The hard question...

[coxcomb]

I doubt that arguing about this stuff is doing anyone any good--but I'll offer one more post.

When I started role-playing, I was also starting to write fiction. I was about 10, which was not (at that time and place) an unusual age to get into the hobby. At that point, *everyone* I called a friend was getting into RPGs too. All of us got into it for the exploration, and for nothing else.

It was cool to think about people who were different from oneself. It was cool to imagine how they lived and acted. It was cool to think of the neat abilities and powers they might have.

I think that lots of kids at that age are developing a fondness for imaginative exploration. I have talked to plenty of folks since then that had the same introductory experiences.

So in my mind and (obviously limited) experience, there is plenty of evidence that exploration for the sake of exploration is natural, at least at a certain age. Later on it often ceases to be so important, and people need more to keep them in the game (I thrive on Nar play myself now). But at that certain formative age, exploring the elements of play is enough.

But I have no scientific data to back up this notion, and it seems to be an unpopular one. So I will resign myself to disagreeing.

[beingfrank]

Interjection: Claire, ability has nothing to do with whether it is or isn't. You can create a completely crappy, shallow, awful, horrid story that you're ashamed to talk about ever again, and it would still be Narrativist -- because whether good or bad, the attempt is all that matters, not the ability or the success. Ron's Narrativism essay does make note of this point (and way more clearly than I have).

Hey Claire, I agree, its certainly not a given that people tell stories well. I know lots of people who bore me to tears telling stories.

But the issue at hand wasn't one of talent, it was responding to posts which questioned why gamist and narrativist tendencies were put forward as being natural while Sim tendencies generally required being learned.

Nar play comes naturally. Good Nar play...like good anything, takes practice.

I'm not talking about whether one does Nar well or badly, but about whether one does it at all.  I think it's as possible to make a reasonable argument that when people try to tell stories through roleplay (with no experience of doing so in the past) that they do Sim (or Gam) even if they're aiming for Nar (or should be if they knew what they were doing) as it is to argue that they do Nar.

I don't know what the reality is.  My gut reaction is that Sim, in a highly informal unstructured way, is probably as natural as Nar, if not more so.  I'm a Girl Guide leader in my spare time, and we use a little bit of roleplaying as an instruction tool with girls who can range from 6-18 in age.  In trying to teach them teamwork and such we often ask them to roleplay out situations.  Most of this is very Nar is design.  "Make up a skit about what makes a good team leader.  Make up a skit about why it's important to look after the environment.  Make up a skit where your best friend announces she hates you."  That seems pretty Nar to me and my limited understanding of GNS.  And yet what the girls almost invariably produce is Sim.  They get into what they're doing and just noodle about rather than dealing with drama or anything like that.  These are not roleplayers.  They haven't been exposed to any roleplaying at all.  They're probably as good a sample I can think of of people unbiased by the culture of roleplaying (as in 'learning Sim') and yet that's what I've observed.  It's just one set of data points.  But it does make me reconsider the logic that Nar is more natural.

I think that the statement 'people naturally enjoy Nar play more' is one thing.  I think 'people naturally do Nar play' is a much more precarious statement, and certainly not one that can be accepted without challenge.  Maybe one day some one will be able to show that Nar is more natural.  It would certainly be interesting to see a good case for it.

Claire Bickell

[M. J. Young]

I see this is a long thread, and that I'm going to lose my thoughts if I try to read it all and then reply; so I'm going to start now and hope I don't duplicate too much of what others have said.

The first thing I would want to bring forward is that I think Ron is unduly skeptical of natural simulationist play. I have before noted that "Playing House" seems to be an entirely simulationist activity engaged in as childhood make-believe. I played a great deal of that as a boy, thanks to the girl next door and my own little sister--but I never "got it" then. It seemed a bit boring, like I wanted to do something and this game was all about being something, not doing something. Looking back, though, I see that this was very similar to the simulationist play which I have enjoyed. It's about imagining what it's like to be this other person, just for the sake of understanding what it's like.

Your desire, though, to have the referee make premise-driven story possible suggests that what you want isn't really simulationism, but highly-immersive narrativism--play in which you get to address premise and create theme, but only by doing what your character "would" do in response to what the referee creates. You want to be part of the story, but without ever losing the feeling that you are a character in something larger, not a creator of events. I can't be certain of this, of course, but you seem to lean that way quite a bit in your posts. It's supposed to become a story because the referee is guiding it that direction, but we're supposed to control our characters exclusively as "they" would do things.

