What is a “Catch-Up” Mechanic?

Heya,

Every RPG, just about, has some kind of tactical situation.  A lot of people confuse “tactical” with “combat”, but that’s just wrong.  Tactics can be used in the political arena, historical arena, the emotional arena, or in lots of places I haven’t even thought of.  The point is, these games produce someone who is ahead and someone who is behind at some point during play.

We all know that’s true, so what then?  In many games, especially traditional games that were made prior to 2001, the usual method of resolving this imbalance was the person behind had to get extremely lucky to win or he just lost.  This was especially true of games that featured a Death Spiral.

But something has changed.  Games have developed a series of methods to help the player who is behind to regain an equal footing (and in some cases, surpass the player who was ahead).  I call these methods “Catch-Up” mechanics.

Catch-up mechanics have been around for ages, and they didn’t start with RPGs.  Think about the escalating scale for reinforcements when you turn in cards when playing Risk or about landing on Free Parking in many house-ruled games of Monopoly.  These mechanics are great because it decreases the frustration players feel once they get behind.  They know that there is a chance that they might land on the right space or draw the right card and turn the tables on their opponents.  But it’s just a chance, never a guarantee.

And that’s the important thing.  Catch-Up mechanics offer an opportunity to catch up, not a promise that you will.  So let’s look at some from some RPGs you may know:

Healing Surges in D&D 4e:  This mechanic lets a hero who is behind on hit points recoup some, most, or all of them (depending on what else is going on) during a fight.  The hero (or villain) who was near death is suddenly back to health and ready to continue combat.

Critical Hit system in Rolemaster: In Rolemaster, the slightest knick can kill.  During combat, if you score a hit, you deal damage AND inflict some type of critical wound.  Even a light hit causes a roll on a “Critical Table.”  Just about every level of critical (A-E back when I was playing) can kill if you roll high enough on your d100.  So, no matter how far you are behind in a fight, your next sword strike could drop your enemy.

Escalating in DitV: In Dogs in the Vineyard, Vincent created an “escalating” mechanic.  Let’s say your character starts an argument.  You roll some dice and they don’t roll in your favor.  So you escalate by hitting the guy.  In DiTV when you make that decision to use your fists you get a band new pool of dice to roll.  Let’s say you lose that roll too.  So you pull a knife.  When you pull that knife, you get a new pool of dice.  And so on.  Each time you escalate, you are given a new chance to win the conflict.  There are consequences for doing that, of course, but the escalating mechanic helps the player who’s behind catch up and get another shot at winning.

Catch-Up mechanics are great for games of all types.  Combat-centric games like D&D and Rolemaster benefit from them in the same way artsy-fartsy games like Dogs in the Vineyard benefit from them.  Giving the players a chance to win from a losing position keeps them engaged and can mitigate the effect of an unlucky roll or tactical misstep.  The important thing to remember, though, is the Catch-Up mechanic cannot guarantee victory.  It should never be an auto-win panic button.  It should just give the player a second shot at victory, and might even come at some kind of price.

Peace,

-Troy

Relay the Message: Dyson's Dungeons Patreon

Heya,

Some of you may be creating games that use dungeons.  If so, you might check out Dyson Logos' Paetreon: http://www.patreon.com/dysonlogos?rf=49282

He creates some of the BEST dungeon maps out there, and he releases them on a Creative Commons license that allows you to use and modify the maps in your game, royalty free, as long as you attribute the original work to him.  That's pretty rad!  You can read up more about it here: http://www.patreon.com/dysonlogos?rf=49282

Artwork and dungeon designs can be very hard and/or expensive to get as a RPG designer.  This may be an avenue that works for you at a much lower cost.

Peace,

-Troy

Who has final say?

Heya,

This is a more advanced theory topic than I usually deal with on Socratic Design, but in light of me coming to a deeper understanding about RPG play and RPG design, I feel I need to share this with my audience.

Within the last twelve months I have written articles about GM Fiat and The GoldenRule (aka Rule Zero).  I’m here, today, in this article to state that neither of these things actually exists.  GM Fiat and The Golden Rule (“the GM is always right”) exist only as a means to describe a phenomenon at only the most surface level.  The truth is, the GM cannot assert anything in any game without the group’s consent.

Now, that may sound absurd to some, heretical to others, but it is the truth.  Consider this: the GM in whatever FRPG you’re playing says, “Okay guys, you walk into the nearest tavern and a sorcerer kills all of you.”  That’s an excellent example of Fiat and/or The Golden Rule.  The GM made a decision and enacted it.  So what happens next?

Do the players go along with it?  Do they rebel and leave?  It doesn’t matter.  Either way, what the GM said doesn’t happen until the group agrees to it.  If they don’t say anything and start rolling up new characters, it means the group assented.  If they argue, “Hey, I never said I even went into town!” then the situation will not be resolved until the entire group-including the GM-agrees to what happened or the players get up and leave.  And if the players get up and leave, the situation is still up in the air because play ended.

See, the players and GM have a co-authorial relationship when play is happening.  Nothing the GM says becomes true until everyone agrees- either explicitly by saying “ok” or implicitly by not raising an objection.  Likewise, nothing a single player says becomes true unless the rest of the group (including the GM) agrees to it implicitly or explicitly.

GMs who think they have all the power in a game are sorely mistaken.  They must still get approval from the players at every step of the way in order for play to continue.  If they don’t, play stops until group consensus is reached or everyone quits.  The players, therefore, have just as much control over what happens as the GM.

Now, it may not always appear that way.  It may appear that the players are allowing the GM to railroad them into whatever direction the GM wants.  Or the GM may be using subtle social manipulation to nullify the choices made by the players.  But those are just illusions.  Nothing happens during play unless the whole group agrees to it or, at the very least, fails to object (implicit agreement).

So what does this have to do with design?  Well, if a designer understands that this dynamic is already in play, then he or she can take advantage of it rather than fight against it.  Instead of trying to create rules that help a GM keep the players “on track,” the designer can create rules that aid and facilitate group consensus.  This way, play moves along at an orderly pace, there are fewer arguments and hurt feelings.  I.E. you avoid making a game where the 20:4 ratio is the default mode of play.

Peace,

-Troy

Meeting at the Inn - A Lament

Heya,

How many of you started some RPG campaign of any genre by meeting a group of people in an inn, bar, tavern, or Mos Eisley Cantina?  Raise your hand, because you know we've all done it.  How good was it?  Yeah, it pretty much sucked.  I don't think I've ever heard someone say, "And it was so awesome how we all started as characters who didn't know each other sitting around a table at a tavern when..."

Part of the reason this motif gets eye-rolls is because it's SO contrived with nothing supporting the players.  Why would strangers be loyal to each other?  Or if they knew each other, why didn't the motivation for the campaign arise from their shared experiences and history?  Why are the characters suddenly risking their lives on a tip taken from one of the least reputable places in any town?

Another reason it usually stinks on ice is that the people in the tavern or inn are transient.  They aren't staying in one place, even the barkeep and stereotypical barmaids are easily replaced.  Hence, there's nothing for the players to ever really come back to for validation, help, or enrichment.  The tavern little more than a springboard and then forgotten, at least in my experience and in all the anecdotes I've ever heard.  It's sad how the tavern where the adventure began becomes so astonishingly unimportant to the action later on.

I would like to see someone take this tired, lifeless old trope and really make it good.  I've played a few modules that tried (like Return to the Tomb of Horrors), but none did a very good job.  I lament the tavern meeting for this: it is usually so unsatisfying that it leaves a blotch on the memories of those who have played using it, and I want people to have the best experience they can playing RPGs.

So, if you have some great tavern stories OR a theory on how to improve ye olde tavern campaign kickoff, I'd love to read about it in the comments! :)

Peace,

-Troy

What is TPK?

Heya,

Short one this time around.  I hate gamer-talk sometimes.  We develop our own jargon that we assume everyone gets but really just creates a taller barrier to entry to new people into the hobby.  If you’re reading this entry, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if you typed, “What’s a TPK” into Google after seeing it on a post at RPGnet or something.  I’m here for ya.

TPK is an acronym for Total Party Kill.  It’s simply when everyone in an adventuring party (usually a traditional fantasy, sci-fi, or horror RPG) ends up dead after an encounter.  It could be because of player error, GM error, a combination of both, or some really bad luck on the dice.  It happens. 

Anyway, I’m defining this here because I plan on using this jargon (and linking back to this post) in a future entry and just want to have my bases covered.
Peace,

-Troy

Relay the Message: Early Fall Kickstarters

Heya guy,

Hope you are having a good harvest season.  There's a pretty good crop of Kickstarters I'm following, and I thought I'd share them with you.

First, we have Warlocks.  I'm usually more of a tabletop guy, but I'm getting more and more interested in video game design as that medium gets more and more democratized like RPG publishing did in the early 2000's.  This game is a pretty cool fighting game with old-school pixilated graphics.  If that's your sort of thing, I encourage you to give it a look.

Next, I submit Smoke and Glass by Shoshana Kessok.  It's a SteamPunk setting for Fate Core.  I still haven't got my SteamPunk itch scratched by a game yet.  I'm still looking for something I can't put my finger on.  S&G looks pretty cool, so if you're like me at all, you can check it out. :)

Finally, we have Broken World which is powered by the Appocalypse.  I've enjoyed other AW spin-offs like Dungeon World.  If that system is your thing, check this game out!

Peace,

-Troy

What Do I Do if I Find Myself Designing a Heartbreaker?

Heya,

Back in the saddle after a nice long summer break.  I hope all of you are well.  It’s good to have you back at Socratic Design!

This blog entry was inspired by THIS THREAD.   Back when that thread was active, I just did not have the time to sit down and write the kind of response I really wanted.  I was swamped.  If I had said anything, it would have just been something dismissive or insensitive to the OP, and that’s not something I wanted to do.

For context, I highly recommend you read my oooooooooooold article from 2006, What is a Heartbreaker?

I’m not going to critique Xarcell’s design in this entry.  I think the folks on Story-Games did a pretty thorough job of explaining the potential problems, challenges, and reception Xarcell could expect.  Instead, I’m going to try to offer some advice to him (any anyone) who wants to still drive ahead and publish their D&D-like Medieval Fantasy game. 

To begin, let me say I’ve been there.  I’ve done it.  My first published RPG was a Fantasy Heartbreaker in every single definition.  My friends and I spend years creating a derivative of Rolemaster.  We spend thousands printing up books.  And we sold probably less than a thousand.  So I’m not some ivory tower dude passing my judgment down on the great unwashed.  I’ve lived it.  It’s not pleasant.

But if we’re going to go ahead with it anyway, what should we do?  There are five things I think a person should do if they are going to publish a Fantasy (or Sci-Fi or Vampire or Cthullu or whatever) Heartbreaker. 

1.Play it!  If you’re not playing it when you go to start the publishing process, then I personally think you’re doing it wrong.  You must stay in touch with what makes the game fun.  You must still be excited about it.  People get excited about things other people are excited about.  If the game isn’t still worth your time, how can it be worth theirs?  Also, continuing to play will improve the game quality, and you’re going to need the quality to be as high as possible.

2.Put it up for free first.  You need to get the game out there somehow, even if it’s just a plain text or PDF version.  1km1kt will host your file for free, and it doesn’t require any special accounts or logins for people who want to get your game.  It’s easy and easy is good.  There are plenty of other sites who will also do it, but that’s just the one I like.  You need your game on the Internet for free because you’re going to have to do a lot of ground work to make this thing successful.  You’ll need to be able to give everyone who hears about your game a frame of reference.  A free copy does that, and it creates  a good feeling in those whom you contact.  If you’re willing to give the text version away for free, it must mean you’re confident in the quality of your game.

3.Build up a community.  The first two points are easy.  This is where things get a little harder.  You need to get people involved in your game.  You need a community who is anticipating your game’s release and is excited about it.  It may be tempting to go find a way to host some free phpBB forum and try to get people to come there to talk about your game.  That is almost certainly going to end in disaster.  Messageboards require a lot of activity and a lot of participants to be truly successful.  A Heartbreaker game just isn’t going to generate that much interest at the start.  Instead, I recommend starting a blog, Facebook page or G+ account for your game.   Start liking, friending, circling, and linking other people.  Create lots of entries on your blog/Facebook/G+ about your game INCLUDING actual play reports.  Be excited and promote other people’s games on it as well.  It’ll make you feel good for helping others and it may encourage others to link your game on their social media site.  That’s what you need.  Building a network and a community where people can come, read, and easily comment on your work.  Just make sure you get the people playing the game with you from Step 1 posting and commenting as well. 

