A Few Updates

And as far as I can tell, the creation of the ITS is to increase the stringency of enforcement.

The creation of the ITS is for two things, neither of which 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?

Are you seriously asking that? You can't see why they'd want to make something easier unless that something was going to increase? You see no value in making something easier at its current level?

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?

No, you don't initial the ITS. You don't have to have any sort of signature whatsoever on the ITS.

Cheaters are going to Cheat. At some point we have to assume the players are being honest.

What's to stop them from creating a character sheet of a slightly different character depending on what dangers they feel they will face in any given scenario?

BigNorseWolf wrote:

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!

If my choices are pathfindercraft or accountantfinder I'll take pathfindercraft, especially since the efficient quiver exists to let you do pretty much what you're deriding.

trollbill wrote:

And as far as I can tell, the creation of the ITS is to increase the stringency of enforcement.

The creation of the ITS is for two things, neither of which is "to increase the stringency of enforcement":

1) To answer strong public demand for more cool stuff on chronicles. Moving purchase tracking to a separate sheet opens up more space on the chronicles themselves.
2) To make audits (full or partial) easier on the GM conducting it: they can see several sessions' worth of transactions on a single sheet, instead of spread across multiple chronicles, so there's less to flip through when checking things.

Quote:

After all, why do you need to make it easier to enforce the rules if you aren't going to increase enforcement?

Are you seriously asking that? You can't see why they'd want to make something easier unless that something was going to increase? You see no value in making something easier at its current level?

There is no reason to change something if how things currently work is acceptable. Ergo, if they are making it easier to do audits they do not find the current level of auditing to be acceptable.

Quendishir wrote:

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?

No, you don't initial the ITS. You don't have to have any sort of signature whatsoever on the ITS.

Cheaters are going to Cheat. At some point we have to assume the players are being honest.

What's to stop them from creating a character sheet of a slightly different character depending on what dangers they feel they will face in any given scenario?

That's my point, actually. This is all based on, form what I have read from multiple sources, the need for GMs to have a more concise way to see what was bought and expended. The problem, though, is that it /is/ more paperwork, though maybe not in the paper-pushing sense: I still have to, as a GM, go over their ITS and make sure it syncs up. But how do I do that? I have to go through individual Chronicle Sheets and check out the numbers.

Do they match?

Well, I don't know any more. Things bought before 14 August aren't required to be recorded on the ITS, though some players like myself will record them, if not from exactly where we got it from/what scenario we purchased the item.

I know I'm sounding like an entitled little crap right now, but at the end of the day, if I am responsible for all of this then I'd rather be told, "The onus is on you, the GM, to babysit your players." Not have people beat around the bush.

Andrew Christian wrote:

Quendishir wrote:

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?

No, you don't initial the ITS. You don't have to have any sort of signature whatsoever on the ITS.

Cheaters are going to Cheat. At some point we have to assume the players are being honest.

What's to stop them from creating a character sheet of a slightly different character depending on what dangers they feel they will face in any given scenario?

That's my point, actually. This is all based on, form what I have read from multiple sources, the need for GMs to have a more concise way to see what was bought and expended. The problem, though, is that it /is/ more paperwork, though maybe not in the paper-pushing sense: I still have to, as a GM, go over their ITS and make sure it syncs up. But how do I do that? I have to go through individual Chronicle Sheets and check out the numbers.

Do they match?

Well, I don't know any more. Things bought before 14 August aren't required to be recorded on the ITS, though some players like myself will record them, if not from exactly where we got it from/what scenario we purchased the item.

I know I'm sounding like an entitled little crap right now, but at the end of the day, if I am responsible for all of this then I'd rather be told, "The onus is on you, the GM, to babysit your players." Not have people beat around the bush.

The onus is on the players to follow the rules.

The only onus you have as a GM, is to make sure they follow the rules at the tables you run. Obviously there is a whole different issue if you notice discrepancies or if you notice they haven't got an ITS yet you know they've purchased items after Aug 15, 2013.

But you don't have to marry up past ITS line items with past chronicles unless you are doing an audit. All you need to do is look at the items they are currently purchasing, and make sure that information is recorded correctly on the chronicle sheet you are signing.

This is not more paperwork, because its what you should have been doing all along.

