Organized Play Initiative: Digitization

Jared Thaler wrote:

I think those will be answered when the guide comes out tomorrow, but I have already spoilered a lot of stuff.

Let me just say that yes, the way the guide is written, the assumption is that players are honest and will not lie about things. If that assumption is wrong, then honestly, we have a lot bigger problems than race boons.

I believe that the vast majority of players are honest and the mistakes they make are genuinely honest mistakes.

Which is why I find this whole move rather amusing and pointless. The Paizo web team worked hard on this and pushed back other things they could do and all for, in my opinion, no real effect on anything at the vast majority of tables.

To be clear - I'm talking now JUST about the digitization, NOT the other changes being discussed.

That assumes the digitization's sole purpose was to enforce player honesty.

Which it very clearly wasn't.

I think Tonya was pretty upfront that a major purpose was to reward players and GMs who reported scenarios in a correct and timely fashion.

There is also an element of not having the player have to track and manage their own spending (a number of complaints about fame going away also included complaints that fame was annoying to track and manage.)

It’s still a very big assumption that everyone has a device...

We said the same thing about cars in the early 20th century. We said the same thing about tv 50 years later. Then we said the same thing about email in the late 80’s/early 90’s. Then we said the same thing about cell phones in the 21st century. That can be said about all technological progress, but eventually it becomes an assumption that you have it because it is so widespread. Those who don’t adapt have to print their documents and carry around carts full of books. I’m sorry for the inconvenience for them, but the rules/expectations are based on the majority with an appendix for what to do if you don’t comply with the standards.

a major purpose was to reward players and GMs who reported scenarios in a correct and timely fashion.

I'm not seeing how the change counts as a reward in any sense.

As far as I can see, you're punishing the GMs who do NOT report scenarios in a correct and timely fashion. And their players.

But, except in that an absence of a punishment can be seen as a reward, I'm honestly not seeing how either a GM or a player is better off with boons digitized than they currently are. The player has to do more (download a boon), the GM has to do exactly the same thing (record the game).

What am I missing?

Edit: I can see how it is in Paizo's interest to get better data and I suppose there is arguably a benefit to players/GMs if Paizo gets that better data. Is that what you're referring to?

It’s still a very big assumption that everyone has a device that they can take with them to a convention with all of their PDFs on it.

Some data to compare with your assumptions

Demographics of Mobile Device Ownership
Age.........Any Cellphone.......Smartphone
Ages 18-29..99%.................96%
30-49...........99%.................92%
50-64...........95%.................79%
65+..............91%.................53%

Overall, 81% of the population has a smartphone

That is the problem with a reward / punishment mindset.

Any absence of a reward can be seen as a punisment. The boons are rewards. Not getting the reward is not a punishment. All that has happened was that what has to happen to get the reward has changed.

People complained about fame and tracking fame and too much bookkeeping.

The bookkeeping has been automated and streamlined, and the GMs have not been asked to do any additional work.

And yet people are complaining that they are being punished.

Edit: I can see how it is in Paizo's interest to get better data and I suppose there is arguably a benefit to players/GMs if Paizo gets that better data. Is that what you're referring to?

It is, and it is in our benefit because Tonya and Linda can better target what levels of scenarios are needed. And if enough games are being played, Tonya can take that info back to Paizo to try to argue for more OrgPlay resources.

On the topic of Boons and "more paper":

Everytime I receive a Chronicle (whether it's a PDF, a scanned physical copy, a downloaded Boon, what-have-you), I add a sequential, two digit number to the beginning of the filename and upload it into a publicly shareable Google Drive folder devoted just to that character. I then link that folder on that character's Paizo profile (and Roll20 profile, if I've used the character there).

