Character Audit at large Conventions - a proposal


GM Discussion

251 to 300 of 309 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Thanks! I'll investigate as soon as I get the chance.

3/5

Celestial Pegasus, no one will critize you for underpowering your character. Adding skills/feats/hp/money is easy. If you have spent that is a different story. I would have you correct it and sell back an item as if you never bought it and adjust stats to start.

People are understanding of mistakes. The people that cheat do it in other ways. I honestly do not check chronicles because of time contraints and the value it adds does not stop the damage of not checking.

The idea of audits is to give the power to the GM. If there were not rules demanding it some players would throw hissyfits about auditing them.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

nosig wrote:
I don't feel comfortable reviewing them while trying to play

I can understand that, but here is the thing and we, as players, really cannot get past it. It is the PLAYER'S RESPONSIBILITY to keep their records up to date. IMO, anyone who blames the GM for asking for the most recent chronicle and being unable to provide is just plain wrong. Technically, if your chronicles are not complete tracking expenses, XP, Fame/PP, and conditions, your character is not legal for play. And let's be honest, completing the chronicle is not that hard, nor time consuming, unless of course you never do it and have to catch up. At the gaming table is definitely not the time to be doing this, however, it may be the only way for a GM to compromise and allow an otherwise illegal character play.

4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Tampere

Now that this board is going on, I feel somewhat less intimidated to drop this question here, run to a nearby bush to hide, and watch your response to it from there.

What would you do with a player who has misplaced some of their chronicles? Ask them to find their GMs from those games, if possible, and ask them for new ones? Tell them they can't play the characters with the missing chronicles any longer? Assume they have accounted for spending in that they have not purchased anything in the scenarios their chronicles stand for, and that the games they have played were reported accurately on the Paizo site.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Contact your regional leadership, i.e. your Venture-Officers. They can work with you to recover lost chronicles. How I would handle it would depend on the situation. If someone came to me at a convention and asked what to do, I probably wouldn't punish them for their misfortune. However, if we're talking about chronicles that have been missing for months, the player had plenty of time to try and correct the issue, I might rule differently.

The Exchange

Netopalis wrote:
Jimbo Juggins wrote:

First, I'm not naming names, 'cause I don't have the stories that might justify something that looks outrageous. That's why there are chronicle sheets. So i'm not judging, just reporting. I'm even willing to grant an occasional miracle or wish. There may be curse rules that I haven't been able to find (I searched this site for such things), but if they exist, they don't seem to be PFS sanctioned.

I didn't take any names, just numbers, and the stats I used in my "Pass your papers to the right" example didn't match anyone in my sample, but I saw similar things. So anybody who says "Those are my stats!", Nope. I didn't use yours.

Statistics only really works for groups and not individuals anyway, and my sample size was just barely big enough to qualify as a vaild sample.

And while it is true you can write anything that you want on the proflie pages, same can be said for your character sheet, especially if nobody's checking it anyway.

Right, but you are verifying that your character sheet is accurate. The profile page has no similar guarantee or even hint of respectability. Seriously.

Who's verifying whose character sheet is accurate? That's pretty much what this whole thread is about.

Seriously, without some kind of independent check, there is no guarantee of respectability.

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

Chris Mortika wrote:
Shifty, I dispute your characterization.

Go ahead, dispute away.

For every Doris Day who claims they are doing their good deed for the day and how many orphan puppies they find homes for, and I point you to the numerous threads where some GM, even PFS GM, punishes players because he decides that the RAW isn't to his taste.

If you suspect you aren't outnumbered by pedantic copper counters then I'd suggest a revist of a lot of the threads.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston

Jimbo Juggins wrote:
Netopalis wrote:
Jimbo Juggins wrote:

First, I'm not naming names, 'cause I don't have the stories that might justify something that looks outrageous. That's why there are chronicle sheets. So i'm not judging, just reporting. I'm even willing to grant an occasional miracle or wish. There may be curse rules that I haven't been able to find (I searched this site for such things), but if they exist, they don't seem to be PFS sanctioned.

I didn't take any names, just numbers, and the stats I used in my "Pass your papers to the right" example didn't match anyone in my sample, but I saw similar things. So anybody who says "Those are my stats!", Nope. I didn't use yours.

Statistics only really works for groups and not individuals anyway, and my sample size was just barely big enough to qualify as a vaild sample.

And while it is true you can write anything that you want on the proflie pages, same can be said for your character sheet, especially if nobody's checking it anyway.

Right, but you are verifying that your character sheet is accurate. The profile page has no similar guarantee or even hint of respectability. Seriously.

Who's verifying whose character sheet is accurate? That's pretty much what this whole thread is about.

Seriously, without some kind of independent check, there is no guarantee of respectability.

What I mean is that knowingly using false stats in an actual game is cheating, whereas putting false stats [or neglecting to update stats or incorrectly entering stats] on the profile page is not cheating, nor is it indicative of an illegal PC.

The respectability comes from the fact that we play on an honor system. The character that you play is one that you are personally guaranteeing is substantially accurate and which does not contain intentional errors. My point was that you are not placing such a similar guarantee on a profile page.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston

Ok, here's something that I've been mulling over in regards to the "Show me your most recent chronicle" thing. Let's say that you are GMming a convention, where you are GMming a particular scenario for the first time. In Slot 1, you GM and apply that credit to PC 1. In Slot 2, you play PC 1. However, Slot 1 had 7 players, and you only printed 7 chronicles when you left for the convention, since it's somewhat unlikely that you'd have an absolutely full table, and since you could simply refer to the scenario to see how much gold you get. Should PC 1 be barred from playing in Slot 2?

