A Few Updates

It's like the whole "photocopies of physical books" debacle last month.

We need Mike to sit down and word smith a policy that is clear, concise, comprehensive, and FINAL. And then have that posted to the FAQ / Blog, not buried in a thread.

It should state what needs to be on the its (one line per item, no signatures, multiple identical items can share the same line, no initial, etc.)

It should state what needs to be on the chron sheet. (One line per item? one line for all items bought? Initial on the purchase line? Initial at the bottom of the sheet?)

Except that John has already stated he is seeking to modify the text.

Items purchased xxxx gp, see ITS #4

Scenario expenses xx gp
Income from items sold: xxx gp, see ITS #1,3

Bingo.

This is starting to get ridiculous fellas.

The intent of the ITS is to make item tracking easier for both the player (larger space than on previous chronicle sheets) and GMs (for auditing purposes).

As long as the ITS is filled out, and the gold expenditure is marked on the chronicle…

I really can’t see any GM saying “No, that’s not legit, it doesn’t have a signature/initial on the ITS”. If they do, that’s breaking the “don’t be a jerk rule.”

As long as everything is easily readable then there should be no issues. The administrative process doesn’t have to be exactly correct down to the minutia. The only minutia you should be concerned about is making sure the “gold spent” box is 100% correct and includes all expenditures not on the ITS.

So, Andrew, how would you handle a character that doesn't have an ITS? Last I checked they aren't required for older characters, although perhaps even that has changed. I'm personally not going to turn someone away from a game just because they haven't filled one out. Extra paperwork just doesn't appeal to a lot of people.

They are required for all characters, old and new, as of August 15.

Any purchases made for old PCs after that time need to be recorded on an ITS. Purchases prior to August 15 are not required to be recorded on an ITS.

So, Andrew, how would you handle a character that doesn't have an ITS? Last I checked they aren't required for older characters, although perhaps even that has changed. I'm personally not going to turn someone away from a game just because they haven't filled one out. Extra paperwork just doesn't appeal to a lot of people.

Any items purchased prior to August 15th, 2013 do not need to be on the ITS.

If the players wish their characters to purchase anything else after August 15th, 2013, they need to be on an ITS. If those purchases after August 15th, 2013 aren't on an ITS, then they don't get to use the item.

I have several copies of ITS sheets with me for the foreseeable future. As such, if someone hasn't filled out an ITS sheet appropriately, I hand them one to fill out. If they refuse, they don't get to use the item. Simple as that.

Further more, the guide was specifically changed to say "Before, during or after" a session, so that a player can go home, do their homework, purchase items, fill out an ITS, and then have it recorded on the next session's chronicle sheet.

It really isn't difficult, and players that refuse to use the ITS sheets are just being obstinate for no good reason.

EDIT: Ninja'd & date corrected

A character without an ITS is like a character without Chronicle sheets. There's a nice table over there with pre-gens.

Nefreet wrote:

Patrick Harris has a legitimate point. I have friends and acquaintances alike that are so befuddled by the ITS that they refuse to use them, and see no point or incentive to doing so. If GMs don't have to sign off on them, I can't say I disagree with them. I'm doing it because I'm OCD, but this is seriously a contentious issue for many, and mentioning the ITS as an afterthought in this blog did not help.

Their characters are not legal if they do not use the ITS.

I really don't understand the problem. It literally is a blow up with more and bigger spaces to fill in the items that you were supposed to be filling in on your chronicles all along. Now the new chronicle sheets don't have a space specifically for item purchases.

And that's going ot be another problem for my group, sadly. They come to play. I've made posts already that as far as they are concerned, the paperwork is on the GM....hence why /they/ won't GM and it kind of gets under my skin. Now, I have to tell them tomorrow, "You guys need an ITS beginning right now, or your characters are no longer valid for PFS play." They have spent months playing characters that they can no longer play because, quite frankly, it's becoming pen-and-paper EvE Online. I'm waiting for the damn spreadsheets.

I know I've complained previously--and probably more than I should--over the amount of paperwork coming down the path. I understand the need for bookkeeping with regards to a living campaign such as Pathfinder Society. But as I have stated before, I do not like the amount that is being foisted upon us, as well as the need for players now to get involved. People have also pointed out the fact that bookkeeping errors will happen, with poor tabulation and results.

Andrew Christian wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

Patrick Harris has a legitimate point. I have friends and acquaintances alike that are so befuddled by the ITS that they refuse to use them, and see no point or incentive to doing so. If GMs don't have to sign off on them, I can't say I disagree with them. I'm doing it because I'm OCD, but this is seriously a contentious issue for many, and mentioning the ITS as an afterthought in this blog did not help.

Their characters are not legal if they do not use the ITS.

I really don't understand the problem. It literally is a blow up with more and bigger spaces to fill in the items that you were supposed to be filling in on your chronicles all along. Now the new chronicle sheets don't have a space specifically for item purchases.

And that's going ot be another problem for my group, sadly. They come to play. I've made posts already that as far as they are concerned, the paperwork is on the GM....hence why /they/ won't GM and it kind of gets under my skin. Now, I have to tell them tomorrow, "You guys need an ITS beginning right now, or your characters are no longer valid for PFS play." They have spent months playing characters that they can no longer play because, quite frankly, it's becoming pen-and-paper EvE Online. I'm waiting for the damn spreadsheets.

I know I've complained previously--and probably more than I should--over the amount of paperwork coming down the path. I understand the need for bookkeeping with regards to a living campaign such as Pathfinder Society. But as I have stated before, I do not like the amount that is being foisted upon us, as well as the need for players now to get involved. People have also pointed out the fact that bookkeeping errors will happen, with poor tabulation and results.

Except its not MORE paperwork. And frankly, if you let the players get away with not doing their own necessary paperwork, then you are at fault for allowing them to get this entitled attitude.

again, let me repeat, it is not MORE paperwork.

Its the same amount of paperwork. Just on a different piece of paper.

Seriously, why is this so ridiculously hard to understand?

I know I've complained previously--and probably more than I should--over the amount of paperwork coming down the path. I understand the need for bookkeeping with regards to a living campaign such as Pathfinder Society. But as I have stated before, I do not like the amount that is being foisted upon us, as well as the need for players now to get involved. People have also pointed out the fact that bookkeeping errors will happen, with poor tabulation and results.

"...the amount of paperwork...:

The ITS is one sheet to start with, and a character only needs as many as he or she needs.

What other paperwork is there, besides a character sheet and chronicles?

Andrew, that might be because some people -- a VL on this thread, for example -- have explained that that purchases and sales get recorded twice, both on the ITS and in the notes space on the Chronicles. So, that does sound like more paperwork.

I am not going to throw anyone under the bus. But what makes you think that there aren't some V-O's who pay a minimal amount of attention to the boards (or even emails), much like a vast amount of players?

Having correct information on you, that you know has been done incorrectly in the past by your local leadership, is prudent.

If you refuse to do so based on some idealistic view of the way things should be, then I can't help you on that one.

I'm not trying to get anyone thrown under a bus either. I am just trying to get the confusion dispelled and the best way to do that is to start by making sure all of the VOs and designers are on the same page, which obviously they aren't. And the best way to do that is for Mike to clarify this directly to them via whatever means he uses to do so, be that email, discussion group, private blog, private message board or what ever. It just makes logical sense to do it this way and I do not understand why you are arguing about it. It should be SOP.

Even the FAQ doesn't dispel the confusion because it doesn't say one way or another regarding signing the ITS.

Extra paperwork just doesn't appeal to a lot of people.

Using point buy just doesn't appeal to a lot of people. Or not being able to add in random encounters. Or having to stick to 0-HD races.

Sorry, but saying "I want to participate in an organized play campaign, but I don't want to do the paperwork" is like saying "I want to play in this all-human campaign based on western Europe, but I'm going to play an elf monk."

Except it is more paperwork. I don't understand how people can miss that. You are physically carrying around more pieces of paper than you were before. I myself had to custom a brand new character sheet format that didn't have a gear section, because having one was redundant. And before, we could just erase consumables off our character sheet when used, and rewrite them when we resupplied. Now we have to hold onto pages of old ITS with half the items crossed off mixed in with items we're still holding onto. It also took me hours to transfer my 8 characters' gear over to their new ITS. For those of us that are OCD, we had no choice. The idea of creating ITS for auditing purposes, but not requiring older purchases to be listed, makes me pull my hair out.

You cannot argue that this doesn't create more paperwork. You simply can't.

Andrew, that might be because some people -- a VL on this thread, for example -- have explained that that purchases and sales get recorded twice, both on the ITS and in the notes space on the Chronicles. So, that does sound like more paperwork.

This was all hashed out in the threads prior to Gen Con.

There have been links to those threads in this thread.

I don't know if the V-L in question got it wrong in this thread, because they weren't a V-L prior to Gen Con, or if they were misinformed in some other fashion.

But its been clarified many, many, many times, in previous and this thread. There have been links to quotes provided that clarifies. John admitted his oversight in the above Blog.

And yet, regardless how many times the same people who argue about how much extra work it is, are corrected, they keep making the same argument.

