way for me to manage all them consumables I am apt to have on hand.

I am still not sold on the 4/5 people unable to play up. I know with the out of tier gold rules, there is less reason for people to want to play up...especially if there is more people out of tier then in tier, but I think the players should ultimately have that choice if their APL is in the in-between area.

That said, I think we will see a rash of play down bullying and more complaints about cakewalks. Think about, a level 3 in a 1-5 gets the same gold if they do 1-2 or 4-5 now right? If they do 4-5, they have more risk, spend more consumables, and generally weaken themselves for no extra gain. There is no mechanical reason to play up for anyone 1-3. There is a social I want the challenge aspect...but mechanically, your actually hurting your character in the long term to play up. That means the odd 4 or 5 gets bullied to play down. Having one level 3 in a 1-2 is a cakewalk. Having a 3 and a 5...and yeah.... So then what? Do we in season 6 make 1-2 sub-tiers hard enough to challenge a group that has a level 5 in it as the norm?

I think it is worse to have people get bullied into playing up, then having their character die, however.

overall I think the system is better now, though it is amusing that a level 9 earns more gold for playing DOWN to 7-8 than playing at tier for 8-9. (about 6k vs 5500ish). The rest of the system works pretty well.

A level 5 can play down and crush a 1-2 as it is. Sure, it hurts them less now, but still hurts them. Doing it more than once or twice is going to be negative for the character overall.

Again, I think these changes are positive for the game and the community as a whole.

I like OoST gold. I like there being a system for playing up/down. I like that wealth is more normalized.

I do think I'm going to run into more play-downs now, which is fine I suppose, but it makes me somewhat sad :-/

Okay so it seems the official stance is that you can buy stuff before the next game and have it get signed off at that point. That makes it a bit more manageable. The before would be a really big help as otherwise, you have during and after which just would not work in half the game shop around here I believe. So with that, I am okay with the inventory tracking sheet. It seems a bit cumbersome to me, but meh, it may actually be a nicer way for me to manage all them consumables I am apt to have on hand.

I am still not sold on the 4/5 people unable to play up. I know with the out of tier gold rules, there is less reason for people to want to play up...especially if there is more people out of tier then in tier, but I think the players should ultimately have that choice if their APL is in the in-between area.

That said, I think we will see a rash of play down bullying and more complaints about cakewalks. Think about, a level 3 in a 1-5 gets the same gold if they do 1-2 or 4-5 now right? If they do 4-5, they have more risk, spend more consumables, and generally weaken themselves for no extra gain. There is no mechanical reason to play up for anyone 1-3. There is a social I want the challenge aspect...but mechanically, your actually hurting your character in the long term to play up. That means the odd 4 or 5 gets bullied to play down. Having one level 3 in a 1-2 is a cakewalk. Having a 3 and a 5...and yeah.... So then what? Do we in season 6 make 1-2 sub-tiers hard enough to challenge a group that has a level 5 in it as the norm?

Or perhaps more fundamentally the tiers are too broad. There really isn't a way to make an generic adventure challenging for both a 5 and a 1. You're right, if a party of 1's have any chance, adding a single 5 makes it a boring cakewalk, but a single 1 in a group of 5s in a module that challenges 5s will at best be near useless. More likely he'll get flattened if he draws any fire. That level of mixed group just doesn't work well.

Regardless, with the new rules you'll see less bullying, because there are less options. If I read the new rules correctly, you only get a choice when you are between subtiers and would play up, but no characters are high enough level to be in the higher subtier.

Quick thoughts on the Inventory Track Sheet:

1) The Wands sections could work really well for ammo and alchemical weapons like acid flasks. And these will easily go pass 3 kinds.

2) I play an Alchemist. And this character is loaded with 10+ different alchemical weapons and remedies. I realize how messy it is to track the usage of these items.

Therefore, could the Items and Wands section be separated into 2 different sheets?
a) An Equipment item sheet - For items that are permanent, like equipment, ioun stones, weapons and armor.
b) A Consumables item sheet - A full page of wand like slots for ammo, wands, scrolls, pots and alchemical items.

It would really help the different classes out there.
Martial classes can make use of the first sheet more, while casters and ammo-users can print just a few of the second kind.

