PDA

View Full Version : Season 5 Chronicle sheets discussion



Skellan
August 18th, 2013, 20:14
Actually, now I think about it, I think we are making this process more difficult than it needs to be, and more difficult than the process is in the society guide requires. It is the players responsibility to make sure they have a complete, up-to-date and fully completed set of chronicle sheets. Should we really be asking for the previous chronicle? You can't really check the accuracy of one chronicle without the information from the preceding chronicles.
In terms of checking character before play, the society guide says:
It is recommended that you look over each player’s
character sheet and previous Chronicle sheets, quickly
checking wealth, equipment, calculations, and so on if
time permits.
Would we be better giving characters a check-over outside of the constraints of running a scenario?

Nickademus
August 18th, 2013, 20:49
The majority of GMs that I've seen outside of this FG community don't look at chronicles at all (except for me and that was seen by players as a waste of game time). I was quite surprised that you do. I also get the impression from the Paizo forums that most convention GMs don't look either.

It may be that there are more cheats on the internet than are willing to pay to go to a convention or are willing to show their face at a local game store, but I don't think that checking chronicles matters at all. (Well, I think it matters greatly, but the reason it matters has been swept under the rug at Paizo so meh.)

Seeing as how the GM Responsibilities changed from Guide 3.0.2 (and from what I hear Season 4 as well) saying "Look over each player's...." to Guide 5.0 saying "It is recommended that you look over each player's...", I think Paizo is caring less and less about this as well.

Malkavian_Andi
August 18th, 2013, 21:15
There's also still the option of asking a player for a character audit if the GM thinks the numbers are strange. For example, if a character owns a particularly rare or powerful item, a GM might ask for the chronicle that lists that item as available as well as the chronicle that lists purchase of that item. Or in case of a particularly high skill modifier, the player could be asked to list all abilities and items that grant a bonus (and of course provide the chronicles that list purchase of those items).

Skellan
August 18th, 2013, 21:15
I think it is important to check but not at the expense of giving gms unnecessary work. I suspect reducing admin is Paizos intent rather than notcaring.The level of admin gms have to do for pfs does put some people off.
We all want accurate chronicles and characters. Perhaps spot checking characters is a way to do this, or the only way to do this properly

Blackfoot
August 18th, 2013, 21:31
Honestly, the previous chronicle thing just makes it easier for me to fill out the Chronicles. I don't want to be responsible for giving anyone a Chronicle that is wrong. The more accurate information is that I am given, the more accurate the information I can give back. Garbage in, garbage out.

And.. the previous chronicles make it simple.. you just copy the info from the previous chronicle and add the new stuff... you're done. For dudes without previous chronicles you have to sift through all sorts of other stuff or wind up with missing information when you go to actually put the chronicles together, the easiest chronicles are the ones where you have ALL the info right there in front of you. Wham Bam.. you're done.. Clear and easy to read info is the best. I'm not sure why this is an issue for anyone.

Skellan
August 18th, 2013, 21:56
I have run 27 pfs sessions online, if we say an average of 5 players are in each session, that's 135 chronicles. Trust me, there was no wham bam, about it hehe. There's also the issue of adding items bought and stuff. Having the previous chronicles do not make it simple. It takes time. Having just the last chronicle sheet is no guarantee you are doing your chronicle right. You need to look at them all to be sure of that.
All I am suggesting is that we adhere to the rules as set out in the society guide. I don't mind doing the admin but I am not doing unnecessary admin.

Trenloe
August 18th, 2013, 22:21
I really don't think that asking each player for an electronic copy/digital photo of their last chronicle is such an obstacle or hassle. As has been said above it is the responsibility of each player to keep their chronicle sheets in order and make them available for the GM if so required. As the player is participating in an online game this should be in digital form.

This by no means replaces a character audit if that is deemed necessary.

Seeing the PC's last chronicle sheet was seen as a way of taking a small step towards making sure chronicle sheets are in order and, as Blackfoot says above, getting info required after the scenario is complete.

This really is no overhead for the GM and it is helping to ensure that at least 2 chronicle sheets (the previous and the one with the current scenario) are correct.

I remind some of our longer standing PFS GMs that when we brought the requirement for a copy of the previous chronicle into play there had been cases where 1 or 2 players were not providing correct previous info to the point of it being suspect. Asking for a copy of the previous chronicle was seen as an initial step in checking such players out and also identifying those who might be struggling with the whole process and to allow us to provide assistance.

