Quote from: JimBobOz

Quote from: JimBobOzOf course I'm speaking in generalities, and these things are not absolutes. But I think it's fair to say they're general trends - that what's on the character sheets will come up in play, and what's not, won't, that systems encourage play styles, but don't determine them.

To be honest, most of the stuff you claimed in that thread don't match my anecdotal experience (e.g., I'm a Develop In Play character, as are others I know and have read about online) so I don't know if it's fair to call them general trends.  Your examples also look to me like a group of players who want to role-play a certain way despite the rules, not because of them.  You might be right and you might not be.  That's why I'd rather stick to specific anecdotal evidence as anecdotal evidence than claim it as evidence of trends and norms.  I'm curious what particular people get out of these things.  I'm not sure trying to shift things to a "most gamers" discussion is going to be helpful.

Well, John, my friends are a little puzzled by your questions. Player X wants to know what systems you have played, and whether DitV is one of them.

Quote from: John MorrowThe second aspect is that for me, a large part of the fun of role-playing is watching how my character interprets the game and responds to it.  So both (b) and (c) rob me of the experience of figuring out the mystery in character if they replace (a).  I enjoy experiencing that moment of discovery in character and replacing it with a GM or some dice and rules telling me that I've reached that moment robs that moment of discovery from me.  In other words, I enjoy the process of thinking things out and experiencing things in character.  I don't want to be not doing that.  And this is where I think a big part of the "Why would you want to do things that way?" gut-level incredulousness comes from.

John.

>Deep breath<

This has gone exactly the way I asked you to reassure me that it wouldnt go.  I am very frustrated, and disappointed in you.

You are looking for excuses to continue believing that the rules can't help anybody.

These excuses are becoming more and more extreme the more I examine them.  At this point you are saying that you often cannot accept the GM giving you input on the possible outcomes of the game ... that, in short, you cannot accept the GM doing one of the main jobs of being a GM.  We're really only an unpleasantly argumentative hop-skip-and-a-jump here from you claiming that you can't handle it if the GM tells you that your character's sword does not hit the goblin ("But my character totally believed that it would hit the goblin!  I need more roleplaying before I can accept the possibility of a miss.  This breaks my immersion!")

I am willing (with great difficulty) to spot you the notion that you play this way, but that puts you in a radical minority.  You have got to know that many, many people do not have the problems that you are describing.

Are we having the discussion where you sincerely ask what other people get from a system, and apply yourself to understanding the answers?  Or are we having the discussion where you ask the question only to shoot down the answers, because you want to prove your theory that there cannot be any benefit to such a system?

Quote from: TonyLB>Deep breath<

This has gone exactly the way I asked you to reassure me that it wouldnt go.  I am very frustrated, and disappointed in you.

You are looking for excuses to continue believing that the rules can't help anybody.

Tony, you asked me about >me<.  I answered for >me<.  If you don't want my opinion, then don't try to redirect the conversation back toward what I think.  Did you even read the last paragraph of my response?

Quote from: TonyLBThese excuses are becoming more and more extreme the more I examine them.  At this point you are saying that you often cannot accept the GM giving you input on the possible outcomes of the game ... that, in short, you cannot accept the GM doing one of the main jobs of being a GM.

No.  I am telling that I sometimes, not often, cannot accept the GM giving me input on the possible outcomes of the game and I acknowledge that it can be a problem.  I was going to include a bit about that (when it's good and when it's bad) in two replies and pulled it out, rather than going off on yet another tangent.  If you want to know what doesn't always work well for my group, I can discuss that, too.

Quote from: TonyLBWe're really only an unpleasantly argumentative hop-skip-and-a-jump here from you claiming that you can't handle it if the GM tells you that your character's sword does not hit the goblin ("But my character totally believed that it would hit the goblin!  I need more roleplaying before I can accept the possibility of a miss.  This breaks my immersion!")

Yes, Tony, there are situations where my character attempts to do something and the GM describes and outcome that doesn't seem plausible.  If you've never had a suspension of disbelief problem where the GM tells you something that doesn't seem to make sense, then I'd consider that an unusual experience.  First, I'm not claiming that this is a good thing when it happens.  It's not.  That's why I try to understand other styles because sometimes I can learn something from them (and sometimes I can't).  Second, sometimes it uncovers a real mistake that the GM has made, so sometimes (not always), it's a good thing.  Third (I was going to explain this in an earlier reply but didn't want to create another tangent), that's exactly why my group needs rules of a certain level that act as a proxy for the physics of the setting because despite playing together for over two decades in some cases, we still have assumption clash problems.  That's the area where we need rules to do something that other groups have no problem with.