Again, the ITS is simply a blow up full-page version of the purchasing boxes on the old chronicle sheets. And ultimately, unless you choose to make it so, there is no additional work that needs to be done to use them.

There is no reason to change something if how things currently work is acceptable. Ergo, if they are making it easier to do audits they do not find the current level of auditing to be acceptable.

Your first sentence is fine. Your second sentence is nonsense.

You said yourself that you don't change something if it's working fine. Thus, the thing being changed must be what's not working fine. You observe yourself that what's changing is the ease of audits, so the correct conclusion would be that the thing that's not acceptable is the current ease of audits. (You know, the thing that got changed.)

You described good logic, but then pulled a conclusion out of your arse instead of arriving at the conclusion that actually follows from the logic you proposed. You stated that X doesn't change unless X is unacceptable; the correct application is to see that X got changed and conclude that X was unacceptable. Instead you concluded that since X got changed, Y must be unacceptable.

The onus is on the players to follow the rules.

The only onus you have as a GM, is to make sure they follow the rules at the tables you run.

This.

You said yourself that you don't change something if it's working fine. Thus, the thing being changed must be what's not working fine. You observe yourself that what's changing is the ease of audits, so the correct conclusion would be that the thing that's not acceptable is the current ease of audits. (You know, the thing that got changed.)

Yes, but why does it need to be easier if not to promote enforcement?

Jiggy wrote:

You said yourself that you don't change something if it's working fine. Thus, the thing being changed must be what's not working fine. You observe yourself that what's changing is the ease of audits, so the correct conclusion would be that the thing that's not acceptable is the current ease of audits. (You know, the thing that got changed.)

Yes, but why does it need to be easier if not to promote enforcement?

The "made it easier" is a secondary effect.

The primary mission was to make chronicle sheets cooler.

To do so, they removed the item tracking area so they'd have more room for coolness.

But they wanted item tracking to remain a function of organized play, so they created a new sheet to take the place of the boxes they removed from the chronicle sheets.

I don't know why you are still arguing about the "made it easier" thing. Its a secondary effect, but ultimately has nothing to do with the ITS.

Yes, but why does it need to be easier if not to promote enforcement?

You know, sometimes it's just nice to have something be easier, even if you're not going to change how much you do it. Someone offering to make something easier for you does not constitute a request for you to do that thing more often. It's just as likely that they're just trying to take something you already do (regardless of frequency) and make it easier because they want your life to be easier.

trollbill wrote:

Yes, but why does it need to be easier if not to promote enforcement?

You know, sometimes it's just nice to have something be easier, even if you're not going to change how much you do it. Someone offering to make something easier for you does not constitute a request for you to do that thing more often. It's just as likely that they're just trying to take something you already do (regardless of frequency) and make it easier because they want your life to be easier.

What?! You mean there's no secret hidden agendas and we can just read this at face value?

Additionally, if they wanted to make auditing more prevalent, they would have strengthened the language about doing them, instead of weakening it.

Under GM requirements, it used to say that a GM's responsibility included quickly looking over all character's chronicle sheets (thus a quick audit).

Now it says that a GM may do so if they wish.

So I think they actually understand that Audits rarely happen, and have modified the guide accordingly.

If they wanted more audits, they would have emphasized that GM requirement rather than removing it.

I'm still waiting on the "cooler" chronicle sheet rewards.

Jiggy wrote:

trollbill wrote:

Yes, but why does it need to be easier if not to promote enforcement?

You know, sometimes it's just nice to have something be easier, even if you're not going to change how much you do it. Someone offering to make something easier for you does not constitute a request for you to do that thing more often. It's just as likely that they're just trying to take something you already do (regardless of frequency) and make it easier because they want your life to be easier.

What?! You mean there's no secret hidden agendas and we can just read this at face value?

Unless the Sczarni are involved.

Look, I don't care *how* they want us to track this stuff. Just tell me how you want it done and I'll do it that way. I'm already tracking it two ways anyway (one tracker for money and GM Sign off, one tracker for encumberance.) What I don't like is this constant communication confusion that results in three different GMs in my area telling me 3 different ways I have to track stuff. So now, in order to play at all the tables, I have to track stuff 4 ways.