The Exchange

nosig wrote:

wow...

did you check PLAYER profiles or PC profiles?

For example, I have 8 PCs listed (I think) and of those I imagine several would qualify in the "definitely not possible without some sort of miracle (or multiple miracles)" in some persons opinion.

Start with a 20 stat. Add bumps at 4th level, 8th level and add in a +6 Stat bump item - that nets a stat of 28 base. From there one of my PCs has a 30 (special case).

But then, I have had people state that a PFS PC has to have a 14 in CON to even survive past 3rd level... and none of mine do (ah... maybe one does). So I'm kind of used to having people say: "that PC is definitely not possible without some sort of miracle (or multiple miracles)".

So, even if I had PC sheets in front of me, I'm not sure if I could safely say what is or isn't possible. If something looks odd, I'm apt to ask, "hay dude, how'd you do this? I'd like to do it too, let me in on the secret?" and you know what? mostly when this happens, I learn something new.

Player's have profiles?

Someone posts on a board, you click on their character name, you look at their profile page, you get the profile they input for THAT character. Simple as that. If you do that for my character, you will see my character's current ability scores.

About 30% of people, for whatever reason, don't bother to complete their character profiles. Most people seem to put their character's current stats. Some people get obsessive compulsive, and give you every little detail they can fit into the available space (I tend to do that myself at times). I have noticed over the years (I have been playing since AD&D, 2nd ed. first came out) that the same kind of personal differences in the level of detail can be found on people's character sheets as well.

I totally agree with you that it can be difficult to tell what is and what is not possible for any given character without some history, and like you say, if something looks odd, you ask "How'd you do this?", and quite frequently you will learn something new. Sometimes what you learn is a rule you didn't know existed, sometimes what you learn is that you need to coach the player because he doesn't know what he's doing, and sometimes (rarely) you find out something you didn't want to know.

What do you do with a player who shows up with a mostly blank character sheet? PREGEN.

What do you do if you think the character sheet has serious flaws (regardless of the reason)? PREGEN.

What do you do if the character sheet has minor flaws? If you, or another player, can spot them in a 5 minute (or less) review, they're not minor. (With everybody helping, the entire table should be able to be reviewed in 5 minutes or less.)

If this means the player's character doesn't get experience for the scenario you're running at a con, then it's their fault for inadequate preparation, but you still give them the opportunity to participate in the current event.

If you find something questionable, and the player can give you a satisfactory answer, let them play their character.

BTW, I wouldn't consider a stat bump item something that should be included in a character's base ability score. On the character sheet it should be listed as a Temp. Adjustment (even if it is permanent), and there should be a note somewhere (like a Chronicle sheet or even just a note on the back of the character sheet)that details where this adjustment comes from. Lacking either of those "records", I would accept a good story (but please make the long story short).

Now, I should take my own advice, and cut this story short.

Nice talking to you. I agree with you whole-heartedly.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston

Look, nobody's required to fill out the online stats. It's not part of the reporting process. I haven't done it on most of my characters, nor have I updated it on the one character that I have done it for. It's just not that important, frankly. Those who have theirs filled out to the nth degree are likely involved in PbP. You should in no way consider the online profiles to be indicative of relative PC strengths or levels of organization.

4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My online stats are not up to date. I do try and keep my character's story up to date.

[ and back to the original question ]

A lot of conventions I have played/GM'd we have been time poor. It's rare to finish early at mine and I haven't run over in about a year now.

If I am running a beginner table I am inevitably vetting and correcting simple mistakes of people new to pathfinder etc.. not an issue there but it can be a slow process, the player might be new to organised play and probably won't have a CRB. Now I offer a copy of the folio (it's got references to the rules and stops the knee-jerk questions as they learn to find the rules/answers themselves - teach a man/women to fish etc....

Having a separate table available for review might be beneficial and help find accounting errors or assumed knowledge errors that crop up. This would have to be voluntary to really work, I think.

I often call for a sheet whilst asking the player to roll a d20, that way I can scan the page whilst looking for the skill or saving throw. (It's a way to sit on metaplay).

Another trick is to get the sheets at the beginning of the game to collect; initiative, faction details, etc (I speed read, so I get enough time to scan for glaring issues or feat/trait combos etc..)

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

^^He does do all this too :)

Accomplishes a lot, without antagonising players :)

The Exchange 5/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
nosig wrote:
I don't feel comfortable reviewing them while trying to play
I can understand that, but here is the thing and we, as players, really cannot get past it. It is the PLAYER'S RESPONSIBILITY to keep their records up to date. IMO, anyone who blames the GM for asking for the most recent chronicle and being unable to provide is just plain wrong. Technically, if your chronicles are not complete tracking expenses, XP, Fame/PP, and conditions, your character is not legal for play. And let's be honest, completing the chronicle is not that hard, nor time consuming, unless of course you never do it and have to catch up. At the gaming table is definitely not the time to be doing this, however, it may be the only way for a GM to compromise and allow an otherwise illegal character play.

Bob, I think you are missing my point.