Katie Sommer wrote:

Oooh, I like this idea. Though it would add another page to the guide as a downside...

Agreed - that's a superb idea.

Does adding a page to the guide matter? It's going at the end, so anyone wanting a printed copy of the guide can just print pages 1-37 (skipping the list of VO's, OGL and sheets).

:)

Yap, the ideal is not to add an extra page to print. But to actually print fewer Inventory Track Sheets.

By separating the Inventory Track Sheet into two, it would prevent someone with say 10 wands, having to print 4 copies of the Inventory Track Sheet, to fit in all his wands.
A player in this case, would only need 2 sheets. 1 for non-consumable items and the other to fit in all 10 wands.

For those worried about printing pages, if I'm not mistaken, I believe this year's guide is already 2 pages shorter than last years.

For those worried about printing pages, if I'm not mistaken, I believe this year's guide is already 2 pages shorter than last years.

Which doesn't help people who have to print out 4 pages of the inventory tracker PER character if they have consumable heavy ones. It is a valid concern and not a hard change to make it more friendly for those who have consumable heavy characters. For instance, my cleric will need 5 pages and EK need 6 because of the small 4 "wand" item slot which is used for anything with multiple usages. Pretty much ALL my character will run into this issue as they all have multiple usages items (from stack of scrolls to stacks of potions). I think having 2 pages, one with normal items and one for multi-usage item is not a bad suggestion.

I'm thinking of duct taping a few extra wand things down on the bottom to make a centerfold type thing...

I think having 2 pages, one with normal items and one for multi-usage item is not a bad suggestion.

If you are worried about page count, create your own ITS that will work for your needs. If you can, try to keep the same size font/line spacing and order of presentation. There are lots of different character sheets out there and nobody's underoos get in a twist. This will be much the same.

Kyle Baird wrote:

For those worried about printing pages, if I'm not mistaken, I believe this year's guide is already 2 pages shorter than last years.

Which doesn't help

So you're telling me if the guide itself was 2 pages longer, that wouldn't be worse than it being 2 pages shorter? Makes perfect sense to me...

If you want your gear split between wands/ammo and other stuff, check these out. LINK and LINK or LINK and LINK

Or, you know, you could be proactive and make something yourself.

If you are worried about page count, create your own ITS that will work for your needs.

Or, you know, you could be proactive and make something yourself.

A question for clarification: It's the use of an Inventory Tracking Sheet that will become mandatory, not the use of the ITS that's found at the back of the Guide, yes? We're free to design and use our own trackers provided they list the same information in relatively the same format/layout, yes?

Todd Lower wrote:

If you are worried about page count, create your own ITS that will work for your needs.

Kyle Baird wrote:

Or, you know, you could be proactive and make something yourself.

A question for clarification: It's the use of an Inventory Tracking Sheet that will become mandatory, not the use of the ITS that's found at the back of the Guide, yes? We're free to design and use our own trackers provided they list the same information in relatively the same format/layout, yes?

Yes

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?

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.

Netopalis, did you mean the "Gold Spent" box on the right?

Additionally, the following is already in the Guide:

Guide to Organized Play, Ver 5.0, page 21 wrote:

A GM must be present in order for you to purchase items, so you may only purchase items during or after a scenario. All transactions must be recorded on the scenario’s Chronicle sheet and reflected on your character’s Inventory Tracker.

Are you kidding??? We have a hard enough time getting through the scenario at our local FLGS on time. We are aleady imposing on the store as we finish up after closing hours more often than not. Now we have to take time out of game play to cover character maintenance issues??? What happened to personal accountability? Are there that many players abusing the system that they need to be baby sat this much? Better start making the scenarios shorter and require 6 to earn a level then, because 4 hours isn't cutting it.

My apologies for ranting. I'll go back to quietly lurking now.

Michael Brock wrote:

Additionally, the following is already in the Guide:

Guide to Organized Play, Ver 5.0, page 21 wrote:

A GM must be present in order for you to purchase items, so you may only purchase items during or after a scenario. All transactions must be recorded on the scenario’s Chronicle sheet and reflected on your character’s Inventory Tracker.

