Tallow's page

SRM Answered this on the Facebook PF2 playtest forum.

Hardness blocks damage to the wielder, not the shield.

Any single damage blow equal to the hardness or greater gives the shield 1 dent.

I believe if the damage blow is double the shield's hardness, the shield takes 2 dents.

Regardless of how you calculate whether the shield takes a dent or not, all damage over the shield's hardness applies to the wielder.

I doubt Paizo will give you an official ruling on this, because it shouldn't need an official ruling. There is no ruling that once you lose an ability from one source that no other source can possibly give it back to you.

The GM is flat out wrong.

as long as your idea doesn't require a GM to sign the previous chronicle they had no hand in GMing, this is how I've always done it (and seen it done) as a GM, VO, and Player.

One thing I'm growing to enjoy is the fact that high stats are no longer almost mandatory. I can have the 16's and 12's character or the straight 14's across the board, and be highly effective.

Those who always build to an 18 are only limiting themselves. It is not the system that is limiting them.

But it's not. Beginning gold is the gold before your purchases. So if a player can't subtract what they spend from their previous chronicle, they show up with a beginning gold amount and a list of items they have bought during downtime. Which means they need to track "current" gold available to spend during the scenario somewhere else, which is not accounted for on any of the forms. Some players might do that on their character sheet. Some won't. So when time comes to purchase that scroll of breath of life after leaving the briefing, the math will have to be done then. If gold was tracked on the ITS, then it wouldn't matter which chronicle it was subtracted from, and it wouldn't need GM sign off. GMs would sign off on gold earned during a scenario, and gold spent during a scenario that was not on items (so clearing conditions, bribes in game, etc.) So at the end of the session, you're handed a chronicle with the net gold you earned that scenario, and you can track everything else on your ITS. Absent that, just let the player do the math on their own time.

This seems to be the best solution to me.

I disagree. And its ok that we disagree on this. But honestly, this is a fantasy world with actual real deities that physically, mentally, psychologically, and magically impact the world. In front of their followers. In front of their enemies.

Requesting that your real world areligious choice be included in the game world doesn't make sense to me.

Why?

Because the game world, there is no real atheism. That's a rule of the world. A world in which any of the various archangels, prophets, or deities could jump down and thump you. In our world, its not likely that any religious figure or deity is going to physically manifest and thump you. And as far as actual proof, it just doesn't happen in our world. So being an atheist when there is no empirical proof of a deity makes a lot of actual sense. Being a true atheist (not the Rahadoumi version--where they just deny they are worthy of worship) in Golarian is insanity.

Using Bullet Points would be a great tool to make sure the rule was clearly understood, instead of writing 2 or 3 sentences in 2 or 3 different places in the book that are complex sentences.

...

Asmodeus, of all deities, should be enthusiastic about accepting lawful neutral worshipers.

...

Perhaps the seduction happens first, and then once the individual turns Evil, Asmodeus grants them worshiper status.

You said:

Quote:

You treat the "between session" purchases as purchases on the new chronicle sheet.

Here's what I took that to mean. Consider the very first game a character plays. At the end of the game, he gets the chronicle sheet, fully filled out and signed.

Before the second game, the players decides to buy some stuff. On the second chronicle sheet, #2 for this character, he'll put the cost of the stuff he bought between sessions. The GM can then sign off on a fully filled-out chronicle sheet.

That's what I took what you said to mean: purchases between game n and game n+1 get accounted for on n+1's chronicle sheet.

This is not standard practice. Standard practice is to put your between-session purchases on the chronicle sheet for the last game you had (unless you fall horribly behind on your paperwork). If you keep your paperwork up to date, you show up to the new session with all your between-session purchases accounted for, and your current gold amount at the bottom of the chronicle sheet before the session about to start.

(Sometimes people will decide to buy stuff after they sit down at the table, planning to put them on the sheet they'll get at the end of the table. I wouldn't really call those "between session" purchases; they're purchases made at the new game. Between session purchases are the ones that you sit down and think about when you're not at the game table, and that you then account for on your previous chronicle sheet.)

Right, but that comment was replying to someone's comment in what they thought a good new process should be.

I know what the wording of the process is trying to do, is both codify how its actually done, but also allow for some level of oversight. Unless they want to rewrite the guide to just trust players are going to do what they are supposed to do, with zero oversight (which is common practice, and not something I'm opposed to as I practiced that), then they have to write some level of oversight into the rule.