So can we please have a single, concise, set of instructions, preferably with illustrated examples, so we can go back to playing the game and stop arguing over the bookkeeping.

/end rant.

I don't know why you are still arguing about the "made it easier" thing. Its a secondary effect, but ultimately has nothing to do with the ITS.

I am still arguing because your statements don't seem to jibe with some of the comments I recall reading on previous threads. Though at this point so much has been said on the issue that it is hard to recall exactly who said what.

Of course, that just means there is not only confusion as to how to use the ITS, but why it exists in the first place. Certainly increased enforcement seems to have been the message the people in my area who read the boards were getting.

Certainly increased enforcement seems to have been the message the people in my area who read the boards were getting.

I'd wager a guess that a more accurate verb might be "assuming" or "fearing", rather than "getting".

Andrew Christian wrote:

I don't know why you are still arguing about the "made it easier" thing. Its a secondary effect, but ultimately has nothing to do with the ITS.

I am still arguing because your statements don't seem to jibe with some of the comments I recall reading on previous threads. Though at this point so much has been said on the issue that it is hard to recall exactly who said what.

Of course, that just means there is not only confusion as to how to use the ITS, but why it exists in the first place. Certainly increased enforcement seems to have been the message the people in my area who read the boards were getting.

Not the campaign or the campaign leadership's fault, if your local lodge misunderstands things.

trollbill wrote:

Certainly increased enforcement seems to have been the message the people in my area who read the boards were getting.

I'd wager a guess that a more accurate verb might be "assuming" or "fearing", rather than "getting".

Not sure if that makes a difference as far as perception goes. Though I think in at least one case it might have been "hoping" as there is someone in our area that seems to get a glint in his eye at the prospect of rigid rule enforcement.

trollbill wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

I don't know why you are still arguing about the "made it easier" thing. Its a secondary effect, but ultimately has nothing to do with the ITS.

I am still arguing because your statements don't seem to jibe with some of the comments I recall reading on previous threads. Though at this point so much has been said on the issue that it is hard to recall exactly who said what.

Of course, that just means there is not only confusion as to how to use the ITS, but why it exists in the first place. Certainly increased enforcement seems to have been the message the people in my area who read the boards were getting.

Not the campaign or the campaign leadership's fault, if your local lodge misunderstands things.

Miss-understanding is a two-way street. If it wasn't, there would be no need for PR.

Andrew Christian wrote:

trollbill wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

I don't know why you are still arguing about the "made it easier" thing. Its a secondary effect, but ultimately has nothing to do with the ITS.

I am still arguing because your statements don't seem to jibe with some of the comments I recall reading on previous threads. Though at this point so much has been said on the issue that it is hard to recall exactly who said what.

Of course, that just means there is not only confusion as to how to use the ITS, but why it exists in the first place. Certainly increased enforcement seems to have been the message the people in my area who read the boards were getting.

Not the campaign or the campaign leadership's fault, if your local lodge misunderstands things.

Miss-understanding is a two-way street. If it wasn't, there would be no need for PR.

Perhaps, but things have been explained ad nauseum before Gen Con, and now suddenly a few weeks after.

The explanation of how it is to work hasn't changed. And there has been no language indicating the need to up the level of audits (indeed the opposite with the change in language removing the "requirement" of a GM to do a quick audit from the guide).

As such, assumptions or hopes are not really relevant in this conversation.

You now know how to use the ITS. And you know several reasons for creating the ITS. You also know that the campaign leadership expects this will take no added paperwork.

Now that you know all this, why are we arguing over the semantics of what it all means?

Actually misunderstanding *is* a sign of badly managed roll out and PR, and the mangled confusion is adding to frustration.

Further *your* "clear understanding" of the rules does not mean the rules are well written. All three of the GM's I mentioned said the rules were clear and unambiguous, and then stated 3 *different* procedures they said the rules laid out. Rules subject to multiple clear interpretations are worse than rules with an ambiguous interpretation.

Actually misunderstanding *is* a sign of badly managed roll out and PR, and the mangled confusion is adding to frustration.

Further *your* "clear understanding" of the rules does not mean the rules are well written. All three of the GM's I mentioned said the rules were clear and unambiguous, and then stated 3 *different* procedures they said the rules laid out. Rules subject to multiple clear interpretations are worse than rules with an ambiguous interpretation.