So either they just are complaining to complain, aren't paying attention to the corrections when they are given (which for some of these folks I know isn't true, because they've responded to the corrections), or are just trolling for whatever reason.

I do understand why this particular blog post created some confusion. There is a mistake in it that John has mentioned. But why is it still confusing for the same people, now that they have seen the corrections?

Andrew Christian wrote:

I am not going to throw anyone under the bus. But what makes you think that there aren't some V-O's who pay a minimal amount of attention to the boards (or even emails), much like a vast amount of players?

Having correct information on you, that you know has been done incorrectly in the past by your local leadership, is prudent.

If you refuse to do so based on some idealistic view of the way things should be, then I can't help you on that one.

I'm not trying to get anyone thrown under a bus either. I am just trying to get the confusion dispelled and the best way to do that is to start by making sure all of the VOs and designers are on the same page, which obviously they aren't. And the best way to do that is for Mike to clarify this directly to them via whatever means he uses to do so, be that email, discussion group, private blog, private message board or what ever. It just makes logical sense to do it this way and I do not understand why you are arguing about it. It should be SOP.

Even the FAQ doesn't dispel the confusion because it doesn't say one way or another regarding signing the ITS.

What makes you think this hasn't happened already?

Except it is more paperwork. I don't understand how people can miss that. You are physically carrying around more pieces of paper than you were before. I myself had to custom a brand new character sheet format that didn't have a gear section, because having one was redundant. And before, we could just erase consumables off our character sheet when used, and rewrite them when we resupplied. Now we have to hold onto pages of old ITS with half the items crossed off mixed in with items we're still holding onto. It also took me hours to transfer my 8 characters' gear over to their new ITS. For those of us that are OCD, we had no choice. The idea of creating ITS for auditing purposes, but not requiring older purchases to be listed, makes me pull my hair out.

You cannot argue that this doesn't create more paperwork. You simply can't.

It is only more paperwork if you weren't doing the work already. All this stuff was supposed to be happening on your chronicle sheets all along.

Now its just a different piece of paper with larger spaces to do your accounting on.

That isn't more paperwork. Its just a different method of doing the same paperwork.

Andrew, that might be because some people -- a VL on this thread, for example -- have explained that that purchases and sales get recorded twice, both on the ITS and in the notes space on the Chronicles. So, that does sound like more paperwork.

I get that in practice, it should be the same amount of paperwork. I'll also admit that I have not kept track of their purchases, because generally they come to me asking about prices and the like. I really just do not bother, because my players are trustworthy. I know one of them has his own version of the ITS, much like I do,and has had it for some time. He's not the one I'm worried about.

The ones I'm worried about are the ones who come to play and have had borderline interest for over a week now, for the last three sessions they've been in with me. When I tell them this Wednesday, "You now must have all purchases recorded on the ITS or your character cannot be played," they are going to leave. Whether you or I see it as more paperwork or not doesn't matter:in their eyes, that is paperwork for them. That is work. This isn't like a home campaign, I agree. But once again, they did not come to do paperwork, and they already wait half an hour after the game ends to get their Chronicle sheets. I intend to minimize the time with a change or two I'm initiating, but I can't guarantee it will assuage their fears.

Another thing: it definitely seems like the players will need a new ITS for each session. Looking it over, the Chronicle Sheets appear to have space for one--maybe two--Chronicles numbers. Those not paying attention might be led to believe that they need one every session, or maybe every other.

For those of us that are OCD, we had no choice.

I don't know whether you mean actual OCD or what nerd culture likes to refer to itself as having, but neither are the fault of the ITS. If I have terrible eyesight and the giant fonts I need require me to use triple the paper to cover all the info my character sheet needs, that's not the fault of Pathfinder for requiring character sheets.

You cannot argue that this doesn't create more paperwork. You simply can't.

Sure I can. Paperwork =/= paper. Yes, you're physically carrying more paper, but saying that means you're doing more paperwork would mean that bringing another rulebook or a backup PC also means you're doing more paperwork. That's just absurd.

Yes, it's more paper. It's not more paperwork. Thus far, I've actually found my burdens rather lightened. If carrying around an extra sheet of paper on top of each PC's stack of chronicles is somehow actually more work for you, then you're doing something wrong.

Except it is more paperwork. I don't understand how people can miss that. You are physically carrying around more pieces of paper than you were before. I myself had to custom a brand new character sheet format that didn't have a gear section, because having one was redundant. And before, we could just erase consumables off our character sheet when used, and rewrite them when we resupplied. Now we have to hold onto pages of old ITS with half the items crossed off mixed in with items we're still holding onto. It also took me hours to transfer my 8 characters' gear over to their new ITS. For those of us that are OCD, we had no choice. The idea of creating ITS for auditing purposes, but not requiring older purchases to be listed, makes me pull my hair out.