4.Try a Kickstarter.  Kickstarter is great because not only does it get funds to ideas the market wants, it denies funds to ideas the market doesn’t want.  Once you’ve laid the ground work for your game by posting it for free and building up a community, it’s time to see if the market wants your game or not.  I can’t tell you what your goal should be.  You have to decide based on how much the cover will cost, how much the interior art will cost, how much your time on it has been worth, and whether or not you’ll offer a print version.  If I were going to do a Kickstarter for The Holmes and Watson Committee today, I’d probably set the Kickstarter goal at $1,000 to get a new cover, new art, and maybe a map of Victorian London.  But every person is different, and every game has its own needs.  If the first Kickstart fails, you can try a second a few months later.  If a second campaign fails, the market is telling you that your game is A) best left as a free game on the ‘net or B) needs a lot more work.

5.Finally, even with a successful Kickstarter it’s important not to keep sinking your own money into the game.  More money does not equal more success.  Vincent Baker made a great post on what to do with a game once it’s published.  Continue steps 1 and 3.  That will drive future sales of your game (if continuing sales are something you want).  But whatever you do, do not sink thousands of dollars promoting or selling your game.   Do what you can for free and let the sales grow organically. 

Well, that’s the best advice I can offer.  Avoid using your own money as much as possible.  Stay excited about your game.  Help promote other people’s games.  And build up a community before going to Kickstarter.  If you do these things, there’s a chance (just a chance) that your game will be a successful business venture.

Peace,

-Troy

Socratic Design Anthology #9

Heya Guys,

Summer is fast approaching and that's when I usually take break from blogging.  I hope the first half of the year has been a productive one for you.  Before I go, I'm doing my annual anthology.  For those who may be new to Socratic Design, every year I post links to all the articles I've done in the last 12 months or so as well as links to previous anthologies.  This way, people can easily catch up if they recently discovered my blog.  Enjoy! :)

Articles:

What is Creative Agenda?
What is an Endgame?
What is Chopping the World in Two?
Does Setting Still Matter? part 5
What is Rule Zero?

Laments:

Equipment Lists - A Lament


Design Journal Entries:

Design Journal #1: Envisioning Play
Design Journal #2: Brainstorming
Design Journal #3: Distractions
Design Journal #4: Breaking Up My Game


Previous Anthologies:

Socratic Design Anthology #1
Socratic Design Anthology #2
Socratic Design Anthology #3
Socratic Design Anthology #4
Socratic Design Anthology #5
Socratic Design Anthology #6
Socratic Design Anthology #7
Socratic Design Anthology #8

Topical Index:

SD Topical Index #1

Peace,

-Troy

What is Rule Zero?

Heya,

Today I’m looking at a topic that became a really hot-button issue in the early 2000’s.  And even to this day, arguments over it will arise on one online forum or another.  It’s called “Rule Zero.”  If you don’t know what that is, it’s probably a good thing, but more than likely, you’ve had some experience with it whether you know it or not.

Rule Zero basically states, “If you don’t like something about the rules [provided for you in this game’s text], change it!”  Well, that’s the nice way to put it.  I’ve sometimes seen it also called “The Golden Rule” which basically says, “The GM may ignore or change any rule at any time.”  If that looks like a Social Contract disaster filled with GM Fiat punts, then you are right.

I wish I knew who coined the phrase “Rule Zero” in this usage.  My first contact with it was in the Amber Diceless Roleplaying System, where it comes right out and says that the GM can change any rule he or she wants.  I know the White Wolf Games used the “Golden Rule” terminology in its texts.  I suspect, whether this empowerment of the GM and/or players to just change the rules on a whim was officially termed early or late in RPG history, people were doing it from the beginning.    I don’t know who first recognized this was going on, but the point is, once the idea took hold, designers started incorporating it into their games and RPGs have suffered ever since.

Why was Rule Zero/The Golden Rule invented?

Rule Zero/The Golden Rule came about because the early RPG texts that set the template for all RPGs to follow did a horrible, awful job of communicating how to play.  You don’t have to take my word for it.  Listen to what the man himself, Gary Gygax, had to say about his own game in his introduction to AD&D1e, “D&D hasturned into a non-game.  There is so much variation between the way the game is played [that] there is no continuity and little agreement as to just what the game is and how best to play it.” 

This could only happen if the text did not explicitly lay out what the game was about, what the players were supposed to do, and what the characters were supposed to do.  I have my copy of the 1978 AD&D Player’s Handbook right next to me, and there is not one page devoted to what players should be doing at any given moment of play, during a session of play, or for an entire campaign.

As a result, it became necessary for the DMs to improvise, change, and modify the rules at will.  D&D never empowered the group as a whole to make these decisions and since the DM was seen kind of as a replacement for the referee in wargaming, the players looked to him/her for what to do when nothing made sense.

Why is Rule Zero/Golden Rule bad?

There are several reasons why relying Rule Zero is a rotten idea for designers.  If you haven’t read my article on The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, it’s some good background knowledge to have for this article.

The first reason Rule Zero is awful is that it encourages lazy design.  By including it, often in the introduction to a game, the designer is letting himself/herself off the hook.  Why worry about making all the rules work tightly together when the GM/Players will just change them anyway?  While it’s true that the designer cannot control how people actually play his game, it seems contradictory to in one breath prescribe how to play your game and in the next tell the players to just make it up as they go. 

Second, players are disinclined to actually try playing by the rules.  By including Rule Zero in your game, you give them carte blanche to start changing things before they even play.  Thus, they often try to bend some new game into some old game they are more familiar with.  Consequently, they miss out on a new experience.  Is that what you would want for your design?  Wouldn’t it be best if they were encouraged to at least try to play by the rules?  Isn’t that why your wrote your game in the first place?

Of all the games that have been Rule Zero’ed more than any other, OD&D stands first.  Yet, read this account of a group howfastidiously followed the rules of OD&D (as much as humanly possible) and how much fun they had as a result and how much they learned about the emergent properties of the game.  It’s brilliant!  But I know of very few groups and very few players who’ve stuck by the letter of the OD&D books, or any version of D&D for that matter (with the possible exception of 4th ed. at game shops while playing Tuesday Night Encounters).

Incorporating Rule Zero in a text shows me that the designer has a lack of confidence in his or her game.  Be confident.  As a customer, I am naturally pre-disposed to trusting you to produce a fun game.  I WANT to play the game the way you intended.  If you tell me upfront I don’t have to, then you break that trust.  And I probably won’t play the game the way you envisioned.

