|
But I tend to be adaptable... when in Rome and all that. SO, if I'm in Omaha, I guess I'd do it like my table judge wants to do it.
Ultimately that is the final word, right? The Table Judge?
It is concerning that so many do not follow RAW in this instance. Never know that. But then I have only played in Omaha.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is concerning that so many do not follow RAW in this instance. Never know that. But then I have only played in Omaha.
I don't follow wrasslin' much, so I don't understand the cross-over between it and Pathfinder? Is this an advanced play option or something? Live Action Pathfinder?
|
|
I just don't see "But it takes an extra minute or two!" to be a compelling reason to change the rules.
Well, it's not just an extra minute or two, in practice. I know this from when I used to do it. It's an extra 10-15 minutes.
BUT. I was trying not to ask the question that way. The way you state it here is indicative of the problem: the current way is assumed to be the way it should be unless there's a really good reason otherwise.
I wanted to ask: if you consider the current way, and another way, which would you pick if you were starting afresh?
In other words: that we seem to be getting along OK right now is NOT a reason NOT to change the rules.
|
|
The rules were changed and the guide didn't get updated to reflect that . Address that or stop claiming people are ignoring rules or not doing things properly.
Citation needed.
Are you just talking about the fact that itemized purchases no longer have to be itemized on the Chronicle sheet? Because that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about all of the accounting on the right side, which, unless you can point me to where it was changed, by the rules is still supposed to be fully filled out before the GM signs the chronicle.
|
|
Here's my question: what, if any, advantages are there to system 2? I honestly do not see any advantages at all. The one I can anticipate -- a GM is there to make sure that the players are only making legal purchases -- I don't believe is real. Are we really going to ask GMs to audit fame and make sure each purchase is legal? Is the GM going to go to each source and make sure players are paying the right amount for each purchase? If so, then we need to schedule 6-hour slots, so GMs have the time to do all of this. If the GM is not doing all of this, then any seeming...
You don't give option 2 a fair analysis because you don't like it. If you take a step back you will see the benefits.
The current system provides a reasonable assurance to the PLAYER and the GM that the character is legit. There have been discussion about how GMs should be auditing characters but are not. But if a 5th level character has or is trying to purchase something that should only be available to a 7th or higher character that is a problem. And it is unfair to the other players at the table.
In Omaha, the RAW is everyday practice. It does not take a lot of extra time to complete. Maybe 4 or 5 minutes.
And until it is changed, then EVERYONE should (must) follow the RAW and by NOT doing it, the GM is failing the players by not providing a consistent experience.
Going back to RAW would take time. It is a change. But it should not be ignored. Why not just ignore the rule about owning the resources? Or the rule about not being able to play certain races? Those are just too hard to follow.
It is a dangerous slope when one starts to ignore rules because "it makes no sense".
|
|
But I tend to be adaptable... when in Rome and all that. SO, if I'm in Omaha, I guess I'd do it like my table judge wants to do it.Ultimately that is the final word, right? The Table Judge?
It is concerning that so many do not follow RAW in this instance. Never know that. But then I have only played in Omaha.
I am not understanding your statement here... sorry. But that's ok. Often I fail to understand other people on the boards. It's all good.
No problem. I was agreeing with you that in the end, we do what the GM tells us to do.
Then I expressed my concern that people are not following the rule.
|
I've been thinking about this one a little bit before contributing. Like most everybody else in the thread, I don't typically fill in the totals or record purchases on the players' sheets when I GM. GMs in my area don't do that either. I have run into it once or twice online, and in those cases I just went with it. It was a little inconvenient to have to wait to record purchases I made between sessions (pre-ITS days), but not a huge deal.
As others have also noted, I think the biggest reason to not have the GM total everything up is the time it takes at the table. If you're in a slot that is running long or the players need to leave right after the game, it can be impractical. Adding another 5-15 minutes onto the end of the session (or the beginning) just won't work for everyone.