Yes, I understand that it's the "PLAYER'S RESPONSIBILITY to keep their records up to date". I get that. It's my responsibility to ensure I have all the paperwork for my car. Licence/Registration/Inspections etc. Who was blaming the judge for asking for the most recent chronicle (or any part of my paperwork)?
I realize that "if your chronicles are not complete tracking expenses, XP, Fame/PP, and conditions, your character is not legal for play" I never questioned this. In fact, I stated that I would ask to be excused from the table for fear that my guy did not meet those conditions. I would take that slot to double check my guy, and he would be ready for review at the end of the session.
I also realize that "completing the chronicle is not that hard, nor time consuming". Though I would point out that it does consume time, just not much. Perhaps 5 minutes at the end of the session, and 20 minutes or so between sessions writing notes on what choices I would like to do with that PC on his next chronicle. Say half an hour per gaming session.

What I am concerned about, what I stated, was that I would not feel comfortable sitting through a game realizing that there is going to be "a test" at the end. I would second guess myself the entire game. To bring it back to your car example, I would spend the entire 4 hour drive trying to fish my papers out of the glove box, checking to see if I have everything - is this the correct proof of insurance? is it current? can I read the date? where's the registration? Is my tags on the car up to date? Likely I am going to run off the road when I drop something and scramble to pick it up. Am I going to blame this on the Cop that gave me a heads up that an inspection was due at the end of my highway trip? Nope. Purely my fault.

But I know me. Tell me there's a test in 5 hours, and all I'm going to be able to think of is how ready am I for it.

And that's not even counting the fact that someone who wants to avoid the audit will figure that all he has to do is drag the game out and we'll not have time for it. "Session is running long - do we cut the final encounter, the Boss Fight, or cut the audit?" So now I'm in a game with a guy with who wants to ensure that the game runs long... sigh. And I'm seriously distracted... nah, I'll just sit this one out and double check my paperwork.

5/5 5/55/55/5

If you expect the DM to sign it after everything that been bought or used is accounted for and the current gold is at the right level that will take at least 20 minutes, because players can't even start that until the session is over, and need to total up the gold twice: once to see how much they have, then shopping, then how much they have left after shopping.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

nosig wrote:
What I am concerned about, what I stated, was that I would not feel comfortable sitting through a game...

I disagree with the characterization. IMO, you should have a small bit of that feeling all the time. You (read:all players) should enter every session with the expectation that they will be audited. If so, there's no problem when it does happen.

Also, for those who are posing specific "what if's" they don't help the discussion. Like any other rule or function of gaming, we are talking about the general case and top-down rules. Sure there are times when something unusual occurs and the GM will have to make a ruling, on the fly, how to proceed. The fact that those things happen does not nullify the general rule/policy.

4/5

Would it help speed up an audit if there were a "calculations worksheet" where players would show the points spent for their character's ability score, feats, etc.

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thats what I have in my folio.

I keep an excel spreadsheet that tracks all purchases, sales, income, etc.

That said, this satisfies the income/expense argument, what we dont have is detailed level by level character build stuff etc.

Thats what I find quite amusing, that we could spend all day 'auditing' sheets and find that everything was in order on income expense, yet seem to just ignore the fact that the player could have rebuilt the underlying chartacter a bajillion times. So long as his skill points add up we are apparently ok with that concept.

I'm fine with the honour system, seems to work, and so far so good. We can just dice down and play, which is what we came for. I didn't come to play a session of "Audit:The Gathering".

I have limited discretionary leisure time, and PFS has become an attractive option to my group for the fact that we can simply plug and play and no one gets lumped with permanent GM duty, its fun, flexible, and portable. We have no interest in having to wonder if we are about to get a new GM and then have to sit around being audited before we start over and over and over.

All my sheets are kept neat and tidy, happy to provide them to the GM, or any other player at the table, by request... not happy with time wasting.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Shifty,

Again, I had a guy at my table ready to play his 11th level PC two levels below where he should be. I presume that the guy next to him walked right into the convention with a brand new 9th-level character. (I presume this because he had no Chronicle sheets.) Two other players at the same convention had characters who had not leveled up.

The month before, I had player with a 3rd level character. On the one hand, his PCs attributes were an 8-point buy (rather than a 20-point buy). On the other hand, he'd bought a +3 frost greatsword.

Help me understand how correcting things like that is "time wasting". These players aren't going to speak to their local VCs or a good GM during game days or between conventions. If you don't want to see this at the table, during a session like the Guide requires, then when would you suggest someone look these guys over?

4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Wow, those examples you provide Chris certainly show a need auditing process and I think the question is how do we do it in such a way that we still make the process enjoyable?

I guess for high-level play we'd normally expect these issues would have been caught earlier.

Issues like this either occur by accident or perhaps the player has other needs (which they are working through using PFS). The former you will catch at a volunteer audit table, they are usually grateful for any assistance or genuine interest in the PC. It's the other guys/gals for who the audit gets tricky as they get easily defensive etc...

The other concern is time; time in a convention slot is limited vetting the 3 x 9th level characters would have chewed into your game-play time and meant the overall game experience for the rest of the paying table was effected.

I find the first scan I do whilst getting initiative and perception bonuses etc.. I can generally find glaring issues (but it's one other reason I dislike iPads etc..). If i need to go deeper I generally have a chat at the end of the session. (praise in public correct in private and all that).

Dark Archive 4/5

Those are some pretty impressive issues, the most I can say is some people have made errors on leveling (usually by counting from 3 EXP upwards when leveling so they are 1 level behind). I will say on a local level though we tend to help out the players alot more with trying to draw out what their vision of their PC is at level 1 and helping them to realise this vision.