Third, incorporating Rule Zero/The Golden Rule overtly into your rules can often lead to heavy use of force by the GM or players to “keep things on track.”  This could be an entire article on its own (again see my entry on TITB4B).  Force is basically covert, social manipulation used by the GM to nullify player input in order to form a narrative during play that fits the GM’s vision alone.  How many of you like to be manipulated by other people?  How many of you enjoy having your creative endeavors subverted then negated by someone else?  That’s what the use of force and application of Rule Zero often bring to the table.  And it’s something we’ve hopefully left behind for the most part.

Finally, no other type of game invokes anything like Rule Zero.  One of the things that really bugs me about this is that this sort of behavior would be totally unacceptable in any other format.  Imagine if Pat Sajack suddenly started changing the rules for Wheel of Fortune right in the middle of an episode!  Or what if Dr. Richard Garfield had written into the original rules of Magic: the Gathering- “Eh, if you don’t like the mana system or any of the other rules of the game, just make them up as you go.  It won’t matter.”  It would be a catastrophe.  Now, creating recognized variants of the game (say, Commander or Cube in the case of M:tG) is fine, because everybody is on board with the modified rules set from the beginning.  But imagine if Rule Zero applied to something like Poker at something during a Pro Tour?  If other games don’t tolerate this, why should we?

Wait, you might be wondering, if variants are okay, then is Rule Zero actually a real thing?  What about house rules and hacks?

Good question.  So, after everything I’ve said, I’m going to contradict myself for just one tiny second.  If you take the “you” in my original definition of Rule Zero to mean the play group as a whole, then it’s not really a bad thing at all.  People can play however they want.  Coming to a group consensus on how a game should be played is a very functional thing.  Who hasn’t hacked a game they loved or mashed two great games together to form something new?  We’ve all done it and had a blast!  As far as play goes, the real problem with the rule comes when that “you” is interpreted to mean just one person- usually the GM.  In these cases it is one person coercing the players to play according to a single, non-negotiable vision.  This can very often lead to arguments, disenfranchisement, and a big ‘ole heaping helping of the 20:4 ratio most ESPECIALLY when rules are ignored, modified, or added during play without group consensus.  I don't see this as a particularly desirable design element.  Do you?

So, when making your game, I suggest not even including anything in the text that even remotely resembles Rule Zero/The Golden Rule.  It’s not helpful, since people will ignore/modify your rules anyway if they want.  It’s poor design, because you're letting yourself off the hook instead of working to find a real solution.  And it just obfuscates the real intent of your game, which is why you're writing this thing in the first place, right?

Peace,

-Troy

Design Journal #4: Breaking Up My Game

Heya,

Welcome to my design journal entry # 4.  In case you missed the first three, you can find them HERE, HERE, and HERE.

I’ve brought this up before, but I use a Design Outline when I create a game.  I think about the different aspects of my RPGs very compartmentally.  Chargen is one things.  Resolution is another.  Character Advancement is third.  Equipment is its own thing.  Now, all of these different aspects are tied together thematically in my current RPG, but I work on them separately.  So I got to thinking: If each of these are separate in my mind, why I am I putting them all in the same book?

Now clearly, separating the core rules of a game into separate books is as old as RPGs themselves, right?  So I’m not breaking any new ground by doing this, but I have noticed that games which are not following in D&D’s footsteps (and even many games that are) have gone away from a multi-book approach.  This just was not working for me.

I want a character creation (Chargen) process that is more elaborate than what I currently get out there.  Therefore, I am pulling that entire process out into its on manual.  All the combat, resolution, spell casting, and character advancement stuff runs off very similar mechanics.  So that’s going in its own book.  The player options, equipment lists, spells, powers, feats, etc. have their own book.  So will the GM stuff.  And finally the setting books will be separate from all the rules. 

The reason I’m doing this is because is, I want these concepts to be digestible.  Packing all this into a 200+ page tome just seems ridiculous to me.  I wouldn’t want to read that from cover to cover.  I know I’d skip a lot, or just make assumptions.  I want to present my game in bite-size chunks that are an easy read while you eat at the dinner table or ride the train to work. 

So that means I’ll probably have some saddle-stitched, kinda homely looking books when I get done.  That’s fine with me.  I am so over having a pretty cover.  For me, the game needs to work.  Then it will sell itself.  My goals for this game are modest atthis point anyway.

Anyway, the lesson from today’s entry is this: don’t lock yourself into producing everyone in a single volume because it looks like it will save costs or because that’s what your favorite author did.  Evaluate the needs of your game and the needs of your target audience.  If splitting everything up into their component parts works for you, then embrace that.  You’ll be glad you did.

Peace,

-Troy

Does Setting Still Matter? part 5

Heya,

I haven’t written about Setting since2006, and that entry wasn’t very good.  I’m going to update my thoughts on Setting very briefly here today.

Why is Setting important?  Yes, it’s an integral part of design.  Yes, it’s one of the five areas (according to Forge Theory) of exploration.  Yes, it sells lots of supplements.  But that’s not what I’m talking about.

Setting is important because it serves two primary functions: (1) it gives the players some creative restraints with which they can build their stories and (2) it keeps out useless, conflicting, and often counter-productive Setting elements that creep in when there’s a vacuum.

Let’s break down #1.  Creative constraints (i.e. hard boundaries for play) actually breed creativity, not quash it.  People need some sort of hand-holds, or “hooks” as the term is commonly used in RPGs, to give them a foundation.  There have to be certain things that everyone agrees are true before we can start making up stuff that might or might not be true (roleplaying).  

Creating a rich setting sparks the readers’ imaginations.  If the Setting is designed well and communicated clearly, the players can instantly see where their characters should fit in and have a myriad of ideas about what their characters can do.  A good example of this is Hero Wars.  Set in Glorantha, the setting is this game is all about the oncoming apocalypse.  The PCs know the world is doomed, but they are to be heroes none-the-less.  Anyone familiar with Norse mythology should easily be able to relate to that scenario.  It’s easy to image what a hero fighting for a doomed cause might look like, act like, and die like.  It’s beautiful.  And it makes the games memorable.