They obviously weren't reading the boards then. Because if they followed the threads before Gen Con, and this one, then they'd know what the actual procedure was.

Perhaps, but things have been explained ad nauseum before Gen Con, and now suddenly a few weeks after.

The explanation of how it is to work hasn't changed. And there has been no language indicating the need to up the level of audits (indeed the opposite with the change in language removing the "requirement" of a GM to do a quick audit from the guide).

And yet there seem to be plenty of people from VOs on down who do not seem to understand this. You can argue all you want about how this shouldn't be a problem. It doesn't change the fact that it is one.

As such, assumptions or hopes are not really relevant in this conversation.

Just as a side note, all forms of communication are based on assumptions. So assumptions are always relevant when discussing communication.

You now know how to use the ITS. And you know several reasons for creating the ITS. You also know that the campaign leadership expects this will take no added paperwork.

Now that you know all this, why are we arguing over the semantics of what it all means?

Because I don't see this as a problem solely personal to me or even my local group, but rather that I/we am/are an indicator of a much bigger problem. You personally convincing me does not solve the larger problem.

I may be responding directly to your comments on this thread but I am not assuming you are the only one reading my responses.

The second bullet point of this blog has been updated to read "Although a player must record purchases on the ITS, a player need not also record an itemized list of purchases on the Chronicle sheet. A simple note of “Adventuring gear purchased—see ITS” or “bucket of wands—see ITS” will suffice."

Dragnmoon wrote:

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. :)

Yay! Chris saw my post that got buried in this blog!

Just as a side note, all forms of communication are based on assumptions. So assumptions are always relevant when discussing communication.

I disagree. If I make it known to you what I want you to know, without any equivocation or ambiguity, then you have what you have from me at face value.

Any assuming you'd do after that is on you, not on me.

FLite wrote:

Actually misunderstanding *is* a sign of badly managed roll out and PR, and the mangled confusion is adding to frustration.

Further *your* "clear understanding" of the rules does not mean the rules are well written. All three of the GM's I mentioned said the rules were clear and unambiguous, and then stated 3 *different* procedures they said the rules laid out. Rules subject to multiple clear interpretations are worse than rules with an ambiguous interpretation.

They obviously weren't reading the boards then. Because if they followed the threads before Gen Con, and this one, then they'd know what the actual procedure was.

My point is that they each did read the boards, and they each came away with different versions of the rules due to it.

Partly due to mistakes like the blog above that published the wrong rules.

good technical writing means producing instructions which when each person follows the instructions, they each get the same results.

If multiple competent people are getting different results, then what you have done is not good technical writing. That is the test of did you do your job.

Paizo, in this instance, has not done good technical writing.

If multiple competent people are getting different results, then what you have done is not good technical writing. That is the test of did you do your job.

Nope.

People getting a rule wrong is not sufficient evidence (on its own) that a rule is poorly written or is unclear.

trollbill wrote:

Just as a side note, all forms of communication are based on assumptions. So assumptions are always relevant when discussing communication.

I disagree. If I make it known to you what I want you to know, without any equivocation or ambiguity, then you have what you have from me at face value.

Any assuming you'd do after that is on you, not on me.

Well this is really going off on a tangent, but in doing so, you are "assuming" that the words you are relating to me mean exactly the same thing to me that they mean to you. But each individual perceives words based on personal experience. If I said the words "Dungeon Master" to you, then you would likely interpret the meaning of those words differently than if I had said them to someone heavily into S&M. Miscommunication is about two people making different assumptions about the meaning of the same words. Successful communication is about two people making the same assumptions about the meaning of the same words.

With respect, Andrew, I was reading the boards before Gen-Con, and the rules were being modified, or "clarified" here and there. They were a moving target, which isn't a bad thing in principle, since it means that Mike and John were listening to the playerbase's concerns and responding quickly.

But I know that, when I logged off the conversation Monday evening before the con, the final process was still up in the air.

I'm not saying that the current position is unclear. I'm saying that many people are unaware that the procedure has undergone modification here and there after they stopped paying attention.

So this Blog Post is a useful thing.