We had a few players who could have drifted into becoming people like the ones Chris has mentioned, but with the support of the Venture Officers and GM's I havent seen a player that couldnt be helped out and learn more about the system.

I would feel bad for the guy who audits my characters, while my bonuses etc are very easy to see, I do tend to average 3 classes per PC, with 1-2 archetypes on each class. Some exceptions to that are my Dragon Disciple and Eldritch Knight who only have 3 classes and no archetypes, my paperwork is pretty well done, I track the use of my consumables on my character sheet (the purchases are tracked on the chronicles though).

We did have 1 player who forgot his chronicle sheets once, however I dont believe it will happen again.

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

Chris,

I am glad that you managed to easily pick up what would have been rather annoying errors, and yet you managed to do this without the aid of a combersome and arbitrary process that every table would be subject to every session. A quick persual probably uncovered those errors, and anything past the quick perusal would probably fall into the category of diminishing returns.

Have I at any stage indicated that a rudimentary glace at a character sheet, especially to allay main concerns is a hassle? No, am I saying that blowing out a bunch of time while we sit about playing 'Audit:The Calculating' is a time waste? Yes.

When I play I expect to turn up and play, not sit about whilst people pull out calculators and grind maths all day.

This is also why I provide a summary/extract of all my info and also do up my characters on the coregen/erian7/bluecanary sheet, as it is neatly laid out and also acts as a 'double checker' for me.

That said, my way of doing things is probably different from the next guy, and this means a GM could have anywhere between four and seven vastly differing layouts and styles to peruse and no comprehensive 'quick' way of doing things.

The only real solution is for the PFS to put out an automated character builder that people can fill and print, much like free Herolab. DO that and I am all ears, short of that I (as a customer) have little interest in being sold a game of sit about and wait for each and every GM at each and every session to do maths. On a full day (3 sessiosn) that could be hours of just sitting around waiting on GM ticks. Worst. Game. Ever.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Shifty, cool.

Incidentally, the guy with the build of 8 and the +3 frost greatsword? HeroLab. (But you're right; it did indeed let me catch those errors easily.)

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

OK thats pretty funny, made me /facepalm :)

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston

Perhaps I'm spoiled, then; I've never been in a situation where I felt a character was entirely impossibly built, one way or another. I have had two characters that were borderline there, but both of them checked out.

How about a quick-audit system? I was just thinking about it, and I think that there are two common mistakes which can easily be checked within a few minutes. It would require two sheets of paper - one with the legal stats on a 20-point buy (arranged from highest to lowest - I know I've seen this list somewhere), and one with the maximum WBL of a character at X level in PFS. Then, just look at the character sheet, add up the value of only the big-ticket items (Enchanted weapons, scrolls of Breath of Life, Headbands/Belts, etc.) If the number is over the maximum WBL, the there is an issue. Doing this sort of very, very cursory audit would take just a few seconds as opposed to the 30 minutes that a full audit would take.

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

I've ONCE seen a character turn up that was an absolute one man wrecking machine of doomstruction that just pretty much rocked up and layeth down the smack on everything... no kidding, turned out this 30 point buildmonster was cheezed out the wazoo and was firing death bolts of doom from the freaking eyes.

My good mate and I, several beers along, just exchanged a knowing raised eyebrow, and when we left we laughed all the way down the street about it.

Not worth getting worked up over, we had tipped the GM off and left it at that.

It's a game.

We also knew that it wouldn't be 'politik' to chip this person for a few reasons, and that just made us laugh harder.

The Exchange 5/5

As I heard someone say on the radio' "Let's do the numbers" -

Let's say we have 6 players at the table - which seems to be what we are shooting for right?

Now it takes at least 5 minutes to do an audit. That would include:
30 secs of "passing over the paperwork (electronic device?)"
1 minute of figureing out the format of the individual PC.
1 minute of looking for the first item to be checked (say the skill perception bonus), and checking the skill. (This will be the first chance that this check runs long. If anything "looks odd" - even if correct - add additional time). Do each of the bonuses here stack? Which chronicle did you buy which item on? Is the math right?
1 minute of checking the total XP and insuring that it has been properly caclulated - was there any chronicles double counted or missed?
1 minute of checking one random magic item to see it was paid for correctly.
30 secs of "passing over the paperwork (electronic device?)".

Repeat for 6 players. Half hour of game time. Over a three day Convention, with 8 game slots, this results in 4 hours of gaming... for 7 people. An entire game... "Please spend one slot of the convention on audits".

And this is if no issues are encountered. We can now rest happy as we have checked 6 PCs for:
1) level
2) a random skill
3) a random magic item

And this has only cost us one gaming session. 4 hours times 7 gamers... 28 game hours. To check 6 PCs for 3 random things. And this is the time cost when everything is correct!

Please check these numbers at your next table... I believe I have underestimated them.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston

Well, that's also a good point, Nosig. Multiplying this out over the course of a convention is a rough thing to do.

The Exchange 5/5

Netopalis wrote:
Well, that's also a good point, Nosig. Multiplying this out over the course of a convention is a rough thing to do.

To put this in terms that we gamers can understand - it's one chronicle in eight. SO, that would be 3 chronicles in 24 - or one PC level in 8. You have a 7th level PC in the game time investement of a 8th level...