So, for example, a character with an Uncommon Ancestry as their first Chronicle would have that file named "01 - Iruxi Heritage", and if I spent AcP on a Wayfinder, that file would then be "02 - Inherited Wayfinder". Like this:

Chronicles

The result is a portable and easily searchable Chronicle history available for every GM to peruse, regardless of whether that character shows up to a Roll20 game, a play-by-post or in-person. As an added bonus, which you can see in my example, I can add word documents using the same naming convention to take and sort notes for each of my games ^_^

Ferious Thune wrote:

It’s still a very big assumption that everyone has a device that they can take with them to a convention with all of their PDFs on it.

Some data to compare with your assumptions

Demographics of Mobile Device Ownership
Age.........Any Cellphone.......Smartphone
Ages 18-29..99%.................96%
30-49...........99%.................92%
50-64...........95%.................79%
65+..............91%.................53%

Overall, 81% of the population has a smartphone

I'm all for utilizing technology. 19% of the population is still a big number. That's nearly 1 in 5 people, or 1 person per 5-6 person table. I also don't feel like a smartphone is the best thing to be viewing documents on, so the number that is probably more informative is tablet ownership.

Or the rules should be permissive enough that it doesn't matter if you can't show proof right in that moment, to allow for things like malfunctioning technology, lack of a wifi/cell phone signal, etc. From what Jared said, it sounds like it's possible that's the case. Because, again, if I'm going to be expected to show proof of something, then I'm going to feel obligated to print it before going to an in-person game, because I don't want to be denied using an option because the internet cuts out or I forgot to charge my tablet.

This is also counter to how the campaign has operated in the past, however, when being able to show proof of an option was required, handing out chronicles before players leave the table was required, and the online region (and some physical regions) was told to completely fill out chronicle sheets before sending them (something that is still being done, despite neither of the current guides for 1E or 2E requiring it).

So it's a big change. That doesn't mean it shouldn't happen, but it would be great to get some information about how to handle situations where technology fails or records aren't available. And if we really don't need to print everything anymore and GMs are expected to just trust us, then it would be great to have that stated directly (which hopefully the guide does).

People complained about fame and tracking fame and too much bookkeeping.

The bookkeeping has been automated and streamlined, and the GMs have not been asked to do any additional work.

Fair enough, I guess. I use a spreadsheet to track this stuff so it's almost 0 work for me. And given that I don't completely trust GMs to record things nor do I trust Paizo's web site to be correct and/or accessible I'm going to continue to use my spreadsheet as my primary record.

But I'll accept that it may be less work for a better result for others.

What does 'take part in combat' mean?

If I'm on a pony during exploration mode and a combat breaks out does it wink out of existence?

Do I have to make one minion do all the work of carrying my palanquin?

Do I have to make one minion do all the work of carrying my palanquin?

Downsized to master blaster?

Jared Thaler wrote:

People complained about fame and tracking fame and too much bookkeeping.

The bookkeeping has been automated and streamlined, and the GMs have not been asked to do any additional work.

Fair enough, I guess. I use a spreadsheet to track this stuff so it's almost 0 work for me. And given that I don't completely trust GMs to record things nor do I trust Paizo's web site to be correct and/or accessible I'm going to continue to use my spreadsheet as my primary record.

But I'll accept that it may be less work for a better result for others.

People keep saying it. I can't resist...

I really hope that "the complexity of tracking fame" was not a factor in any decision just because that's illogical to me.

Fame Tracking
GM: +0 (fail), +2 (one success), or +4 (both successes) fame
Player: -0/2/4/8/25/50 fame for X boon

Gold Tracking
GM: Let's see, what's your level? Your level on this chart gives you this much gold per treasure bundle. How many treasure bundles did you get? OK. Multiply that non-integer number by the number of treasure bundles. Now, you rolled Earn Income? What was your task level? PC level-2? Did you have a boon that altered that? No? Good. What is your proficiency in the skill? OK. How many days did you spend? All 8? OK, this non-integer number times 8. There you go.
Player: OK. Add those two non-integer numbers together to my non-integer starting value. Look through the equipment lists and buy non-integer valued mundane equipment and some variously valued other items. Add those numbers all together. Now subtract that sum from the previous sum of my total gold to get my new total gold.