(This overlooks the critical point that "they" are only what you want them to be; you have chosen who they are, and as you play you continue to choose who they are. They can change, make decisions that might appear to be out of character, but in the context of themselves making life-changing decisions, deciding to do this instead of that, when every time before they would have done that, because they've learned something, grown in some way, repented or fallen or otherwise shifted their view of the world. You think that they are making these choices, but you are always making the choices in a way that makes them what you want them to be. The difference between actor and author stance isn't really one of what the character would do versus what the player wants him to do; it's a difference between whether the character's choice is based on things already known about him or on things that the player decides to add to him at this moment.)

Front-loaded narrativism, that is, play which addresses premise because the characters and the situation are all designed so that character choices will inherently address premise, is extremely common; it sounds like what you're doing much of the time.

Ralph, I think you missed both points. It is a fairly clear implication of the quote section of the Narrativism article that Simulationism is in essence learned activity, that people are pushed to do it, and don't fall into it naturally. Neil is arguing that some people do fall into it naturally. If that's so (and I agree with him), then the implication that simulationism has to be taught is wrong.

So given that Simulationist agendas are a minority in the general populace, but a majority (at least by habit) in the gaming populace, are you really then going to try and argue against the idea that there is some pretty dramatic indoctrination going on?

It might be indoctrination; it might as easily be negative selection.

Surprisingly, very few people are looking for new forms of entertainment and recreation, and most of those who are are rather young. Games in general have a difficult time getting established, even if they're good games, because the majority of consumers already know what games they like, and they play those--usually games they learned to play when they were kids.

If I'm gamist, there are a lot of forms of entertainment/recreation which will appeal to that aspect. There are sports, board games, war games, card games, video games--enough options out there that I am likely to stop looking long before I get around to role playing games.

If I'm narrativist, maybe the pickings are slimmer; but there's reading, acting, movies, writing, and storytelling, at least. I might never look at role playing games, either.

This is complicated by the fact that we speak of "role playing games" as if they were all one category. We talk about "board games" as if they were all gamist, and most of them are--but the Ungame is a board game without gamist elements, as I recall. People don't think of that when they think of board games, because it's atypical. Yet there really isn't "typical" in role playing games, in this regard. I might come to role playing games and decide that none of them are for me because the one I encounter is not what I want. If the only board game I ever played was the Ungame, I would have no idea that other games actually involved tactics and challenges. It is unlikely that this would be my only board game experience; but most people's only role playing game experience is with someone's home-brew drifted version of D&D, so there's no telling what they actually know of RPGs.

What we do know is that role playing games have always projected the idea of being someone else in another world, and that the text frequently downplays the place of gamism and emphasizes this simulationist aspect. Now we have the fact that simulationists don't really have many other outlets for their interests (reading non-fiction, watching public television documentaries, subscribing to National Geographic and Science, programming computers), and this hobby presents itself as being what they want.

The self-selection seems pretty straightforward to me.

Simulationism is as natural as gamism, and as I argued in one of those threads John so kindly linked above, it is more natural than narrativism, as the first two are commonly done by preschoolers and the address of moral and ethical issues requires the moral/intellectual development levels commonly associated with ten year olds, at least.

House is not narrativist; it is simulationist.

--M. J. Young

[John Kim]

That's because you're confusing mediums.  The very concept of Narrativist Premise was specially adapted to role playing needs FROM analysis of fiction (specifically plays).

The point being is that we humans are intrinsically hard wired to understand the nature and format of a story.  
...
Sim play requires excising this natural instinct out of your play habits.  You are simply not aloud to manipulate story that way in Sim play.  It goes against the very purity of simulationism.

And THAT is why Sim play is not natural...must be learned...and requires most people to be indoctrinated in it before they can do it.  And THAT is one key reason why this hobby is a fringe hobby.  Cause there aren't many people in the general populace who find this fun.

This argument relies on the idea that "story" is the exclusive domain of Narrativism -- that GNS Simulationism does not produce story.  Of course, in his Narrativism essay, Ron argues the exact opposite: that whether a game produces story-like events tells us nothing about its GNS Creative Agenda.  