Just because we don't seem to have that issue now should we stop asking for the previous chronicle? Or, which is what I suspect, we are not having issues BECAUSE we are asking for the previous chronicle?

Trenloe
August 18th, 2013, 22:47
Regarding completion of the chronicle sheet...

This IS the responsibility of the GM to ensure that there is a fully completed and signed chronicle sheet given to each player.

How this is accomplished can be done a number of ways. If the GM feels a player can fill out the relevant info in an empty/unsigned sheet and pass it back to the GM for signing then cool. If a GM wants to ask the player for their purchase etc. and complete the sheet themselves then that is cool also.

The end result has to be a complete signed chronicle sheet, in the correct current season format, for the scenario played.

However you reasonably arrive at this is OK. But, what I would ask is that you please communicate clearly to the players what you expect of them in this process.

It is great that a GM steps up to run PFS games on Fantasy Grounds and I really appreciate the extra work you have to go through to do this. I don't want to make this hard for you, but we really have to make sure that chronicle sheets we issue are correct and complete. PFS coordinators and other Paizo staff are beginning to notice Fantasy Grounds. We will be asking for Paizo product support for future conventions and possibly regular game days. If we are seen as a community that doesn't product correct paperwork then we may miss out. PFS online play is still seen by many within the PFS hierarchy as an uncontrolled and unofficial way of playing PFS. That is beginning to change with the appointment of an online VC. But the more we can do to change those views the better for all involved in online play in general and the better for the FG community.

Skellan
August 18th, 2013, 22:47
It is the length of time to complete chronicles from scratch that I have an issue with. Having a previous chronicle and purchases that spread out on forum boards is no where near as easy as having players provide a chronicle with their information on.

I don't have an issue with asking people to provide previous chronicles for reference.

I am just advocating following the society guide rules as they are written. Why do you want GM's to do things differently to the PFS Society Guide? It is just making life difficult for GM's.

Skellan
August 18th, 2013, 22:50
It would be a better advert for FG if we had more GM's because we have efficient processes

Trenloe
August 18th, 2013, 23:02
It would be a better advert for FG if we had more GM's because we have efficient processes
Agreed.

I have posted above, but I think you may have not seen it before you posted this. I am fine with you completing chronicle sheets how you choose - as long as they are completed correctly and fully. I'm open to ideas and feedback on how we do this whole process. I can guarantee that you will have some players who will struggle with filling out their own character sheet. But, if 1 out of 6 struggles then you are seeing an improvement and hopefully they won't struggle the next time. You will still need to check their previous chronicle to ensure that the info entered is correct.

Skellan
August 18th, 2013, 23:20
Cool, I think this will make life easier :)

Skellan
August 18th, 2013, 23:59
You are right, I didn't see the other post, sorry.
While you are right, a gm is responsible for providing accurate information and checking information is correct, they are not accountable or 'held to blame' should someone who is cheating, slip through the net. The responsibility lies with the player and it is the player that Paizo would take action against, not previous gms. . If feel it is wrong to place this burden on GM's, they have enough to do as it is, without feeling it is their fault if someone cheated during one of their games.

I am skeptical about asking people to do things that are outside the society guide, the rules are written as they are for a reason. I have previously spent a lot of time chasing people for their last chronicle before they can play, and in hindsight, this is a waste of time. I will ask request previous chronicles though, as you wish.

A solution to all this could be to have a thread where players post all their chronicles and it is open for all to view. Or perhaps a shared dropbox or something. This would save messing about asking for chronicles and everyone would be happy. Characters could be audited whenever and by whoever (including other players) then too. This would be lots more effective than just asking for the previous one :) It would also be rather impressive when showcasing FG

Blackfoot
August 19th, 2013, 05:10
I am skeptical about asking people to do things that are outside the society guide, the rules are written as they are for a reason. I have previously spent a lot of time chasing people for their last chronicle before they can play, and in hindsight, this is a waste of time. I will ask request previous chronicles though, as you wish. Personally, the only reason why I want a previous chronicle is to make it easy for me. With the previous chronicle, I don't need to chase down the player for anything after the game... If they want to make a purchase, they can let me know in a timely fashion or it doesn't get on their chronicle. I can pull their chronicles together quickly and relatively easily (yes... doing the sheets is a pain... but doing the sheets with only half the info is a lesson in frustration)... and post them up.

Do I NEED it for a player to play in my game? No. If they can get me all the info to fill into all the little boxes and not forget anything.. that's how I did most of my chronicles before we started collecting previous chronicles... Certainly in back to back game situations... during FGCon or whatever.. getting the previous chronicle is somewhat of a luxury... adaptable is good.