Now, it sounds like Omaha has things down to where it's a pretty quick process. But, my question would be what is involved when they do total things up. Asking the player how much gold they spent on items, marking it down, and subtracting for the total isn't a huge time consumer. But it also doesn't do anything except make sure the math is correct. If you aren't actually reviewing the purchases, checking that they are legal items against the Additional Resources, checking the cost against the character's Fame, and checking that the player actually owns the resource that they are purchasing the item from, then you aren't really verifying anything. What's the point of doing it if all you are doing is adding and subtracting for the player? And, as BigNorseWolf has pointed out, it's no longer a requirement that a GM sign off on specific purchases on the ITS, so you aren't required to review them in such detail anymore. Doing so on a consistent basis could take a more substantial amount of time at the end or beginning of the session than simply recording the gold or items.
So I guess I would ask, if all you're doing is filling in a number and subtracting, what's the point? Just to make sure the player does what they are supposed to do? I think that responsibility is much more appropriate to put on the player, not the GM. And if you are reviewing the items, what happens when a player wants to buy something you aren't familiar with or don't own the book for? Do you take time out to ask them to produce a source and verify the price, legality, etc.?
Now, there are things I think the GM should record. Money spent on spellcasting services or otherwise spent during the scenario. But without approval of purchases being required, I just don't see any reason that the GM should have to take time out of the game to do the players' bookkeeping for them. If approval is being done, then I think the time concern is a legitimate one.
|
|
Here's my question: what, if any, advantages are there to system 2? I honestly do not see any advantages at all. The one I can anticipate -- a GM is there to make sure that the players are only making legal purchases -- I don't believe is real. Are we really going to ask GMs to audit fame and make sure each purchase is legal? Is the GM going to go to each source and make sure players are paying the right amount for each purchase? If so, then we need to schedule 6-hour slots, so GMs have the time to do all of this. If the GM is not doing all of this, then any seeming...The current system provides a reasonable assurance to the PLAYER and the GM that the character is legit. There have been discussion about how GMs should be auditing characters but are not. But if a 5th level character has or is trying to purchase something that should only be available to a 7th or higher character that is a problem. And it is unfair to the other players at the table.
...but you can get that with the other system as well. All purchases are recorded on the ITS, including when it was made. A GM that would audit the chronicle sheets under the current system, or that would listen to purchases, could do it just as well under a system where purchases are recorded on the ITS. AND, it's easier. It's all in one place. If just the "current" purchases are all you want to audit (i.e. the ones before the current session), look at the last batch on the ITS; it's all right there.
So, this is not an advantage of the current system. It's just as easy in both systems. The added mess of the current system, if anything, makes this harder than the system I'm proposing.
In Omaha, the RAW is everyday practice. It does not take a lot of extra time to complete. Maybe 4 or 5 minutes.
That wasn't my experience. And, 5 more minutes of sitting around doing paperwork is 5 more minutes sitting around doing paperwork. This isn't the fun we signed up for.
And until it is changed, then EVERYONE should (must) follow the RAW and by NOT doing it, the GM is failing the players by not providing a consistent experience.
Everyone should. Almost nobody does; where you are is the exception. Every VC or VL I've played with has not done this kind of filling out, and nominally they're the ones keeping track of the rules. And PFS has survived. Clearly, it's not necessary to follow all the rules; if it were, there would be serious problems in PFS. The fact that the vast majority of people find them annoying enough that they violate them is at the very least a suggestion that there is something wrong with the rules. We should ask: is all of this really necessary? What do we want to get out of it? And can we get that without adding lots of extra work, as we do right now?
There are answers to all of these questions, and the answers are not that what the nominal rules are right now is the only way to get what we want. Looking at how the community as a whole has responded (i.e. by routinely violating the rules), it's very clear that there's something fatally wrong with the current set of rules.
Going back to RAW would take time. It is a change. But it should not be ignored. Why not just ignore the rule about owning the resources? Or the rule about not being able to play certain races? Those are just too hard to follow.
Blah. Not comparable. Those impact the play experience directly. What's more, they're not so hard to follow, but more comparably, they're not so fiddily and annoying and unfun to follow... whereas the paperwork is.
It is a dangerous slope when one starts to ignore rules because "it makes no sense".
...and it's very dangerous to say "we can't get rid of any rules because there might be another rule somewhere that we don't want to get rid of."
