Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bug your GM. They technically aren't required to report them, but it is greatly appreciated by Paizo and the players if they do. As long as you've got the chronicle sheets for them, you're covered. Those are the official records of play, not the website. If you can't get your GM to report them, you can contact Joe Caubo, who is the Venture-Captain for Online Play.
The games you played were a week ago; larger events often take longer than that to be reported.
Ugh, I just know the comment I'm about to make in response to yours will not go over well but here goes:
The size of the event should have no bearing on how promptly events are reported. At a convention, there should be one or two people whose sole job is reporting events.
For LGS or private game nights, there's even less of an excuse. Since anyone can report an event, there's no reason why individual GMs can't or shouldn't report their own tables. If "location" or "event" is a huge deal, have the local GMs report under identical event titles. It takes three minutes to report an event, time I know people have because I seem my own GMs stand around prattling when they could take the moment to report the event and go back to their chats. Instead players wait weeks to months before seeing the event reported. There's even less of an excuse in online play because the GM already has internet connection and may well be on Paizo's website for the PRD or something.
While online reporting isn't vital, it helps Paizo keep their own sets of statistics and records regarding the outcome of scenarios and it helps players keep track of their characters. People don't always (for numerous reasons) have all their certs on them; it's nice to have all events reported in a timely fashion for when someone says, "Hey, I'm looking to run Goblinblood Dead next week; have you played it?" A quick look online can tell you that information instead of the standard, "Maybe, I'll have to check; I'll get a hold of you later."
Reporting is easy, and a common courtesy; there is no reasonable reason as to why events can't get reported in a timely manner.
Otherwise, to the OP, reporting isn't mandatory. If it's something important to you for whatever reason, contact your GM or event coordinator, requesting that the event be reported. Having a "good" reason may expedite the reporting process. It could be a long time before your find your events reported; my August sessions weren't reported until early October, for example. Patience may help you here.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The size of the event should have no bearing on how promptly events are reported. At a convention, there should be one or two people whose sole job is reporting events.
Get home, unpack, go back to work, recover from con crud, deal with missing numbers, track down sheets not filled in, prep for next weeks game..... plenty of things to do before reporting.
You're waiting for an unpayed person to do boring secretarial work for you. You get what you pay for.
The size of the event should have no bearing on how promptly events are reported. At a convention, there should be one or two people whose sole job is reporting events.Get home, unpack, go back to work, recover from con crud, deal with missing numbers, track down sheets not filled in, prep for next weeks game..... plenty of things to do before reporting.
You're waiting for an unpayed person to do boring secretarial work for you. You get what you pay for.
Which is why conventions should have someone as the designated reporter. At the end of each session, the table GMs hand in the slips to the person in charge of reporting, and things get quickly and easily taken care of. All slips go on one event, all numbers get reported. Numbers shouldn't be missing, as otherwise how could the GM fill in the cert and there wasn't ample time for anything to get lost. If there's an issue regarding fame/prestige earned or mission completion (A, B, C, or D), the event is still fresh in the GMs mind, so there's much less guessing involved. And the longer the GM waits, the more he forgets and is likely to make mistakes in reporting, so the instantaneous reporting is especially vital.
Report each table as it's run; it takes just a couple minutes. I GM, too so I know reporting it boring, seemingly inconsequential, and just a bunch of numbers on a page, but it's not hard to do and it's a service to both the players and the GM.
Which is why conventions should have someone as the designated reporter.Are you volunteering? I can't think of a more tedious and soul-destroying way to spend a convention.
I volunteer to report local sessions so that they get reported within an hour of completion. Locally we do have a handful of people who are more than willing to do reports en masse at conventions. It's really helpful.
It's not soul-destroying, although possibly tedious, but it doesn't take very long. In half an hour some six-ten tables could be reported, leaving four hours for that person to go and do something else. If it's a large convention, have more than one person report.
And yes, I would volunteer to do so at a convention as I already do so for PFS event nights; I value the reporting process.
Which is why conventions should have someone as the designated reporterThats one less person Dming. Not worth it.