Quote from: TonyLBI am willing (with great difficulty) to spot you the notion that you play this way, but that puts you in a radical minority.  You have got to know that many, many people do not have the problems that you are describing.

Well, I think how many people do or don't have that problem (or some variation of that problem) that depends on how you scope the problem.  Variations of the same theme are what cause people to have problems with, say, railroading and GMs who make silly judgments.  It also lies at the heart of rule-lawyering, some power gaming, and lots of arguing with the GM over what happens.  So the basic problem, disagreement with the GM over what happens, isn't all that uncommon in my experience or we wouldn't see so many threads in online discussions about it, nor would so many groups need the heavy rules that they use.  

Yes, I acknowledge that many people don't have that problem, but I'm not sure it's constructive to worry about whether it's common or uncommon because, from what I've seen in online discussions, anecdotal evidence is nearly useless as an objective assessment and nobody trusts the only marketing data we do have from WotC because the numbers of "too neat" and produce skepticism.

Quote from: TonyLBAre we having the discussion where you sincerely ask what other people get from a system, and apply yourself to understanding the answers?  Or are we having the discussion where you ask the question only to shoot down the answers, because you want to prove your theory that there cannot be any benefit to such a system?

I am asking a question about what other people get from a system and I'm evaluating whether it's something I can use or something I can adapt to what I do.  I also simply want to have a better understand of what other people do and why, rather than simply making assumptions about it which might be wrong.

I think the mistake you are making is that because I explain why these things won't work for me, that I'm "shooting down" what you are saying.  Not at all.  I'm explaining why it doesn't work for me to help you understand why.  And I'm asking why these things work for you and others so I can understand why, even if it doesn't help me, personally.  Is the idea of curiosity without an agenda really that alien to you?  If you really aren't curious about what I do, then maybe you should stop asking me questions about what I do.

ADDED:  At the core, me explaining why DitV doesn't work for me is really no different than Ron or RPGPundit or anyone else explaining why some other game system doesn't work for them, unless you are making the assumption that all systems, or maybe just Forge games like DitV should just automatically work for everyone.  And just as it's useful to understand why traditional games don't work well for the people creating different styles of games, maybe it might be useful to understand why those different styles of games also don't work for various people.  So I'm not really understanding what the problem is here, other than maybe you guys have been beaten up so often by anti-Forge fanatics that you see a hammer waiting to fall in every discussion.

Quote from: droogWell, John, my friends are a little puzzled by your questions. Player X wants to know what systems you have played, and whether DitV is one of them.

See the thread on systems that people have played.  I've also played a lot of homebrews and experimental games that aren't on that list, including games with no rules and dice, games where "high rolls are good, low rolls are bad" was pretty much the only rule, structured live-action experiments, and so on.  

I have not played DitV but own it (though I can't currently find it).  I raised the subject of trying it with some people in my group and they weren't interested.  That's not surprising because it's difficult to make a sales pitch when one doesn't understand the benefits of the product.  That's yet another part of why I'm trying to understand the benefits of DitV.

Quote from: John MorrowIf you really aren't curious about what I do, then maybe you should stop asking me questions about what I do.

Okay, I'll stop doing that then.  I think that the focus on why you don't think the techniques would work for you is blocking any meaningful discussion of why they work for other people.  So I'll talk about how they work for me.

I can easily accept either the GM or the rules telling me "Hey, if you don't shoot this kid in the face then you won't win this conflict."  I expect to get such input.  In fact, I welcome that, because I think that such stark choices are cool.

I think they are particularly cool when everyone at the table is on the same page about what the choice is about.  If the rules have made it clear that I have to either shoot this kid or give up the conflict then giving up is a choice that everyone can see as powerful.  It's an affirmation of the importance of life.

If, by contrast, I've come to that conclusion in my own mind then everybody else just knows that I gave up.  Maybe it was because I respect and value life.  Maybe it was because I was no longer interested in winning the conflict at all.  Maybe it was because I'm yellow, and scared of getting into a gunfight.  Who knows?  Who cares?