As mentioned, the second purpose of Setting in an RPG is to keep out counter-productive Setting elements.  By this, I mean unfocussed, player-created Setting elements.  If no Setting is provided in the rules, the players will start adding their own.  If five people start trying to guide the exploration of the Setting in five different directions all at once, you’re going to get a pretty incoherent story.   Even worse, people will fall back on crappy entertainment tropes they’ve learned from watching TV, movies, or reading Twilight novels (shudder).

Let’s look at GURPS.  GURPS prides itself on being totally Setting agnostic.  “You can play anything anywhere!” it likes to brag.  The problem with this is everyone might not be on the same page.  We might have a mystery campaign on our hands and one person has Sherlock Holmes in his mind, while another is channeling Dr. Who, and another is introducing plot elements from MacGyver, and still another thought that this was a caper campaign like Leverage.  These things are not compatible and will very likely lead to arguments, wasted moments of play, unfulfilled expectations, and big ‘ole dose of the 20:4 ratio.

So, okay, we should at least state that the game is a fantasy, science fiction, gothic horror, or some other sort of genre, right?  That’s enough of a Setting to get play rolling, isn’t it?

Let’s look at D&D.  Since 1978-or thereabouts-D&D has had three core books: The Player’s Handbook, The Dungeon Master’s Guide, and the Monster Manual.  From these games it’s clear we’re playing fantasy.  But what kind of fantasy?  Are we playing a lower-power fantasy like the Lord of Rings?  High powered like the Silmarilion?  Same author.  Totally different themes.  Do animals talk and do whimsical things like in Lewis?  Is it a high-powered magic-filled campaign like Vance?  Just saying something is “fantasy” or “horror” doesn’t help.  It certainly doesn’t establish what conflicts might exist between the NPCs and whether or not they’ll be relevant to the players.  It doesn’t establish group expectations as to what type of play is in-bounds or out-of-bounds.  It doesn’t give the GM much to go on other than all the books, comics, and movies he’s familiar with.  In short, it doesn’t help keep out all the crappy motifs Hollywood and New York have pushed on us their various media over the last century.  

I’m not saying that you need to produce a Setting on the scale of Forgotten Realms or Ptolus.  In fact, my personal feelings on massive settings like that is they reduce creative freedom rather than support it.  

What I am saying is that your game needs a setting.  If only to keep out disruptive content that you never intended to be part of play.  Mass media is not the friend of RPG designers.  Often, it is the enemy.  And giving your players something to work with will when it comes to your Setting will increase enjoyment of your designs.

Peace,

-Troy

Addendum:  There are exceptions of course.  Prime Time Adventures and Universalis do not have default Settings.  However, Setting is an integral part of play in those games, so by the time the story starts, everyone actually is on the same page WRT when and where the action will take place.

Happy Holidays 2013!

Just wanted to wish everyone a very safe and joyful holiday season. May you find mercy, relief, and happiness with those whom you spend your time over the next week!

Design Journal #3: Distractions

Heya,

So last time I talked about brainstorming and the time before that about initial concept.  Today, I’m going to talk about “Cook Time.”  Cook Time is when you leave a design alone for a while and let it stew, steam, and simmer in your imagination. 

Sometimes cook time is intentional.  Take Vincent Baker’s In a Wicked Age.  It started out as the Cheap and CheeseyAdventure Generator.  But Vincent gave it time to cook and it turned into a really fun and challenging RPG. 

In other cases, cook time is thrust upon the designer.  This is the case for me.  My mother-in-law was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer just as I was beginning to write this game.  She’s still fighting it to this day.  As you can well imagine, it’s been tough on the family, and naturally I’ve had to take over a lot of the chores and responsibilities my wife and I used to share.  That’s fine and that’s the way it should be.

Consequently, I’ve not been able to work on my game.  But this is not a bad thing!  And if you find yourself in this sort of situation, do not dismay!  The time off will give you a chance to reflect on your initial work, rethink it, and come back to it some time later to see if it’s still the game you want.  Delays like this can give you clarity and help you see where your ignorance, biases, or sacred cows got in the way of what you really wanted to do.

This is a short entry aimed at those of you who want to be RPG designers but have come up against something that blocks your progress.  Whether it’s a design that’s “just not right” for some reason or it’s personal matters that eat up all your time, I want to encourage you.  It’s an okay thing.  Rushing a game to the finish line so you can have it by GenCon is not the way to create a quality piece.  Don’t be afraid of cook time.  If your game is truly close to your heart, like mine is to me, then your patience and courage will be rewarded.  You can get it done.  You will get it done.  I have faith in you!

Peace,

-Troy


Late Edit: for another example of how a designer deals with this sort of thing, check out this link: https://plus.google.com/+VincentBaker/posts/EuUfkXPJQAG

Equipment Lists - A Lament

Heya,

How boring is an equipment list?  Ugh, it’s got to be the most tedious yet necessary thing in a fantasy or science fiction RPG.  Everyone (or close to everyone) loves the little fiddly bits you get with a new supplement: new weapons, new electronics, new armor types.  Each new thing is just a sight modification of the old stuff, but it’s still cool, right?  Well, it’s not cool enough for me.

You know what I would like to see?  Answer: an equipment list that sparks the players’ imaginations and prompts new avenues of play.

For instance, how cool would it be if an equipment list had five entries for Long Sword or Laser Pistol?  What if each entry showed how the weapon or item could be improved using different components or techniques for making it?  Even better, what if the equipment list rules gave hints about how the characters had to quest to find the right material, the right tinkerer, the right artisan, or whatever to make the weapon something beyond its mundane, default entry?

So, take a laser pistol for instance.  A pistol might have 5 attributes: weight, hitting power, accuracy, durability, and other.  The default material on the equipment list would be the cheapest and least reliable material- you know, the kind of laser pistol you would buy at the Wal-Marts of the future.  Then, elsewhere in the equipment section, the rules would give a list of materials that would reduce the weight of the gun, increase its hitting power and accuracy, make it more durable, and the “other” category in this case would be # of shots per battery pack.

In addition to the improved materials, the rules would tell the players how they could fabricate the materials or how to purchase/find the materials.

In a fantasy world, it would give names of weaponsmiths, artists, alchemists, etc. where they could get the blade sharpened to a keen edge, the pommel weight reduced to balance the weapon, or magical enchantments to make it more powerful.

Equipment lists are so mundane in most games, but I think they can add a lot of depth to a campaign if the designer just takes the time to think about how awesome weapons are in the first place and the different ways heroes in the stories we love to read have tried to make them awesomer.

Peace,

-Troy

What is 'Chopping the World in Two' ?