Further, this also goes from saying "storytelling is natural" to saying "storytelilng is the only possible natural activity".  Which is nonsense.  I agree that storytelling is a natural format, but I disagree that it is the only possible enjoyable format for human interaction.

[Callan S.]

I did and still do relate strongly to enjoying the 'experience' of what it's like to fly via magic, shoot lightening from my hands, wield a sword, whatever.

The thing is, I never intuitively got how to play that way. Okay, I've flown, I've shot lightening, I've wielded a sword. What do I do now?

A DUNGEON! YUS! Gamist. And occasionally there would be talking with people...pretty much failed narrativist attempts (that really were just gamist).

Wanting to experience the world was VERY intuitive for me. But how I/we went about getting new experiences was basically gamist (hack hack/tactical tactical...ah, this is what its like to loot 12 gold!). Doing it this way was VERY intuitive as well and generally got more focus (the thrill of holding a sword lasting briefly).

So play itself was gamist, but occasionally bouts of simulationist examination of the SIS (then, having explored all, hopping onto the gamist wagon to get somewhere else interesting).

If Ron's talking about actual play being driven by simulationism, then I think he's right. But I'd say bouts of SIS examination in the simulationist way are very intuitive, yet aren't really the mode of play, just a brief CA change.

[ethan_greer]

But... But... The article is talking about role-playing.  It's not talking about telling stories, or playing chess, or watching a play, or reading fiction, or writing fiction, or, or, or.  Just. Role. Playing. GNS simply doesn't apply to anything else.

So, what are we talking about? We're talking about Ron's opinion that most people don't roleplay naturally in a Sim mode, that Sim RP is a learned behavior, and that Nar/Gam RP come much more naturally. Which seems terribly evident to me when regarding a few factors in existing role-playing games.

Factor 1: Many (many many) Sim game texts rant and rave and go out of their way for paragraphs to explain how Gamism is bad bad bad. There's admonitions to players and advice to GMs on how to suppress Gamism ad nauseum. Why would this be necessary unless Gamism was a natural tendency in many (many many) role-players?

Factor 2: Sim game texts tend to focus on "just the facts, ma'am." In order for Sim to be prioritized, there must be an explicitly established context in which play is to take place.  Many game texts assume (often erroneously) that the players will know how to establish this context. Game texts that do attempt to establish this context typically do so through a combination of rules and setting information. Playing a game in a Sim mode requires knowledge and understanding of this supported context prior to the beginning of play. And that's not natural. It just ain't. It isn't natural to say, "let's pretend. I'll pretend I'm a 1st-level warrior with a Strength of 17, and 14 hit points." It is, on the other hand, natural to say, "let's pretend. I'm a great and powerful warrior, and I'm going to rescue the maiden fair." See the difference?

I argue that folks who claim that their early experiences with roleplaying were all about just pure pretending, and naturally focused on a Sim mode of play, should consider the possibility that it is far more likely that the game itself prioritized the Sim mode for you, at the same time it told you that you were "playing pretend." We've all been duped, folks.

Factor 3: I've come across two types of Narrativist game texts. The first type tends to prioritize tightly focused mechanics that cut to the meat of what play is going to be about. My Life With Master is the best example I can think of for this type. And you know what? People get MLWM. They get it at a gut level that goes beyond understanding, and far beyond the cerebral mode of play that needs an explicit context for exploration. This type of Narrativist text and play operates at a lower, more basic level than a Sim RPG's text and play.

The other type of text is the "pure" Narrativist game.  The Pool, and perhaps Story Engine, are the best examples I can think of for this type of text. These texts provide a structure for how the Narrativist Premise (whatever it happens to be) is to be adressed by the participants. And it doesn't provide anything else. Simply because nothing else is needed. Once you know how to go about addressing Premise, all the other stuff falls effortlessly into place. Note the use of the word "effortlessly" in the previous sentence. I point it out because reading and learning to play a Sim game such as AD&D, Hero, GURPS, CORPS, EABA, and any of the countless others, is never effortless to the degree that reading and learning to play The Pool is.

(One might argue that The Pool is easy to absorb because it's so "rules light." To which I respond: TWERPS. Certainly a Sim game, and rules don't get much lighter than that. Is it a playable game? Yes. Is it as intuitively understandable as The Pool? Not even close.)