And we checked:
1) PC level
2) a random skill
3) a random magic item

That's all.

The Exchange 5/5

DOes this mean we shouldn't do Audits?

Goodness, we need to do something! People are out there with BAD/WRONG PCs!
sorry, that slipped out

But really, I do feel we should do something. Which is why, up thread, I said....

List the Audit like a scenario. Give some sort of boon for it - maybe even just a Tax day boon. Run it like a scenario - the judge gets a chronicle/boon for running one table, the "players" get a chronicle/boon for "playing" and everyone is happy. I could even sit thru this table more than once (once per PC... but I have 10 after all).

I could even do this "in character" - playing it up as a tax audit in Absalom... in the Grand Lodge with my faction head.

This would work, and more important, this would be fun... and in the end, the fun is what this is all about, right?

5/5 5/55/55/5

That's not my idea of fun by a long shot, nor is what i want to devote one of my limited con slots too.

The Exchange 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:

That's not my idea of fun by a long shot, nor is what i want to devote one of my limited con slots too.

so... you would rather spend 1/2 an hour during a regular game reviewing PCs?

Realizing that "the Auditors visit Absalom" would be an event that you could sign up for, or not, but the only other suggestions here are for limited random checks during play sessions (before or after).

And I'm sure that some of us would enjoy going over our PCs in character. I know I'd have fun talking to Grand Master Torch, or the Paracountess, or even the dude in the purple turban, telling him exactly what I have done, and what I can do.

"Trade Prince, my Perception skills? I am able to gain such skill thru training, racial bonus, these Eyes of the Eagle, a boon, and a special Ioun Stone. - all of these things assist me as a Trapsmith, the role I fill during most of my Society Expeditions."

Yeah, it'll take longer to audit that way, in character and all. but you know what?, I kind of like role playing my PCs... that's sort of why I go to games.

5/5 5/55/55/5

nosig wrote:


so... you would rather spend 1/2 an hour during a regular game reviewing PCs?

False Dichotomy. The options are not an in depth audit every session or audit instead of gaming for a slot.

I would much rather keep the current defacto system of giving the character a quick glance to see if something is seriously out of whack or the occasional "how the hell did you do that?" check. Most of the time you won't find anything, when you do find something its probably minor (like a missing hp or skillpoint) that doesn't affect the game. While you do occasionally have a large glaring issue, I don't think a small number of incidents are worth dragging down everyone's fun.

The Exchange 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
nosig wrote:


so... you would rather spend 1/2 an hour during a regular game reviewing PCs?

False Dichotomy. The options are not an in depth audit every session or audit instead of gaming for a slot.

I would much rather keep the current defacto system of giving the character a quick glance to see if something is seriously out of whack or the occasional "how the hell did you do that?" check. Most of the time you won't find anything, when you do find something its probably minor (like a missing hp or skillpoint) that doesn't affect the game. While you do occasionally have a large glaring issue, I don't think a small number of incidents are worth dragging down everyone's fun.

This thread is titled: "Character Audit at large Conventions - a proposal"....

The two proposals I have seen on here are "surprise audits during a regular game" and "the Auditors visit Absalom".

the half hour during the session I was mentioning above IS "the current defacto system of giving the character a quick glance..." when the judge applies it to every PC. A real audit would take MUCH more time, even a partial audit for selected items. I have been in a game at a convention where the judge felt the need to start the session with this "quick glance" check (thankfully almost no judges do this). Each player passed over his PC in turn, the judge glanced over the PCs (I have no idea what he was looking for - if anything). Slightly more than half an hour into the slot, we had finished this and he could open the scenarion and start the briefing. The only result I noticed was that we failed to finish the encounter with the BBE and ran into the next slot (so I arrived at my next table after character introductions - with a chronicle that I had not even looked at).

I have been very careful not to sign up for any games with that judge again. I don't "fear the audit" - just the time waste.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I would much rather keep the current defacto system of giving the character a quick glance to see if something is seriously out of whack or the occasional "how the hell did you do that?" check. Most of the time you won't find anything, when you do find something its probably minor (like a missing hp or skillpoint) that doesn't affect the game. While you do occasionally have a large glaring issue, I don't think a small number of incidents are worth dragging down everyone's fun.

I agree with this for conventions, any larger audit checks should be left for local play.

A quick check just to find jarring large issues takes up very little time for an experienced GM, and many times you will find the smaller issues as well depending on the experience of the GM.

Really I don't see quick audits at conventions as an issue, as long as it is not a thorough audit.

What I really think the issue is, and what we really should be talking about is what a GM should do when he finds an error in a character that would affect the game enough that it needs to be dealt with.

For a convention, there is not enough time to correct such an error and the GM should not hold up the game so one player can fix it, but at the same time if that error would actually affect the game the GM can't allow it to stand as is.

What I have done in the past was to give the option for the player to play a pregen, which has not always gone over well. The vast majority of the time the player will say cool I am good with that get a pregen and move on. I have had times where the player grumbled *Almost always saying "my Home GM has no problems with it"* but grabs a pregen and plays on. Twice i have had a player walk away, once to fix his PC during the slot the other in anger.

I would like to see advice for other options to deal with this issue.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
nosig wrote:
Slightly more than half an hour into the slot

If he took more then 10 minutes he was doing it wrong. What I think most of us that are talking about "quick Audits" at conventions are quick glances that take 5-10 minutes.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Nosig wrote:
the half hour during the session I was mentioning above IS "the current defacto system of giving the character a quick glance..." when the judge applies it to every PC.