Are you kidding??? We have a hard enough time getting through the scenario at our local FLGS on time. We are aleady imposing on the store as we finish up after closing hours more often than not. Now we have to take time out of game play to cover character maintenance issues??? What happened to personal accountability? Are there that many players abusing the system that they need to be baby sat this much? Better start making the scenarios shorter and require 6 to earn a level then, because 4 hours isn't cutting it.

My apologies for ranting. I'll go back to quietly lurking now.

This is not something new. Why are you shocked by it? The current wording is the same wording that has been in the Guide for the last several years (even before I arrived in this job) but is being updated to also include before. I've stated the exact thing in this very thread. Here you go.

And if you don't feel like clicking the link, here you go:

"You can purchase things for your character when it is most convenient for you AND the GM. Before, during, after, whatever. Just make sure you aren't interrupting the GM prep, the flow of the game, etc...."

EDIT And to confirm what I advised about the wording being the same for the last several year, I just went back through the previous OPGs to see how far. I got back to version 1.1 in Season 0. On page 22, it advises, "A GM must be present in order for you to purchase items, so you may only purchase items during or after a scenario."

graypark wrote:

Todd Lower wrote:

If you are worried about page count, create your own ITS that will work for your needs.

Kyle Baird wrote:

Or, you know, you could be proactive and make something yourself.

A question for clarification: It's the use of an Inventory Tracking Sheet that will become mandatory, not the use of the ITS that's found at the back of the Guide, yes? We're free to design and use our own trackers provided they list the same information in relatively the same format/layout, yes?

Yes

Awesome. Good call, IMO.

So basically, it seems like people will do it exactly the same way they've always done it, buying their equipment at home between sessions, just with filling out the ITS instead of writing each individual item on the chronicles. But now, we're trying to enforce a rule that says this conversation has to happen before the start of every session:

Player: "I bought some stuff since last session. Want to look at it?"
GM: "Nope, I don't have time for that. I trust you."

So here's my question: Which chronicle would you record the gold spent on?

For instance, brand new character plays his first scenario and gets chronicle #1 with 500 gp reward. The next day at home, they look at their books and decide to spend 450 gp on some equipment. In the past, I would have written this 450 expenditure on chronicle #1, even though that was already signed by a GM who didn't know about it, because that's the chronicle I had in front of me and nobody ever actually enforced the "buy stuff in front of your GM" rule.

But it sounds like the new way of doing it is to record 0 in the "gold spent" on chronicle #1 when the GM signs it, put that 450 worth of stuff on the ITS between sessions at home, and then you have to remember next time you play that PC to add that 450 gp expenditure to chronicle #2, before the 2nd GM signs it. So your ITS will actually say that you have purchases on chronicle #2 before chronicle #2 actually exists. Does anyone else think that's just weird?

And what happens if you pick up a boon before your next session? So you've recorded 450 gp in expenditures on your ITS, tied to chronicle #2 before it exists, but now the boon becomes chronicle #2, and your next adventure will give you chronicle #3 instead. Do you go through the ITS and change the chronicle # to 3 for those expenditures, or should you write your gold spent on your boon? This is something that sounds like it would be a corner case, but with the new system, it'll actually happen for every boon that's applied to an existing character, such as holiday boons.

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.

The purchase would go on chronicle 2, as the gold "should" have already been tallied in ink on chronicle 1 and a total written down before the GM signs the chronicle.

If you pick up a boon to add to the character before you get chronicle 2, mark it as #1.1, 1.2, etc. depending on how many boons you get. This keeps it easier to track purchases/XP as they generally only occur on actual chronicles and not boons.

The purchase would go on chronicle 2, as the gold "should" have already been tallied in ink on chronicle 1 and a total written down before the GM signs the chronicle.

But if you have the GM look at the inventory form before you next game (which is legal) then you couldn't have added it to chronicle 1 as you hadn't spent the money when you left the previous game.

Netopalis, did you mean the "Gold Spent" box on the right?

Derp. That's what I meant.

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.....

So basically, it seems like people will do it exactly the same way they've always done it, buying their equipment at home between sessions, just with filling out the ITS instead of writing each individual item on the chronicles. But now, we're trying to enforce a rule that says this conversation has to happen before the start of every session:

Player: "I bought some stuff since last session. Want to look at it?"
GM: "Nope, I don't have time for that. I trust you."

So here's my question: Which chronicle would you record the gold spent on?

For instance, brand new character plays his first scenario and gets chronicle #1 with 500 gp reward. The next day at home, they look at their books and decide to spend 450 gp on some equipment. In the past, I would have written this 450 expenditure on chronicle #1, even though that was already signed by a GM who didn't know about it, because that's the chronicle I had in front of me and nobody ever actually enforced the "buy stuff in front of your GM" rule.

But it sounds like the new way of doing it is to record 0 in the "gold spent" on chronicle #1 when the GM signs it, put that 450 worth of stuff on the ITS between sessions at home, and then you have to remember next time you play that PC to add that 450 gp expenditure to chronicle #2, before the 2nd GM signs it. So your ITS will actually say that you have purchases on chronicle #2 before chronicle #2 actually exists. Does anyone else think that's just weird?

And what happens if you pick up a boon before your next session? So you've recorded 450 gp in expenditures on your ITS, tied to chronicle #2 before it exists, but now the boon becomes chronicle #2, and your next adventure will give you chronicle #3 instead. Do you go through the ITS and change the chronicle # to 3 for those expenditures, or should you write your gold spent on your boon? This is something that sounds like it would be a corner case, but with the new system, it'll actually happen for every boon that's applied to an existing...

Don't enter the Chronicle number on the ITS until it's actually approved at the next session you play?

Sniggevert wrote:

The purchase would go on chronicle 2, as the gold "should" have already been tallied in ink on chronicle 1 and a total written down before the GM signs the chronicle.

But if you have the GM look at the inventory form before you next game (which is legal) then you couldn't have added it to chronicle 1 as you hadn't spent the money when you left the previous game.

Correct, the GM should look at the ITS form before the next game as part of the audit, and you should point out to the GM (even if they're not auditing) that you have made purchases before the current scenario that will need to go on your chronicle you're getting for that slot (i.e. chronicle #2 in the example above).

Your ITS would note the purchase was to marked on #2, and the GM of the new game where you're getting chronicle #2 would be the one marking down the purchase.

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.....

My apologies. You guys are doing a wonderful job creating as balanced an environment for organized play as can possible be made. I should have deleted it before I posted it. Despite a great morning workout, I let tiredness rather than compasion win out. My fault entirely for ranting.

As much praise as you all at paizo deserve for the wonderful game we all enjoy playing, I want to thank the players I have gamed with who have done well in playing in the spirit of the rules as much as the letter of the rules.

Everyone keep having fun and good gaming!

Greg Croff

For what its worth, I think this is a fine change. I'm not entirely certain what GMs are going to use these inventory sheets for exactly, as I have seen very few (like two) PC audits. However, it certainly can't hurt to keep the inventory in a more organized manner!

More to the point, I think all these changes are fine changes. No more languished at level 3 trying to get a 4-5 game because you already played that character at 1-2 twice at level 3, etc. I never tried to maximize gold, but if I had been stuck with 1-2 twice at level 3, I did try to get in one 4-5, just so I'd have something to work with at level 4. For players like me that are less picky, this will mean MORE gold.

I also like the more methodical manner of determining which sub-tier to play. Even though I never really saw a ton of bullying, it was evidently a huge issues and I'm just as glad to see this become a non-decision except in very rare circumstances.

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.....

Not really surprising. It may be easier, but it also looks like there's going to be a stronger push for enforcement. So while the official procedure may be getting easier, the one actually practiced isn't. Many people may not even be aware of the official procedure, since many people are more likely to learn by experience and example than by studying the manual.

And that's what's causing the rants. Attention being drawn to it.

I suspect in many cases a compromise will evolve that works much like it does now, with the addition of items being written on the ITS. GMs will still sign Chronicles without purchases (or even a total gold spent) on them and players will add that in themselves, just like they do now.

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.....

Uh, the new rule does NOT make things easier. Except maybe the audit.

Maybe its a little easier for Season 5 chronicle sheets. Maybe. Until we see the actual guide (its a bit hard to follow all the changes in all the threads) and the actual chronicle sheets its had to know.

But the vast majority of games up until Season 6 or so will be Season 0-4. And for those games it is DEFINITELY more work.

If I play a Season 4 Scenario now and the GM and I are actually in the tiny minority that follows the rules then I have 1 document to fill in.