I like having people on the same page.  It makes me feel more strongly that people are recognizing and validating the things I consider important about my own play, and vice-versa it helps me to recognize and validate the things other people consider important about their own play.  That makes it a more enjoyable and intense social experience for me.

Make sense?

Quote from: John MorrowSee the thread on systems that people have played.

Yes, I found it and C&Ped it for them. No response on that as yet.

Quote from: John MorrowI have not played DitV but own it (though I can't currently find it).  I raised the subject of trying it with some people in my group and they weren't interested.  That's not surprising because it's difficult to make a sales pitch when one doesn't understand the benefits of the product.  That's yet another part of why I'm trying to understand the benefits of DitV.

So you are trying to understand – at great length – why people enjoy a game you haven't even played. Pardon me while I snicker.

Quote from: TonyLBOkay, I'll stop doing that then.  I think that the focus on why you don't think the techniques would work for you is blocking any meaningful discussion of why they work for other people.  So I'll talk about how they work for me.

Thank you.  I'll try to answer whatever questions you want to ask me about my style, but like you said, I don't think that was helping this particular discussion.

Quote from: TonyLBMake sense?

I think it helps and mostly makes sense to me.

Quote from: TonyLBI can easily accept either the GM or the rules telling me "Hey, if you don't shoot this kid in the face then you won't win this conflict."  I expect to get such input.  In fact, I welcome that, because I think that such stark choices are cool.

Can you imagine having some other way to win the conflict in mind at the time?  If so, would you welcome the GM's assessment even though it excludes what you had in mind or would you welcome the GM framing the choice in that way?  If not, that's fine.

Quote from: TonyLBI think they are particularly cool when everyone at the table is on the same page about what the choice is about.  If the rules have made it clear that I have to either shoot this kid or give up the conflict then giving up is a choice that everyone can see as powerful.  It's an affirmation of the importance of life.

OK.  So part of the benefit is that it helps put a spotlight on the choice that everyone at the table can see, rather than letting that choice be framed and decided in a player's head where nobody might be notice it.  Is that correct?  

Quote from: TonyLBIf, by contrast, I've come to that conclusion in my own mind then everybody else just knows that I gave up.  Maybe it was because I respect and value life.  Maybe it was because I was no longer interested in winning the conflict at all.  Maybe it was because I'm yellow, and scared of getting into a gunfight.  Who knows?  Who cares?

Well, just because people don't know doesn't mean that they don't or won't care.

In his Allowing the "linchpin" to die. thread, David R. talks about a session of his game where two players went off in the kitchen to play a very powerful scene and even the GM didn't know everything they discussed.  In my experience, it's not uncommon for players to actually enjoy that sort of mystery and encourage it.

I highlight this point not to shoot you down but because I think it might point to one of those more fundamental style differences in people.  Two other examples are that while I was playing in Japan, I accidentally insulted a GM because I walked away from the table during a scene where my character wasn't involved while doing that is typical and expected in other groups that I've played with.  I also had an extensive style discussion with Bill Stoddard on the Pyramid boards where I explained that the central activity of role-playing for me is what goes on in my character's head while the central activity for Bill is something like watching the game happen.

So I wonder if wanting to understand what's going on with the other characters vs. wanting what's going on with the other characters to remain a mystery that may or may not come out in play, is one of those fundamental incompatible differences in preferences that can make a system or style of play good for one person and not so good for another.

So am I correct in saying that part of what you enjoy about of the game is watching the whole thing unfold from an omniscient Audience stance as a spectator?

Quote from: TonyLBI like having people on the same page.  It makes me feel more strongly that people are recognizing and validating the things I consider important about my own play, and vice-versa it helps me to recognize and validate the things other people consider important about their own play.  That makes it a more enjoyable and intense social experience for me.

OK.  Cool.  Yes, that helps to know that.  

So maybe part of what I'm missing in those DitV actual play threads is the enjoyment the participants are getting from putting all of that stuff out in the open.  That's not something I normally worry so maybe I just dismissed it, even though that might have been a very important part of what made the game good to the person writing the actual play account.  Yeah, I think that explanation helped me understand at least part of what I'm missing.

Quote from: droogSo you are trying to understand – at great length – why people enjoy a game you haven't even played. Pardon me while I snicker.