Skellan
August 19th, 2013, 13:22
Yes Blackfoot, though providing this information is the player's responsibility. We shouldn't be making gms do the player's admin.
I have been speaking to Trenloe by email and I fear we are deadlocked on this issue. For me, the important thing is that we have accurate chronicles but we aren't creating unnecessary bureaucracy for GMs. GMs should be able to focus on running games without having processes imposed upon them that are ineffective and in addition to the requirements of the society guide.

Having a previous chronicle is nice but is no substitute for a proper check up. I have run games previously where I have made everyone wait while a player goes to fetch and scan a chronicle. I have also spend weeks trying to get a chronicle from players before I can issue a chronicle. I have never had anyone fail to provide a chronicle eventually. I am not suggesting that we shouldn't be checking chronicles, but spending so much time chasing one chronicle is pointless as you can't verify whether the character is legal/accurate from one chronicle. This is time consuming and ineffective and I don't feel that the benefits outweigh the admin burdens.
This is being made more complex than it needs to be. According to the society guide players should have chronicles available and cant play if they haven't got them. GMs are recommended to quickly check chronicles before a game if time permits. As written in the guide this is up to the GM as to whether he/she has time to do this and whether they want to stop a player from playing. In either case, this is no substitute for a proper check up.
I propose that we request players get a check up separately from scenarios. Perhaps having a forum thread or whatever would be good. Although Trenloe is against the idea I don't see why we can just have FG players store chronicles publicly so anyone can check them. GMs will then be free to concentrate on running games.
It is not fair for people who hardly ever run games to demand GMs do things that are outside of what is required by the society guide. Therefore, I intend to run games according to rules set out in the society guide.

Trenloe
August 19th, 2013, 16:15
Starting on page 10, in the "Pathfinder Society Special Rules" chapter:

Keep good records of your character and make sure to bring all of your Chronicle sheets to every event or session of Pathfinder Society Organized Play. If you forget your Chronicle sheets, you will be unable to play your character, though you may be able to play a pregenerated character or start another character within Society rules.
By us asking for a player to send us a digital copy of their last chronicle sheet we are doing a streamlined version of the above process. This is not an audit, this is purely seeing if a player has their chronicles and has "brought" them to the game which I feel is a good compromise between asking players to show all of their chronicle sheets in electronic format or taking a leap of faith and assuming all players have their chronicle sheets.

As part of the requirements of the PFS Guide we have implemented the "no chronicle sheets, no play" part of the above guideline by not issuing the chronicle sheet for the scenario played until the player has sent their last chronicle. I feel this is much better than not letting them play and give the player some leeway to get their chronicles in order and send us a digital copy of the last chronicle.

I am not asking GMs to do an audit - I am asking them to perform a streamlined, compromise version of "no chronicle sheets, no play".

OK, so in online play this does add an additional burden to the GM if a player does not supply their chronicle sheets. In a face-to-face game the GM would just ask the player to leave the game (I have seen this on many occasions) and there would be no further admin from the GM. For online games and our "single sheet" process this is not the case, there can be an additional burden on the GM to not issue their scenario chronicle sheet and chase the player/s for their digital copy.

As this can place an additional admin burden on the GM, I am offering that if any GMs do not want to chase delinquent players for their missing chronicle sheet then I will do that for them - and I will even issue the scenario chronicle once the player sends their chronicle if that is what the GM wishes. Just pass me the info required for me to chase up and I will take that burden off your hands.

I really feel that this is a very good compromise between assuming a player has all of their chronicles and asking them for all of their chronicles before we let them play. This is well within the guidelines/requirements of the PFS Guide so I don't feel it is something extra that I am asking.

It also has a number of additional benefits that have been discussed before:

It is ensuring that the player has at least their current chronicle sheet - which is the main reason for doing this process.
Some GMs like having this sheet as a reference for filling out the new sheet.
It helps to identify if players are having issues with filling out their chronicle sheets in general and so I, or other GMs, can offer assistance if guiding the players through the chronicle sheet process.
It gives me a chance to have a quick look at chronicle sheets and helps me identify if I need to do a full audit.


There are a couple of disadvantages:

Players complaining about having to do this. Yes, this is a bit of a pain, but it is a requirement that players show their chronicles when they play a PC so a single sheet is a lot better than asking for all of their sheets.
The extra burden on the GM. The burden is really only for players that don't send their chronicle or are waiting for one from a previous adventure, there is a minimal burden on the GM from players who send their chronicle sheet. I am mitigating this additional burden for delayed chronicle sheets by offering to take the chasing/issuing of a late chronicle off the GMs hands and doing it myself.