Not all people want to GM, nor are all people good at it but they still may want to help out with the PFS games. If you're not taking from your GM pool, it's not one less person judging the game.
|
|
Not all people want to GM, nor are all people good at it but they still may want to help out with the PFS games. If you're not taking from your GM pool, it's not one less person judging the game.
No one wants to drive 4 hours to a convention, spend money on gas, food, and hotels, to sit there and do data entry just to satisfy someone's need to have a web page display largely redundant information NOOOOOOWWW!. Its ludicrous.
Not all people want to GM, nor are all people good at it but they still may want to help out with the PFS games. If you're not taking from your GM pool, it's not one less person judging the game.No one wants to drive 4 hours to a convention, spend money on gas, food, and hotels, to sit there and do data entry just to satisfy someone's need to have a web page display largely irrelevant information NOOOOOOWWW!. Its ludicrous.
If you live where the convention occurs, what's the loss? There's still plenty of time between sessions to go and do things, there's no extravagant money on gas/hotels, and the convention may even have particular "awards" to volunteers (free soda, discounted badge, et cetera). I understand that this varies from convention to convention, but they exist; I've participated in them and reaped the benefits. The person doesn't even have to be the same from slot to slot; there can be shifts, especially if someone's table didn't make or if someone has an empty hour with nothing else to do. Conventions boast more than just out-of-town people. And if you haven't asked for the service, how crazy is it? You may find people are more amenable to taking turns at being the designated reporter than you previously conceived.
|
|
Sorry downer, but yes, I don't think you will find not a lot of sympathy around that here. I honestly mean that with no offense to you. Your standards are higher than what most of us will consider acceptable for the campaign.
For one, since the official record of the games are your chronicle sheets then the priority of reporting games shifts down a bit. Like BNW said, con organizers have other things to do besides sitting down at a computer typing them in for hours. Yes, hours (YMMV based on size, of course).
Honestly, if I was a con organizer, we were set on number of GMs and players and the HQ table manned and someone came up wanting to volunteer to SOLELY to punch in tables, then hallelujah, you they are a better person than me. They would be welcome to do so. But I think those people will be few and far between.
Honestly, I have a bit of experience with this. Most of the time the person manning the table will start on day 1 to enter as you go, then midnight slots roll around, those dont get reported until the morning. But then the morning rolls around, and you have to get the 8am tables running. And it just backs up a bit.
|
IF there is a person who WANTS to do what you say downer...GREAT. I haven't seen somebody like you at the cons I went to however...and I know the con organizers would have LOVED to do less data entry so, it's not like they would turn the help down. You my friend are a rarity and your local area and your local con organizers are lucky to have you...however, other areas are not so lucky...so we muddle through with our week long of waiting for data entry. Hell a good chunk of my games aren't reported at all (some of our local organizers have been bad in the past...or have had some bad luck).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I value the reporting process.
I agree that the reporting process is important, but I don't agree that it's urgent.
If the players and GM have filled out the session sheet fully, then it doesn't matter one bit if the reporting is done within two minutes or two weeks.
But I think those people will be few and far between.
Then our [local] group must be a rare enough breed. I can think of four local people who are either willing or have historically been in charge of record keeping.
What possible reason is there to need the reporting done now?
Honestly I can come up with several reasons:
Player's character died in a scenario one month ago, but because it hasn't been reported and the person is less than honest, the character is still played unchecked.Player can't remember all the things he has played, even as little as a week ago (no really, I've seen this one more than once), but doesn't have any or all of his certs with him because he planned for one specific character or the GM is planning future game nights. Looking online for all the events he played quickly solves that problem.
Player didn't remember playing in something (right through the very end) and received credit for it. This causes his character to level prematurely and illegally. Prompt reporting alleviates this problem because it flags repeat scenarios, which allows the GM to contact the player about the situation.
These are all likely situations, especially as I've witnessed them, that may otherwise go unnoticed and cause massive headaches later if a GM doesn't take the three minutes to report some scenario.
|
|
Player's character died in a scenario one month ago, but because it hasn't been reported and the person is less than honest, the character is still played unchecked.