You cannot argue that this doesn't create more paperwork. You simply can't.

On the contrary, I absolutely can argue that it's not more paperwork than was required before...because it's not more paperwork than was required before.

Chris Mortika wrote:

Andrew, that might be because some people -- a VL on this thread, for example -- have explained that that purchases and sales get recorded twice, both on the ITS and in the notes space on the Chronicles. So, that does sound like more paperwork.

I get that in practice, it should be the same amount of paperwork. I'll also admit that I have not kept track of their purchases, because generally they come to me asking about prices and the like. I really just do not bother, because my players are trustworthy. I know one of them has his own version of the ITS, much like I do,and has had it for some time. He's not the one I'm worried about.

The ones I'm worried about are the ones who come to play and have had borderline interest for over a week now, for the last three sessions they've been in with me. When I tell them this Wednesday, "You now must have all purchases recorded on the ITS or your character cannot be played," they are going to leave. Whether you or I see it as more paperwork or not doesn't matter:in their eyes, that is paperwork for them. That is work. This isn't like a home campaign, I agree. But once again, they did not come to do paperwork, and they already wait half an hour after the game ends to get their Chronicle sheets. I intend to minimize the time with a change or two I'm initiating, but I can't guarantee it will assuage their fears.

Another thing: it definitely seems like the players will need a new ITS for each session. Looking it over, the Chronicle Sheets appear to have space for one--maybe two--Chronicles numbers. Those not paying attention might be led to believe that they need one every session, or maybe every other.

Organized play is not for everyone.

But even in a home campaign, if you aren't recording your items on your character sheets, your GM often will say, "If it isn't on your character sheet, you don't have it."

I'm not advocating that they can't use the characters. I'm saying they can't ever buy new items without the ITS.

The posts by Mike prior to Gen Con made it clear how to use the ITS. If you are clear on how they are to be used, you can inform your players of it.

This is one of the rules of the game. The paperwork was something they were always supposed to do. If they refuse to do it, then there isn't much you or I or Mike can do.

And why is it taking you half an hour to fill out chronicle sheets? It takes me like 10 minutes, and that's on the long end.

Nefreet wrote:

Except it is more paperwork. I don't understand how people can miss that. You are physically carrying around more pieces of paper than you were before. I myself had to custom a brand new character sheet format that didn't have a gear section, because having one was redundant. And before, we could just erase consumables off our character sheet when used, and rewrite them when we resupplied. Now we have to hold onto pages of old ITS with half the items crossed off mixed in with items we're still holding onto. It also took me hours to transfer my 8 characters' gear over to their new ITS. For those of us that are OCD, we had no choice. The idea of creating ITS for auditing purposes, but not requiring older purchases to be listed, makes me pull my hair out.

You cannot argue that this doesn't create more paperwork. You simply can't.

On the contrary, I absolutely can argue that it's not more paperwork than was required before...because it's not more paperwork than was required before.

Thats an objection, not an argument.

chronicle sheets +its does not= chronicle sheets, even for suffifently large quantities of chronicle sheets.

It takes half an hour because they all roll up day jobs, I have to input the information manually, and I don't have a chance to print them out prior to the game day. However, starting today-ish, I will be printing them out and then filling out the appropriate information on my end to substantially minimize this information.

It takes half an hour because they all roll up day jobs, I have to input the information manually, and I don't have a chance to print them out prior to the game day. However, starting today-ish, I will be printing them out and then filling out the appropriate information on my end to substantially minimize this information.

Still not sure how this takes half an hour.

I print them out prior to the game day:

Then at the end, I fill in the GM information along the bottom, and the grayed boxes on the right. I initial and sign.

For each person, it takes roughly 30 seconds, including day job rolls.

It might take a bit longer now that I'm also tracking ITS purchases, but even so, I can't see it taking more than 10 to 12 minutes if I'm working very slowly.

If you return to "GMs must sign off on ITS", please give me one feasible way this is going to work with online GMs.

Especially, for example, when there are forms like this one out there that are perfectly PFS legal (and much more manageable for online players such as myself) and yet pretty much unable to be GM signed. (Thanks to rknop for the sheet!)

Nefreet wrote:

Extra paperwork just doesn't appeal to a lot of people.

Using point buy just doesn't appeal to a lot of people. Or not being able to add in random encounters. Or having to stick to 0-HD races.