Writing so that a future GM doesn't have to sign a past GM's paperwork seems to be the best compromise between action practice and writing oversight into the rule.

Tallow, that's the old process that you describe. That's the one that almost nobody followed. In that process, the GM was not supposed to sign a chronicle sheet until it was completely filled out.

This is not the practice that most of the community follows. What most of us do is fill out the GM sections (grey boxes) of a sheet and pass them out, allowing the player to do all the accounting and such at his leisure later. Players usually do put between-scenario purchases on their last chronicle sheet, unless it's something they decide to buy as they're sitting down at the table for the next game.

A key difference is that there is no back-and-forth between player and GM. If the GM can't sign off on the chronicle sheet until all accounting is filled out, then he has to pass out one with most of the grey boxes filled, but the sheet unsigned, and then wait for the player to complete the accounting and turn the sheet back to him so that he can look it over and sign it.

I believe that the changes were trying to make the rules closer to what is actually practiced in most places.

I'm confused. I don't think I said what you think I said, but now I'm confused as to what you are actually saying I said or what you think things mean.

Surely the simple approach is:

End of session A - GM fills in necessary stuff, totals are added up, Chronicle A is signed.
Player decides on purchases between sessions. Do not spend more gold than you currently have. (and keep some for expenses on the next mission)
End of session B - GM fills in necessary stuff, totals are added up, including cost of between session purchases, Chronicle B is signed.
Player decides on purchases between sessions....

Repeat until retirement or death.

This pretty much. You treat the "between session" purchases as purchases on the new chronicle sheet.

Tallow wrote:

rknop wrote:

I don't think there has ever been a version of the Guide that didn't have the GM signing only after the whole chronicle sheet is filled out. You are probably remembering the change around then that said you no longer had to itemize your purchases on the chronicle sheet, only in the ITS. But, it didn't change anything about filling out the sheets vs. GM signature.

I believe the conception behind the current change was to go to the system you describe: purchases between sessions OK, show the new GM what you purchased, no signature required. So, I think it was well conceived, but the writing ended up with something different.

No, I know I'm remembering correctly, because if you'll recall, I was the lead on redesigning the Guide for the Season 8 Guide. One of the things that I wanted to make sure happened, was the numbered explanation of how to fill out a chronicle sheet to be overhauled to reflect how things actually worked. And overhauled to be consistent with other sections of the guide. Essentially, that section of the guide was simply obsolete, not followed, and did not reflect the rules elsewhere in the guide. There was a paragraph elsewhere in the guide at the time, that explained that you could make purchases between scenarios and just show your ITS to your new GM. The new GM just had to make sure the numbers on your previous chronicle looked right and that purchases were legal, but they weren't required to actually fill out the GM section of the chronicle sheet and sign the entire sheet.

EDIT: And now I can't find it. So it may have been an FAQ or something. In any case, I am 100% positive that the rule for how to adjudicate, track, and handle purchases was allowed to happen once a player had gone home and all the new GM needed to do whats verify, but no initial or signature was really necessary.

A Mike Brock forum post might be another option as to where it was hiding.

As far as the guides themselves go, the rule doesn't appear...

It is possible. I just pulled up my Season 6 and 7 guide to compare, and neither has the language I was looking for.

It sure looks like the intent and the text don't match. If there will be another version of the guide, maybe it's something the team can get fixed in that version.

They could fix it right now and republish it. It shouldn't take a bunch of time to do so, and would be worth maybe the hour or two it would take.

But I doubt we see another Guide for PFS1, since PFS2 starts in 2019.

I don't think there has ever been a version of the Guide that didn't have the GM signing only after the whole chronicle sheet is filled out. You are probably remembering the change around then that said you no longer had to itemize your purchases on the chronicle sheet, only in the ITS. But, it didn't change anything about filling out the sheets vs. GM signature.

I believe the conception behind the current change was to go to the system you describe: purchases between sessions OK, show the new GM what you purchased, no signature required. So, I think it was well conceived, but the writing ended up with something different.

No, I know I'm remembering correctly, because if you'll recall, I was the lead on redesigning the Guide for the Season 8 Guide. One of the things that I wanted to make sure happened, was the numbered explanation of how to fill out a chronicle sheet to be overhauled to reflect how things actually worked. And overhauled to be consistent with other sections of the guide. Essentially, that section of the guide was simply obsolete, not followed, and did not reflect the rules elsewhere in the guide. There was a paragraph elsewhere in the guide at the time, that explained that you could make purchases between scenarios and just show your ITS to your new GM. The new GM just had to make sure the numbers on your previous chronicle looked right and that purchases were legal, but they weren't required to actually fill out the GM section of the chronicle sheet and sign the entire sheet.