Fame is "too complicated?" Really?

TOZ wrote:

Do I have to make one minion do all the work of carrying my palanquin?

Downsized to master blaster?

I guess one is all you need.

Jared Thaler wrote:

a major purpose was to reward players and GMs who reported scenarios in a correct and timely fashion.

I'm not seeing how the change counts as a reward in any sense.

As far as I can see, you're punishing the GMs who do NOT report scenarios in a correct and timely fashion. And their players.

That's what I see as the biggest problem with this - it hurts innocent parties (the players).

As a VC, I had some insight in just how common unreported or misreported tables are. I didn't have full information, of course - I don't know how many players never bothered to try and fix reporting errors, or how many problems got fixed before being escalated to VC level. After all, in PFS1 (which is the games system I have most experience with) the players had the paper chronicles and boons; those pieces of paper were the official record. Whether or not the game was correctly reported (or even reported at all) wasn't an issue for any but the most detail-oriented players.

Now, though, everything is being made dependent on the online reporting system, Achievement Point tracking, etc. This is not, in my opinion, in a suitable state for anything to depend on - it seems that almost every time you push the "recalculate" button you get different results. And while most GMs I've encountered are prepared to trust their players, that doesn't help if you're trying to purchase a boon that is gated behind a particular ACP total, or a particular scenario. The online system is *not* prepared to trust players - quite the opposite.

If GMs (who are, in the main, among our most regular players) can't depend on the online reporting system working properly, they aren't likely to be highly motivated to get their information into the system in a timely fashion. Pleading with them is all very well, but it would have been better to provide them with a digital infrastructure that was working reliably.

I really hope that "the complexity of tracking fame" was not a factor in any decision just because that's illogical to me.

Fame Tracking

Vs

Gold Tracking

Fame is "too complicated?" Really?

**points to the people in the treasure bundle expectation thread arguing we should just get rid of finding treasure, as and have scenarios give a set gold piece award.**

**points to the various people in *this* thread complaining about having to track fame.**

Blake's Tiger wrote:

I really hope that "the complexity of tracking fame" was not a factor in any decision just because that's illogical to me.

Fame Tracking

Vs

Gold Tracking

Fame is "too complicated?" Really?

**points to the people in the treasure bundle expectation thread arguing we should just get rid of finding treasure, as and have scenarios give a set gold piece award.**

**points to the various people in *this* thread complaining about having to track fame.**

You do realize those two discussions are apples and oranges? Actually, I don't know if they are apples and oranges since I glazed over whoever the actual people saying Fame is too complex and just responded to multiple people saying that "people" say it is too complex and am going on faith that the people I actually remember reading are representing the "people" accurately...

But the Treasure Bundle discussion is about the fairness of access to any given Treasure Bundle in a scenario (where removing the Treasure Bundle mechanic would make everything equitable not simpler and any reference to "simple" is referring back to the purported OP goal of making things simpler) compared to saying adding and subtracting multiples of 2 is too complex.

Yes: as one of the people engaging in a discussion about Treasure Bundles execution in that other thread, I and most of the people posting there were debating how treasure was acquired and found, not that the math was too complicated.

I'm holding off judgement/comment on the Fame vanishing/replacement until tomorrow's guide, but comparing both set of complaints as essentially the same type of disgruntlement is disingenuous.

Yes: as one of the people engaging in a discussion about Treasure Bundles execution in that other thread, I and most of the people posting there were debating how treasure was acquired and found, not that the math was too complicated.

I'm holding off judgement/comment on the Fame vanishing/replacement until tomorrow's guide, but comparing both set of complaints as essentially the same type of disgruntlement is disingenuous.

As another of the people who commented in that thread, and who used the word simpler (I think), I was referring to scenarios having to go out of their way to include otherwise meaningless checks just to account for all of the treasure bundles. But I also did reference that if everything else is being simplified, what's the point in keeping treasure bundles as a mechanic? Not because the math is hard, but because time is wasted that could otherwise be spent on the actual story of the scenario.