One last thing: Don't freak out on me. I love Sim play. I'm currently working on multiple Sim games. I'm not downplaying the quality of your early role-playing experiences, and I'm not encouraging you to "cast off the chains of Sim" or any such notion. I just happen to agree, rather strongly, with Ron on this one.

[pete_darby]

Ethan: I dunno. I'm still of the opinion that Sim tendencies are as natural as Gam or Nar, but that the dominant agenda in most conventional rulebooks is a very odd form of Sim, one that is Sim by model, sim by constraint, rather than sim by consensus.

Frex, Universalis can be played, and I've no doubt often is, simmier than Mr Sim from simtown, with folks piling detail on detail, exploring character & setting like gangbusters, and to my mind, it's a much more natural expression of Sim tendencies than endless charts and statistics, modelling the characters, setting, etc in terms of a mathematical simulation.

But it looks to me like we're in the land of "you say, well I say," and we're just marking out lines in the sand here.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Something just occured to me this morning reading this thread. Nar & Gam are very goal-orientated modes were as Sim the process is the goal, so to speak. That's very zen and it reminds me of a protion of McCloud's Understanding Comics where he explains the difference between Asian (Japanese) comics and Western (American) comics is found in the differences in our cultures. He says that the US is a goal-orientated culture while Japan stresses "being there' as much as any goal. This strikes me as a Sim-like priority so there may be a cultural influence and explain why the older we get, the less "natural" Sim is.

Are there any Japanese about to comment on this?

[RDU Neil]

Started a real shitstorm here, I did.  Take a night off to play Magic until 2:00 am and there are 37 replies.  Most threads never get this long.

The Ouija board is disparaged in the Nar essay, because it's a metaphor for players who want to address premise, but instead of thinking about the issues of the character as issues per se, they pile on more and more detail to the character description, in the hope that making the character more "real", with more detailed history, and physicality, and associations, premise will be magically addressed by simulating the character with more and more systems and rolls and checks and attributes...

And all it takes is to look and say "What are this guys issues? Why do they matter to him? What's he going to do about it? What does that say?" and boom, narrativism.

It doesn't sound to me like this is happening with the play you're talking about: you're happy to look back at the session and see where the GM has put theme to work within the world, but detailing the world, deepening the detail of the dream, takes precedence over the story or the game when push comes to shove.

There isn't a game that goes by that the first question we ask isn't "What are this guy's issues?  Why does he do what he does?"  But this was very much a learned response over time.  It wasn't my natural tendency to think this way in 9th grade when I started gaming... it is second nature now.

I also did not interpret Ron's essay as saying Sim by habit was only about rules and dice (maybe that was implied, but I didn't catch that.)  I think you can Sim with just lots of descriptive commentary... though I do know we tweak rules to fit the "flavah" of whatever game we are in... so that it simulates the genre a bit better.  The point is, we do that so there is less chance of the game "breaking the mood" by a game mechanic making everyone suddenly go "eh?  That's not right..."

The long term group with the comfortable code of speaking sort of resembles our group, but not really, and why is it a bad thing?  It is part of what you strive for... to be able to work together in the creative process in a natural, comfortable way... not have to rely on game mechanics to do, but understanding what the players and GM want, and modifying your behavior to make everyone feel more "into it" and satisfied.

Finally, I can't say, push come to shove, whether we would say "no, deepening the detail is more important than a meaningful event for the players" in fact I know that isn't true.  I mean that creating a deepening of detail is one way in which you enrich the experience of the player... and push come to shove, it really depends upon that evenings mood, what is more important... meaning or a causal event.

[RDU Neil]

Is there indoctrination? Yes.
Does that mean that there aren't plenty of people who naturally have a Sim agenda? No.

Thanks... this is what I thought I was writing.  I never meant to say that my was was the ONLY way... but to question what I thought read as a dismissive of what was my natural draw to RPG.  I'm even ASKING if this is a flawed assumption, not saying that it is.  I just have my own experience implying that Sim is more natural to some than Nar or Gam... even if, in the end, if we could some how quantify it, that Nar and Gam do outnumber natural Sim players... fine... but the article seemed to imply that ALL Sim was learned... that is was natural for no one.

[RDU Neil]

Okay, my follow up question is this;  I wouldn't want to be in Viet Nam firefight or be up to my waist in Zombie parts in some dungeon crawl... But I sure want to put my character there!