EDIT: And now I can't find it. So it may have been an FAQ or something. In any case, I am 100% positive that the rule for how to adjudicate, track, and handle purchases was allowed to happen once a player had gone home and all the new GM needed to do whats verify, but no initial or signature was really necessary.

I don't recall which season, but it was 6 or 7, where the rules for purchases were changed. You did not need to fill out the entire chronicle sheet before the end of a session. Purchases could be made between sessions, and you just had to show the new GM what purchases you made. No actual signature or initial was required.

This new change sounds bad. Really badly conceived and written.

not to mention, the playtest forums are nigh unnavigable as every theorist wants to post their own, "first thoughts" thread.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Here you go

From this post

James Jacobs wrote:

This is a correction we're looking to make that is in many ways long overdue to the world.

Ethnically, Chelaxians are identical to Taldans and really always have been; they've been traditionally treated as their own ethnicity mostly due to the fact that their government is diabolic, which is a weird reason to do that. Especially since that didn't hold true for the nation pre-Age of Lost Omens. (Note that they don't even have their own ethnic language.) So with the new edition, we're adjusting that to include them under the umbrella of the Taldan ethnicity.

Never mind that Chelish and Taldan culture are radically different even before the Age of Lost Omens. Is the only thing binding them the color of their skin (Chelish already tend toward the pale side)?

And their language? If we run that backwards, your ethnicity is just what languages you speak.

I'm pretty sure those considered Chelish in PF1 were the people that colonized it during Taldor's Exploration of the world. So Chelish heritage is literally Taldan.

Do you find the Index of the book helpful for finding information?

Sure, but giving me page references in-line is much more efficient, user friendly, and useful.

I believe that bolding or somehow letting the reader know that this word is a key word, with a quick comment at the beginning on where to find the key word descriptions would help.

Yes, bolding keywords would be fantastic. It immediately lets you know its a special word and has special meaning.

Interesting.

Do you feel that the page references made it seem like you needed to read more? We added them as a courtesy for those who were curious.

I loved the page references when you made them. But they are not included in every instance they should be.

For example, there are several feats or skill usages that refer to Leap, but that is not given a page reference, and I had to do a CTRL+F "Leap" in the PDF to find out that was listed in some of the way further back pages.

More Page References. Whenever there is a keyword being used, and it isn't immediately defined, give me a page reference.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Secret Wizard wrote:

So the problem is that you need a feat tax to use bows due to Volley 50, NOT the fact that only Fighter's get PBS. That's indeed a feat tax.

That's not true at all. You can use a bow without point blank shot, and it's pretty effective. It's better than a crossbow in most circumstances, actually, thanks to adding half your strength, being able to shoot multiple times per round and being Deadly. The volley property is a mechanism to balance bows with other long range projectile weapons. They are still a fine weapon.

The volley property is stupid, makes no sense, is ahistorical, and is less realistic than Wizards casting fireballs.

That's just not how bows work.

Actually, historically, this is how long bows worked.

Flagged to be moved to the Playtest Forum :3

Scrolls use the ability modifier of the caster just like 1st Edition, because the user of the Scroll is considered the caster. They had a minimum ability score needed to cast the spell (which was universal for spell casting), but they didn't apply the Scroll maker's ability mod.

They didn't put that in Scrolls this time since Casters don't need a minimum ability score anymore to cast their spells.

Hey Rysky, I don't want to digress from the original question too much as this is a PF2 question, so spoilers:

I honestly think that the actual game play will feel a ton different than our supposition based on theorycrafting.

Looking through the magic items:

Is it necessary for items like Belt of Giant Strength, Anklet of Agility be a level 14 item? Is it really that game breaking to allow earlier access than that for a +2 ability and a couple skill use bonuses?

Based on how many skill bumps you get through your career and the fact that by 14th level you could have several abilities at 16+, I'd say yes.

This entire system seems to be predicated on small bonuses being incredibly meaningful.

While the archetype lets you be, say a fighter with a bit of wizard (magus), I don't see anything that says you can no longer to traditional multiclassing if you want. I'll need to do more digging to see where the benefits of one vs the other lie.