What feels like has happened is that people complained about tracking Fame, so now we just don't get it at all anymore and have to spend Achievement Points on things that previously cost Fame. (I hope that's not actually the case, but it's how the blog came across. Like GM Zoomba, I'll wait until tomorrow to see what the actual impact is.) The equivalent with treasure bundles would be if the scenarios no longer awarded any gold at all and we had to spend Achievement Points to acquire anything, which no one has asked for.

Honestly the thing about Fame and AcP is that they're redundant.

I PERSONALLY believe Fame is the superior system for the reasons laid out by many many people in this thread.

But given that Paizo is hell bent on the digitized and centrally held system that probably won't work most of the time even once they do get it fully up and running, we may as well be rid of Fame and tweak ACP to work a bit better for the actual needs of the campaign that Fame had been serving.

But also I think BNW and many others have made solid points. AcP was sold as replacing the extra, special boons like the ones earned by attending conventions or RSP events. Making it also have to do what fame once did really limits its ability to do that and the AcP accrual rate should probably increase to reflect that

Honestly the thing about Fame and AcP is that they're redundant.

Well, up until the announcement, it made sense to my players when I described it as Fame=Rewards available for your Character, and AcP=Rewards available for you as a Player.

Legit, the weekend after the announcement I explained the new system and two of those same players asked if they would now have to choose between rewards for their characters, and ancestries.

I told them I wasn't sure, but it seemed like that was the direction Paizo was going.

They were understandably upset.

Something to remember, being a poster here already makes you in the top 10% (if not higher) of participation in the campaign.

Fame (Currency #3) seems like a relatively easy item to drop to reduce complexity, which is likely needed given the number and variety of extra OP stuffs.

Spending AcP on things that used to cost fame does seem problematic but I don't have a strong sense until seeing how things break down.

One thing about Fame, which I know is counter to digitization, is that you could have no desire (or capability) to interact with the website or touch your AcP but could still spend Fame for the usual benefits. Now (~Oct. 20th), you cannot.

Something to remember, being a poster here already makes you in the top 10% (if not higher) of participation in the campaign.

Fame (Currency #3) seems like a relatively easy item to drop to reduce complexity, which is likely needed given the number and variety of extra OP stuffs.

Spending AcP on things that used to cost fame does seem problematic but I don't have a strong sense until seeing how things break down.

Shouldn't the top 10 percent (bottom 10%? The 10% closest to being one step down the geek heiarchy chart?) be the ones MOST likely and willing to do extra work for the campaign? If the people invested enough to run games participate in forums and care about how OP works are saying "this is too complicated, this is a pita, wouldn't the other 90% echo the same sentiment even further?

Ah, but we in that top 10 percent might also be in a forum echo-chamber, influencing and riling each other up as we argue passionately about this stuff. We're still an important constituency, mind, but it does not follow that we always promote the most common viewpoint.

Hmm

Ah, but we in that top 10 percent might also be in a forum echo-chamber, influencing and riling each other up as we argue passionately about this stuff. We're still an important constituency, mind, but it does not follow that we always promote the most common viewpoint.

Hmm

The occasions where this group has enough harmony to form an echo chamber range from once in a blue moon to almost never.

Possible, but I think if we're seeing "erm.. no" as the most common viewpoint here the best argument for the most common viewpoint would be "Oh hell no".

If the people invested enough to run games participate in forums and care about how OP works are saying "this is too complicated, this is a pita, wouldn't the other 90% echo the same sentiment even further?

Given the frequency by which that same group expresses its too much trouble to report a session within a week of its occurrence I would take “this is too complicated” with a grain of salt.

Under Applying Credit it says “Downtime applies as to a 1st level character.” So if a level five pregen was used and the chronicle is going to be applied to a yet to be created 1st level character, how do we resolve Earned Income?