All you need to do to get away with that is register a new character with the same name. Or heck, a different name. Nothing in the reporting tells you whether the character was legal for a table or not. I know i've messed up the PFS number of my different characters before, no one notices, especially a reporter thats not the DM .
Player can't remember all the things he has played, even as little as a week ago (no really, I've seen this one more than once), but doesn't have any or all of his certs with him because he planned for one specific character or the GM is planning future game nights. Looking online for all the events he played quickly solves that problem.
Thats a large part of what the blurbs are for.
Player didn't remember playing in something (right through the very end) and received credit for it. This causes his character to level prematurely and illegally. Prompt reporting alleviates this problem because it flags repeat scenarios, which allows the GM to contact the player about the situation.
Only if you're reporting the game before its played, during the mission briefing, which no one does. This isn't a solution- at least partially because people get shuffled around the tables a bit for the first few minutes.
All you need to do to get away with that is register a new character with the same name. Or heck, a different name. Nothing in the reporting tells you whether the character was legal for a table or not. I know i've messed up the PFS number of my different characters before, no one notices, especially a reporter thats not the DM.
Meh, I won't even argue that point as it's you're right. I know there have been times when I've pondered how people could manipulate or circumvent the system.
Thats a large part of what the blurbs are for.
When the blurb fails to accurately represent the encounter, when it's been three years (or a week...) since the encounter was played, when the GM was especially horrible, or when the player paid little attention to the story line, blurbs mean nothing. I prepped Decline of Glory having NO idea I had played it two months prior. The GM for it is notoriously sub-par, and as I read it, nothing about the scenario seemed familiar. It happens.
Only if you're reporting the game before its played, during the mission briefing, which no one does. This isn't a solution- at least partially because people get shuffled around the tables a bit for the first few minutes.
But if you're not allowed credit for the same scenario twice (barring all those GM things), then how/why should a player receive that cert and credit again because he didn't recognize it? Saying "I don't remember any of this so I still get the cert and credit because I played it again" seems like an easy way around the whole no-replay ruling.
|
|
Meh, I won't even argue that point as it's right.
On the internet? *keels over* :)
I know there have been times when I've pondered how people could manipulate or circumvent the system.
Yeah, off the top of my head there's at least 12 easier ways, none of which they probably want listed here.
When the blurb fails to accurately represent the encounter, when it's been three years (or a week...)
This is, specifically, you wanting the scenarios reported very quickly. I will admit that the reporting system has been handy for looking up stuff run a long time ago.
But if you're not allowed credit for the same scenario twice (barring all those GM things), then how/why should a player receive that cert and credit again because he didn't recognize it?
They shouldn't, but I'm guessing that the player that would forget they ran a scenario last week and the player that would check the reporting system website to see if they've played something is a pretty small overlap.
You have to separate out here the problem and your solution to it: your solution doesn't suddenly eliminate all of the problem.
Saying "I don't remember any of this so I still get the cert and credit because I played it again" seems like an easy way around the whole no-replay ruling.
And how does next day reporting stop that?
On the internet? *keels over* :)
Man, I'm not out for blood or anything; your posts are typically some of the most intelligent and witty ones I see here on the forum.
You have to separate out here the problem and your solution to it: your solution doesn't suddenly eliminate all of the problem.
Honestly, I'm not sure what you mean here; would you please clarify?
And how does next day reporting stop that?
"Hey So-and-So, according to Paizo's website you played last night's scenario on 15 June 2012, so this probably means all the stuff you garnered from the encounter is stripped from the character," is a quick email, and I assume the player would accept the cert restated for no experience, prestige, or gold, as if he replayed to fill out a table in the most recent guide. I otherwise haven't seen or heard guidelines for this situation. If he was running off to play his character elsewhere, and was an honest fellow, then I assume he would remove the numeric boons and essentially continue as if he hadn't played through the encounter.
|
|
On the internet? *keels over* :)Man, I'm not out for blood or anything; your posts are typically some of the most intelligent and witty ones I see here on the forum.
...we're hosed.
Honestly, I'm not sure what you mean here; would you please clarify?