5 minutes per character is NOT a quick glance.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

nosig wrote:

This thread is titled: "Character Audit at large Conventions - a proposal"....

The two proposals I have seen on here are "surprise audits during a regular game" and "the Auditors visit Absalom".

A third option would be to just have knowledgeable PFS players available to help out people who would appreciate it. This already happens to some extent, especially if there are HeroLab stations available (thanks, Rob!); if it is well publicized (and it is possible for players to sign up for a known 30-minute time slot) this would go a long way to fixing many of the problems.

Of course it still won't catch the cheaters (who could always bring a different version of the character), nor does it deal with the problem that the players most in need of this sort of help are the least likely to be aware of their shortcomings.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston

After giving it some thought, this "auditors" scenario would unfortunately face a big problem - not enough GMs. It requires a GM on a one-on-one basis, and it also requires only GMs who understand how *every* class works. To be completely honest, I don't feel qualified to audit a level 9 barbarian, because I have yet to build one and play it.

The Exchange 5/5

Dragnmoon wrote:
nosig wrote:
Slightly more than half an hour into the slot
If he took more then 10 minutes he was doing it wrong. What I think most of us that are talking about "quick Audits" at conventions are quick glances that take 5-10 minutes.

10 minutes is less than 120 seconds per player.

1/2 hour is 5 minutes per player.

Try this with 6 players you don't know at a convention, and a timer... 1/2 is closer to how long it takes.

The Exchange 5/5

JohnF wrote:
nosig wrote:

This thread is titled: "Character Audit at large Conventions - a proposal"....

The two proposals I have seen on here are "surprise audits during a regular game" and "the Auditors visit Absalom".

A third option would be to just have knowledgeable PFS players available to help out people who would appreciate it. This already happens to some extent, especially if there are HeroLab stations available (thanks, Rob!); if it is well publicized (and it is possible for players to sign up for a known 30-minute time slot) this would go a long way to fixing many of the problems.

Of course it still won't catch the cheaters (who could always bring a different version of the character), nor does it deal with the problem that the players most in need of this sort of help are the least likely to be aware of their shortcomings.

option three is good! yeah, I could sign up for this too.... Though it will really burn game hours, so it'd be good to give the Auditor a Boon - make him feel good about it. And maybe to the players too, get them a "carrot" to go get an audit done.

The Exchange 5/5

Netopalis wrote:
After giving it some thought, this "auditors" scenario would unfortunately face a big problem - not enough GMs. It requires a GM on a one-on-one basis, and it also requires only GMs who understand how *every* class works. To be completely honest, I don't feel qualified to audit a level 9 barbarian, because I have yet to build one and play it.

I'm not so sure about this.

I picture it as a game table where several players are interacting with the judge and each other.

How'd you get your AC? Show that to the guy beside you.
How are your skill point determined, and do they add up? Show that to the guy beside you.
What kind of magic items do you have on this PC? Show that to the guy beside you.
What's your HP? etc.

This means there is not ONE guy checking the PC, but SEVEN. You don't know barbarians? NP - get the other Barbie player at the table to check him. And you know what? Maybe they will each learn a new trick or two.

"Wait! Why not just wear Mithril Keko armor? It's in the UE, and works great for barbarians!"

"How the heck do you get an AC of 28 at 2nd level?"

"What's your Perception? THIS I got to see, I could use that on my guy!"

You'll have 7 friends talking about things they like - thier PCs. NOT a line of people waiting to see the IRS man.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:
option three is good! yeah, I could sign up for this too.... Though it will really burn game hours, so it'd be good to give the Auditor a Boon - make him feel good about it. And maybe to the players too, get them a "carrot" to go get an audit done.

At our local cons, time spent in duties like this (or manning the main PFS desk) often counts towards qualifying for boons or a free con badge.

I'd rather not train the player base to expect a reward as well as help with their character build; I'd rather have them feel free to approach more experienced players at their game stores for advice (and have the experienced players expect this too, and be prepared to assist). For that matter I'd consider doing this at our FLGS (I'm usually there at least 30 minutes before the game starts). We're planning to run GM 101 there some time, too - perhaps we could offer character build advice at the same time, so there's something for players not quite ready to take on the responsibility of sitting behind the screen.

The Exchange 5/5

JohnF wrote:
nosig wrote:
option three is good! yeah, I could sign up for this too.... Though it will really burn game hours, so it'd be good to give the Auditor a Boon - make him feel good about it. And maybe to the players too, get them a "carrot" to go get an audit done.

At our local cons, time spent in duties like this (or manning the main PFS desk) often counts towards qualifying for boons or a free con badge.

I'd rather not train the player base to expect a reward as well as help with their character build; I'd rather have them feel free to approach more experienced players at their game stores for advice (and have the experienced players expect this too, and be prepared to assist). For that matter I'd consider doing this at our FLGS (I'm usually there at least 30 minutes before the game starts). We're planning to run GM 101 there some time, too - perhaps we could offer character build advice at the same time, so there's something for players not quite ready to take on the responsibility of sitting behind the screen.

Agreed. The "Carrot" for the player comes with the idea that it might be something like the Holiday Boons (minor stuff) and mostly to give a compensation for loosing out on a game slot at a CON. And because the players are actually ALSO doing part of the audit function. Most of the errors found will be from the other pairs of eyes on the PC. Not those of the judge.