Looking over the new chronicle version, can we restore the XP box to a three-line with starting, award, and ending and the gold box to starting, ending, award, and a line to account for the plus/minus ledger? Many p,Ayers use these to keep running totals. Without them, p,Ayers are now forced to create additional documentation such as excel spreadsheets to track these items.

This also makes it much harder to audit a character if it is needed since there is no quantitative work flow on the chronicles. It decreases the chances of an audit being performed. If that is the intent, then why not just eliminate the audit language from the new Guide?

BigNorseWolf wrote:

If the people invested enough to run games participate in forums and care about how OP works are saying "this is too complicated, this is a pita, wouldn't the other 90% echo the same sentiment even further?

Given the frequency by which that same group expresses its too much trouble to report a session within a week of its occurrence I would take “this is too complicated” with a grain of salt.

People are lazy. That is a surprise?

Under Applying Credit it says “Downtime applies as to a 1st level character.” So if a level five pregen was used and the chronicle is going to be applied to a yet to be created 1st level character, how do we resolve Earned Income?

The player fils it in after creating the character. Just as they would if the chronicle were held for 5th level.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

If the people invested enough to run games participate in forums and care about how OP works are saying "this is too complicated, this is a pita, wouldn't the other 90% echo the same sentiment even further?

Given the frequency by which that same group expresses its too much trouble to report a session within a week of its occurrence I would take “this is too complicated” with a grain of salt.

Well, whether its a canard or not the result is going to be the same: requiring an accurate account from DMs on the paizo website isn't the most viable plan.

Jared Thaler wrote:

a major purpose was to reward players and GMs who reported scenarios in a correct and timely fashion.

I'm not seeing how the change counts as a reward in any sense.

As far as I can see, you're punishing the GMs who do NOT report scenarios in a correct and timely fashion. And their players.

But, except in that an absence of a punishment can be seen as a reward, I'm honestly not seeing how either a GM or a player is better off with boons digitized than they currently are. The player has to do more (download a boon), the GM has to do exactly the same thing (record the game).

What am I missing?

Edit: I can see how it is in Paizo's interest to get better data and I suppose there is arguably a benefit to players/GMs if Paizo gets that better data. Is that what you're referring to?

Players and GMs get rewarded because the boon will become unlocked (an assumption on my part because the actual process is not known yet).

If it is a punishment, than it is a punishment that the GM is doing to themselves and, by extension, their players. I don't think Paizo can do anything for people who just don't take the extra steps to report.

I ran a table of Eyes of the Ten in my local area. One of the players had all the chronicles. But when I looked to see if the information match, I found that the person (persons) who suppose to report NEVER DID! I find this very aggravating. It is the GMs responsibility to report.

So the new system encourages GMs to report the tables, because if you do, you will get a small boon. And so will your players.

Yes, it is reward for doing what we are suppose to do from the beginning.

The result is a portable and easily searchable Chronicle history available for every GM to peruse, regardless of whether that character shows up to a Roll20 game, a play-by-post or in-person. As an added bonus, which you can see in my example, I can add word documents using the same naming convention to take and sort notes for each of my games ^_^

I really need to follow your example... You up to doing this for my characters!!?? (I am kidding by the way)

Under Applying Credit it says “Downtime applies as to a 1st level character.” So if a level five pregen was used and the chronicle is going to be applied to a yet to be created 1st level character, how do we resolve Earned Income?

I have the pregen make the check for their level, then give appropriate 1st level rewards for the result.

So if a 5th level pregen is successful at their lore check, the 1st level would get the gold that matches a success at 1st level.

Additional digitization hot take: chronicles/character rewards should be gated behind reporting but in most cases reporting should be done before the table breaks apart.

Example System:

1. Players check-in to the session online (GM provides link or a Jackbox/True Dungeon style session code). Since we're online, the player can simply select their character instead of having to input all the normal sign-in fields (allow faction selection/fields/notes as needed). Players without a device could be checked in by others.