X is a problem. Y is a solution. Therefore we should do Y
vs.
X is a problem. Y is a solution that will stop a very low percentage of X. Therefore do Y.
[Reporting of scenarios] helps to stop [replays] if you check the website.
[Fast reporting] doesn't stop all replays. It only stops [replays in between fast reporting and normal reporting speeds]. It doesn't even stop all replays in between fast reporting and normal reporting. It only stops replays in between fast reporting and normal reporting IF someone checks the website. (read the next section first and then see if this makes more sense)
"Hey So-and-So, according to Paizo's website you played last night's scenario on 15 June 2012, so this probably means all the stuff you garnered from the encounter is stripped from the character,"
To the best of my knowledge I cannot look at anyone's play history but my own.
I know I get a warning "player previously played scenario on....." in my play history if I replay murder's mark (which you can do), or one case at a con where there was some sign up sheet confusion, but to the best of my knowledge nothing flags it on the DM's end when that happens.
So the only thing this will stop is player error IF they check their own play history AND they try to replay the same scenario in a week. That strikes me as an incredibly rare confluence of events to worry about. It stops a rather rare player error, not cheating.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's about prioritizing - at a con there's so much that needs done & having someone working at a job that can easily be done after the event ties up volunteer-hours that could be used elsewhere - or takes someone away from enjoying what they're there for: enjoying the con.
As a frequent con volunteer & local game day organizer there are only a set number of hours during an event & I'm not going to allocate any of them to doing something that can wait until it's over. I pay money to attend cons & still rarely get to see much except for the PFS room.
I'm not saying you're wrong if you want to do this & have the resources - I'm sure the players appreciate it. Just make sure you're using the volunteers wisely - maybe have them available for beginner questions or character creation, bring water to the GM's, wander around the rest of the con handing out flyers, etc.
|
|
The games you played were a week ago; larger events often take longer than that to be reported.The size of the event should have no bearing on how promptly events are reported. At a convention,conere should be one or two people whose sole job is reporting events.
Please please live in Indiana...
As a coordinator at con's sometimes all the time is used up.
If you ever want to volunteer for reporting events at a con talk to the co-ordinator. If you plan to go to GenCon ask to report all the events. Something like 200 a slot for 10 slots...
|
|
That's unrealistic, but even having one person reporting during the con would speed up reporting after the con. I get where downer's coming from. It's much easier to fix mistakes when the players/GM is still around. At a gameday, they may all be there next week (or not) or you may have their email (or not). At a con, that all becomes much less likely. Something as simple as a transposed or illegible number means the player doesn't get reported for weeks, months, or ever.
Maybe Mike or John could tell us how important this data is to them, and how soon they would prefer to have it reported?
...we're hosed.
We're hosed over some level of respect and agreement on the internet? What's the world coming to? I'd rather debate than argue any day. Apparently though, "Internet agreements are the first sign of the apocalypse."
[Fast reporting] doesn't stop all replays. It only stops [replays in between fast reporting and normal reporting speeds]. It doesn't even stop all replays in between fast reporting and normal reporting. It only stops replays in between fast reporting and normal reporting IF someone checks the website. (read the next section first and then see if this makes more sense)
To the best of my knowledge I cannot look at anyone's play history but my own.
No, it doesn't stop all replays, but it can help to keep players honest. I agree it's not an ideal solution, but it is a good place to start as it lets players know that they are accountable for their characters. Reporting in general shouldn't be a policing mechanism, but it does serve as one.
I dislike that examples of accurate/fast reporting are somewhat isolated cases, too. They provide examples of why/how reporting is vital, but probably only represent a small demographic of players (in the case of the guy who didn't "realize" that his signed and dated certs were vital for his characters' legal statuses... I'm sure he's isn't the first one to discard his certs; reports at least create a digital chronicle of his, and others, characters' adventures.). A better solution to reporting accurately and timely would be ideal, but I don't believe that's high on Paizo's concern list when the certs take priority.
The bit about not looking at anyone's play history is true, however in the report section Paizo flags replays. I had a player run through the same scenario twice (not a tier 1-2), and when I looked at the reported session roster I was able to see exactly when he played it.