If I play a Season 4 Scenario on Aug 15th and the GM and I follow the rules then there are TWO documents that I have to fill in.

I am also presuming that there is going to be significantly more pressure to get players and GMs to follow the rules. This is clearly significantly more work than the current status quo for almost all players and GMs.

These changes may be a good thing. They may be warranted. But please don't try to sell them by saying its less work than the status quo.

Michael Brock wrote:

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.....

Uh, the new rule does NOT make things easier. Except maybe the audit.

Maybe its a little easier for Season 5 chronicle sheets. Maybe. Until we see the actual guide (its a bit hard to follow all the changes in all the threads) and the actual chronicle sheets its had to know.

But the vast majority of games up until Season 6 or so will be Season 0-4. And for those games it is DEFINITELY more work.

If I play a Season 4 Scenario now and the GM and I are actually in the tiny minority that follows the rules then I have 1 document to fill in.

If I play a Season 4 Scenario on Aug 15th and the GM and I followw the rules then there are TWO documents that I have to fill in.

So, with this extra burden, how much time will it take a player to fill out these TWO documents instead of the one? How much more work is it that is DEFINITE? Is it less than a minute, 10 minutes, more than an hour or something else after a played scenario?

I'm assuming you have actual experience utilizing all of this extra work? Since you at being so vocal about it, I am wondering if you are just theorizing or if you have actual experience. I'm going by what I've been play testing utilizing it with my home group. How has your actual experiences fared?

So, with this extra burden, how much time will it take a player to fill out these TWO documents instead of the one? How much for work is it that is DEFINITE?

My main point is that it is more work, not less.

As to how much more, I don't know.

My current plan is, when it is convenient, to try it and see.

To answer your more than slightly sarcastic question. Amazingly, I haven't yet tried something that isn't even yet legal.

But on a great many occassions I haven't had time to properly do what the guide currently requires of me. I've had no choice hut to frantically sign and run. While the game store employees were hurrying us out the door.

In this particular case, I don't think Home Game experience actually translates well to store experience.

Michael Brock wrote:

So, with this extra burden, how much time will it take a player to fill out these TWO documents instead of the one? How much for work is it that is DEFINITE?

My main point is that it is more work, not less.

As to how much more, I don't know.

My current plan is, when it is convenient, to try it and see.

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. Just curious, how much extra work and time is it to make a one sentence (or even few words) notation on one sheet, and a list of items on another (what was already being done)? I want to get field evidence of how much extra work and time we are adding.

Michael Brock wrote:

So, with this extra burden, how much time will it take a player to fill out these TWO documents instead of the one? How much for work is it that is DEFINITE?

My main point is that it is more work, not less.

As to how much more, I don't know.

My current plan is, when it is convenient, to try it and see.

You have to look at and write on two documents. You don't have to actually write anything extra. And you have more space and a cleaner layout to do it in.

I'm not sure it's extra work, just because it's on different pieces of paper.

Michael Brock wrote:

So, with this extra burden, how much time will it take a player to fill out these TWO documents instead of the one? How much for work is it that is DEFINITE?

My main point is that it is more work, not less.

As to how much more, I don't know.

My current plan is, when it is convenient, to try it and see.

To answer your more than slightly sarcastic question. Amazingly, I haven't yet tried something that isn't even yet legal.

But on a great many occassions I haven't had time to properly do what the guide currently requires of me. I've had no choice hut to frantically sign and run. While the game store employees were hurrying us out the door.

In this particular case, I don't think Home Game experience actually translates well to store experience.

It might be more work than what you currently do, because you've never done it correctly.

But it won't be more work if you've been doing it correctly.

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 could have for all but two characters.

I have a couple that are pretty complicated item wise.

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.

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.

If the Players come prepared to each game day with an ITS already filled out, then all the GM needs to do is spend 5 seconds to glance at it, to make sure its filled out, and at the end sign the chronicle sheet.

You are talking about 30 seconds extra time for 6 players.

If you can't handle that amount of extra time, then there is some other issue at heart.

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.

You still haven't answered my question. I'm not getting defensive at all. I'm asking things in a very matter of fact tone. What I'm getting from the uproar is people stating it will increase the extra time on the players behalf to hours of work. I can provide quotes if you like.

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.