Sorry, but saying "I want to participate in an organized play campaign, but I don't want to do the paperwork" is like saying "I want to play in this all-human campaign based on western Europe, but I'm going to play an elf monk."

Not really the point. They could make a rule that says you have to pay $10,000,000 and get a personal aura audit before playing PFS and all the justifications in the world won't stop people from leaving PFS in droves.

The point is that there is a tipping point where if you make the requirements too stringent to participate in PFS then the number of people you lose because of the stringency of the rules exceeds the number of people you are retaining by making the rules more stringent. Inevitably, this can lead to a collapse of the campaign. Some are questioning if this increased stringency is passing that tipping point.

Considering all of the grumbling I am hearing from my local player base regarding the new rules, I have to question this myself.

The real problem with the ITS is its stated purpose, i.e. to make it easier to do character audits.

PFS has a volunteer player base. No one has to play PFS and no on has to buy Paizo product. If they choose to play PFS then they are choosing to follow the rules and to buy Paizo product. My experience is that the majority of the player base follows the rules to the best of their ability, albeit not necessarily %100 to the letter. In other words, the majority, probably the vast majority, of PFS players are self-policing. When Paizo says they want to make audits easier, they are suggesting audits need to be done and thus there is an unspoken implication that Paizo no longer trusts it's player (customer) base to self police itself. To the majority of the players who do self police, this is insulting and some may leave because of it.

It takes half an hour because they all roll up day jobs, I have to input the information manually, and I don't have a chance to print them out prior to the game day. However, starting today-ish, I will be printing them out and then filling out the appropriate information on my end to substantially minimize this information.

Also keep in mind, that if you are using your own custom ITS, that's fine, as long as it includes all the information on the official ITS.

Jiggy wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

Extra paperwork just doesn't appeal to a lot of people.

Using point buy just doesn't appeal to a lot of people. Or not being able to add in random encounters. Or having to stick to 0-HD races.

Sorry, but saying "I want to participate in an organized play campaign, but I don't want to do the paperwork" is like saying "I want to play in this all-human campaign based on western Europe, but I'm going to play an elf monk."

Not really the point. They could make a rule that says you have to pay $10,000,000 and get a personal aura audit before playing PFS and all the justifications in the world won't stop people from leaving PFS in droves.

The point is that there is a tipping point where if you make the requirements too stringent to participate in PFS then the number of people you lose because of the stringency of the rules exceeds the number of people you are retaining by making the rules more stringent. Inevitably, this can lead to a collapse of the campaign. Some are questioning if this increased stringency is passing that tipping point.

Considering all of the grumbling I am hearing from my local player base regarding the new rules, I have to question this myself.

The real problem with the ITS is its stated purpose, i.e. to make it easier to do character audits.

PFS has a volunteer player base. No one has to play PFS and no on has to buy Paizo product. If they choose to play PFS then they are choosing to follow the rules and to buy Paizo product. My experience is that the majority of the player base follows the rules to the best of their ability, albeit not necessarily %100 to the letter. In other words, the majority, probably the vast majority, of PFS players are self-policing. When Paizo says they want to make audits easier, they are suggesting audits need to be done and thus there is an unspoken implication that Paizo no longer trusts it's player (customer) base to self police itself. To the majority of the players who do self police, this...

You do realize that the ITS is NOT making it more stringent right?

Its the same amount of work that the campaign was assuming everyone was already doing, because its always been in the guide to do so.

trollbill wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

I am not going to throw anyone under the bus. But what makes you think that there aren't some V-O's who pay a minimal amount of attention to the boards (or even emails), much like a vast amount of players?

Having correct information on you, that you know has been done incorrectly in the past by your local leadership, is prudent.

If you refuse to do so based on some idealistic view of the way things should be, then I can't help you on that one.

I'm not trying to get anyone thrown under a bus either. I am just trying to get the confusion dispelled and the best way to do that is to start by making sure all of the VOs and designers are on the same page, which obviously they aren't. And the best way to do that is for Mike to clarify this directly to them via whatever means he uses to do so, be that email, discussion group, private blog, private message board or what ever. It just makes logical sense to do it this way and I do not understand why you are arguing about it. It should be SOP.

Even the FAQ doesn't dispel the confusion because it doesn't say one way or another regarding signing the ITS.

What makes you think this hasn't happened already?

Um...because the author of this article has it wrong, a VL posting on this thread has it wrong and my VL has it wrong. Obviously not everyone is on the same page.

Andrew Christian wrote:

trollbill wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

I am not going to throw anyone under the bus. But what makes you think that there aren't some V-O's who pay a minimal amount of attention to the boards (or even emails), much like a vast amount of players?