Very true.  But I do want to understand what it would be like to be there, if only from a safe distance.  But how can you ever really understand something you've never experienced?  The best you can do is some sort of simulation of the events.  Then you can relate to being in Vietnam or in a dungeon of zombies.  Unless it's not a very good simulation.  But this is in my mind the purpose of Sim.  To really understand what it would be like to be a (fill in character type here).  I think this is as natural an inclination as gamism and narrativism.

Greg Jensen

Again... yes, what I was trying to say... that I think Sim is a natural inclination... which my reading of Ron's essay seemed to dismiss.  I was merely asking if I was reading it correctly... that GNS supposes all Sim to be learned behavior.  That seemed to be the implication of the parts I quoted... that's all.

[RDU Neil]

Hezues almighty, people, I said not to dissect the metaphor because it was grossly simplistic...and what happens? We're discussing grandpa and  whether he's a good storyteller...

So, let me restate it without all the metaphor: most stories told to us have an ultimate point; experiencing that point is the reason for listening to the story (funny, sad, terrifying, cautionary, uplifting, etc). This is the crude Narrativist equivalent.

Sorry that the metaphor was seen as the object of the point I was trying to make. Please let me make it without the metaphor:

Most stories that folks tell, or read about, or see on TV or at the Movies, engage the audience by setting up a situation, applying dramatic tension, building to a climax, and resolving the situation. What a good many stories don't do is address any premise.

Maybe I'm going batty, but my fractured understanding of Narrativism is that it must address premise, as described by Ron in the essay. A story can be funny, sad, terrifying, cautionary, uplifting, etc. without addressing any premise--without asking any big questions.

Rambling without a point is bad storytelling. That does not equal Simulationism.

Bingo, bingo, bingo!   My understanding as well.

From Valimar

The point being is that we humans are intrinsically hard wired to understand the nature and format of a story. We can identify good stories without even trying. We may not be able to articulate what we like about them without exposure to the jargon of lit theory, but a lack of lit theory classes doesn't prevent people from enjoying stories.

Stories don't JUST HAPPEN. The events in stories do not occur "simply because". They occur because they were driven in a very specific way to a very specific reason for a very specific end.

But again... just because there is drama, doesn't mean there is Premise as Ron defines it... or am I missing something?  You can have a very dramatic mystery game that ends in tracking down the killer and having a violent shootout in a darkened warehouse... and it be very satisfying "destination" to reach when it is over... and never by Nar.

The implication here is a dismissing of Sim play as having no drama or "destination" in a story.  I don't find that true, and really, except for Valimar's statements, I don't think that is what GNS is saying.

Again, I look at it from the point where, as a player, my natural instinct was to "just do what I should do" and I looked to the GM to have created a world, a situation where my actions "have meaning."  That was natural, and I still think the GM is the main person to be responsible for this.  I only developed this Nar sense as a GM... because as a player, I look to be more passive, responsive to the imagined environment, experience for experience sake.  

Drama can happen whether I care "why" I have may character do certain things.   Tension can be built and released without premise...

... can't it?

[pete_darby]

Just a small thing: the "question" in a premise doesn't have to be "big", and I'd still go with the idea that any story worthy of the name has at least one firing away in there.

If anyone can give me an example of one of these hot to trot stories without a premise, I'll do my damndest to shoot you down and show you what the premise is.

Coxcomb, you say that these films "engage the audience by setting up a situation..." I'll stick my neck out and say they're establishing the premise at that point. Giving the audience a reason to give a damn about what happens next.

And before we get further into the "story" tarbaby... an arbitrary string of events isn't a story, although a story is an account of a string of events. Even making those events exciting doesn't make it a story. Looking back at a series of exciting events and making a story out of them retrospectively isn't Nar play, because Nar play is all about feeding the premise-adress beast in play.

In sim play, address of premise, creation of a new story isn't prioritized. In the hunt the serial killer example, all that can be done exploring setting, character, theme, situation, etc. Nothing Ralph said implies that this exploration can't have a dramatic drive, direction or destination: in fact, that pretty much describes exploration of situation (this is happening, what happens next).

The GM can set up "premise rich" situations, sure, but it's the player's choice whether they address the available premise, or don't. Seeing it as the GM's job to "make it Nar" is a bit hard on the GM.