If you ever want to volunteer for reporting events at a con talk to the co-ordinator. If you plan to go to GenCon ask to report all the events. Something like 200 a slot for 10 slots...
I didn't for the last local con since I volunteered to GM all the slots and someone else was already assigned to take care of all the reporting. My "attendance" at Gen Con is "weird." For the past two years I've participated in the road trip and finances, but I haven't attended. Unless I volunteer, I really don't care to go and pay $x to pay another $y to do something I otherwise do for free, i.e. play PFS. Also I absolutely shut down when I have to interact with/hear/see scores of people. Spending time huddled in a corner, typing in numbers, and not talking to people sounds far more enjoyable than facing con-goers.
From my boyfriend, who also makes the drive, "I wouldn't mind taking a shift to report, then a shift to GM, and then one to play."
There are people out there who seriously don't mind sitting and typing in numbers.
That's unrealistic, but even having one person reporting during the con would speed up reporting after the con. I get where downer's coming from. It's much easier to fix mistakes when the players/GM is still around. At a gameday, they may all be there next week (or not) or you may have their email (or not). At a con, that all becomes much less likely. Something as simple as a transposed or illegible number means the player doesn't get reported for weeks, months, or ever.
Maybe Mike or John could tell us how important this data is to them, and how soon they would prefer to have it reported?
One person is better than no people, since reporting's like cleaning: the more you have to do, the less likely it is to be done, and the harder it is when you finally get around to doing it. At conventions, GMs forget to fill out parts of the cert, players write poorly, and yes, having at least part of the table still around to answer questions does help the reporting process significantly. "Did all the tables side with box A or did some go box B?" is easier to answer when it's still fresh in the GM's memory.
It would be good to Mike or John's opinions on reporting and its vitality. Until then, I'll continue to treat it as a courtesy to the players at my tables.
|
|
No, it doesn't stop all replays, but it can help to keep players honest
How?
If this stopped ONE replay i would be shocked.
For fast reporting to stop the replay
1) the replay has to happen in a week and
2) the person replaying has to check their play history. and
3) the person replaying can't check their chronicles for some reason
or
the reporting has to happen in 4 hours of game starting... when the DM CAN"T report all of the information because all of the information isn't there yet. You would have to report it twice- once with everyones number, and then once with prestige gained, people deadified and what happened storywise.
The person who can't remember having played a scenario before isn't likely to check the website.
You'd stop WAY more replays with that much manpower going into DMing more tables. (opportunity costs and all that)
You'd stop WAY more replays with that much manpower going into DMing more tables. (opportunity costs and all that)
I don't understand how DMing more tables will stop replays. All the scenarios start to run together after a while, unless you mean DM more tables of new scenarios only.
We place a heavy emphasis on the binding power of certs, but I think the only time players look at them is when they're looking for a saving throw to reduce the likelihood of dying. When that's going on, I doubt people read the names of the scenarios, and then they're only looking through one character's portfolio of certs. When players sign up for tables, especially after they say, "No, I haven't played that one before," and then proceed to either repeat the scenario or bow out some time after the game started because they finally remember the scenario, it tells me the players did not look through their possibly unkempt or unavailable history of chronicles. If reporting was done swifter and more accurate, then players (with all of their fancy, newfangled internet ready devices) could rely on their reported sessions to determine whether or not they sit at a table. If, in checking their sessions reported, players note irregularities, discrepancies, or delayed postings then they're less likely to trust their histories and opt to not reference them at all.
Building confidence in online reporting can lead to players being more accountable for their abilities to participate in or at various tables.
|
|
I don't understand how DMing more tables will stop replays.
The chances of accidentally walking into a replay on a given slot decrease with each scenario per slot.
Your proposed solution is an enormous outlay of effort that will do nothing to solve the a problem that isn't really that serious to start with. People don't check which scenarios they've played because they're lazy or they think that they're allowed to replay with different characters, not because they lack confidence in the reporting system or the systems turn over is too long.
Don't worry about it. If you have a chronicle you're good.
Pretty much this.