--

My other concern remains: even when following the current procedure (as I understand it, and I might be getting things wrong) some purchases don't show up, and others show up only in odd places. (Purchasing spellcasting services only shows up on Chronicle, not the Inventory Tracking Sheet, but purchasing a scroll of the same spell shows up in the IWS and on the Chronicle as nothing more than a reference. But those are very similar things.)

The 25-gp threshold, and the way that a GM never has to double-check the ITS, willmake auditing much more dificult.

The second bullet point of this blog has been updated to read "Although a player must record purchases on the ITS, a player need not also record an itemized list of purchases on the Chronicle sheet. A simple note of “Adventuring gear purchased—see ITS” or “bucket of wands—see ITS” will suffice."

Hopefully, that should help.

Carry on, everyone, I'm just here for the pie. If it's blueberry, I don't care how ineffably evil it is.

With respect, Andrew, I was reading the boards before Gen-Con, and the rules were being modified, or "clarified" here and there. They were a moving target, which isn't a bad thing in principle, since it means that Mike and John were listening to the playerbase's concerns and responding quickly.

But I know that, when I logged off the conversation Monday evening before the con, the final process was still up in the air.

I'm not saying that the current position is unclear. I'm saying that many people are unaware that the procedure has undergone modification here and there after they stopped paying attention.

So this Blog Post is a useful thing.

--

My other concern remains: even when following the current procedure (as I understand it, and I might be getting things wrong) some purchases don't show up, and others show up only in odd places. (Purchasing spellcasting services only shows up on Chronicle, not the Inventory Tracking Sheet, but purchasing a scroll of the same spell shows up in the IWS and on the Chronicle as nothing more than a reference. But those are very similar things.)

The 25-gp threshold, and the way that a GM never has to double-check the ITS, willmake auditing much more dificult.

I'm not a fan of the 25gp threshold. I think it should be for all items.

Technically it takes 500 arrows to meet that threshold. And yet you are expected to do so for ammunition.

But as such, to make sure there are no mistakes, on the chronicles I sign, I will put a purchase line, sell line, pp line, and a miscellaneous and/or scenario expenditure line. The miscellaneous and scenario expenditure lines will be for items less than 25gp and bribes or other non-item scenario expenditures as necessary, respectively.

Spellcasting services is a purchase, and should show up on the ITS.

As for the conversation prior to Gen Con, even on Monday, it was clear that no signatures were needed on the ITS and the gold limit was 25gp and that a single line item on the chronicle is all that was necessary to note all the ITS purchases associated with that chronicle.

Spellcasting services is a purchase, and should show up on the ITS.

I don't believe this is the case. The Inventory Tracking Sheet is for, well, tracking inventory. Purchasing services should never touch it.

For those making their own custom ITS, I've found it useful to have a box for "weight" in addition to "bought" and "sold/expended".

Andrew Christian wrote:

Spellcasting services is a purchase, and should show up on the ITS.

I don't believe this is the case. The Inventory Tracking Sheet is for, well, tracking inventory. Purchasing services should never touch it.

I disagree. If it is a purchase over 25gp, it should be on the ITS.

Otherwise, what's the point?

As for the conversation prior to Gen Con, even on Monday, it was clear that no signatures were needed on the ITS and the gold limit was 25gp and that a single line item...

I am not sure why you keep bringing this up. How clear it was then does not matter to how clear it is now. Especially since they are still trying to iron out the rules.

Case in point. I read the very same threads you are talking about. When I went to GenCon it was 'clear' to me that no signature was required, and I think I even personally verified that with you. Then I came home and was told by my VL that this was not the case. I assumed (incorrectly) that something had changed since GenCon that I had not seen yet, but that she, being in direct communication with HQ, had. I then read the above blog which backed up that false assumption. So certainly what was clear to me prior to GenCon was not what was clear to me when I read the blog.

Andrew Christian wrote:

As for the conversation prior to Gen Con, even on Monday, it was clear that no signatures were needed on the ITS and the gold limit was 25gp and that a single line item...

I am not sure why you keep bringing this up. How clear it was then does not matter to how clear it is now. Especially since they are still trying to iron out the rules.