The blog on multiclassing pretty much says the archetype is the way to do multiclassing. There also is not a paragraph detailing multiclassing the traditional way.

So sure, if you want to homebrew standard multiclassing... but not for anything involving PFS.

EDIT: And please don't answer any playtest surveys if you aren't going to play strictly by the playtest document (and any subsequent errata).

Angel Hunter D wrote:

I find it weird how often people say they hated the reliability of PF1 characters, it was a major draw for me. I like being good at what I spend resources on, IRL how often do we do something dangerous with only a 50/50 shot at it? I don't, I don't know anyone that does - why should professional adventurers?

I can't speak for others, but I don't dislike reliability. What I dislike is characters whose bonus is so high that there is no possibility for failure even against level-appropriate challenges. Things like Casting Defensively at high levels, for instance, or Intimidate to demoralize. For example, my current character's Intimidate bonus is high enough unbuffed to demoralize a Tarrasque on a 14 or higher, despite having only a +1 from my ability score, and I'm not even Level 20 yet. That level of certainty isn't very engaging for me. But again, your mileage may vary.

I agree with this. We shall see if the reset is too far the other direction or not through game play. If it feels like my super skilled character keeps failing more than I feel he should, that it feels useless to even try anymore, then I can report on that and let Paizo know.

I find it weird how often people say they hated the reliability of PF1 characters, it was a major draw for me. I like being good at what I spend resources on, IRL how often do we do something dangerous with only a 50/50 shot at it? I don't, I don't know anyone that does - why should professional adventurers?

Best of the best, going against Best of the Best in almost any professional sport are usually successful around 50% of the time or worse.

I'm not sure that it wasn't designed with the intention of making this 50% possible or worse. In other words, PF1's system of an initial attack or skills are virtually a lock for even creatures at AP+5 is something that it appears they decided was not a good design space.

This is all conjecture though.

Vic Wertz wrote:

• Tell us about your actual game play. Theory is all well and good, but everybody’s got theories, and we’ve probably heard most of them already. Tell us how things are actually working in play, not how you think things will work.

^THIS is really important. I can recall back in 3.0/3.5, on the personal blog for Bruce Cordell (I think--maybe it was one of the other designers of 3rd ed and I'm just poorly remembering) he talked about when the Mystic Theurge was first released. He said people kept coming up to him at conventions and events saying, "That Mystic Theurge is SOOO broken!" He would respond calmly with the same line, "Oh, really? What happened when you guys played it?" And, every time, their response was the same: "Oh, well, we didn't play with it, but it's so obviously broken."

I agree. I have several issues with the game. But I plan to play it true to what was presented and answer the surveys and post my feedback based on my game play. Some things that may theoretically look bad, might actually play well or vice versa. We shall see.

I just did not see multiclassing as a problem that needed "fixing" as it was. I do like the fact that it opens up feats that are that class only, but then the old way of multiclassing did that as well and got you the class benefits for the levels you took.

The issue I saw with PF1 multiclassing, was that it allowed one to "dip" and horribly break the game in many unintended ways sometimes. This change solves that problem.

This is also really the only way to make the archetypes universal, which saves a ton of wordcount space, since they don't have to write an archetype for 7 or 8 different classes. Just one archetype that replaces class feats with its own set of class feats. Kinda elegant if you ask me.

Tallow wrote:

GentleGiant wrote:

Tallow wrote:

Gary Teter wrote:

We've just granted $15 in store credit to everybody whose Pathfinder playtest preorder was sent to Amazon for shipping.

I think the offer of some sort of compensation was laudable. However, when my shipping costs were $15.75, why was I not given store credit equal to the higher shipping costs I paid by ordering it from Paizo?

Not everyone had the same shipping costs as you did, thus they probably gave what they thought was a reasonable compensation to everyone for the extra waiting time - i.e. it's not a refund of shipping costs, but a compensation for the longer wait.

Unfortunately the minimum eGiftcard is $5, otherwise I would have gladly gifted you a giftcard of $0.75 since it seems to be so important to you that you get those last $0.75. I hope the "missing" $0.75 doesn't wreck your monthly budget.

Thank you for being condescending.

Its the principle of the matter, not the cash.

You might say it's the principle of the matter, but for $0.75 it just seems petty to me. Again, keep in mind that this is something you're getting even if Amazon decides to reimburse all the shipping costs - it's not a replacement for your shipping costs, so the fact that you paid $15.75 is immaterial to the store credit.