Heya,

Chris Chinn coined this phrase a year or two ago.  Basically he asked, “if narration is a part of your resolution system, what mechanics in your game stop a player from saying, ‘If I win, I chop the world in half.”  This is a severe problem and it’s a design flaw that has shown up manytimes, especially after Dogs in the Vineyard was released.  My own Hierarchy is an excellent example of a game that suffers from this problem.

 

In Hierarchy, players can raise the stakes in a conflict at will.  There’s no mechanical stop-gap to prevent them from betting the fate of the entire world in a single contest.  This, of course, is terrible.  The design relies total on the Social Contract to keep things in check.  That’s possible to some extent, but there are a lot of shades of gray between “my character smacks yours across the face and leaves” and “I chop the world in half.”  It can be hard for a group, especially a novice group, to enforce reasonable limits on narration trading during resolution without some mechanical backup.

 

It is tempting to allow narration to take the characters in any direction the play-group desires, but narration, like all things, needs constraint to breed creativity.  Putting mechanical limits on what can be brought into a contest is a necessary part of design.

 

So what are some ways to do that? 

 

First, you can include a “back-out” clause.  Ben Lehman did this in Polaris, where a player in a conflict can negate an escalation by an opposing player by saying, “You ask too much.”  So, by designing a way one player to return the stakes back to an earlier a previous state, the game can prevent things from getting out of hand.

 

Second, you can set explicit options for what can be at stake.  For instance, you can say the players may risk “wealth, status, or health in a contest but not life or relationships.”  In this case, you are setting up parameters for the resolution system and prescribing what is in bounds and out of bounds for conflicts.

 

Third, you can have a way to escalate a conflict with a cost and a cap.  Dogs in the Vineyard does this.  Escalating a conflict from words to fists is possible, but doing so puts the character at greater risk.  There needs to be some sort of cap on how much a player can risk when escalating a conflict.  Often this is the character’s life.  It doesn’t have to be that way, but there needs to be an explicit way to cap the escalation.

 

Fourth, you can have a resolution system that just doesn’t allow narration to set the stakes.  Task resolution does this.  Many forms of conflict resolution do as well.  You could have the GM always set the stakes, or do it by total group consent.  Whatever.

 

Fifth, as part of the Chargen and prep work for play, the players can set up their own parameters for what is allowable and what is not during narration of stakes in a conflict.  Sometimes, in a inter-planar superhero game, chopping a world in half may actually make sense!  Cool!  But it needs to happen in accordance with the players’ expectation for the game, the designer’s vision for the game, and the limits of the Social Contract.  Letting the players hash this out before play allows for really powerful characters and situations without breaking the mechanics.

 

The main thing is, don’t let the power of narration get out of control.  Narration is awesome.  It is a lot of fun, but it is also dangerous.  It can take a well-designed game and wreck it.

 

Peace,

 

-Troy

Design Journal #2: Brainstorming

Heya,

A few weeks ago I wrote up my DesignDiary #1.  Today, I’m continuing this saga.  But before I get to today’s issue: a rabbit chaser.  Every designer has to deal with personal distractions and tragedy along the road to publication.  Who knows how many thousands of would-be designers have had to abandon their games due to addiction, loss, disease, or what-have-you.  I feel the pain of those designers and my life is an exemplar of that struggle.  So hopefully, this design series will serve not only to instruct nascent game-makers in the art of design and publishing but also instruct them on the art of dealing with real-life barriers that come up during the process.  More on that later, tho.  On to brainstorming.

I want to stress to you just how important to the design process letting your mind generate ideas and at the same time, writing those ideas down are.  The human mind, especially mine, is weak.  I can’t remember every mechanic or piece of trivia I come up with when imagining how my game will work.  Once I have envisioned play, I begin the process of brainstorming.  Everyone has their own method for doing this.  My post today is descriptive not prescriptive, but if you like my methodology, feel free to employ it in part or in whole :)

Back in the olden days (1998-2001) I kept stacks of composition notebooks around me all the time.  Each notebook would be dedicated to a different topic: Chargen, Resolution System, Rewards, Magic, Setting, etc. etc. etc.  After my first game was published in 2002, I switched to computers.

Now, I keep a single file with all my notes.  I have a specific system that I use, and I’ve mentioned it before.  My notes are kept in a stream of consciousness outline.  I let the inspiration flow, and I type it out as it comes.  Sometimes, I still jot things down on random scraps of paper when a computer isn’t handy, but it all goes into my file in the order it came to me.  As an example, here is the first half-page or so of my design notes for this game: NOTES EXCERPT

I have to confess one thing.  The “Dungeons” label for the game came after the entry on Moldvay and Keep on the Borderlands.  It wasn’t until then, I had even the faintest idea what I wanted from this thing.  In a future post, I’ll explain how I arrived at that decision.

Anyway, I find that keeping my notes this way lets me see where I made decisions in the design process and why I made those decisions.  Sometimes, when you get half-way or even 2/3 of the way through a text, you forget why you made a certain rule.  You look at something and go, “What the…Why’d I do this?”  Keeping my notes in a stream of consciousness, helps me understand my game’s purpose SO much better.

Also, it helps me organize my text.  I have an outline ready to go that will only need a small amount of tweaking before I dive right into the writing process.  I found that it makes writing my games more efficient.  This isn’t fool-proof, though.  As you can see, those notes are quite busy in some places.  Sometimes I’ll copy and paste a section of my notes into its own document just to separate it from the clutter as I’m writing.

The entire document is well over 20 pages now, but not everything will make it in.  Stuff I’m not using stays in the notes, but I might make it “strikethrough” or highlight it in a different color so I know not to include it in my text.   

Anyhow, that will just about do it for my entry today.  Brainstorming is the second step I take after envisioning play.  I have kind of a wacky system for doing.  Yours could be even wackier.  If this is your first time writing a game, I recommend putting all your ideas down somewhere.  Whether it’s on paper, on the net, or in a file: write them down!  If you don’t, I promise you’ll forget.

Peace,

-Troy

What is an 'Endgame' ?

Heya,

Today I’m going to discuss a design technique that has become more and more popular in RPGs over the last ten years.  It is the “Endgame.”  An endgame is a moment where play permanently stops for one or more characters in a campaign.  This means that once certain conditions are met, that character’s story is done.