I really feel strongly about this process - for all of the reasons outlined above. I feel the impact on the GM is minimal, we are following PFS guidelines and we are helping to make sure chronicles we issue are correct and tie in with the previous chronicle.

Skellan
August 19th, 2013, 16:45
What you are suggesting is good practice and that's fine. The part I feel strongly about is that part that you want to change from what it says in the organised play guide, which is:

It is recommended that you look over each player’s character sheet and previous Chronicle sheets, quickly checking wealth, equipment, calculations, and so on if time permits.

You are asking for this to be mandatory and clearly it is not. You can't argue that because it is an online game GM's have more time and must do this. Online games take longer to prepare and run. It is not fair for someone else to make judgments about how much time someone else has. If a gm wants to request chronicle sheets from a player, he/she would be better asking for all of them or its pretty ineffective. Though really, the guide doesn't specify how this is done so I guess the gm is free to do this how they want.

The key thing for me is that GM's should have the freedom to run games according to the PFS Organised play guide, without having additional burdens placed upon them. Its fine to recommend that gms do the extra checks, but you can't make this mandatory, because it is not mandatory in the guide.

The impact of this is not minimal. It is kind of you to offer to chase chronicle sheets, but this isn't the point, as we don't need to do this in the format you are suggesting.

Trenloe
August 19th, 2013, 16:52
What you are suggesting is good practice and that's fine. The part I feel strongly about is that part that you want to change from what it says in the organised play guide, which is:

It is recommended that you look over each player’s character sheet and previous Chronicle sheets, quickly checking wealth, equipment, calculations, and so on if time permits.

You are asking for this to be mandatory and clearly it is not.
There is obviously some confusion here because that is not what I am asking GMs to do.

I am asking GMs to request the last chronicle sheet from each PC playing in their game and not issue a chronicle sheet for their game until they see the previous chronicle based off the "no chronicle sheets, no play" rules outlined in post #26 above which is part of "Chapter 5: Pathfinder Society Special Rules" in the guidelines.

Character audits will be handled completely separately and I will only ask GMs to do audits if they are willing to do so.

I will re-iterate - I am not asking GMs to do something that is outside of the guidelines of the PFS guide. I am asking you to do something that is actually less work than what is outlined in the PFS Guide by only asking to see the last chronicle sheet and not enforcing "...make sure to bring all of your Chronicle sheets to every event or session of Pathfinder Society Organized Play." which is the PFS guideline.

Skellan
August 19th, 2013, 17:17
If the players have their chronicles available, then I would argue that this is 'bringing the chronicle sheets to the event or session'
If the gm's time permits, he can request to see the chronicles and if you cant show them you cant play.

This is a much simpler way of doing it and is in line with the rules and this mirrors how things work offline. There's nothing stopping gms requesting the last chronicle if they want or whatever.

Trenloe
August 19th, 2013, 17:28
If the players have their chronicles available, then I would argue that this is 'bringing the chronicle sheets to the event or session'
If the gm's time permits, he can request to see the chronicles and if you cant show them you cant play.

This is a much simpler way of doing it and is in line with the rules and this mirrors how things work offline. There's nothing stopping gms requesting the last chronicle if they want or whatever.
That is just arguing semantics now. If the GM can not see the chronicles then they do not know that the player has them.

That is just like in a face-to-face game when the GM asks a player to see their chronicle sheets and the player replies "They are in my bag." but doesn't bring them out. The GM needs to see the chronicle sheets - so the player must get them out of their bag. In our case, this takes the form of providing the last chronicle in digital form - just "having them available" but not visible is not enough to satisfy the requirement.

Skellan
August 19th, 2013, 17:41
No it isn't. The gm doesnt need to request to see them if he hasnt got time to look at them. This is up to the gm.
Its like a player having their chronicle sheets in a bag and the GM saying 'Can I see your chronicle sheets?' and the player says ' Sure, here you are.'
It doesn't say anything about being visible. That implies that the gm is checking them as he can see them. It say available, which means they are there if the gm asks to see them.

Asking players to provide stuff you have no intention of looking at is just silly. There's no difference between players having their chronicles in a drop box or in a bag as long as they are available if the gm asks to see them. We are a virtual community after all :D

Trenloe
August 19th, 2013, 17:50
You seem to be getting hung up on the "if there is time" mention later in the PFS guide. This is referring to doing a mini audit - not to confirming that a player has their chronicle sheets with them.

There is no "if there is time" clause associated with the "If you forget your Chronicle sheets, you will be unable to play your character" rule.

It is completely arguing semantics and leaping to conclusions that "Keep good records of your character and make sure to bring all of your Chronicle sheets to every event or session of Pathfinder Society Organized Play. If you forget your Chronicle sheets, you will be unable to play your character" does not include having to show them to the GM or organiser to prove that you have them with you.

As stated numerous times above, I am not asking you to do a mini-audit. I am asking each GM to follow the rules of only allowing players that prove they have their chronicles to play.

I am asking GMs to follow the rules as outlined in the PFS Guide. Just because these may not occur elsewhere does not mean that we should ignore them here.

Skellan
August 19th, 2013, 18:06
No you aren't asking players to follow pfs rules.
You are obligating gms to check the previous chronicle of each player. No where does it say gms are required to do this.
It does say that players need to have chronicles available and I am not disputing that, nor am I disputing that they cannot play if they don't have them. I am disputing the fact that it doesn't say anywhere that gms must check or see every players last chronicle.
It says that gms may check chronicles if they have time and that players must have them available should a gm request to see them. This is perfectly in line with pfs rules, and this is how we should be doing it.

Trenloe
August 19th, 2013, 18:16
No you aren't asking players to follow pfs rules.
You are obligating gms to check the previous chronicle of each player. No where does it say gms are required to do this.
It does say that players need to have chronicles available and I am not disputing that, nor am I disputing that they cannot play if they don't have them. I am disputing the fact that it doesn't say anywhere that gms must check or see every players last chronicle.
It says that gms may check chronicles if they have time and that players must have them available should a gm request to see them. This is perfectly in line with pfs rules, and this is how we should be doing it.
OK, cool.

As a Pathfinder Society Venture Lieutenant I will be personally asking all players who sign up for games on the boards to send me their last chronicle. If they can't do this, I will request them to not play in the game and instruct the GM to not let them play. This is completely within my right as a Venture Officer and based off the PFS Guidelines.

This is taking all of that responsibility away from the GM and putting it within the PFS organised play hierarchy.

Is that what you want?

Skellan
August 19th, 2013, 18:32
That is just being awkward because you cannot show that what I am saying is contrary to the pfs rules. Its just an abuse of power. If you genuinely believe how I am running games is odds with the pfs guide then you should take it up with me rather than hassling poor players.

All I want is to for us to play by the rules and not the ones you want to impose because you think they are better.

If it is your intent to bog everyone down with bureaucracy through your position as a VL, go ahead, knock yourself out.

Skellan
August 19th, 2013, 18:56
Another word for it would be harassment

Trenloe
August 19th, 2013, 18:59
I do genuinely believe that a GM should check that a player has brought their chronicle sheets to the game - a visual check that they actually have brought the sheets with them. For online games this is being able to provide the GM with electronic copies - and I believe that a GM should ensure that the player does that.

However, as you have pointed out above - nowhere in the PFS guide does it say that this is a GM's responsibility. So, I will take that responsibility away from the GM and make it mine - if the GM doesn't want to ask for the previous chronicle themselves.

If a GM would like to continue as we do now and ask for a digital copy of the PC's last chronicle and not release the chronicle for their scenario until they see it then that is great and they can continue as we have in the past. If a GM feels that this is not their responsibility then a PFS coordinator will take on that responsibility for them.

Being able to produce all of the chronicles for a PC is a clear requirement to be able to play. So, in asking for the last one in order to allow a PC to play is not an abuse of power in the slightest - it is completely within my right and is nothing more than I am asking other GMs to do.

I have escalated this matter within Paizo PFS and have additionally asked that the PFS guide have an amendment to say that checking that a player has the chronicle sheets for their PC before being allowed to play is added to the list of GM responsibilities. We will see what comes of these 2 requests.

I honestly feel that what I have been asking, and what we have been doing successfully for a number of months, is completely within the rules and guidelines of the PFS guide. I do not want one GM going completely against this as that will be a message to other GMs that they can do the same.

I have offered to take this responsibility off GMs and that was seen as not being good enough. But, I feel that this requirement is the foundation of having clear, correct and auditable PFS chronicle sheets within the PFS community on Fantasy Grounds so I will take that responsibility off the GMs and do it myself. This is not an abuse of power, it is my effort to stop things getting to the point where it may be that *every* chronicle sheet will be required, and keeping going with what has been successful so far.

Unfortunately, arguing semantics has had the effect of backing me into a corner and forced my hand. I am not being awkward and doing this to win an argument - I am doing this because I feel this is the best thing we can do to keep things organised and correct without going overboard and checking all chronicle sheets.

I will not be bogging anything down with bureaucracy beyond what we already have now.

Nickademus
August 19th, 2013, 19:23
Another word for it would be harassment

You're going a little overboard now. A lawful neutral organization that adds and changes criteria to be better run in its view is not harassment. What Trenloe is saying is no different than the errata and FAQ points that Mike Brock makes to amend the guidebook.

If you don't like it, fine. There are a lot of things about the structure of Society Organized Play that I don't like. But Trenloe is at least offering to make this requirement easy for the GMs by doing it himself. So it is theoretically no change for you.

And speaking of change, I find the whole argument that the Guide has no requirement for the GM to look at chronicles holds very little weight since up until 5 days ago it did. The change to merely recommending it is new.


Page 30: Under Your Duties as a Game Master,
updated the third bullet point to read, “It is
recommended that you look over each player’s
character sheet and previous Chronicle sheets,
quickly checking wealth, equipment, calculations,
and so on if time permits.”

I think you're making this out to be a much bigger deal than it needs to be. It's not like 85% of Society GMs/players actually follow the rules anyway.

Nightfiend
August 20th, 2013, 02:48
I am agreeing with Nickademus here. If Trenloe was demanding every GM to review ever past chronicle sheet of every player I would say, time might be an issue. I do think this should be done from time to time, but I don't think every game. As fare as reviewing the last chronicle sheet of a player, I don't think you could even complete a new chronicle without looking over their last sheet.

Skellan: I think, in some regard you might feel that Trenloe is questioning your judgment as a GM, by making it more of a demand then a request. That will generally make a GM feel unappreciated. I know from past experience, properly setting up a game takes a lot of effort. Although I haven't yet played in one of your games, I have little doubt you probably spend a lot of time and effort to provide a good game. This doesn't even take into account the effort to understand and create a FG version of the game. If any of this sounds somewhat correct, then rest knowing that anyone putting that much effort into creating a game for us to enjoy, is appreciated A LOT.

We can't have positive changes unless we are open to change. This means enduring change in general. We can't improve if we are not open to corrective criticism or new ideas. If it sucks in the long run I'm sure Trenloe will be the first to correct it.

lachancery
August 20th, 2013, 03:24
Skellan, with all the great respect I have for your past contributions to the PFS FG community, I believe you need to back down.

As a GM, like Blackfoot, I have found it beneficial to get the latest chronicle sheet to ease my PFS GM admin tasks - completing valid chronicle sheets and reporting the game on Paizo's site.

Earlier in the thread, Trenloe has sensibly left the door open for you to use different ways to produce valid chronicle sheets. You have then crusaded against the need to request the latest chronicle, which Trenloe has also offered to take off your shoulders by doing it himself.

In a separate thread weeks ago in this forum, Trenloe also offered to assist GMs in their admin duties, and left the door open to how that help could be provided; a GM only needs to contact him.

As our official VL, Trenloe has remained curteous, professionnal and has done all that he could think to reduce the admin burden on our PFS GMs. Calling him abusing his power and labelling it harassment is, from my viewpoint, not only unfair, but a rather rude answer to the help he's offered.

For myself, an active PFS GM (this summer anyway), unless I am asked not to request the latest chronicle sheet, I will continue to ask for it. I will try your idea of asking players to fill out the chronicle sheet template to help me out, and see what success I get.

I have fond memories of all the scenarios you used to run, Skellan. If what's stopping you from running them again is the admin, I will join Trenloe in offering my assistance to take that burden off your shoulders. I would really love to see many PFS games being run over FG, and see our community grow.

Nestor
August 20th, 2013, 12:34
I have GMed a few Society games using FGII and another VT, none in the recent months.

I always ask for the players info (PFS #, faction, current xp, fame, prestige, gold, ect) before the game started. It is my understanding that players are required to produce chronicle sheets on demand to the GM or risk being unable to play. I do not see why a GM could not ask for the last chronicle to streamline book keeping.