As Vic posted earlier:

Vic Wertz wrote:

Gunny wrote:

Instead of a store credit I would prefer a $15 refund to my credit card that would offset the delivery charges since Amazon failed to meet up to its obligation.

We have asked them to step up and waive the fees for all of these orders. I have no idea whether they will do that or not, but if they do, we will refund your shipping fees in addition to issuing the $15 paizo.com store credit.

I'm going to wager that $15.75 is a pretty standard shipping price for State-side shipments. But even so, without knowing whether Amazon was going to credit us the shipping cost for botching this, the store credit should have equaled or exceeded the shipping cost for every individual.

And regardless whether you think I'm being petty or not, it doesn't give you license to be a jerk about it. Just say, "hey, I think that quibbling over 75 cents is a bit petty," instead of being nasty about it.

I'm hoping that this thread can be used for suggesting ways to make the rules more efficient.

That said;
Is it necessary to have every class explain the general advancement gains (ability boosts, feats gained because of character level, etc)?
Can we instead, return to a general character advancement chart that has those explanations in one spot? The current set up for the playtest makes it seem that by taking my class, I should get another ancestry feat. With some digging, you do not (obviously), but why create confusion?

Yeah, some layout decisions were nice. They included page numbers when referencing other abilities, feats, rules found elsewhere in the book. But they missed a lot of references they should included. Like Leap isn't referenced to a page number anywhere, which boggled my mind.

Some of the layout decisions really boggled my mind. And this one you describe just makes no sense. They chose to put things in several different chapters (essentially, I assume, to save wordcount) and the flipping pages back and forth just for character creation is worse than PF1. But they included all the same information in a confusing way to the classes.

I honestly hope that layout issues like this are simply playtest issues, and when the official PF2 CRB comes out, it will not be so rough.

Is it necessary to have created multiclass archetypes? Could we not just let players multiclass as we always have?

I really like this change to be honest. I'm just not a fan of limiting a character to either multiclassing or taking a universal archetype until much later levels. I think to multiclass and then taken a universal archetype, you have to wait until level 8 to take the second option.

It would be helpful, perhaps, if Paizo was to actually print a rule stating something like, "If one of your class features or feats gives you a spell, you are considered to have access to it."

No such stipulation currently exists.

Paizo could also make all powers and cantrips common. There is very little reason for any power or cantrip in the playtest rulebook to be uncommon.

Yup, but Pathfinder Society leadership doesn't learn from past mistakes and continually write rulings that could be strictly read to be limiting.

I would argue however, that the above rule does actually allow class granted uncommon items. It just isn't worded explicitly so.

Because the context of the discussion at that point was around the Community Standards and whether a player was even allowed to have his PC perform cannibalism at the table, evil or not. She did not say anything regarding the alignment of the action. She did talk about ensuring the comfort level of the players at your table.

Thus, unclear to me what her stance, if any, is on the alignment in the game of consuming parts of sentient beings. I have a hyposthesis, but I wouldn't personally consider the statement from that post as evidence one way or another.

EDIT: Based on her statement, it appears that there does exist somewhere a ruling from someone other than her that specifically addresses the ruling as she refers to it.

Mike Brock officially ruled cannibalism as evil.

The context of the conversation that Tonya weighed in on, was whether cultural situations that are more spiritual (like eating your enemy's heart, liver, spleen and/or kidneys to carry their power and give them ultimate respect) rather than specifically eating flesh for sustenance. There are several cases that could be made where it isn't evil. The context also included separate threads regarding things like slavery, necromancy, prostitution, etc.

They decided, in the new community guidelines, that its ok to be "edgy" as long as you make sure everyone at the table is ok with it. And if they aren't, or there are children, or you are in a particular public place, dial it back.

So no, she didn't rule that cannibalism wasn't evil. She ruled that it might not be in certain circumstances but regardless how the GM individually rules, keep your edgy stuff away from people that don't want to deal with it.

Any word on whether Amazon will be refunding our shipping costs for so entirely botching this endeavor?

Tallow wrote:

Gary Teter wrote:

We've just granted $15 in store credit to everybody whose Pathfinder playtest preorder was sent to Amazon for shipping.

I think the offer of some sort of compensation was laudable. However, when my shipping costs were $15.75, why was I not given store credit equal to the higher shipping costs I paid by ordering it from Paizo?