Having correct information on you, that you know has been done incorrectly in the past by your local leadership, is prudent.

If you refuse to do so based on some idealistic view of the way things should be, then I can't help you on that one.

I'm not trying to get anyone thrown under a bus either. I am just trying to get the confusion dispelled and the best way to do that is to start by making sure all of the VOs and designers are on the same page, which obviously they aren't. And the best way to do that is for Mike to clarify this directly to them via whatever means he uses to do so, be that email, discussion group, private blog, private message board or what ever. It just makes logical sense to do it this way and I do not understand why you are arguing about it. It should be SOP.

Even the FAQ doesn't dispel the confusion because it doesn't say one way or another regarding signing the ITS.

What makes you think this hasn't happened already?

Um...because the author of this article has it wrong, a VL posting on this thread has it wrong and my VL has it wrong. Obviously not everyone is on the same page.

Just because they aren't on the same page, does not mean that Mike hasn't tried to communicate it to everyone.

As I said before, everyone pays attention to various means of communication at a different level than other people. V-O's are no exception. John Compton just missed that one bit.

Ideally, everyone pays attention to the message boards equally. But that's just a fantasy I have.

So, if somebody thinks they understand how this procedure works, could you walk me through a couple of examples? I'm not being snarky. I want to see what you understand the process is.

Example 1 A player runs a pre-gen through her first adventure. She then spends (150 + 500 =) 650 gp to outfit her new PC. She also spends 2 PP on a scroll of dimension door.

Example 2 At the end of an adventure, a player redeems the Expedition Manager boon to obtain a ring of ferocious action.

Example 3a During play, a character buys 50 arrows.
Example 3b During play, a character shoots 35 arrows.
Example 3c Between adventures, a character buys 50 arrows.

Example 4 Between adventures, a character sells her ring of ferocious action for 1500 gp, in order to pay for a restoration. She buys spellcasting services to remove a negative level.

What do you consider to be a tricky corner case, and how do you think people should treat it?

You do realize that the ITS is NOT making it more stringent right?

Its the same amount of work that the campaign was assuming everyone was already doing, because its always been in the guide to do so.

What I personally realize is irrelevant. Its how everyone perceives it that matters.

It may not be that the rules are more stringent, but it does appear that the enforcement of them is becoming more so.

The point is that there is a tipping point where if you make the requirements too stringent to participate in PFS then the number of people you lose because of the stringency of the rules exceeds the number of people you are retaining by making the rules more stringent.

Or you just get a large amount of non compliance

Trollbill wrote:

The point is that there is a tipping point where if you make the requirements too stringent to participate in PFS then the number of people you lose because of the stringency of the rules exceeds the number of people you are retaining by making the rules more stringent.

Or you just get a large amount of non compliance

Which then becomes a problem when you try to increase the stringency of enforcement of those rules.

Example 1 A player runs a pre-gen through her first adventure. She then spends (150 + 500 =) 650 gp to outfit her new PC. She also spends 2 PP on a scroll of dimension door.

If the player is ridiculously prepared, they write those purchases on their ITS while they're at the table, making the "chronicle purchased" box as "1". The GM marks "650gp - ITS" and "2PP - ITS" on that first chronicle sheet while filling out the normal stuff, then gives it to the player.

Example 2 At the end of an adventure, a player redeems the Expedition Manager boon to obtain a ring of ferocious action.

At the time of the Day Job check (which is when you redeem that boon), you write the item on the ITS, maybe note "Boon - 0gp" or something, and write that session's chronicle number in the box. Probably note something like "Boon item - ITS" on the chronicle while filling it out.

Example 3a During play, a character buys 50 arrows.

Player marks it on their ITS, the chronicle # is that session's chronicle, and the GM notes the expense ("XXgp - ITS") on that session's chronicle.

Example 3b During play, a character shoots 35 arrows.

Tick those boxes on the ammunition thingie on the ITS.

Example 3c Between adventures, a character buys 50 arrows.

See Example 1 for how to buy between adventures.

Example 4 Between adventures, a character sells her ring of ferocious action for 1500 gp, in order to pay for a restoration. She buys spellcasting services to remove a negative level.

Record those transactions on the ITS, number it for the next chronicle, have the GM note it when filling out chronicles at your next session. Just like any other shopping between scenarios.

Andrew Christian wrote:

You do realize that the ITS is NOT making it more stringent right?

Its the same amount of work that the campaign was assuming everyone was already doing, because its always been in the guide to do so.

What I personally realize is irrelevant. Its how everyone perceives it that matters.

Then you have a responsibility.