I usually would glance over a players character sheet if something looked weird and they could not produce a chronicle to explain it I would probably allow play, but then make a note on their chronicle sheet about this issue. I only did this once, I had a guy who sent in a goblin character. I asked to see the boon that would allow that race and the guy could not produce it. I allowed him to play (we were short handed) but I made a note on the chronicle stating that he could not produce the boon. Another GM a few days later refused the character flatly.

lachancery
August 20th, 2013, 14:03
I usually would glance over a players character sheet if something looked weird and they could not produce a chronicle to explain it I would probably allow play, but then make a note on their chronicle sheet about this issue. I only did this once, I had a guy who sent in a goblin character. I asked to see the boon that would allow that race and the guy could not produce it. I allowed him to play (we were short handed) but I made a note on the chronicle stating that he could not produce the boon. Another GM a few days later refused the character flatly.
I also glance at the character sheets before games too, so I can read up on abilities I don't know instead of pausing the game, I can add FG effects which may be missing that would improve smooth play, and as a spot check. I twice found stuff I couldn't explain and asked Trenloe to look into it. (In both cases, it was creative combinations which were legal.)

Blackfoot
August 20th, 2013, 14:09
Welcome Back Nestor!

Skellan
August 22nd, 2013, 00:25
As long as a GM is running games in accordance with the PFS Society Guide I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to just get on with it. If anyone has a problem with how I am doing things then please do not interfere with my games or my players; contact Paizo about it. If they amend the rules or tell me otherwise I will happily do as they ask.

Rose Claymore
August 22nd, 2013, 13:53
I've been very satisfied with the online process of a player sending the GM a copy of his last chronicle sheet. This allows the GM, if he has time, to review the chronicle for errors and whatnot, and also provides the GM with the information the player is required to fill out on the new chronicle sheet he's to be awarded. The GM might have to do a little extra work transferring that info over to the new sheet, but is so insignificant it seems not worth arguing over. Should the GM desire, he can still request a copy of all previous chronicle sheets for review if he wishes to audit the character, or the specific chronicle sheet associated with a purchase that seems off (such as buying a unique item off a chronicle, or having a purchase paid for with prestige). This part is not required, and no one should be forcing a GM to do this, but it should always be an option.

As far as official rules in the guide as to what to do, absolutely nothing requires a GM review chronicle sheets ahead of time, but he still needs the information from the previous chronicle sheet to be filled out the new one. It seems like a hassle to have a player download and partially fill out a blank sheet, upload it to somewhere (which may not even be where the other players upload to), have the GM download it, finish filling it out and then upload it (probably to someplace different) so the players may download it, review it to add purchases, then upload it (again) to the GM can sign and initial it and then upload it again, so the players can download it again. This simple little exchange which takes place in F2F games is nigh unreasonable online. Better to just upload the last chronicle (one step for the players), and have the GM transfer over the relevant info to the new sheet (one step for the GM, not including correcting typos).

Skellan
August 22nd, 2013, 15:08
Yeah, I don't know how effective asking players to fill out their parts of the chronicle sheet will be. It is more steps, but it would remove the gm having to transfer info to the new sheet, and the bit I find time consuming, writing in purchases, charges used etc. Over 6 or so players, I find this mounts up. Plus, the sheets can often get sent back and forth a bit till they are right. Hopefully, while it will be more steps, they will be quicker and involve no revisions, as it will end with the player sending the chronicle they are happy with to the gm to check calculations etc. (as in step 10 on p 36.) and sign. I am reckon that in about the time I would normally spend doing this over 6 or so characters, I could check all the chronicles and character for one of the players, and get more value from it. Well, that's the theory. The idea may not work, but I will give it a whirl and see.
Do what works for you though :)

Rose Claymore
August 22nd, 2013, 16:04
Absolutely. Either way is fair and fits with the requirements/guidelines of PFS. The only think I'd ask from a GM who wants me to provide my info on the chronicle sheet is a place to upload it. I know I can upload it to FG, but I'm assuming like most public forums upload space is limited. Having a shared Dropbox (or other cloud service) where all players (of a particular GM) can upload their info would be huge help. The GM could then see at a glance who has and has not uploaded their info yet. This would help both player and GM.

Blackfoot
August 22nd, 2013, 16:10
IMO. Skellan should go ahead and try it out the way he wants... no harm in trying. It seems like WAY more hassle than filling in the purchases to me... but hey.. whatever floats your boat. For myself, I'm going to stick with the way I've been doing it. Collect the previous chronicles in advance and then post chronicles after the game. I've never had any complaints about this system and it works just fine for me so I'm happy with it.
BF

Gargomaxthalus
August 30th, 2013, 09:40
This thread, largely thanks to Skellan, has me doubting that I should bother to try PFS in the first place. This is compounded by the rules being complete bullshit. According to the rules you can join a Lawful Evil faction and worship an evil Deity but you can't be evil. I understand Paizo wanting to one up Wizards of the Coast's D&D encounters, but this whole system is an over complicated, horrific mess that whiners like Skellan are not helping with one bit. The rules and setting contradict each other nearly as much the various books of the Bible do. In all honesty the whole thing needs to be completely overhauled before it collapses.

That's right, this public argument has stopped someone from joining the PFS community and trying to put up with the glaring issues that are in the guide itself. GOOD JOB!!!

Malkavian_Andi
August 30th, 2013, 10:24
According to the rules you can join a Lawful Evil faction and worship an evil Deity but you can't be evil.The Pathfinder Core Rulebook doesn't say you have to be same alignment as the deity you worship or the faction you ally yourself with. Divine spellcasters just have to be within one alignment step of their deity. As for factions and organisations, you can be any alignment to join them, you'll just have moral problems with some of what they do if it contradicts your alignment.
In fact, the Pathfinder Society (the organisation within Golarion, not the campaign) has good reason to accept only non-evil members, because evil characters will have a big problem with the "cooperate" part of the rules. As for Zarta Dralneen (who is lawful evil), she's not a member of the Pathfinder Society, just an ally ;)
Also, you really don't want any evil characters in a non-evil party. If you play the evil alignment properly, you wouldn't even have a problem with killing innocent NPCs and your party members, so there wouldn't be much fun for most of the players.


This is compounded by the rules being complete bullshit. [...]but this whole system is an over complicated [...]. The rules and setting contradict each other nearly as much the various books of the Bible do. In all honesty the whole thing needs to be completely overhauled before it collapses.I don't really see all the contradiction and bullshit you see. Still, it's your decision if you want to stay away from PFS.
But when playing online or at a convention, there will always be people seeing certain parts of the rules differently than others, which can always lead to an argument. If you want to avoid that, you'll have to stick to playing with a local group that has been playing together for years. It's just a guess, but the fact that you are signed up at FG makes me think you don't always want to hang around with the same local group.

Nickademus
August 30th, 2013, 10:41
I understand Paizo wanting to one up Wizards of the Coast's D&D encounters...

I don't think you understand as much as you think. Society Organized Play was created by Paizo to give the Living Greyhawk people something to do when WotC changed to 4e and they wanted to keep playing 3.5e. Not sure on the exact timeline, but I think Society predates the Encounters. I know that Pathfinder as a campaign setting predates 4e and I think there was talk of making a Pathfinder into a living campaign before the split.

And honestly, if your conduct and attitude on a public forum are any indication of your conduct as a player, you won't be missed. Good day sir.

Rose Claymore
August 30th, 2013, 16:34
you can join a Lawful Evil faction and worship an evil Deity but you can't be evil.
False. There are no LE factions. If you are making the common mistake of assuming Cheliax is LE, they are actually LN. While many in that nation follow (but not worship) devils and their like, an equal number follow various LN and LG deities. There's even a number of published characters who are LG Hellknights, some with levels in paladin.

As for evil deities, I'm sure a quick look at the rules would confirm most evil deities don't require their clerics to be evil, and a longer look at the additional resources list actually prohibits a large number of evil deities from worship by a PC. An even further look into the setting material surrounding the allowed evil deities shows they, or their followers, are capable to working in mixed groups or in civilized society as a whole.


whiners
It's statements like this which may cause more problems than you think the rules have.


In all honesty the whole thing needs to be completely overhauled before it collapses.
So six years of established play and an international playerbase means... what exactly?


That's right, this public argument has stopped someone from joining the PFS community and trying to put up with the glaring issues that are in the guide itself. GOOD JOB!!!
I'm reasonably certain your opinion has nothing to do with the subject of this thread, or anything anyone has said here. Before this gets derailed any further, I suggest starting a new thread where you can clearly state some of the issues you have with Organized Play and you can discuss them with the community. It sound like you lack an understanding of either the rules or the setting and have jumped to a number of conclusions, and it would be good for everyone to clear some of that up.

Talen
August 30th, 2013, 16:55
One thing I would like to add, while the discussion was heated here, all parties seemed to have come to a point where they were able to move on and the discussion did not spiral out of control like it has on occasion other places on the web. This remains a good place to find games and if one particular grouping doesn't suit you, there are several other areas here to look into - and I think while the community may not be quite as large as some others, it still remains civil and a good place to find games to fit different sensibilities.