Not everyone had the same shipping costs as you did, thus they probably gave what they thought was a reasonable compensation to everyone for the extra waiting time - i.e. it's not a refund of shipping costs, but a compensation for the longer wait.

Unfortunately the minimum eGiftcard is $5, otherwise I would have gladly gifted you a giftcard of $0.75 since it seems to be so important to you that you get those last $0.75. I hope the "missing" $0.75 doesn't wreck your monthly budget.

Thank you for being condescending.

Its the principle of the matter, not the cash.

I got a notification from Informed Delivery that says a package is waiting at my front door from Amazon. I'm hoping that not only is it the playtest materials, but that its all the playtest materials that I ordered.

We've just granted $15 in store credit to everybody whose Pathfinder playtest preorder was sent to Amazon for shipping.

I think the offer of some sort of compensation was laudable. However, when my shipping costs were $15.75, why was I not given store credit equal to the higher shipping costs I paid by ordering it from Paizo?

I need to look into the Rulebook further to have an overall opinion, but my first reaction to the OP is that I'm willing to allow for some "disassociation" when legendary skills are involved. I think by "legendary" the developers are aiming at classic hero tales level of suspension of disbelief, from a time when folks who heard such tall tales did not have modern scientific thought getting in the way.

Historical heroes had legendary qualities:

Gilgamesh and Samson had legendary strength and I believe Gilgamesh was known to be immortal or invulnerable, I forget which.

Beowulf rips the arm off Grendel and slays a dragon 50 years later (so in his 70's or 80's he kills a dragon).

Many of the knights in Arthurian Legend perform some pretty awesome legendary feats.

I could go on.

The answer is, "Because they are Legendary."

Tallow wrote:

Vic, any chance you can get Amazon to email us when they actually ship our order and/or give us some sort of tracking info?

seems the least they could do

In accordance with our Privacy Policy, we provide shipping services with only the minimum customer information required to ship your order. That does not include your email address.

I see, and I know it would be too much to ask that Paizo try to check the Amazon orders and see where they are and then email us individually. That sort of manual attention would likely kill your ability to do anything else customer service/shipping wise for a month.

Some of you guys need to give it a rest. You're acting like you're waiting on a kickstarter project that's ten years old. So you won't have your book right away, you'll survive. There's a copy with your name that you'll get in time.

Its not that the timing bothers me, its the fact I payed more for shipping than I would have otherwise.

Tallow wrote:

Joana wrote:

I have an Amazon package showing up with no delivery date yet on Informed Delivery, and I'm not expecting anything else from them. Here's hoping!

What is this?

Informed Delivery

If you're in the US, and if your area is included in the program, and if Amazon Fulfillment is shipping your package by USPS, it ought to let you know if you've got a package coming and when to expect it.

Signed up, and no packages are listed as coming. So either I'm not in the 30% shipped yet, or its not going USPS.

I have an Amazon package showing up with no delivery date yet on Informed Delivery, and I'm not expecting anything else from them. Here's hoping!

What is this?

Vic, any chance you can get Amazon to email us when they actually ship our order and/or give us some sort of tracking info?

seems the least they could do

well, I was wrong. No server meltdown. I succesfully downloaded all PDF documents in a zipped bundle in about 30 seconds.

successful download of all documents. Took about 30 seconds.

well now that Amazon crapped the bed, I say the odds of a server meltdown have just improved.

sojudramaqueen wrote:

Vic,

When you say 6 order shipped, I was thinking "shipments". Did you mean individual orders? Like they had just barely begun shipping anything at all? Oh dear.

Correct—they completed 6 individual customer orders from July 28–31.

Wow, that didn't work as intended.

Additionally, I found there were several sessions that did not show GM Prestige. They were sessions I could not take a GM Chronicle for, so I did not fill out a character number. When I plugged 2 in the GM Prestige field, nothing showed up in the session. But if I plugged in Zero (0) for the character number, then the 2 Prestige showed up. But my total GM Credits did not increase, so this is not the error.

I found the reason for the missing credits. Sessions that produce the error message:

Player has already run scenario at session # xxx of event # xxxxxx ...

do not count for the tables even if they should count (for example replayables, or sessions that got erroneously reported and then corrected).

By looking through all my old events that I created, I noticed 8 such iterations of such an error.

I'm missing roughly 24 sessions since the last count, so there must be 16 other sessions missing that I can't see because they 1) don't show up on my GM Sessions page, and 2) Someone else created the event and I don't have access to them.