"Reason I knew to look for that problem? I had it with 3 of my PCs yestorday! Only fixed it last night!"

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
nosig wrote:

10 minutes is less than 120 seconds per player.

1/2 hour is 5 minutes per player.

Try this with 6 players you don't know at a convention and a timer... 1/2 is closer to how long it takes.

Nosig, if it is taking longer than 10 minutes then it is not a quick audit and you are describing something totally different than what we are recommending for convention play for Audits.

Here is the quick check list for a quick Audit. Granted this does require rule knowledge and GM experience, and if you don't have either of those you should not be auditing other pcs, or just limiting the auditing based on your own experience and knowledge.

Checklist

1. Does the Player have filled out chronicle sheets - I don't care what is on them I just want to do a quick thumb through to see if they are there and the majority are filled out and a quick count maybe.
2. Tracking encumbrance? Too many players skip this and it is a big deal, losing 10 ft. can make or break a combat especially for martial characters.
3. Abilities scores look good? This is where experience comes in, an experienced GM can just glance at the scores and see if they are odd (High/low)
4. Quick look at Magic items, for anything that may beyond the cost of the PC. Once again experience needed to have a general idea what is expensive or not.
5. Cursory glance for class specific abilities (alignment restrictions, Deity restrictions stuff like that)
6. Cursory glance at everything else - I don't care what is there I just care if it is there.
7. You might have picked up other stuff during cursory glances.

That is mostly it, I might have missed a few things that I might do if it is going quickly.

That will take less than 10 minutes for 6 players.

Things that will slow you down.

Poorly organized characters sheet will kill this process. If you come with a character written on scratch paper I will skip most of the above and just see if issues pop up during the game.

Problems! If I see a problem in any of the above then I have to ask questions, in general you just accept the answers giving. Remember you are not trying to catch cheater you are trying to help players. Now if the answer is not satisfactory and the issue will not cause problems during the game, you give a quick explanation on how the character can fix it later and move on.

If the problem will cause problems during the game then what you will do depends on what the problem is and what the fix is.

In general unless there is an extreme case the above will be 5-10 minutes for 6 players.

It took me longer to type this up then it would have to do the audit.

Other GMs may have different checklists, depending on their experience or what they find important. But a proper audit check at a convention as described above is quick.
You also need to know when not to run the Audit. If the game is starting late, then skip the audit. If you have already done an audit on a player and his stuff was straight before most likely his stuff will be straight on his other PCs, skip him. This last bit is a bit harder to explain, and not every person will be able to do this. Sometimes you can just tell when a player by the initial table talk if they don’t need an audit, if a player falls under that category, do an even shorter version of the above.

The Exchange 5/5

Dragnmoon wrote:
nosig wrote:

10 minutes is less than 120 seconds per player.

1/2 hour is 5 minutes per player.

Try this with 6 players you don't know at a convention and a timer... 1/2 is closer to how long it takes.

Nosig, if it is taking longer than 10 minutes then it is not a quick audit and you are describing something totally different than what we are recommending for convention play for Audits.

Here is the quick check list for a quick Audit. Granted this does require rule knowledge and GM experience, and if you don't have either of those you should not be auditing other pcs, or just limiting the auditing based on your own experience and knowledge.

Checklist

1. Does the Player have filled out chronicle sheets - I don't care what is on them I just want to do a quick thumb through to see if they are there and the majority are filled out and a quick count maybe.
2. Tracking encumbrance? Too many players skip this and it is a big deal, losing 10 ft. can make or break a combat especially for martial characters.
3. Abilities scores look good? This is where experience comes in, an experienced GM can just glance at the scores and see if they are odd (High/low)
4. Quick look at Magic items, for anything that may beyond the cost of the PC. Once again experience needed to have a general idea what is expensive or not.
5. Cursory glance for class specific abilities (alignment restrictions, Deity restrictions stuff like that)
6. Cursory glance at everything else - I don't care what is there I just care if it is there.
7. You might have picked up other stuff during cursory glances.

That is mostly it, I might have missed a few things that I might do if it is going quickly.

That will take less than 10 minutes for 6 players.

Things that will slow you down.

Poorly organized characters sheet will kill this process. If you come with a character written on scratch paper I will skip most of the above and just see if issues pop up during the game.

Problems! If I see a problem in any of the...

Are you saying you check those 7 items on 6 players in less than 10 minutes? or less than 10 minutes each?

I know I could not check 7 items (some as general as "...class specific abilities (alignment restrictions, Deity restrictions...)" on a strangers PC in less than 2 minutes - realizing that he is going to be handing me a binder/folder/iPad and I will have no idea how he has his PC organized. And I need to check these things and hand him his PC back across the table and do it in less than 120 seconds?

You are plainly a better judge than me. There is no way I am even going to attempt this.

I could not check those 7 items on 6 of my own PCs in less than 10 minutes. Just pulling the PCs out and ready for review is going to run 30 seconds each - which would be 3 of the 10 minutes.

Has anyone timed an audit like this at a convention table? As I said above, the only time I have encountered this it ran over half an hour prior to play.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I am saying I can do that for 6 players in 10 minutes, not 10 minutes each.

If you can't do that, reduce it to what you can. Just do a quick look to make sure the Chronicle sheets are good, or whatever you feel comfortable with. Figure out what you can do in 10 minutes and do that. Whatever it is will be helpful for the players, which is the goal.