"Rules are rules" is a valid argument when thinking about enforcement; by the rules as written, you'd be within your rights to forbid nearly any PC from any other area to play at a table in Omaha. However, "rules are rules" is not a valid argument when thinking about what the rules should be.
|
|
Just to clarify because I have seen this a couple if times:
In Omaha, the GM does NOT record beginning balances, record purchases or physically add the numbers. The GM fills out the require areas (day jobs, XP, Earned Gold, Boons, Etc) and without signing, gives the sheet to the Player to record purchases and do the math. The GM then checks the math, signs, and returns.
|
|
It is a dangerous slope when one starts to ignore rules because "it makes no sense".As I said earlier in this thread, this is just another alignment argument thread in a different guise than normal. The danger in my eyes is when people follow rules that make no sense simply because they are the rules. The danger in yours is when people ignore rules in the same context. We're not going to see eye to eye on this fundamental philosophical divide, which renders most of this thread moot. It's just mutually exclusive philosophies talking past each other.
Ok now I understand the whole aliment reference.
Yes, I am Lawful. I follow the rules even if I don't feel they are valid or serve a purpose.
I am going to start playing a drow because I don't agree that it should be disallow. And I am going to play an anti-paladin because hey they are fun.
Just where do YOU draw the line? Every discussion can fall into the "fundamental philosophical divide" if we allow it.
|
|
..omitted...
So now we are going to this? Break down everything?
I agree your option provides the same assurance as the current rule. I was just trying to point out that you short changed the benefits of the current rule.
That wasn't my experience. And, 5 more minutes of sitting around doing paperwork is 5 more minutes sitting around doing paperwork. This isn't the fun we signed up for.
Sorry your experience was different. But once the scenario is over you immediately pack up your stuff and head out the door? Don't think so. I pack up most of my stuff, shoot the breeze with the other players, relive the good and bad parts of the scenario. This can easily consume 15 minutes. In that time, everything is done. For those that have to get going quickly the GMs always give them first priority and the rest of us continue the post session routine.
I will say, the game stores in Omaha are awesome and generally are not pushing us to get out so they can close. This, as i have read, is a problem in out areas.
|
|
Just to clarify because I have seen this a couple if times:
In Omaha, the GM does NOT record beginning balances, record purchases or physically add the numbers. The GM fills out the require areas (day jobs, XP, Earned Gold, Boons, Etc) and without signing, gives the sheet to the Player to record purchases and do the math. The GM then checks the math, signs, and returns.
Ok. That does help. I missed that. But in that situation, again, all you are doing is verifying the math on the chronicle itself and that the fields are actually filled in. I just don't see it as being worth the effort to start enforcing that on a large scale, as the benefit that would be gained is not worth the effort it would take to make this happen.
Are you saying you require players to list specific items purchased on the chronicle sheet? As has been pointed out several times, it is no longer a requirement to list specific purchases on the chronicle sheet. Instead, a line item like "1,500 gp Items on ITS #3" is more than sufficient. So making players list individual purchases twice is not following the rules.
In the absence of specific items, what exactly are you verifying? If a player writes a total down, they could have added wrong on their ITS, listed the wrong price for an item, listed an illegal item, or any number of things. So again, it seems all that is being accomplished is to make sure something is filled in.
If you are looking at specific items, I'd suggest you consider reviewing those on the ITS sheet instead, as that is where they are required to be listed.
|
|
The rules were changed and the guide didn't get updated to reflect that . Address that or stop claiming people are ignoring rules or not doing things properly.Citation needed.
Are you just talking about the fact that itemized purchases no longer have to be itemized on the Chronicle sheet? Because that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about all of the accounting on the right side, which, unless you can point me to where it was changed, by the rules is still supposed to be fully filled out before the GM signs the chronicle.
if they're not itemized on the chronicle sheet... then what am i signing? The right gold amount for a completely different piece of paper?
|
|
Omitted
I have come to realize that my process to write down each item is no longer needed. So I guess from now on I will noting the purchase of items on the ITS and making sure the ITS records the correct chronicle number.