For clarity, when it comes to custom ITS, the required information is as follows:

1). Character name.
2). Player and character PFS #.
3). Items purchased.
4). Cost of said items.
5). GM signature?

Is this understanding correct? Is anything required missing from the list?

I think the official ITS sheets are basically fine, there just isn't enough room to write the item's name for my tastes.

trollbill wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

You do realize that the ITS is NOT making it more stringent right?

Its the same amount of work that the campaign was assuming everyone was already doing, because its always been in the guide to do so.

What I personally realize is irrelevant. Its how everyone perceives it that matters.

Then you have a responsibility.

Could you be a little more specific as to which responsibility you are referring to?

1-4 on your list are correct, Lormyr.

A GM's signature is not required on the ITS, per Mike Brock's numerous clarifications. It is only required on the chronicle sheet.

Jiggy wrote:

trollbill wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

You do realize that the ITS is NOT making it more stringent right?

Its the same amount of work that the campaign was assuming everyone was already doing, because its always been in the guide to do so.

What I personally realize is irrelevant. Its how everyone perceives it that matters.

Then you have a responsibility.

Could you be a little more specific as to which responsibility you are referring to?

Spreading the word, of course. :)

If people are misunderstanding something, and that misunderstanding is a problem, but you understand it, then you can be part of the solution by spreading correct information to others.

Thank you Chris. A lot of back and forth on the subject, so I just wanted to be certain I didn't misunderstand anything.

Lets see

3 adventures per level X ll levels X 4 encounters per adventure X 6 rounds per encounter times 5 arrows per round= 3960 arrows. 1 arrow= 1/20 gold= 198 gold pieces and no more tedium of having to track every single arrow you shoot.

well worth it.

So, if somebody thinks they understand how this procedure works, could you walk me through a couple of examples? I'm not being snarky. I want to see what you understand the process is.

Example 1 A player runs a pre-gen through her first adventure. She then spends (150 + 500 =) 650 gp to outfit her new PC. She also spends 2 PP on a scroll of dimension door.

Example 2 At the end of an adventure, a player redeems the Expedition Manager boon to obtain a ring of ferocious action.

Example 3a During play, a character buys 50 arrows.
Example 3b During play, a character shoots 35 arrows.
Example 3c Between adventures, a character buys 50 arrows.

Example 4 Between adventures, a character sells her ring of ferocious action for 1500 gp, in order to pay for a restoration. She buys spellcasting services to remove a negative level.

What do you consider to be a tricky corner case, and how do you think people should treat it?

Assuming this is the same character in a string of purchases over successive chronicles from example 1 through 4.

Example 1
ITS Line #1: Starting Gear / 150gp / Chronicle #2
ITS Line #2: MW Sword / 320gp / Chronicle #2
ITS Line #3: MW Armor / 170gp / Chronicle #2
ITS Line #4: 2 ea Potions of Cure Light Wounds / 100gp / Chronicle #2
ITS Line #5: Scroll Dimension Door / 2PP / Chronicle #2
Chronicle #2 Notes Section – 2 Line items (and fill out the purchases box to the right with the total amount: 650gp):
Purchases 590gp, 2PP, ITS #1
Miscellaneous 60gp (this could also be written as Bribes 60gp if that’s what they did with the 60gp)

Example 2 ITS Line Item #6: Ring of Ferocious Action / Expedition Manager Boon / Chronicle #3.
Chronicle #3 Notes Section: Used Expedition Manager Boon – ITS #1

Example 3a (argument could be made that you can’t just buy 50 arrows, they come in batches of 20)
ITS Line Item #7: 50 Arrows / 2gp, 5sp / Chronicle #4 (Chronicle for adventure currently being played)
Chronicle #4 Notes Section: Purchases 2gp, 5sp – ITS #1

Example 3b ITS Line Item #7: 35 arrows crossed off / Chronicle #4 (Chronicle for adventure just played)
Chronicle #4 Notes Section: Optional to note “Ammo Used – ITS #1”

Example 3c ITS Line Item #8: 50 arrows / 2gp, 5sp / Chronicle #5 (Next session’s Chronicle)
Chronicle #5: Purchases 2gp, 5sp – ITS #1

Example 4 (not familiar with the Expedition Manager boon, but I think you can’t sell items you get from it?)
ITS Line Item #9: ring of ferocious action /1500gp / sold / Chronicle #6 (the next chronicle sheet)
ITS Line Item #10: restoration spell casting services / 1280gp / Chronicle #6
Chronicle #6 Notes Section: (Mark in the Gold Spent box + 210gp)
Item Sold 1500gp – ITS #1
Spellcasting Services 1280gp – ITS #1

Can’t think of a tricky corner case at the moment.