[Alan]

Tension can be built and released without premise...

... can't it?

Hm.  In fiction, the answer is no.  The definition of drama and tension in fiction involves theme - and Egri premise by extension.  Tension is like a rubber band stretched between the premise question and the character's current behavior, often in avoiding answering the premise.  In fact, there's a huge industry among TV and screen writers to develop theme and premise in every work they create.

The main difference between addressing premise in a fiction (including TV and Movies) and in an RPG, is that in fiction, the answers to the premise situations have already been chosen by the writer.  Whereas in a narrativist RPG, the answers are open for players to choose (This is what addressing premise is: answering the question it poses).

Drama can happen whether I care "why" I have may character do certain things.  

Drama, like tension, requires that someone see and care about the relationship of events to some theme - ie how they address premise.  So if several reliable observers see drama in your character's action, they are seeing premise being addressed.  

Now, just because you don't care about the thematic significance of your character's acts, doesn't mean it has none - it only means that you don't prioritize theme - ie you aren't a narrativist by preference.

[RDU Neil]

Just a small thing: the "question" in a premise doesn't have to be "big", and I'd still go with the idea that any story worthy of the name has at least one firing away in there.

I'd like to agree with that but the language used to define Premise seems to bely that..

A generalizable, problematic aspect of human interactions. Early in the process of creating or experiencing a story, a Premise is best understood as a proposition or perhaps an ideological challenge to the world represented by the protagonist's passions. Later in the process, resolving the conflicts of the story transforms Premise into a theme - a judgmental statement about how to act, behave, or believe.

I look at the official definition like this...it is high falutin' language for "they have a reason for doing what they do" which, if that's the case... is something that will just occur in every game.  No character will every act without a reason (even if that reason is not consciously acknowledged).  The characters will always have a "reason" a "why" for what they do, and by doing it, are making a statement about "hout to act, behave, or believe."

Nar... in my understanding... is making this "why" the focus... making sure it is addressed... rather than just letting it happen.

Sim is just letting the premise happen.

As soon as a player, through the character, acts in a causal manner, they are expressing premise.  The player is saying, "I respect the integrity of the world, and by my actions I'm stating that others should act, behave and believe similarly.  The character, by acting in character, is reaffirming the world, and making a judgment on past events by which choices they make... though this is unconscious.


Basically, if Premise can be addressed unconsciously, then how can Sim not have premise... unless the world being simulated is one that does not reflect humanity.  If it is a bunch of stimulus response of conscious colors... well, ok, that is likely sim... but as soon as you Simulate a human (or a metaphor thereof) you have to have Premise (by the above definition, because all human interaction has premise to some extent.)
Even if I am consciously just caring about how it "feels" to be neck deep in zombies... by the above definition, I'm still addressing premise, althought unconsciously, simply by having my character actual fight to live.  My actions are saying, "You should act, behavve, believe for your own survival."  

Just as much as if I just have my character go numb and submit to the ripping hands of the zombies in despair, I'm stating premise in that "struggle is futile, just give up"   or whatever.

This is where GNS really breaks down, for me.  Unless Nar is defined as conscious choice of consciously addressing premise (as opposed to having premise addressed unconsciously), then I see very little difference between it and Sim.

No... strike that... what I see is that Sim is just a "technique"  Maybe RPGs being written in Sim language is simply a technique that has grown so prevalent and dominating, that it is perceived as a "creative agenda" or "mode of play" in and of itself... where that really isn't the case.  

What Ron might see as Sim is simply dysfunctional Gam or Nar, likely dysfunctional Nar... where a technique... Simulation/Emersion... has become so dominant it looks like it's own style.

I'm not saying that Sim doesn't exist... but it would truly be a rare thing, and would only exist as a objective, distanced method of play, to use structure and rules to "simulate" something... like a computer game Flying Simulator, but in a shared discussion/imagination.

Ok... I'm going to get flamed for this.  But I really think this is crucial.

All this "Sim with heavy illusionist technique" or "Nar with a heay emersive technique" and all that anal parsing might just be the result of a major flaw in GNS.

It isn't GNS... it is simply GN... with N coming in two very distinct camps... conscious/directed premise... and unconscious/undirected premise.

Yes, I know I'm taking a wild stab at the heart of something very dear to folks here... but this really begins to make sense to me, this way.