So you are telling me that you usually play games blind, knowing nothing about them except what the back blurb says, and find reviews where the author explains what they liked or didn't like about the game useless in helping you decide whether you'd like a game or not before playing it?

Quote from: John MorrowSo you are telling me that you usually play games blind, knowing nothing about them except what the back blurb says, and find reviews where the author explains what they liked or didn't like about the game useless in helping you decide whether you'd like a game or not before playing it?

You're making me laugh again.

Quote from: droogYou're making me laugh again.

Whatever.

Quote from: John MorrowCan you imagine having some other way to win the conflict in mind at the time?

In the Dogs case?  Nah.  If there were another way to win the conflict that made any sense to me then there'd be dice for it ... which would mean that I would not yet be at the point where I had to make a choice between shooting him in the face and giving up.

Say I'm playing and I think "But I grew up the son of a travelling preacher ... surely I can pull out the Book of Life and sway these people with a quick sermon, and still win this conflict!"  Well that's fine.  I roll "Possession:  Large, High Quality Book of Life: 2d8" and "I learned sermon's on my pappy's knee:  2d10" and by God, if 2d10+2d8 isn't enough to sway the conflict then either I rolled lousy (which changes what I think is possible, as it so often does) or there's some really, really serious opposition on the far side.

Now if I thought all that stuff, and my character doesn't have a big Book of Life, or a trait about growing up the son of a travelling preacher ... well then, I've just done a crap job at character creation, right?  I'd be to blame in the same way that I would if I thought "My character can just ripple his monstrous thews and slices this creature in half!" but I was playing a strength 8 magic-user.

Quote from: John MorrowOK.  So part of the benefit is that it helps put a spotlight on the choice that everyone at the table can see, rather than letting that choice be framed and decided in a player's head where nobody might be notice it.  Is that correct?

Not quite.  It can be framed and decided in a player's head too.  It just doesn't stay isolated there.  The rules provide an additional, very explicit, channel of communication between the players at the table, which helps everyone to express themselves more clearly.  For the New Yorkers in the crowd:  it's like speaking passionately and gesturing with your hands.  One thread of communication, but broadcast across two distinct channels.

Quote from: John MorrowIn his Allowing the "linchpin" to die. thread, David R. talks about a session of his game where two players went off in the kitchen to play a very powerful scene and even the GM didn't know everything they discussed.  In my experience, it's not uncommon for players to actually enjoy that sort of mystery and encourage it.

Yes, that's also a valid tool.  But the fact that ambiguity is a valid tool doesn't mean that clarity isnt', right?

Quote from: John MorrowSo am I correct in saying that part of what you enjoy about of the game is watching the whole thing unfold from an omniscient Audience stance as a spectator?

Not even vaguely!  You're pulling in dichotomies again that just don't make any sense with my style of play.  I'm not keeping the knowledge I gain through the communication of the rules cordoned off in my head in some sort of "spectator area."  I am using it to play the game.

I like dialogue too ... but that doesn't mean that part of my enjoyment of the game can be typified as being a passive observer watching a play unfold.  I'm in that thing up to my elbows, and that makes a difference.

Quote from: John MorrowYeah, I think that explanation helped me understand at least part of what I'm missing.

Oh good.

Quote from: TonyLBIn the Dogs case?  Nah.  If there were another way to win the conflict that made any sense to me then there'd be dice for it ... which would mean that I would not yet be at the point where I had to make a choice between shooting him in the face and giving up.

OK.  So understanding and translating the character's thinking and approach into a roll of the dice is important.  Is it possible to roll the dice in a way that there could be more than one outcome?  

For example, if the failings of character is causing bad things to happen in the community, I might want my character to try to convince them to repent or convince them to leave town (because I think that will help, too) or shoot them in the face.  Now, I can see how it could be played serially like that.  But is there any way to, for example, say, "I start trying to play on his guilt for what he's doing to others in town and probe to see if can get him to repent or leave"?  Would getting an answer to whether either of those is possible and, if so, which one be the way to frame that conflict, followed by the actual attempt to get him to repent or leave?

Quote from: TonyLBSay I'm playing and I think "But I grew up the son of a travelling preacher ... surely I can pull out the Book of Life and sway these people with a quick sermon, and still win this conflict!"  Well that's fine.  I roll "Possession:  Large, High Quality Book of Life: 2d8" and "I learned sermon's on my pappy's knee:  2d10" and by God, if 2d10+2d8 isn't enough to sway the conflict then either I rolled lousy (which changes what I think is possible, as it so often does) or there's some really, really serious opposition on the far side.

OK.  Is there any way to get a "deferred" result rather than a win or loss out of a conflict?  (I really need to find my copy of the rules so I can answer questions like this myself.)

Quote from: TonyLBNow if I thought all that stuff, and my character doesn't have a big Book of Life, or a trait about growing up the son of a travelling preacher ... well then, I've just done a crap job at character creation, right?  I'd be to blame in the same way that I would if I thought "My character can just ripple his monstrous thews and slices this creature in half!" but I was playing a strength 8 magic-user.

So it's very important to create a character that matches how you intend to play them.  I presume that makes this a very Develop At Start oriented game?

This is important to me and goes back to JimBobOz's comments about what's on the character sheet mattering and my experience that it doesn't matter so much.  

Quote from: TonyLBNot quite.  It can be framed and decided in a player's head too.  It just doesn't stay isolated there.  The rules provide an additional, very explicit, channel of communication between the players at the table, which helps everyone to express themselves more clearly.  For the New Yorkers in the crowd:  it's like speaking passionately and gesturing with your hands.  One thread of communication, but broadcast across two distinct channels.

Well, that's what I meant.  It can't stay hidden in the player's head.

Quote from: TonyLBYes, that's also a valid tool.  But the fact that ambiguity is a valid tool doesn't mean that clarity isnt', right?

Of course.  But you said, "Who knows? Who cares?"  I was simply trying to explain that one can not know and still care.  And just because both are valid tools doesn't mean that everyone will find them both desirable in many cases.

Quote from: TonyLBNot even vaguely!  You're pulling in dichotomies again that just don't make any sense with my style of play.  I'm not keeping the knowledge I gain through the communication of the rules cordoned off in my head in some sort of "spectator area."  I am using it to play the game.

I think you are reading dichotomies that aren't intended.  I'm also not talking about how you play the game but where you get your enjoyment out of it (which could also include the act of actually playing the game, I suppose).  Which part of "part of what you enjoy about of the game" wasn't clear?  

Quote from: TonyLBI like dialogue too ... but that doesn't mean that part of my enjoyment of the game can be typified as being a passive observer watching a play unfold.  I'm in that thing up to my elbows, and that makes a difference.

That means that another part of what you enjoy about the  game is dialogue and yet another part is the feeling of being in the thing up to your elbows.  But when your character isn't in the spotlight, it sounds like you enjoy watching what the other players and their characters are up to and want to know what's going on with them.  While that may seem obvious, it's not a universal focus of enjoyment for a lot of people (or in some cases, it's something they'd enjoy but forego because it's detrimental to other things they enjoy).  

Quote from: TonyLBOh good.

Yeah.  As I suspected, it's not simply the cheap and easy answer.  There may quite a bit more to it than I suspected.

Quote from: John MorrowFor example, if the failings of character is causing bad things to happen in the community, I might want my character to try to convince them to repent or convince them to leave town (because I think that will help, too) or shoot them in the face.  Now, I can see how it could be played serially like that.  But is there any way to, for example, say, "I start trying to play on his guilt for what he's doing to others in town and probe to see if can get him to repent or leave"?  Would getting an answer to whether either of those is possible and, if so, which one be the way to frame that conflict, followed by the actual attempt to get him to repent or leave?

You're talking about stakes to find out whether other stakes are winnable?

Well ... that seems an awful strange remove to operate at.  I'd just set the stakes as "If I win then this sonuvabitch repents his sinnin' ways and becomes a God-fearin' member of this congregation."  Then I find out whether it's possible by tryin' to do it.

I'm honestly not sure how you would interpret the results of the stakes, as you're proposing them.  If you lose, does that mean that you know that nothing, ever, could possibly sway this man?  Because ... y'know ... that's just not true.  Even if you've lost those stakes, I (your fellow Dog) can stroll in, say "My stakes are he repents," beat the snot out of the guy, shoot him in the kidney, and take his death-bed repentance.  Ain't difficult, if I'm willin' to take it that far.

Contrariwise, if you win, does that mean that you're guaranteed a victory?  Or have you just learned that it's possible ... which you knew to begin with?

I know I said I was going to stop asking questions about how you play, but here I'm genuinely not understanding the question you're asking well enough to answer it.

Quote from: John MorrowOK.  Is there any way to get a "deferred" result rather than a win or loss out of a conflict?

Nope!

Quote from: John MorrowSo it's very important to create a character that matches how you intend to play them.  I presume that makes this a very Develop At Start oriented game?

Not a term I'm familiar with, and from my plain-english reading, not a term that seems very useful for ... uh ... any game in which the character is assumed to be changeable through the course of play.  But maybe if you clarify what you're asking I can give you a better answer.

Quote from: John MorrowWhich part of "part of what you enjoy about of the game" wasn't clear?

The part where you chopping my style of play up into individual, unconnected pieces makes things any more clear than my description of the style as a whole.

There are elements of what you're describing in the way I play the game, but they're inextricably connected to other elements, in ways I've already described.  If you ignore those connections then you are moving further from understanding, not closer to it.

John,

I wanted to chime in about issue of the "playing privately in my own head" vs. "being on the same page with the group." I can seriously empathize with Tony's description of the first type of play. Sure, as you say, the players might care, might even "get" me wrt the choice I was making and why. But two points: One, what good does it do us (I mean, our shared, group enjoyment, and for what it's worth my personal enjoyment falls rather flat without group affirmation), if it all stays inside our heads and we sit there in mutual but silent appreciation? Now, our affirmation doesn't have to be verbal and explicit, just cries of "Dude!" or that look, or whatever, is cool. But something.

Second, it's haphazard. I mean, whether you're even on the same page, silently or no, is kind of a crapshoot. I've got plenty of experiences where I'm looking at the situation going, "cool! This whole thing is just pregnant with significant choices for my character! Oh, here comes another player, jumping in! Great, now the choices for our characters will mesh in exciting, possibly conflict-ridden ways!" only to have the other player betray a completely different focus for the scene, not just different in terms of "You're exploring those themes, but I'm exploring these themes," but more like (frex) "You're exploring those themes, but I'm winning the fight."

I remember a fellow player once was confronted in a D&D game with a magical wish, and everyone was thinking he should use it to bring someone back to life, since he had this whole tragic deal with a dead family and fiance. He pondered, then wished for some magic item or something instead. Everyone was kind of, "oh, whatever" and moved on. The player said "no, see, he figures, since he can only wish one person back, since he can't save all of them, he won't save any of them." Nobody paid him much mind. He turned to me and whispered, "Do you think it was a good choice?" And Ireplied, "Dude, I think that was awesome!" My point being that the guy seemed tobe starving for some group-affirmation feedback about what choices are about, while stuck in a mode of play that was more like, "OK, sure, you're character's got backstory, but let's move to the next room of the dungeon."

When I play in games where everyone is keeping things secret (either actively or in that "who cares?" mode I just described), it often feels like those players are playing a private game between just them and the GM, and I can't stand it. It's not just feeling left out,either; I don't like it even when I'm the GM in question. I don't mind so much if it's setup for some supercool move/event/revelation in the near future, but if it goes on indefinitely it just starts to feel like, "why are we even all bothering to do this in the same room on the same night?"



Also, to everyone, on this topic:

Quote from: TonyLBYou're talking about stakes to find out whether other stakes are winnable?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a matter of "say yes or roll the dice"? "probe to see if can get him to repent or leave" sounds a lot like the stage of asking around to get a feel for things, at which point the GM is instructed to lay bare the town's guts and let the NPCs spill whatever they feel/know about things. You're explicitly not supposed to call for a conflict over that. Which, if I read you, John, should be nonproblematic and match right up with your playstyle. You just talk through things, in character, until you get to a conflict point like "Repent or leave." If you want "play on his guilt and probe to see" to be part of the conflict, though, great, go for it, and as Tony says just go for the conflict and the guilting and probing will be raises in the contest.

Hope that all helps. Maybe between Tony's description of what works for him and my description of what doesn't work for me (that is, real shit that has screwed up for me what are similar goals to Tony's), you can get an idea of what this thing is that you're wrestling with.

Peace,
-Joel

PS: Droog, DUDE. What is up with that shit? I don't know why you find John's endeavor so goddamned funny, but I personally have started threads on both Heroquest and TSoY to figure out what it is in them that works for people that I wasn't getting. Both have been a success. I'm certainly glad nobody came snickering at me into those threads.