The Lawful (and accountant) part of me wants the GM to pull out a calculator and add every number. But that is not practical and I would not expect that.
What is verified? That the basic math adds and what is being recorded makes since. GMs have the experience of time and if something does not make sense to them it does not make sense.
Let me also be clear that I am currently not a GM (will be soon) but a player. So my experience has been from a players stand point. But we have excellent GMs whom I have been watching.
Agree that any review process would need to include the ITS and the chronicle.
|
|
if they're not itemized on the chronicle sheet... then what am i signing? The right gold amount for a completely different piece of paper?The rules were changed and the guide didn't get updated to reflect that . Address that or stop claiming people are ignoring rules or not doing things properly.Citation needed.
Are you just talking about the fact that itemized purchases no longer have to be itemized on the Chronicle sheet? Because that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about all of the accounting on the right side, which, unless you can point me to where it was changed, by the rules is still supposed to be fully filled out before the GM signs the chronicle.
Yeah pretty much.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok. That does help. I missed that. But in that situation, again, all you are doing is verifying the math on the chronicle itself and that the fields are actually filled in. I just don't see it as being worth the effort to start enforcing that on a large scale, as the benefit that would be gained is not worth the effort it would take to make this happen.
The benefit is that every chronicle has two sets of eyes looking at it. A cheater knows at least one other person is going to see his/her chronicle and gold total each scenario. Math mistakes have two chances to be caught (I've forgotten to carry ones before).
The unspoken benefit is that (in our neck of the woods) no one shows up without their chronicles. Everyone knows that they've got to have their accounting in order or 'fire up Kyra.'
The immeasurable benefit is that people teach others. The new guy looks to the other people at the table, asks "Is this how it goes?" and the rest of the table nods.
I challenge any other reasonably-sized PFS lodge to enforce it honestly, and watch what happens. This will likely not be easy. Inertia is hard to fight. Especially if you've got old guys who fall on the crutch of "I've been playing since [a game that isn't Pathfinder]" as a way to enforce their will.
But give the rules a chance and see what happens.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The danger in my eyes is when people follow rules that make no sense simply because they are the rules. The danger in yours is when people ignore rules in the same context. We're not going to see eye to eye on this fundamental philosophical divide, which renders most of this thread moot. It's just mutually exclusive philosophies talking past each other.
This is the second time it has been suggested that if *you* feel a rule is dumb it doesn't have to be followed. Certainly the forum community is a very small minority of the entire society, but if it is at all representative of the pervasive base, we have some HUGE problems to consider.
And no, your two arguments are not philosophical at all. The rules are what the rules are. There is nothing philosophical about following them or not. Discussing why a rule is good or bad or why something is done the way it is, is philosophical, the act of choosing not to follow an existing rule is not philosophical in the least.
I admit to falling into the crowd that does not require the entire form to be complete before I sign it, but I can certainly understand why some do and why they are disappointed in the rest of us that don't. As long as the rules say what they say, we are required to do what Omaha is doing. Anything else is breaking the rules. Does that mean that suddenly everyone is going to correct their behavior and start doing it? I seriously doubt it, but that doesn't change the fact we are breaking the rules. This issue seems to be one similar to speeding while driving. We all know what the law [rule] says, we just don't feel there is anything wrong with breaking it...until we are caught. If one of us who is not following the rules as written encounters someone who is, we really don't have a defense to support our side any more than a speeder can go to court and use the "everyone else does it" as an excuse to get out it.
|
|
The unspoken benefit is that (in our neck of the woods) no one shows up without their chronicles. Everyone knows that they've got to have their accounting in order or 'fire up Kyra.'
Does it *have* to be Kyra in Omaha, or would Shardra or Oloch work, too?
At the sake of pedantry, if being *forced* to play a particular pregen is a penalty for not having chronicles at hand, shouldn't that be in the Guide?
|
|
The unspoken benefit is that (in our neck of the woods) no one shows up without their chronicles. Everyone knows that they've got to have their accounting in order or 'fire up Kyra.'
Does it *have* to be Kyra in Omaha, or would Shardra or Oloch work, too?