Basically just make sure things are clear what’s happening on the ITS and make sure the Chronicle sheet as a simple line item noting the purchases. Then fill out the purchased amount box. Technically you could just do a total line on the notes section, but I like the idea of listing the purchases and sold gp’s as separate line items. YMMV.

Hey John or Mike can you guys sneak into a future PFS Blog the Season 5 Symbol so we can use it according to Community use Policy like you guys did for the season 4 Symbol?

I'll see what we can do to get that added. :)

For clarity, when it comes to custom ITS, the required information is as follows:

1). Character name.
2). Player and character PFS #.
3). Items purchased.
4). Cost of said items.
5). GM signature?

Is this understanding correct? Is anything required missing from the list?

I think the official ITS sheets are basically fine, there just isn't enough room to write the item's name for my tastes.

and chronicle # that the transaction happened.

trollbill wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

trollbill wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

You do realize that the ITS is NOT making it more stringent right?

Its the same amount of work that the campaign was assuming everyone was already doing, because its always been in the guide to do so.

What I personally realize is irrelevant. Its how everyone perceives it that matters.

Then you have a responsibility.

Could you be a little more specific as to which responsibility you are referring to?

Spreading the word, of course. :)

If people are misunderstanding something, and that misunderstanding is a problem, but you understand it, then you can be part of the solution by spreading correct information to others.

Point 1: If I thought this was strictly a local problem I would agree with you 100%. Of course, if I thought this was strictly a local problem I wouldn't be posting it here, I would just be dealing with it. Rather I think my group is an indicator of a much bigger problem which I feel is my responsibility to report to the powers that be and possibly offer suggestions as to solving it. I do not consider it my responsibility to actually solve problems that are much larger than just my local group.

Point 2: In the end, changing their perception that this is not an increase in the stringency of the rules but rather an increase in the stringency of the enforcement of the rules isn't going to matter. What matters is the increase in stringency. And as far as I can tell, the creation of the ITS is to increase the stringency of enforcement. After all, why do you need to make it easier to enforce the rules if you aren't going to increase enforcement?

Lets see

3 adventures per level X ll levels X 4 encounters per adventure X 6 rounds per encounter times 5 arrows per round= 3960 arrows. 1 arrow= 1/20 gold= 198 gold pieces and no more tedium of having to track every single arrow you shoot.

well worth it.

Or heck, buy your ammunition in single increments. Congratulations, you are now an MMO ranger who doesn't run out of ammunition, and can have living steel, flame-forged, frost-forged, Elysium Bronze, alchemical silver, and cold iron arrows as much as you want!

Jiggy wrote:

trollbill wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

trollbill wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

You do realize that the ITS is NOT making it more stringent right?

Its the same amount of work that the campaign was assuming everyone was already doing, because its always been in the guide to do so.

What I personally realize is irrelevant. Its how everyone perceives it that matters.

Then you have a responsibility.

Could you be a little more specific as to which responsibility you are referring to?

Spreading the word, of course. :)

If people are misunderstanding something, and that misunderstanding is a problem, but you understand it, then you can be part of the solution by spreading correct information to others.

Point 1: If I thought this was strictly a local problem I would agree with you 100%. Of course, if I thought this was strictly a local problem I wouldn't be posting it here, I would just be dealing with it. Rather I think my group is an indicator of a much bigger problem which I feel is my responsibility to report to the powers that be and possibly offer suggestions as to solving it. I do not consider it my responsibility to actually solve problems that are much larger than just my local group.

Point 2: In the end, changing their perception that this is not an increase in the stringency of the rules but rather an increase in the stringency of the enforcement of the rules isn't going to matter. What matters is the increase in stringency. And as far as I can tell, the creation of the ITS is to increase the stringency of enforcement. After all, why do you need to make it easier to enforce the rules if you aren't going to increase enforcement?

The assumption has always been (even if erroneously) that people were following the rules.

ONE of the reasons for the ITS was given as making it easier for GM's to audit or look over the purchases.

The main reason, though, for the ITS, is to remove the line item tracking of items from the chronicle sheets, so they'd have more room on the chronicle sheets for special stuff.

They simply moved the tracking of purchases from the bottom of the chronicle sheet, to its own sheet.

It really is as simple as that, and the only real agenda was to make chronicles cooler.

Here's a question: how do you know the ITS is legitimate? We just initial, right? We don't put down what they bought, because it's all on the ITS. What prevents me from having multiple ITS's ready to be used for different sessions where I have used a few charges on a wand, but don't record anything else I used on it that session?