Remember the goal is to do it quick and be helpful, if you are not doing either or especially if it is not helpful you need to adjust it.

And for me since I am meticulous in how I organize my characters, if a player does it like me it is even quicker.

5/5 5/55/55/5

The real time saver is that, unlike the mission briefing, you can do it for the first guy getting there and then get the players as they come in.

The Exchange 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
The real time saver is that, unlike the mission briefing, you can do it for the first guy getting there and then get the players as they come in.

where I game, normally the last guy to land at the table is the judge.

The Exchange

Netopalis wrote:
Look, nobody's required to fill out the online stats. It's not part of the reporting process. I haven't done it on most of my characters, nor have I updated it on the one character that I have done it for. It's just not that important, frankly. Those who have theirs filled out to the nth degree are likely involved in PbP. You should in no way consider the online profiles to be indicative of relative PC strengths or levels of organization.

My we like to argue, don't we?

All I tried to do was to provide a statistically valid measure of how big this problem really is.

I had to use publicly available data, and I had to restrict it to something that I could accurately measure or estimate.

Every character in my sample was taken from PFS Faction Boards, where presumably the players who are posting "in character" are using characters who are legal for PFS play (20 point build).

The only things that were actually measured were

1) Are there any stats at all?
2) Are the stats acheivable with a 20 point build? Only race and level were both taken into account when making this assessment.

The results were

1) 30% don't provide data (just like you)
2) 65% provide data that is consistent with a 20 point build, including their race modifiers and their level bumps.
3) less than 5% have questionable stats (which does not necessarily mean they cheated)

So your conclusion about my survey is faulty. Most people (2 out of 3 anyway) DO post stats that seem to be consistent with the character they are playing.

As far as the profiles having direct relevance to game play, they don't.
As far as my having access to character sheets to do more in depth or accurate analysis, I don't.

We're talking statistics here, and they are only worth what you believe them to be worth. In this case, I believe that their value is limited to ...

"Less than 5% of your players should have a character that you need to spend any significant amount of time auditing."

Now let's talk about the time involved. I did this entire assessment of 25+ characters in less than 30 minutes, or approximately 1 minute per character.

The same assessment done pre-game at a con scenario with 6 players would take about 6 minutes. Based on my "survey", if I were GM, and was checking character sheets for these players,the following mayhem would ensue:

1) 2 players would be told that their papers weren't in order (this is the 30% with no profile data). I would tell them they had to take a pre-gen.
2) 3 players would be told they were "good to go".
3) If I run 5 games during the con, then 4 games out of 5, the last player would be "good to go". In one game, I would have a question about that character, and would have to decide, based on their answer, whether they were "good to go", or had to take a pre-gen. About half the time, they would probably be "good to go".

Now, before you can say it...

I would assume that the first 2 players are actually not likely to exist, because I agree with your point that a lot of people don't post stats on these boards due to the lack of "game relevance", and these people would most likely show up to a con with fully developed characters that would, in all probability, be "good to go".

Without any accurate data to go on, and just from a "gut feel" perspective, I would guess that the number of people who WOULD show up with more or less "blank" character" is about the same as those who show up with a "questionable" character.

So my estimate as to the severity of this problem is that you should have about 4 "problem" characters in 5 games, or about 1 per game, and half of these problems will result in a "good to go" ruling after adequate justication is provided, and the other half will result in a "take a pre-gen" ruling.

On some other board, I saw someone mention that they were running a local event with 28 tables. At an event that size, I would predict

1) 168 players max.
2) 16 players with problem characters
3) 8 of those problems would go away after the GM questioned the player and received accpetable justification for the "anomaly"
4) 4 or more of the remaining problems would result in the player accepting a pre-gen (maybe with some grumbling)
5) Less than 4 players would miss out on a game because they refused to take a pre-gen.

If you want to do audits at a con, then you direct anybody who has a problem with a GM's "take a pre-gen" ruling to be audited at a "Special Help" desk. They won't get to play, but THEY decided not to opt for the pre-gen so they COULD play. Of course, they could always do BOTH: take the pregen, and then get their character audited AFTER the game.

The GM at a con should NOT have to do any actual in-depth auditing either before or after the game. The staff required to do audits at a con should not be extensive (1 person at a 28 table con should be enough), and you can always opt not to do it at all, because the GM's "take a pre-gen" ruling can not and should not be overturned even if an in-depth audit shows that the chatacter was totally legal. After any in-depth audit, and any modifications required by said audit, the player should get a Chronicle page that will give his character a "good to go" stamp of approval for any later game slots at that con.

Finally, I would like to end this particular argument so that we can move on, so I give you a quote from Mark Twain:

"There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, damn lies, and statistics."

This is all statistics, and the results are only as good as the assumptions and the data.

I have provided my data sources and comparison methods. I believe that I am making conservative assumptions and I have limited my predictions to items that the quality of my data can support. I could be off by a factor of 2, which just means that at a con with 28 tables and 168 players, you get less than 8 unhappy campers instead of less than 4.

My solutions to this problem are still arguable, so if you wish to continue this discussion, then discuss the proposed process involving the GM rulings and sudit outcomes. Are these methods acheivable, and does the size of the problem justify the effort required to solve it?

251 to 300 of 309 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / Character Audit at large Conventions - a proposal All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.