There are missing scenarios and fame numbers that are inaccurate for my characters on the website. I've come to accept that is just how it is. It would be great if your chronicles and the information online coincided, but it's not something that is mandatory.
Your chronicle sheets are what truly matter, and as long as you have those, you are golden.
|
|
The games you played were a week ago; larger events often take longer than that to be reported.Ugh, I just know the comment I'm about to make in response to yours will not go over well but here goes:
The size of the event should have no bearing on how promptly events are reported. At a convention, there should be one or two people whose sole job is reporting events.
[...]
Reporting is easy, and a common courtesy; there is no reasonable reason as to why events can't get reported in a timely manner.
What do you do when an incorrect player number in a session blocks you from saving the report?*
I've got one session with an unreadable number or incorrectly written number or maybe a new player number that has not yet registered. At any rate, there's something wrong with the session and I can't submit the report from my event. And since it was an event, I don't have any way of contacting the players or even any confidence I will run across them at a weekly games night. (I didn't GM that session, so I don't even know if the players are local.)
So I'll publicly apologize to the players on this session, but until I get through puzzling out which number is broken, that session won't be reported. That process might take longer if I think I have a shot at figuring out what is wrong with the number and getting it corrected. Oh, and if your number is the one that's wrong, I'm sorry about that, too.
In larger events, the odds of getting mistakes like this go way, way up. It's not always a question of "lazy event coordinators who just don't report things"...
*I keep thinking there's got to be some "override and submit it anyway" command, but I haven't found one. Any suggestions?
|
If you live where the convention occurs, what's the loss? There's still plenty of time between sessions to go and do things, there's no extravagant money on gas/hotels, and the convention may even have particular "awards" to volunteers (free soda, discounted badge, et cetera).
The big issue I have with this, of the 6 local conventions I have played/run PFS, 1 has had free internet, 4 have had wifi for sale at an hourly/daily rate which would approach $50 for the day each day, and the last had no internet available, and no cell service, meaning that we couldn't even use someone's 3g/4g hotspot to get internet. So in these cases 1/6 could have events reported at the convention. Add to the fact that many slots the 'front table' staff have been forced to run events because of attendance.
My PFS character is shown as having no sessions posted. However, I have played him in three PFS online Voip games. How to I report those sessions or get them reported?
If one of them is for Quill (Stolen Heir), I can at least let you know that I submitted the reporting sheet to the con organizer same day. I still have all the info if I need to send it to a VC later, but I was just giving the organizer some time.
|
|
What do you do when an incorrect player number in a session blocks you from saving the report?*
I've got one session with an unreadable number or incorrectly written number or maybe a new player number that has not yet registered. At any rate, there's something wrong with the session and I can't submit the report from my event. And since it was an event, I don't have any way of contacting the players or even any confidence I will run across them at a weekly games night. (I didn't GM that session, so I don't even know if the players are local.)
So I'll publicly apologize to the players on this session, but until I get through puzzling out which number is broken, that session won't be reported. That process might take longer if I think I have a shot at figuring out what is wrong with the number and getting it corrected. Oh, and if your number is the one that's wrong, I'm sorry about that, too.
In larger events, the odds of getting mistakes like this go way, way up. It's not always a question of "lazy event coordinators who just don't report things"...
*I keep thinking there's got to be some "override and submit it anyway" command, but I haven't found one. Any suggestions?
Honestly, if it was a game I ran, as long as the table is legal without the person whose number is unreadable I would report the session without that person, make every reasonable attempt to figure out that person's PFS number, and if successful I would fix it later. Other players shouldn't have to wait because one person is not capable of writing legibly.
The chances of accidentally walking into a replay on a given slot decrease with each scenario per slot.
Your proposed solution is an enormous outlay of effort that will do nothing to solve the a problem that isn't really that serious to start with. People don't check which scenarios they've played because they're lazy or they think that they're allowed to replay with different characters, not because they lack confidence in the reporting system or the systems turn over is too long.
And yet, even when we run seasons 0-5, we still have players forgetting what they've played or never even knowing what they played because no one really said, "You're playing Devil We Know Part Blah."
