(*I apologize if this has been addressed somewhere, I could not find it in a search)
I wanted to know if there was someplace I had not found on the website or if something was coming that would show the events/games/sessions players attend and Dungeon Masters run
There is something for MtG (Planeswalker Points) that shows all the events that I participate in, but I see nothing for the D&D Encounter or Expedition games I play in or run.
Without this, I am having issue with why we bother to track it anyway; as there is no proof to back up anything that is written on a log sheet.
I can see the benifit for a store to report games, as it proves they are being run and they can gain access to the downloads for DM's; but otherwise it doesn't seem to be a benifit for players or Dungeon Masters.
Aside from proof if I were ever to take my character to a Convention and the table there would know for certain everything was correct and on the up and up; it could also help in reconciling for a player to make sure they have put in all sessions properly.
Is there something like this available, or is this a feature that is coming?
Thank you for taking the time to humour me
Aahhz
Its reported via WER (like Magic is), so WOTC has the data. We are considering some sort of program where your play/running matters but it has not yet been announced.
Oh, and as an aside, since there are currently no prizes, we are not as concerned about "proving" your play like the Magic folks might be. When your rating postentially affects things like prize money, watching fraud is a big deal. If someone somehow feels better about themselves by writting down an adventure they didn't play, its wrong, but it isn't really worth the cost to hunt them down. We have found that the D&D community usually polices itself. i.e. "Hey, don't play with that guy. He's a cheater."
Thanx for the reply, I appreciate the information 
it'S honor based, and if the DM got doubt refer to
ADVLEague ruleV1.0 wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
I am not sure how a level 3 character could have five magic items unless the tables they played at were all really generous in letting them take the magic items.
The only way I could see it happening is if someone took a character through the first three chapters of HotDQ and found all the items in those chapters before "retiring" from that campaign and moving over to standard Expedition mods.
Even then, I'm not sure there are that many magic items available that early in the campaign.
Which is why I LOOK at logs. I know many DMs do not, but I think its important.
It's pretty clear in the ALPG that a DM has the authority to review a player log and disallow anything that isn't supported in that log.
If something is important to you as a player, put it in your log and have your DM sign off on it. Short of a certificate, that's as close as AL gets to an official 'seal of approval'.
--
Pauper
Undrhil wrote:
Oraibi wrote:
Spykes wrote:
Spykes wrote:
Spykes wrote:
madscientistlabrat wrote:
Yes, you can certainly interpret it that way, but I wouldn't. The intent behind that statement is to deal with cases where a rule is ambiguous, a situation isn't covered, or a DM needs to make a ruling without pausing to hunt down a rule.
As an example, I'm standing on a walkway and shooting at someone coming up a ladder at me. They are knocked off the ladder and are now considered prone. According to the RAW I am at a disadvantage to shoot at them since they are more than 10 feet away from me but since I am shooting down at them from above it doesn't really make sense that it is harder for me to hit them. The DM makes a ruling that I do not have a disadvantage. This is perfectly reasonable. Similarly, if I'm standing on a fifteen foot tall wall and I'm shooting at someone who is pressed up against the wall in an effort to minimize their profile to me then a DM might rule I have a disadvantage on my shot as if they were prone.
It doesn't seem to be intended to allow a DM to make an arbitrary decision. Saying that a DM 'is allowed' to exclude a player who is following all the AL rules (it seems unlikely that he is, but it is not impossible and all evidence indicates that he is) is akin to saying that the DM 'is allowed' to say that people can only play elves in his Encounters session (he was feeling empowered and made a ruling).
You are partly correct in the sense that if a DM were to make such a ruling the player would have no immediate recourse (and neither would the players who didn't want to play elves) but as written it would appear that the DM should be told by higher ups that he is not allowed to do that next week because he is not following the spirit of the rules of the Adventurer's League. (N.B. All of this is predicated on the idea that the player's claims, while they appear suspicious, are fully supported. If there becomes actual proof that the player was cheating that's a whole separate can of worms. Likewise, if a player is lacking adequate documentation then yes, the DM is fully empowered to restrict the items.)
That's not to say that the player would be doing the right thing by forcing their character into games like that. I think there are much better ways that the situation should be handled, both by the player and by the DM. I think the player and the DM should communicate so that they can work out a resolution to the problem after the session is over. Assuming the DM feels that the issue is cheating he and the player could work out exactly how the player can prove all the items were earned in AL legal play (which would probably be resolved by the player providing where they were playing so the DM can contact the store and possibly the DM in question).
tl;dr Yes, the DM is empowered by the rules to restrict the suspicous character's items for one week so that the game session does not get bogged down and start half an hour late while the DM and player in question try to come to some kind of arrangement. Past that week, however, the DM really isn't empowered by the rules (IMO) to continue to restrict the character's items assuming the player has proper documentation (if the DM uncovers evidence that the records are falsified they would no longer constitute 'proper' documentation).
I sign the sheets I run games for. I think it adds a well.. a bit more of a personal touch then just printing my name.
Spykes wrote:
Tyranthraxus wrote:
A side note about a player maybe having a low-level character with too many magic items or with something a DM does not recognize. With the limited availability of permanent magic items in 5E, it would be easy to make a master list, only available to DMs, of all the available permanent magic items that can be found in the published modules and in the Expeditions. Then a DM who has not run every single session available would have a resource to check quickly if something looks suspicious on a character.
Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
I mean, I thought "3rd level character with 5 items" was a hypothetical, and not a serious problem that any DM is currently dealing with -- so I see no reason to change the rules just because some folks don't like the result of a hypothetical application of those rules.
The AL rules are fine and working as intended.
Agreed. Cheaters gon' cheat.
IMO, any system put in place is only a shiny challenge to a gamer who is interested in circumventing fair play. You can't stop it. Our hobby attracts and cultivates the kind of person who is particularly gifted at coming up with work-arounds to obstacles. It's in our nature. It's what we do for fun.
Overly complex or draconian systems only serve to punish, or discourage, the normal player.
My advice? If you find yourself in the midst of one or more people you feel aren't playing in a manner conducive to your enjoyment, sit at another table.
All this talk about cheating, and the orignial question was where do I find the listing of games I've played/ran. I was looking for the same thing, as I was told by the Judge at my table I would need his name and # in order to enter the information into the listings on this site. As of yet I have to find said listing or entry page.
Arduin64 wrote: