Quote from: StuartI think what bogs down a lot of discussion about RPG design / theory is that there's really a lot of variety to RPGs, but most people hear RPG and think about a specific game (possibly with nominally different setting and dice mechanics).

I don't really agree.  Much of the theory conversation on rec.games.frp.advocacy was a contrast between Theatrix and more traditional games and why each did or didn't work for people.  The same with dice and diceless, social mechanics, and so on.  I think that most people seriously discussing RPG design/theory understand that there is a variety out there, though I think they (I'm including myself here) don't always understand all the ways in which players approach and use those rules.

After my reply to Tony, I think there is a strong expectations element at work here and thus having and setting expectations can be very important.  If I expect a game to let me do something, don't expect to have to do something, or expect things to turn out a certain way, I'm going to be disappointed if it doesn't meet my expectations.  The fewer expectations that a person brings to the table, the less likely they are to run into a situation where the game doesn't meet their expectations.

I've been using this principle for movies for a while now.  I've stopped letting myself get too psyched about movies and since I've been watching movies with low expectations, I find I enjoy them more.  If they exceed my expectations, that's great, but it's also a lot easier for a movie to meet them, which is what I often need to enjoy the movie.

Quote from: John MorrowI don't really agree.  Much of the theory conversation on rec.games.frp.advocacy was a contrast between Theatrix and more traditional games and why each did or didn't work for people.

We play both kinds of music - country and western.

I think "doesn't work" is an important phrase here. (I'm not specifically picking on you for using it, I've seen it used lots of times before) The only reason a game "doesn't work" for someone is they have a specific type of game they want to be playing, and are disappointed the game they sit down to play isn't it.  This is different from saying you "didn't like" a particular game.

For example, I might say I "didn't like" playing Candy Land last night, but it would be strange for me to say it "doesn't work" for me.  As in "it doesn't work for me because there are no rules for setting stakes".  That would be weird.

I don't think that roleplaying is something people do in a single way.  You roleplay in all sorts of games, and in varying amounts.  If you make a "woof woof" noise with the doggie in Monopoly, that's roleplaying.  If you draw a card that tells you to act out a scene where you're late for a meeting, that's also roleplaying.  If you're a Mormon cowboy, or a Dwarven Dungeoncrawler, those are both roleplaying as well.

I think people can like a wide variety of games, and roleplay in them differently -- because they're different games.

Quote from: John MorrowFor some people (including myself, when it comes to in character thought and behavior derived from thinking in character and setting physics), there can be a strong sense that there is one right way that things should go.  As a result, other outcomes feel as "wrong" as throwing a stone and having it fall up.  And those wrong results are not satisfying because of it.

But at the same time, there are other results (such as, for instance, the emotional responses of NPCs) which have emotional weight, but for which you can accept many different outcomes, right?

I have this sense that you look at DitV and assume that its conflict rules would say (for instance) "You want to win a conflict, and therefore you must shoot this innocent person in the face."  And, since you want the right to say "I don't shoot him in the face," that strikes you as troublesome.

What the system actually says (IME) is subtly but importantly different:  the system says (in the instances we're talking about) "The choice you face here is whether or not to shoot this innocent person in the face ... if you're not willing to do that, that's cool, but you know and your character knows that the consequence of not shooting him will be that you don't win the conflict."

I'm accustomed to dealing with different people's take on what the consequences of my actions should be ... I mean, the GM traditionally fills this role and I don't have any trouble when the GM says "No, man, those tactics aren't going to win that conflict."  It's not harder for me to accept the judgment of the game rules (which I can see working in a transparent fashion) than it is for me to accept the judgment of the GM.

Now, mind you, I personally do also enjoy rules that tell me what my character can and cannot choose to do ... but that's not really what I'm talking about here.  I pretty well see how that would cause you immediate problems.  I think that rules that explictly lay out the consequences of your choices ... that's something that looks (to my eyes) much more usable with your style of play.  How does it sound to you?

Quote from: StuartI think "doesn't work" is an important phrase here. (I'm not specifically picking on you for using it, I've seen it used lots of times before) The only reason a game "doesn't work" for someone is they have a specific type of game they want to be playing, and are disappointed the game they sit down to play isn't it.  This is different from saying you "didn't like" a particular game.

While I think that's often true, I don't think it's always true.  In the case of diceless role-playing, for example, the required skill seems to be something that I have a great deal of trouble doing -- "Just decide what happens next."  I have a horrible time picking among the possibilities, to the point where I often just roll dice as a GM to sort out which decision I pick.  Thus diceless role-playing really "doesn't work" for me in a very literal sense, if I'm the one making the decisions.  And I can have a similar problem with things like "Tell me how your character fails to climb the wall."  Yeah, I can sort of fumble my way through it, like I could probably fumble my way through playing a song on a piano, but it ain't going to be music.

Quote from: StuartFor example, I might say I "didn't like" playing Candy Land last night, but it would be strange for me to say it "doesn't work" for me.  As in "it doesn't work for me because there are no rules for setting stakes".  That would be weird.

You are looking at the wrong end of the gaming spectrum for the analogy that illustrates the point.  When I was working in Japan, one of my co-workers was a Go enthusiast who helped run a club to try to get younger people (though adults) to learn how to play Go.  I understand the idea and the rules, but he eventually gave up because I just don't "get it" well enough to play well.  As he put it, when I asked him to assess the quality of my play, I played about as well as his 5 year-old child (he was a rare Japanese person who could be both sarcastic and blunt).  So I would say that "Go" doesn't work for me.  I can actually play a decent game of Shogi or Xiang-Qi, but I just couldn't think the way I needed to in order to play a decent game of Go, even though I've tried.

ADDED: I'm a very visual person.  In high school, I had the top (scaled) grades in physics across 3 classes and I rarely studied.  In fact, I often made up the equations because I could visualize the curves and figure out the math to produce the curve.  When I got to college, I encountered physics that I could no longer visualize the same way (e.g., electronics) that required mathematics that I hadn't gotten to in high school (I had taken calculus but not matrix algebra).  Thus I had the capacity to intuitively do one sort of physics but literally lacked the capacity (both concept and knowledge) to do another sort of physics.  So, yeah, it's all physics.  But it doesn't follow that just because I could do one type better than anyone else in my high school that I could do other kinds just as well -- or at all.

Quote from: StuartI don't think that roleplaying is something people do in a single way.  You roleplay in all sorts of games, and in varying amounts.  If you make a "woof woof" noise with the doggie in Monopoly, that's roleplaying.  If you draw a card that tells you to act out a scene where you're late for a meeting, that's also roleplaying.  If you're a Mormon cowboy, or a Dwarven Dungeoncrawler, those are both roleplaying as well.

Correct.  But that does not mean that all people can adopt all levels along that continuum with equal ease or at all.  A person who might be fine going "woof woof" in Monopoly might not ever get past describing what "my character" does.  I can think in character but have a much more difficult time deciding what my character would do (it goes back to that problem of being overwhelmed with possibilities and having no preference between them).  It's probably related to the fact that despite having a BA in English with a creative writing concentration and having written literally dozens of books on writing fiction, I can tell you why a story does or doesn't work but have an incredibly difficult time putting a story together myself.

Quote from: StuartI think people can like a wide variety of games, and roleplay in them differently -- because they're different games.

I think some people can.  I don't think that all people can.  I don't think that everyone can role-play the way I do (thinking in character).  I don't think you should expect that I can necessarily do what other people do (e.g., Tony's holistic decision process).  I think your assumption that every person has the capacity to assume any and all possible approaches toward a game is wrong.

Quote from: TonyLBBut at the same time, there are other results (such as, for instance, the emotional responses of NPCs) which have emotional weight, but for which you can accept many different outcomes, right?

Most of the time, yes.  But sometimes, what seems right to the GM might seem wrong to me and that can cause problems.  In the broadest sense, it's a suspension of disbelief issue and let me see if I can explain how it works and why it breaks.

When I think in character, my character builds up a sense of the world and characters around them much like a real person does, or at least I do -- this might be one of those ways in which my characters are bound to think the way I do because they share the same brain.  I have a mental model of my friends and other people I know that allows me to consider how they might react to hypothetical situations and consider what they might be thinking.  When a person I know does something that seems to violate that model, it feels "out of character" for them.  It triggers a sort of, "Something's wrong!  Pay attention!  Figure out what's going on!" response.  In real life, that might involve engaging the friend in conversation or talking to other friends.  In some cases, they are acting funny and something is wrong.  In other cases, my model is imperfect and needs to be adjusted.  But either way, it's something that makes me pay attention.

When that happens when I'm immersing in character, the shock can break immersion.  The "Something's wrong!" exception gets trapped at the player level, not the character level, and suspension of disbelief collapses.  No, that's not a good thing.  And the same thing can happen when other setting details just seem wrong.  Essentially, when something violates my world view in real life, I have no choice but to confront and resolve it (or ignore it).  When my character faces the same sort of crisis, the problem can get kicked up a level to the player and immersion breaks.  That's something I've been working on handling better.

Quote from: TonyLBI have this sense that you look at DitV and assume that its conflict rules would say (for instance) "You want to win a conflict, and therefore you must shoot this innocent person in the face."  And, since you want the right to say "I don't shoot him in the face," that strikes you as troublesome.

It's not an issue of wanting the right to say, "I don't shoot him in the face."  It's an issue of there being a right choice and all other choices being wrong.  In other words, "I don't shoot him in the face" is the right answer and all other choices are wrong.

Quote from: TonyLBWhat the system actually says (IME) is subtly but importantly different:  the system says (in the instances we're talking about) "The choice you face here is whether or not to shoot this innocent person in the face ... if you're not willing to do that, that's cool, but you know and your character knows that the consequence of not shooting him will be that you don't win the conflict."

But I already know that and it's been factored in to my choice.  If the dice don't influence or determine that choice, then what purpose do they serve?

Quote from: TonyLBI'm accustomed to dealing with different people's take on what the consequences of my actions should be ... I mean, the GM traditionally fills this role and I don't have any trouble when the GM says "No, man, those tactics aren't going to win that conflict."  It's not harder for me to accept the judgment of the game rules (which I can see working in a transparent fashion) than it is for me to accept the judgment of the GM.

It's not a matter of being told what happens outside of the character's control that's the problem.  If I use a certain set of tactics to win a context in real life, I don't have total control over whether they work or not.  The question is whether the rules tell me how my character reacts to or responds to the conflict at various stages.

For example, if I make an argument to you about some aspect of gaming theory, I have no control over whether you'll find my argument persuasive or not, so that's suitable for either GM fiat or dice and rules (so long as the result is plausible).  But when you respond to my argument, I do have control over how I react to your response.  If, for example, upon hearing your argument, I think, "Tony's just not getting what I'm saying so I need to restate my point," it would be strange to have a little voice in my head saying, "No, you don't do that.  Tony is making a really good point.  You are doubting your position and feel cornered."  I know what I'm thinking and how I want to respond.  If something outside tells me something else, it's wrong.

Quote from: TonyLBNow, mind you, I personally do also enjoy rules that tell me what my character can and cannot choose to do ... but that's not really what I'm talking about here.  I pretty well see how that would cause you immediate problems.  I think that rules that explictly lay out the consequences of your choices ... that's something that looks (to my eyes) much more usable with your style of play.  How does it sound to you?

Well, aren't the consequences a part of the shared imaginary space and already readily apparent to the character and being factored in to the character's choices?  Is explicitly laying out the consequences intended to reflect the character's understanding of the conflict and the stakes or are they designed to illustrate those elements to the player so they can consider them while making choices?  Or is something else going on?

Quote from: John Morrow(B) that a lot of people just never had experiences like that before DitV.

I think this is the answer. Maybe what DiTV has done for some, is to open up a whole new way of playing, which they didn't get from other games not because of the games themselves but by the limited way in which they played those games. (Yeah I realize clunky phrasing...)

Regards,
David R

QuoteMaybe what DiTV has done for some, is to open up a whole new way of playing, which they didn't get from other games not because of the games themselves but by the limited way in which they played those games.

Even though I like this idea, and suspect it myself, how come?
What have they been doing before?

Quote from: SettembriniEven though I like this idea, and suspect it myself, how come?

What have they been doing before?

Well, yeah, that's where that line of thinking goes, which is why I don't want to just assume it's the case.

Quote from: SettembriniWhat have they been doing before?

To me the answer is fairly obvious and not really that controversial. Whatever they have been doing and for whatever reasons they were doing it, they remained ignorant and or oblivious to the kinds of play that most games are capable of producing.

By playing DiTV (for example) they open themselves up to a whole different kind of play experience. Which is why I'm so fond of trying out new stuff. Take my group for instance.When I first started gaming with them, I ran more or less the same kind of games(systems) they used to play with their old GM. But some how my games were different. Maybe it has something to do with what I'm interested in or maybe my enthusiasm for certain themes infectious...whatever it was, it was a "new" kind of roleplaying game to them.

We started to play many other kinds of games - besides just TSR and d20 games - and because of their newly discovered playstyle, they just took these indie games as any other RPGs with some cool rules that concentrated on certain aspects of gaming (much like any other mainstream games) rather than "those" games which could give you cooties or something.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RTo me the answer is fairly obvious and not really that controversial. Whatever they have been doing and for whatever reasons they were doing it, they remained ignorant and or oblivious to the kinds of play that most games are capable of producing.

Hang on a minute. The thing is that we don't really have any way of judging objectively what 'that kind of play' is. I know for a fact that I've run and played in games that put moral dilemmas in front of people. I think they weren't bad either, if I do say so myself.

I have done a lot of acting, both amateur and professional. If called upon to act my way through a situation, I can do it. I've also known a great many people in my time, from all parts of the social spectrum. I do pretty well in any social situation I find myself in. Every roleplaying group I've ever been in has ended up finding me a valuable and entertaining member. I think I know a bit about how to play an RPG.

Up until a few years ago, I used 'traditional' games exclusively, because that was what I knew. So how about leaving out this idea that everybody who likes DitV, or whatever game comes under the microscope, is discovering a wonderful new world they never knew before? Considering that we have an archetypal Forge-basher on this forum who thinks it's a great game, how about taking people's word for it that it is, in fact, a great game (even if not for you), and that people who like it are not 'ignorant' or 'oblivious' to the potential of other games. That line of enquiry is a dead end.

Now, nobody reading this can tell if I'm telling the truth about my experiences or not. You have to take it on faith. But that's exactly the same for someone who says "Oh, I do just what DitV does and twice on Sundays, without any rules or anything." Completely unverifiable. Also subjective – maybe if I sat in on one of these games I'd see it as boring and ridiculous (it wouldn't be the first time).

It comes down to personal preference, as I've said before. If you want to figure out what DitV actually does, you need to take a very different tack and go through the mechanics with a fine-toothed comb, analysing some actual play. Good luck – it's about as tricky as explaining why Seven Samurai is a great film.

And before you ask: no, David, I'm not offended or pissed off at you; I'm just springboarding off your post. I know what I like, I'm secure in my tastes, and I don't need validation. But this sort of thing is intellectually exasperating.

Quote from: John MorrowWhile I think that's often true, I don't think it's always true.  In the case of diceless role-playing, for example, the required skill seems to be something that I have a great deal of trouble doing -- "Just decide what happens next."  I have a horrible time picking among the possibilities, to the point where I often just roll dice as a GM to sort out which decision I pick.  Thus diceless role-playing really "doesn't work" for me in a very literal sense, if I'm the one making the decisions.  And I can have a similar problem with things like "Tell me how your character fails to climb the wall."  Yeah, I can sort of fumble my way through it, like I could probably fumble my way through playing a song on a piano, but it ain't going to be music.

It only "doesn't work for you" if you have a type of game / gameplay in mind, and this isn't it.  If you just try the game on it's own merits, you may find that your simply not very good at it.  Or you just don't like it.  Or maybe you're just not good at GMing that particular game.

Quote from: John MorrowAs he put it, when I asked him to assess the quality of my play, I played about as well as his 5 year-old child (he was a rare Japanese person who could be both sarcastic and blunt).  So I would say that "Go" doesn't work for me.  I can actually play a decent game of Shogi or Xiang-Qi, but I just couldn't think the way I needed to in order to play a decent game of Go, even though I've tried.

Again, it's not that Go doesn't work for you -- you just aren't very good at it.  That's ok, nobody can be good at ALL games.

Quote from: John MorrowI think some people can.  I don't think that all people can.  I don't think that everyone can role-play the way I do (thinking in character).  I don't think you should expect that I can necessarily do what other people do (e.g., Tony's holistic decision process).  I think your assumption that every person has the capacity to assume any and all possible approaches toward a game is wrong.

What I'm suggesting is that not all games are about roleplaying in the same way.  So you may like some more than others, or be better at some more than others.  Saying it doesn't work for you suggests you have something in mind already.  If I want to play a wargame, then Basketball "doesn't work for me".  If I don't approach the game wanting to play something else, then it's different.  I might like it, I might not.  If I'm not very good at it "I don't work for IT".

I´m with droog, and Morrow: It´s difficult to discuss that way. But it always comes to this point.

And honestly, there is stuff that many people think is fun, that I think is, well bad on several levels. Not to say that DitV matches this category.

But that people are having fun doing stuff is no proof of anything else than their tastes.
That´s why it´s so hard to discuss, and why I made my personal resolution.

If you find a way around that, I´m ready to learn.

If there is no further question at me, I´m out of this one, and will restrict my participation in threads like these to lurking.

Quote from: droogHang on a minute. The thing is that we don't really have any way of judging objectively what 'that kind of play' is. I know for a fact that I've run and played in games that put moral dilemmas in front of people. I think they weren't bad either, if I do say so myself.

Yeah, I get where you are going with this. I guess when folks talk about different games/systems I assume they mean that they get different things out of the system. "The kind of play" is not the same for all games. There is a difference, well at least to me. Perhaps I should not have generalized.

QuoteUp until a few years ago, I used 'traditional' games exclusively, because that was what I knew. So how about leaving out this idea that everybody who likes DitV, or whatever game comes under the microscope, is discovering a wonderful new world they never knew before? Considering that we have an archetypal Forge-basher on this forum who thinks it's a great game, how about taking people's word for it that it is, in fact, a great game (even if not for you), and that people who like it are not 'ignorant' or 'oblivious' to the potential of other games. That line of enquiry is a dead end.

It is a great game, doing what it does very well. What's wrong with saying that folks who have been playing in a specific way (maybe I'm wrong to assume this, but I've met many folks who discovered this game, and realized that something was lacking in the way they played. DiTV made such an impression that it inspired their more trad/mainstream games -nothin' to do with the system more with the players or how they played) discovering DiTV realizing that this is a new experience.

I never said that folks who like it are ignoarant or oblivous to the potential of other games. I said, that some folks (like my crew) were ignorant or oblvious to the potential of the games they played and maybe this applied to some other people.

QuoteIt comes down to personal preference, as I've said before. If you want to figure out what DitV actually does, you need to take a very different tack and go through the mechanics with a fine-toothed comb, analysing some actual play. Good luck – it's about as tricky as explaining why Seven Samurai is a great film.

This is very true, and my reply was to a specific question. Off course, it boils down to preference, but I also don't think that my line of inquiry is offensive.

QuoteAnd before you ask: no, David, I'm not offended or pissed off at you; I'm just springboarding off your post. I know what I like, I'm secure in my tastes, and I don't need validation. But this sort of thing is intellectually exasperating.

Hey man, when you call me cunt, I'll know that you like me.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: John MorrowBut I already know that and it's been factored in to my choice.

You already know, without being told, when an argument isn't going to work?  How?

Quote from: John MorrowIf, for example, upon hearing your argument, I think, "Tony's just not getting what I'm saying so I need to restate my point," it would be strange to have a little voice in my head saying, "No, you don't do that.  Tony is making a really good point.  You are doubting your position and feel cornered."  I know what I'm thinking and how I want to respond.  If something outside tells me something else, it's wrong.

But that's actually not what I'm talking about   What if you had a little voice in your head saying "Restating the argument isn't going to work.  I can do it, but Tony's heard and absorbed that argument, and it hasn't convinced him, so if I want to convince him I'll need something else or something more"?  Would that flash of perception and insight into the outside world be a more acceptable "intrusion"?

Quote from: TonyLBYou already know, without being told, when an argument isn't going to work?  How?

Your statement was, "The choice you face here is whether or not to shoot this innocent person in the face ... if you're not willing to do that, that's cool, but you know and your character knows that the consequence of not shooting him will be that you don't win the conflict."  What I'm trying to say that that the consequences are already a part of what's going on in the character's head and the choice is a matter of the character making a choice.  

To understand what I'm getting at, it might help to stop thinking of the player and character separately or as something that the player is controlling.  Picture yourself standing there with a gun, having an argument with someone, understanding (from your perspective) what the consequences are of shooting the other person or backing down.  Do you need any help from dice or rules to decide what you are going to do next?  And if you do, how would that work?  And I'm not even sure you need to be thinking in character to just know what the character would do.

Quote from: TonyLBBut that's actually not what I'm talking about   What if you had a little voice in your head saying "Restating the argument isn't going to work.  I can do it, but Tony's heard and absorbed that argument, and it hasn't convinced him, so if I want to convince him I'll need something else or something more"?  Would that flash of perception and insight into the outside world be a more acceptable "intrusion"?

In some cases, I can do that.  That's what I mean by "nudging" the character in a certain direction.  But the character has their own voice of intuition (effectively independent of mine -- it sees things that I don't and vice versa, even if it's all just an illusion).  So to answer your question, it depends on how much that insight clashes with what's already in the character's mind.  In some cases, if it fits in with the character's mental state, it seems like a flash of insight.  In other's, it creates a "Where did that come from?" moment if it conflicts with what's there too strongly.  Bear in mind that when I'm in a situation like that with a character, there is an intuitive and emotional context that goes along with it.  So whatever I inject into that process needs to fit or it (A) gets rejected or (B) crashes the immersion.

The secondary problem is that using such mechanics often require meta-game considerations.  If I need to think and make judgments about things that aren't in the game world or relevant to my character, it draws mental power away from immersion and, at a certain level, that can cause the immersion to crash, too.  The things that I do watch out for to try to avoid (the game destroying stuff) I don't so much think about during a session but before and after, and during the game I simply watch out for a few patterns of thinking and behavior that seem to lead to bad places and then stop the immersion on purpose to fix the problem.  As an occasional tool, it's fine.  As a regular process carried out multiple times during a conflict, I'd have a lot of trouble with it.

Please note that I've had a discussion with Vincent Baker about immersion and DitV and it sounds like he has a much easier time doing that sort of thing than I do.  Not sure if we're doing something a little different or he just find certain things easier to juggle in his brain than I do.  In any event, milage does vary on this even, even among people who immerse in character.

So the answer is that I can do what you are talking about to some limited degree.  But that still leaves me with they "Why would I want to?" question.

Why would the external results suggested by the dice be any better, more interesting, or more intense than the decision that I'm already making in character?   A key goal is to not determine who it turns out up front or push the story toward a particular outcome, right?  

In the cases where I do nudge my character in a certain direction, it's usually to avoid game-destroying decisions or lines of thinking (a consideration of the enjoyment of everyone at the table and the limitations of the role-playing medium  -- e.g. it's easier to run a game if the characters stick together to some degree).

What I'm trying to understand is the benefit, on that level -- contrasted with what people would do normally with traditional RPG rules, that makes things better for the people who think it's a big improvement.  What do people get out of it that they don't get with other techniques?  I do something like ths (with some difficulty and reluctance) to avoid wrecking games.  What are other people getting out of it?  And the reason I'm asking is that I'm trying not to just make assumptions since I don't personally understand it (though I have some guesses that I'll toss out in case they help).

Is it that the rules and dice produce more interesting character decisions and conflict resolution for people than what they get deciding what their character would do normally?  Do the rules and dice help people frame the process of making decisions for their characters that adds more depth to it?  Were they not getting deep and rich role-playing situations before systems like this?  

In some ways, it's like I'm walking up the stairs to get to the top and a person comes along and offers to help me climb the stairs.  I'm doing fine and I'm getting there so I don't need their help.  It doesn't seem like their help is going to get me to the top and faster or better and the help that they are offering will normally just slow me down.  Is there more to the help than simply getting to the top of the stairs (since I can already do that just fine) that I might be able to get some value out of?  If so, there might be some value in accepting the help.  If not, then I just don't need it.

It's not a problem if DitV doesn't offer me anything that I need (I know life is not just all about me ).  That doesn't make it a bad game.  Clearly, lots of people enjoy it and I enjoyed the parts that deal with creating an adventure and setting up conflicts.  But not only would it help confirm why it doesn't seem all that interesting to me, it might help advocates understand why DitV and other "indie" games don't appeal to everyone.  And it also would help explain to me why many "indie" designers take ideas that could help improve games for people who like traditional systems (e.g., the advice in DitV for making an intense and interesting conflict all but inevitable in the situation set-up) but go several steps further, creating a sort of "all or nothing" completely different package that changes everything.