Case in point. I read the very same threads you are talking about. When I went to GenCon it was 'clear' to me that no signature was required, and I think I even personally verified that with you. Then I came home and was told by my VL that this was not the case. I assumed (incorrectly) that something had changed since GenCon that I had not seen yet, but that she, being in direct communication with HQ, had. I then read the above blog which backed up that false assumption. So certainly what was clear to me prior to GenCon was not what was clear to me when I read the blog.

I can't account for other people's lack of reading the entire thread on a subject and/or lack of reading comprehension.

If people aren't going to follow through and read an entire thread to get the full decision, then they aren't going to see or read or understand the clear ruling.

And that has no place in this argument.

When mike said clearly, many times, exactly what you thought it said (and I verified at Gen Con on Sunday), I have no good answer as to why your V-L didn't read through the thread to see the same thing you and I saw. But this is why it is important, when you see a person in leadership like that getting it wrong, that you print out the correct information to show them.

But this is why it is important, when you see a person in leadership like that getting it wrong, that you print out the correct information to show them.

Well, actually, in the middle of this conversation I emailed my VL and asked her to verify with Mike, which she did, so this has been corrected at least for my VL. But based on her response, it would appear she was not the only one.

Andrew Christian wrote:

But this is why it is important, when you see a person in leadership like that getting it wrong, that you print out the correct information to show them.

Well, actually, in the middle of this conversation I emailed my VL and asked her to verify with Mike, which she did, so this has been corrected at least for my VL. But based on her response, it would appear she was not the only one.

That may be.

But I know for a fact (and in a bit I'm going to go find the exact quotes to prove it) Mike made very short, clear, concise statements, multiple times, and linked to those statements multiple times, prior to Monday.

He said things like (and I'm paraphrasing at the moment):

You do not have to sign the ITS.
Just put a "Purchased XXXgp on ITS" on the chronicle sheet.
Signing the chronicle sheet is the GM signing off on the ITS.

I didn't just make those statements up. I'm basically regurgitating things Mike said.

Those statements are not ambiguous or unclear. They are short, clear, and concise.

So how anyone got anything different from those statements is beyond me.

So how anyone got anything different from those statements is beyond me.

Not sure how that happened either. But obviously it did.

Andrew Christian wrote:

So how anyone got anything different from those statements is beyond me.

Not sure how that happened either. But obviously it did.

Yes, but the fault was not the communication, but rather the lack of following the thread through or effectively reading what was written.

Andrew Christian wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

trollbill wrote:

Yes, but why does it need to be easier if not to promote enforcement?

You know, sometimes it's just nice to have something be easier, even if you're not going to change how much you do it. Someone offering to make something easier for you does not constitute a request for you to do that thing more often. It's just as likely that they're just trying to take something you already do (regardless of frequency) and make it easier because they want your life to be easier.

What?! You mean there's no secret hidden agendas and we can just read this at face value?

Unless the Sczarni are involved.

Hey whatsamatta wit'choo? Whats you sayin'?

For those making their own custom ITS, I've found it useful to have a box for "weight" in addition to "bought" and "sold/expended".

On mine I expanded the item name field, added a box for "upgraded" for when you upgrade your +1 item to +2, etc. plus added 10 ammo check boxes to each line.

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.

"Ah! Yeah. It's just we're putting new coversheets on all the ITS reports before they go out now. So if you could go ahead and try to remember to do that from now on, that'd be great. All right!" /Office Space

No knock at Chris, I love you buddy, it's just his quote triggered that scene and really solidified my issue with PFS as of late.

The second bullet point of this blog has been updated to read "Although a player must record purchases on the ITS, a player need not also record an itemized list of purchases on the Chronicle sheet. A simple note of “Adventuring gear purchased—see ITS” or “bucket of wands—see ITS” will suffice."

Thank you.Happy Dance

But I know for a fact (and in a bit I'm going to go find the exact quotes to prove it) Mike made very short, clear, concise statements, multiple times, and linked to those statements multiple times, prior to Monday.

I can't shake the image of a Mike's forehead shaped dent in either the wall of his office or the top of his desk.

I know if I had been in Mike's position for those couple of days, the level of obscenity I would have been spewing, would have had my coworkers and/or my wife checking to make sure I had not accidentally lit myself on fire.