2. At the end of the session, the GM inputs scenario and downtime results online. The session is considered reported and chronicles/character rewards are auto-generated and made accessible to players online. Players could confirm the results before leaving the table.

If there is no connectivity at the venue or no one has a device, the system could work asynchronously for the most part. Players could take the session code with them and input it when connectivity is available to get the chronicle/rewards. This would still depend on the GM to hold onto scenario/downtime results and do some post-session work but that's kind of where we are now. Players could fallback to jotting down rewards in this circumstance.

Additional digitization hot take: chronicles/character rewards should be gated behind reporting but in most cases reporting should be done before the table breaks apart.

Example System:

1. Players check-in to the session online (GM provides link or a Jackbox/True Dungeon style session code). Since we're online, the player can simply select their character instead of having to input all the normal sign-in fields (allow faction selection/fields/notes as needed). Players without a device could be checked in by others.

2. At the end of the session, the GM inputs scenario and downtime results online. The session is considered reported and chronicles/character rewards are auto-generated and made accessible to players online. Players could confirm the results before leaving the table.

If there is no connectivity at the venue or no one has a device, the system could work asynchronously for the most part. Players could take the session code with them and input it when connectivity is available to get the chronicle/rewards. This would still depend on the GM to hold onto scenario/downtime results and do some post-session work but that's kind of where we are now. Players could fallback to jotting down rewards in this circumstance.

I don't think this would be workable. What you plan to have show up at the table is almost never the group you get at the table. IRL you get +/1 1d4 playerrs and online you get +/- 1d6 players.

When I do my sign in sheets I find it's faster to have people do it completely at the end of the session instead of having people sign up before hand and then figure out that Clickclicicckclackaclick was nicknamed Jim and Obazaya clone 265 credit is going to Briana Starlight and Bob 1 was the player who didn't show up and Bob 2 is the vanguard who did show up.

The check-in doesn't need to happen pre-session. Check in could easily happen at the session's conclusion. "Congrats on beating the baddie! If you want rewards, here's the session id. Type it in so I can associate your downtime to you."

I have a problem with the underlying assumption that everybody carries around a device capable of logging in to a website.

I know of at least one player who doesn't have any kind of online presence at all, and several who only have online access if they're at home - they carry neither a laptop nor a smart phone.

There's also another problem as none of the hotels that have hosted our local conventions have public internet access, and even the 'hotel guest' access doesn't cover the parts of the hotel where gaming takes place.
Most of the local game stores don't offer internet access, either.

Note that we're not talking about some minor outpost far from a major city - I'm talking about Silicon Valley, and large (100+ tables of PFS/SFS) conventions.

The check-in doesn't need to happen pre-session. Check in could easily happen at the session's conclusion. "Congrats on beating the baddie! If you want rewards, here's the session id. Type it in so I can associate your downtime to you."

most groups use the same event code for the event, you'd have to designate everyone there a reporter for the entire event to do that currently.

Although if you're proposing a change to how the website works so its like a google sign in form, that would be awesome , but again... paizo website.

I fully support the reporting system being updated to better support report-at-table functionality.

Which to justify the expenditure requires...accurate reporting.

I fully support the reporting system being updated to better support report-at-table functionality.

Which to justify the expenditure requires...accurate reporting.

This

I have a problem with the underlying assumption that everybody carries around a device capable of logging in to a website.

I know of at least one player who doesn't have any kind of online presence at all, and several who only have online access if they're at home - they carry neither a laptop nor a smart phone.

There's also another problem as none of the hotels that have hosted our local conventions have public internet access, and even the 'hotel guest' access doesn't cover the parts of the hotel where gaming takes place.
Most of the local game stores don't offer internet access, either.

Note that we're not talking about some minor outpost far from a major city - I'm talking about Silicon Valley, and large (100+ tables of PFS/SFS) conventions.