Regardless, we have people who do use use their Paizo account to check what they can play before they look at their certs. Regional differences from you, or something. So I'm going to at least respect our differing opinions on how important it is to report and you can have the last word. I think I've beaten the dead horse enough, but I'll continue to uphold a high standard in online reporting. It's appreciated and expected among our group.
What do you do when an incorrect player number in a session blocks you from saving the report?*
What UndeadMitch said. Report all you can, and do you best to get the illegible player's information.
Turns out I got to hang out with Terry Pratchett and Guy Gavriel Kay (who both remembered me by name years later), find out about upcoming game developments a year ahead and get all my books signed ahead of everyone else.
I've never had an any experience this good, but I've always been happy I volunteered instead of "attending" conventions.
|
|
Regardless, we have people who do use use their Paizo account to check what they can play before they look at their certs. So I'm going to at least respect our differing opinions on how important it is to report and you can have the last word.
Argh. Look. Its not binary. Its not "no reporting!" or "report before the game!" (which is what you'd actually need to do to prevent replays) Which isn't something I think you've heard, at all.
I'd rather see a higher standard in players being semi conscious and DM's competently running a scenario so that the player can remember what scenario's they've run for an whole week. The scenarios ARE being reported from big events. If you can't remember what you ran last year that's understandable. If you can't remember what you ran last week that's your problem, and not one that needs to be solved by doubling the boring data entry part of organized play.
If you want a more workable solution? Try handing out three ring binders, or maybe coffee and ginkgo biloba.
|
|
Regardless, we have people who do use use their Paizo account to check what they can play before they look at their certs. So I'm going to at least respect our differing opinions on how important it is to report and you can have the last word.Argh. Look. Its not binary. Its not "no reporting!" or "report before the game!" (which is what you'd actually need to do to prevent replays) Which isn't something I think you've heard, at all.
I'd rather see a higher standard in players being semi conscious and DM's competently running a scenario so that the player can remember what scenario's they've run for an whole week. The scenarios ARE being reported from big events. If you can't remember what you ran last year that's understandable. If you can't remember what you ran last week that's your problem, and not one that needs to be solved by doubling the boring data entry part of organized play.
If you want a more workable solution? Try handing out three ring binders, or maybe coffee and ginkgo biloba.
Can you be a bit more clear here? How is there any correlation whatsoever between GM's reporting scenarios and "players being semi-conscious"? Or, for that matter, a GM running a scenario in a competent fashion?
GM's should report things in a timely manner. I can understand if it's not always the same day as the event being run, but it should at least be reported within a few days. Within the past month, the only events I've played that have been reported were because of two local GM's reporting and taking the time to help other people report. There's one GM in my area that hasn't reported any of the games he's run in the past two months, that's simply unacceptable. Reporting takes two minutes, it's not that bloody hard.
"If you want a more workable solution? Try handing out three ring binders, or maybe coffee and ginkgo biloba."
Really, you had to end your rambling, semi-coherent rant by mocking someone you disagree with that has gone out and said they respect you? Nice one, bro! [/sarcasm]
|
|
Can you be a bit more clear here? How is there any correlation whatsoever between GM's reporting scenarios and "players being semi-conscious"? Or, for that matter, a GM running a scenario in a competent fashion?
Downer suggests there is a problem with people replaying the scenario within same week, going so far as to replay the entire scenario without realizing it. She either wants same day or even same hour reporting to prevent such replays.
If you can go through the entire scenario and not realize you did that last week, either the DM is changing a LOT of stuff in the scenario, you were asleep for the scenario, or what mom said about pot and your memory is... wait what was I saying?
Competently run scenarios would appear the same when run from week to week. Three ring binders would let people keep and organize their certs so they can check and see if they've run the scenario before.
"If you want a more workable solution? Try handing out three ring binders, or maybe coffee and ginkgo biloba."
Really, you had to end your rambling, semi-coherent rant
Its a straightforward coherent rant if you read the entire conversation.
by mocking someone you disagree with that has gone out and said they respect you? Nice one, bro! [/sarcasm]
I knew i should have smilied the ginko biloba...