At the sake of pedantry, if being *forced* to play a particular pregen is a penalty for not having chronicles at hand, shouldn't that be in the Guide?
Sorry, that was unclear:'Fire up Kyra' used as an expression (not an explicit penalty).
Basically, if you're paperwork isn't in order, you cannot play your character. So, instead of heading elsewhere with a sour taste in your mouth, we offer a choice of pregen, *explain the way pregen credit works,* and everyone still gets to have a good time.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The unspoken benefit is that (in our neck of the woods) no one shows up without their chronicles. Everyone knows that they've got to have their accounting in order or 'fire up Kyra.'
Does it *have* to be Kyra in Omaha, or would Shardra or Oloch work, too?
At the sake of pedantry, if being *forced* to play a particular pregen is a penalty for not having chronicles at hand, shouldn't that be in the Guide?
If we were going to punish by making them play a specific pregen, wouldn't Harsk be a much more effective deterrent? :)
|
|
Jeff: All of that makes sense, except... since the requirement is that items be listed on the ITS, unless you're also auditing those, you have no way of knowing if the math is right.
My take is not that you are wrong to do what you are doing. It's that the rules have changed, and the benefit gained is not worth the effort it would take to change what everyone else is doing. In the past, prior to the ITS, looking over a chronicle meant verifying every item purchased. It doesn't mean that anymore. So the benefit gained is less than it was in the past. Rather than starting an effort to get GMs to enforce an outdated rule, when the majority of them do not, updating the rule would seem to make more sense.
Making sure everyone brings completed chronicles can be accomplished other ways, like asking to see their last chronicle before the game. That puts the same expectation on players without taking away their ability to shop at their own leisure.
The process you're using is working for your area. The process everyone else is using seems to be working for their areas.
|
|
the rules have changed
That is certainly true in regards to tracking expenditures and using the ITS [does anyone else always read that at TPS?] report. I don't think they are aguing that particular point, but the rules in the Guide have not removed or changed the requirements for the GM to sign the form AFTER it has been completed. To be honest, their method is probably the best example of following the rules in the Guild we have. Audits are a separate issue and we can argue that at length (again) in another thread, but reviewing the way they are doing it, I cannot really find fault with it. Of course, I am am particularly experienced with the online gaming community so I image there it could pose some challenges there. I think the real reason soo many of us fail to follow the expectation as written is that we choose to think it carries little value, or it takes too much time, or we're just lazy. Whatever the reason, I can see how their process has merit and can be done with minimal additional time. That assumes of course that everyone chooses to do it. No matter what process we want to follow is going to take longer if players/GMs refuse to cooperate.
The process you're using is working for your area. The process everyone else is using seems to be working for their areas.
"So-and-so is not following the rules" is not really a good defense for breaking the rules.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the only course of action now is for Paizo to decide if the rules, as the currently exist, is what they really expect. If not, then we need to change the rules as written in the Guide. If so, then there needs to be a heightened expectation that paperwork be completed. Personally, I don't care which way it goes as long as the end result is consistency through the community. Nothing creates more disruption and hurt feelings than doing things differently from area to area.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's an example where this makes a mechanical difference. If I want to spend prestige on an item, I can only do so once per chronicle. I used my potion of Fly during the scenario. If I have to complete my chronicle at the table, then I have to decide at the table whether or not to use prestige to replace the potion. I could wait to make that decision and record it on the next chronicle. But if I do that, then I can't spend prestige during the next scenario to purchase anything else. So when the prestige spent is is totaled has an actual mechanical eff ct and can influence purchase decisions. In between sessions, I might run across a vanity I'd rather have and spend gold on the potion. Or I might find an item that requires all my gold. Maybe both, and I decide not to replace the item at all.
Situations like that are why players like to have the extra time to fill things out. Purchases can be done before the scenario, and chronicles and math can be verified then just as easily as after.
|
|
I think the only course of action now is for Paizo to decide if the rules, as the currently exist, is what they really expect. If not, then we need to change the rules as written in the Guide. If so, then there needs to be a heightened expectation that paperwork be completed. Personally, I don't care which way it goes as long as the end result is consistency through the community. Nothing creates more disruption and hurt feelings than doing things differently from area to area.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
Or, like so many other things in Pathfinder, it could be left to table variation, and the campaign could spend time addressing things that are actually causing widespread issues.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A cheater knows at least one other person is going to see his/her chronicle and gold total each scenario.