The idea of an endgame isn’t new.  It’s been around for as long as writing “retired” at the top of a character record sheet has been conceived.  However, the idea has been developed more and more over the last decade.  As a result, several ways to treat an endgame have emerged.

The first way to address the endgame mechanic is to assume that there is no necessary endgame.  Games like D&D, Ars Magica, Vampire, and Sorcerer fit this category.  They assume that play, at least in theory, could go on indefinitely.  Players decide on their own when they are done with their characters and often make up some grand scene to say goodbye. 

The second way is to have a soft endgame.   Dogs in theVineyard and Prime Time Adventures have what I call “soft” endgames.  For dogs, it is the salvation of a town.  The characters discover the sin, find the perpetrator, and punish him or her.  In PTA, it’s the end of a season or story-arc.  If the players want, that can be the end of play OR they have the option to continue the same characters in a new town or new season. 

Some games have triggered endgames.  I think The Shadow ofYesterday and Dungeon World are prime examples.  In TSoY, when one character’s ability reaches a certain value (6 IIRC), the character “transcends.”  This means he or she has become so powerful that the character is taken out of the world in order to maintain balance.  In Dungeon World, it’s getting to level 10.  Both of these are mostly voluntary by the players.  In TSoY, reaching a 6 in an ability is never inevitable.  It’s easy to avoid.  In DW, there’s a way to avoid hitting level ten if you really want.  So the character’s story only ends if the players want to.  Of course, character death in more traditional games is another example of triggered engames.  Triggered endgames are often linked to individual characters and may not affect the entire party or the story.

Finally, there are games with hard endgames.  My Life with Master and my own Cutthroat are exemplars of this.  MLwM ends with either the death of the Master or the death of the Minion (or both).  All play drives towards that eventuality.  There’s no escaping it.  Likewise, all play in Cutthroat drives toward one biker dominating all the other bikers in the gang.  It is inescapable.  When the Master dies or when one biker dominates all the others, the game ends.  Period.

So what is the use of an endgame?

To begin, endgames can provide a focus for play.  They give the players something to drive towards and the characters something to achieve.  It helps everyone know what is happening during the three timescales of play.  The endgame keeps everyone on the same page and satisfies the expectations all the players have.

Additionally, endgames can limit the amount of time people play the RPG.  Take my Game Chef 2012 submission for example.  The Coyote Lode was meant to be a one-shot, one-session RPG.  Thus, I gave it explicit endgame mechanics (every room in the mine eventually floods).  As the designer, my intention for play was not indefinite.  It was well defined.  I think there is plenty of design space in one-shots and might cover that topic in a more in-depth way in another aricle.

Last, endgames provide a social reward.  When a player or a group of players hits the endgame successfully (like killing the Master in MLwM), there is a payoff of social esteem.  For a lot of players, social esteem is why they play, and an endgame will greatly appeal to them.

There are ways to further break down these endgames.  For instance, you could break them down by character, session, adventure, or campaign.  A character’s endgame could be when he loses all his hit points in D&D or loses all his humanity points and becomes the GM’s character in Sorcerer.  A session’s endgame could be tracked by some expendable currency or resource, or it could be timed.  For an adventure’s endgame, it could be solving a crime in InSpectres.  And as I mentioned earlier, My Life with Master is an excellent example of a campaign’s endgame.

Do all games need an endgame?

Nope.  In fact, many do not.  But is another tool in the RPG designer’s toolbox that you can use.  As you create your game, regardless of the genre or creative agenda you want to support, consider whether an endgame might be right for your design.  Sometimes it will be; sometimes it won’t.  But it’s always good to at least consider how it might help focus your game or provide a payoff for the players at the end.

Peace,

-Troy

Design Journal #1: Envisioning Play

Heya,

Back in March I casually mentioned that I was writing a new game. This will be my first new game since I wrote “The Holmes and Watson Committee” back in 2009. And I’m excited, so I’m going to share my experiences with you. Hopefully, I can make it from design to published product. We’ll see.

The reason it’s taken so long are many. First, the publishing process has been extraordinarily painful for me. My first game was published in 2002. The printer problems and business mistakes we made back then were excruciating. I’ve talked about how taxing the publishing process can be in the past, the problems of 2002 and 2003 were the main reasons why. Not the only reasons, though. In 2008-2009 I tried my hand at publishing again. I figured by now the POD process had evolved and small press printing could be done efficiently and easy. WRONG! The same problems plagued me a second time and forced me to cancel a whole second line of books I wanted to produce.

It wasn’t just publishing though. In the last half-dozen years I’ve gotten married, had a child, got my master’s degree, switched positions at my job four times, and helped my wife get her master’s degree as well. Many in my family have gotten terribly ill (some terminally), and I’ve dealt with distractions of every kind and sort. I’ve not overcome all of these obstacles yet, but I’m hopeful that I can see the light at the end of the tunnel. And once I’m through, I think I’ll have the chance to publish the game I want.

So now it’s been 11 years since my first publishing and four years since my last. What have I learned? Well, that’s easy to answer. Everything on this blog is about what I’ve learned! But the problem with what’s on this blog is that it’s not real enough. I haven’t put it into practice, or at least, haven’t in a very long time. So that’s what I’m going to do now. I’m going to practice what I preach.

So where do we start?

I’m going to start with my initial concept. I began with something I called the G.A.M.E. engine. You can follow that link to it on 1km1t. It was great, it was fun, I got some playtesting in. The problem was the advancement system is totally broken and I wasn’t willing to make the compromises it would take to fix it. So I had to move on.

I was inspired by Luke Crane’s We D&D threads which you can read about HERE, HERE, and HERE. I remembered back to the simplicity and awe I had in my first RPG experience (which was Middle-earth Roleplaying). Like SO many designers I wanted to recapture those moments. So I focused on the memories instead of the mechanics.

What did I remember?

1.We didn’t know the rules well enough to constantly be referencing them, so handling time was kept to a minimum.

2.We quickly grew tired of the constrained canonical setting of Middle-earth put on us, so we started making our own content to adventure in.

3.We focused on the combat and the loot, but our characters had motivations. They were simple ones (the Free Peoples vs. the Dark Lord), but the motivations supported gameplay.

4.Magic items were awesome, rare, and special. There were five characters in the party and after 27 collective levels, we maybe had seven magic items (it might have been less, honestly).

5.Making maps was a huge part of the fun- for both the GM and the players.

So that’s where I started with my new design: remembering something I enjoyed and setting that as my design goals. Those were the things that were going to matter most. Next time, I’ll explain how I went from abstract ideas to core design principles.

Peace,

-Troy

Relay the Message: Kickstarter Roundup

Heya,

It's been a while since Kickstarter had anything interesting for me, but all of a sudden that has changed.  I've got three projects I'm following closely, and I thought I'd share them with you:

1. GrimWorld: this is a supplement for Dungeon World.  It looks great, and if you have enjoyed DW (which many of you have) this could be right up your alley.  Time is short, however.  You've got around 40 hours from this posting to back it.  Sorry, but I didn't catch it sooner.

2. S/lay w/Me App: Ron Edwards is trying to take his RPG to the 'net in a new way.  The app works with Google Hangouts, and is meant to help bring together gamers who don't live close to each other.  Ron is running "choose your own reward" system with his Kickstarter that has a lot of neat stuff.  It's different from other Kickstarters, so I recomend checking it out.

3. The RPG Table: if you haven't seen this yet, you need to check it out.  Jim Barnes is selling plans (and parts if you pledge enough) to build a really awesome table meanth for tabletop RPGs.  I first saw things thing a few years ago and have always wanted one.  It's pretty rad.

Technically, none of these are games exactly: one supplement, an app, and a piece of furniture.  But our hobby is evolving.  It's no surprise that our Kickstarters are evolving with them.

Peace,

-Troy

What is Creative Agenda?

Heya,

I’m tackling a tough subject today.  Hopefully, I can do it justice.  If Ron or Vincent or Ben come along later and correct me, I’ll change this post as necessary.

So what is a creative agenda?  The Forge wiki defines it as "The players' aesthetic priorities and their effect on anything that happens at the table that has any impact on the shared fiction"

There’s a lot of heavy words in that definition, so let’s break it down.  First, let’s deal with “aesthetic.”  Here, aesthetic means “a principled taste and/or style adopted by a rolepalyer for the enjoyment of roleplaying.”  Priorities means “what is most important to the roleplayer.”  At the table means, “what the players are literally, physically doing in the real world.”  And finally, shared fiction means, “the imagined events created by the players through mutual ascent.”  So, to reword creative agenda in Socratic Design speak:

“Creative Agenda is a principled style regarding what is most important to making roleplaying fun for an individual roleplayer when it comes to anything he or she physically, mentally, or emotionally contributes at the gaming table that modifies in any way the shared imagined events that the group-as a whole-has cooperatively created.”

I want to elaborate on “principled style”/”priorities” because this is key.  Creative Agenda (CA) is all about what is most important to the player when it comes to enjoying actual play.  And it’s all about actual play.  It is not about being with friends.  It is not about the snacks your GM’s mom makes every week.  It is not about personal relationships or identification with geek culture.  Those things can be important, but they are all social reasons for play, not creative reasons.  CA deals explicitly with a person’s pleasure that he or she derives from the imaginative fiction being created at the table.

What different creative agendas are there?

So far, there have been three creative agendas identified by Forge Theory.  They are Gamism (a.k.a. Step on Up), Narrativism (a.k.a. Story Now), and Simulationism (a.k.a. The Right to Dream).  I happen to divide the Creative Agendas slightly differently from what Ron et. al. did at the Forge, but this article isn’t the right place to discuss that.  For the purposes of this piece, these three are all there are.

What is Gamism?

Briefly, Gamism is a habitual prioritization of personal guts, sound strategy, inventive tactics, and problem-solving in risky situations.  This means, a person whose CA is Gamism will seek esteem from the other players by consistently guiding his character(s) to act bravely, innovatively, and fearlessly in dangerous situations.

What is Narrativism?

Narrativism manifests itself as a habitual prioritization of engaging on an emotional level to address real-life, human problems (such as war, poverty, love, loyalty, faith, abuse, etc.) while purposely not pre-planning any solution or outcome.  This is sometimes called addressing a theme or a premise in the Lit. 101 sense of those words.  A person whose CA is Narrativism, will allow the events of the fiction created during play to determine the outcomes of the conflicts, plot, and consequences made by the characters.  He or she will not go into the game with any pre-set what ideas of what his or her character will do in any given situation.

What is Simualtionism?

Simulationist play is the habitual prioritization of in-game causality and rigorous application of pre-established facts, themes, motifs, and attitudes in play.  The Simulationist CA values strict adherence to a source, whether that source is a licensed intellectual property (like Star Wars or Middle-earth), genre (like horror, science-fiction, or fantasy), or elements created during play (such as past fictional events the players established).  

So how does one measure Creative Agenda?

You can’t measure CA by determining if a certain, singular “thing” is there.  For instance, if you observe people using combat strategy, you cannot say they are “gamists” or whatever.  If the setting for the game is Earth-Sea, you cannot say it is “simulationist” or whatever.  Just because a certain thing is there, does not mean a certain Creative Agenda is also present.

You must look at what is most important to the players: what he or she consistently finds personally rewarding over an instance of play.  I’ll get into what an “instance of play” is at a later date.  Suffice to say, it is a lengthy period of time.  Do not confuse instance with instant.  An instance of play is not a brief moment of play.

Ask, what appear to be goals of this player as he or she speaks and acts at the table?  What are his or her decisions like?  What sort of actions does he or she consistently make during play?  Answering these will reveal what a player’s CA is.

Are players aware they are using a Creative Agenda?

Not always. In fact, very frequently a person might not be able to articulate what they find rewarding during play.  This is why people resort to saying they most enjoy things like, “I just like hanging out with my friends,” or “I thought this book looked cool from the cover, so I decided to play it.” 

What is the use of Creative Agenda?

Once you understand that players prioritize certain aspects of play, you can begin to design games that support that prioritization.  If you want to make a game that appeals to Gamists, you make a game that proses risky challenges that require skillful strategy to beat.  If you want to appeal to Simulationists, you create a set of mechanics or a gripping setting that engrosses their imaginations and encourages them to stay faithful to that source. 

Design techniques that support the three CAs is an article all to itself, and I’m sure that might be disappointing to my readers who were hoping to get some practical design advice out of this article.  Taking on design techniques from this perspective is a HUGE job, and one I’m not ready to tackle just yet.

For now, I’m going to leave it at that.  If you would like to read more about Creative Agendas, I encourage you to check out the Big Model Wiki or the Adept Press Forums.  Those are both great resources, IMHO.

Peace,

-Troy