Same in our area (Northwest Ohio/Southeast Michigan). Only 1 of our local stores has internet access, our local convention doesn't have internet, and some of our players don't have a smart phone/laptop/tablet.

I'm in favor of making our OP experience more accessible, not less accessible. Paper copies of Chronicle sheets are absolutely needed.

Deleted

Astos wrote:

The check-in doesn't need to happen pre-session. Check in could easily happen at the session's conclusion. "Congrats on beating the baddie! If you want rewards, here's the session id. Type it in so I can associate your downtime to you."

most groups use the same event code for the event, you'd have to designate everyone there a reporter for the entire event to do that currently.

Although if you're proposing a change to how the website works so its like a google sign in form, that would be awesome , but again... paizo website.

Addendum: at that point you may as well make a player self reported system

I'm in favor of making our OP experience more accessible, not less accessible. Paper copies of Chronicle sheets are absolutely needed.

As far as Accessibility, I am liking that:

"players can choose alternative tracking methods and keep the Chronicles as backup."

"Players using other tracking methods should ensure all the data on the Chronicle is reflected in their records."

You don't actually, *need* a huge binder of loose leaf chronicles anymore. A paper and pencil player could basically carry a notebook (or better, and accounting ledger) and simply write in the date, scenario number, event number, gold, XP, GM number, and have all the information they needed to play. (Possibly with any special boons / adventure summaries, cut out and glued in at the back.)

For that matter, while GMs are still required to issue chronicles, (so that players can have them for back up) A GM at an internet disabled con (or one who forgot their sheets at home) could simply tell the players the totals, give them the event number and GM number, and that is a legal record for them to go play their next table.

For that matter, while GMs are still required to issue chronicles, (so that players can have them for back up) A GM at an internet disabled con (or one who forgot their sheets at home) could simply tell the players the totals, give them the event number and GM number, and that is a legal record for them to go play their next table.

Sorry but I am really uncomfortable with idea of not having the GM as the responsible person to report tables.

Maybe we will get there one day, but not right now. The technology that Paizo is offering does not support the idea of a player reporting their own tables.

It's not the GMs responsibility to report tables.
The GMs job is to run the game, and make sure the relevant information is recorded and made available to the reporter (typically, but not always, a venture officer).

And the last thing we need is to task a busy and overworked GM with an extra 15-20 minutes of work at the end of the game (especially if the store is trying to get everybody out so they can lock the doors).

It's not the GMs responsibility to report tables.

The GMs job is to run the game, and make sure the relevant information is recorded and made available to the reporter (typically, but not always, a venture officer).

And the last thing we need is to task a busy and overworked GM with an extra 15-20 minutes of work at the end of the game (especially if the store is trying to get everybody out so they can lock the doors).

Technically it is the GMs duty, but they can report either to the Paizo site, or to their event coordinator.

Your Duties as a GM

Communicate with your local event coordinator.
Prepare an adventure to offer to players, including gathering the necessary supplies such as maps, miniatures, and reference materials.
Provide a welcoming environment for players.
Deliver session results to the player via established recording mechanisms.
Report the results of the game.

Your Duties as an Event Coordinator

Communicate with your local venture-officer network.
Schedule games and communicate about the event with prospective players.
Organize GMs and register players.
Provide a welcoming environment for players.
Arrange for player tools to be present.
Ensure reporting is complete for all games.

It's not the GMs responsibility to report tables.

The GMs job is to run the game, and make sure the relevant information is recorded and made available to the reporter (typically, but not always, a venture officer).

And the last thing we need is to task a busy and overworked GM with an extra 15-20 minutes of work at the end of the game (especially if the store is trying to get everybody out so they can lock the doors).

It is the job of the GM to report the table. It has ALWAYS been the job of the GM to report the table.

As JTT points out, there is no requirement to report the table immediately, just timely. If you are a GM who can complete the reporting sheet and hand it to someone else to enter than that is cool for that GM.