Honestly I have zero interest in expending any real effort to police cheating.
If I catch someone fudging rolls at the table or they have a character option that I know is disallowed, I'll bring it up, but I don't even want to take 5 minutes after the game to do a bunch of calculations that may very well involve going through a stack of chronicles, cross-referencing a bunch of other rules etc.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. Nothing hurts my feeling more than being told I can't play my own character because of a bookkeeping error. I could care less whether people are doing things differently from area to area, for the simple reason that I am not in competition with any one else when I play PFS.
To be fair, when we joined PFS we all decided to abide by the rules therein. We really do not get to pick and choose what rules to follow and which ones to ignore. If you are choosing not to maintain complete, accurate character records, you really have no one to blame but yourself.
That being said, I'm sure there is a difference between someone forgetting to record a single purchase or a minor calculation error being made. I think what we are talking about here are obvious and egregious errors. Things like failure to even have any records with you, or having numerous incomplete chronicles, or having numerous chronicles applied out of order, etc. I seriously doubt you would be denied playing your own character because of a failure to dot an 'i' or cross a 't.' Sometimes, discussion like this seem to lean towards extreme assumptions and excessive application of general comments.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or, like so many other things in Pathfinder, it could be left to table variation, and the campaign could spend time addressing things that are actually causing widespread issues.
Whe're not talking about ambiguity in the rules which is the basis for table variation. The rule in this case is clear and Omaha has found a way to follow it. We don't get to break rules and then use table variation as an excuse.
|
|
And the idea that not doing enough paperwork could be disruptive is completely alien to me. It's a game.
Okay, then I'm going to stop track my expendables. Why? because I don't feel like it and what difference does it make? Its only a game. I think I'll play a master summoner. Why? Because I feel like it. Oh, don't worry, I have all my monster prepared and I can run my turn as quickly as anyone else, so I it won't be disruptive. Its only a game, right?
Again, people love to take a comment and use the most extreme application of it to demonstrate its unfair or "BadWrongFun." Take a moment, take a breath, and give people the benefit of the doubt that their intent is not to screw everyone who they come in contact with. It is no surprise that we have a pervasive problem with a lack of properly completed paperwork. When I say pervasive, I'm not kidding. Just go to a few conventions, especially big ones like GenCon that attract players from all over the place and ask everyone at the table to show you their character documents. TRY to conduct an audit. I think some people would be surprised how widespread the issue of improper records really is. Perhaps if record keeping was maintained more diligently we would have a lot fewer occurrences of arguments at the table. It would certainly reduce a lot of errors.
|
|
Basically, if you're paperwork isn't in order, you cannot play your character. So, instead of heading elsewhere with a sour taste in your mouth, we offer a choice of pregen, *explain the way pregen credit works,* and everyone still gets to have a good time.
Except you'd need to go CSI on a character sheet to tell that the ink on my signature in the box is a week older than the pen/pencil/crayon writing next to it saying how much gold was spent.
That line is pretty clearly an appendix. It served a purpose when things worked differently but but things have changed.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
Here is what I tell players after a game.
Once they leave the table, any purchases made between sessions will go on the next chronicle. To be sure, they can fill out the sheet at the table with the purchases made from between sessions and in game and take the time to peruse the items/products to make purchases for the next chronicle at home.
To me, the real issue here is time management. It is limited at a store, public place and at Cons. The player will have more time to look through and think about purchases after the session is over and they are not watching the clock to see if the store it closing.
It is one of the "lax" areas of the rules of organized play that lends itself to being a pain if followed to the letter.
One of the things that keep it manageable for me as a player is keeping characters in a folder of their own, Herolab print outs and an ITS excell file.
I have a total to put on the next chronicle when I get to the table (Even if that total is 0, mostly from GM Credit from the session before), and would only have to add the expenses and few purchases I make during the session.
So if I have to fill it out before the GM signs it, I have no trouble doing so.