Penalizing the World

[Mike Holmes]

Major Victory = Major Defeat for the opponent.

Sometimes when a hero gets a victory, I want to give them a bonus, instead of giving the opponent a penalty. For example, let's say that Ragnar manages to make a run from one village to another in short order. He's feeling good about his abilities. Now, I can just say that next time Ragnar runs the course in question, it's resistance will be lowered as appropriate for the loss in question. But that doesn't help Ragnar defeat any other courses. That is, there's no real mechanical way to give him a bonus to all such tasks in the current rules.

Or is there?

What I've taken to doing some lately is that I'll say that, essentially, the whole world has a -2 penalty to their resistances to Ragnar's running, to reflect his current self-confidence in his running abilities. This is sort of a rationalization, but it works from a character-centric POV.

Does this make sense, or seem problematic? Is there another way to accomplish the same effect?

Mike

[Eric Provost]

I think it's a good idea.  But may I suggest a bit of flavor-change?

Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with HeroQuest, other than to know that it's a fantasy RPG.  With that in mind, there are dieties, yes?  If so, is there a diety that governs travel?  If not, then the rest of what I have to say won't be of any value, but...

Let's assume that the God of Travel has decided that it takes 5 days to travel from the City to the Sea.  Ragnar wants to run it in 4 days.  Now, instead of Ragnar vs. the World, it's Ragnar vs. God of Travel.  

-Eric

[Mike Holmes]

Well, I suppose. Actually I think your solution is going to be problematic with HQ, given that it's largely a treatment of how you relate to the gods already (and this doesn't quite fit in). But I get your sentiment.

The point has more to do with the mechanical ramifications than with whether or not we can find a good rationalization for it in-game.

Mike

[Brand_Robins]

Actually, HeroQuest in Glorantha-wise, that wouldn't be impossible. It would simply be that your character's epic run gives him a "run from city to city" feat/charm/talent that lets him beat the snot out of any mundane resistance in the future. Someone getting a magical ability because of a famous mortal victory seems very in keeping with the feel of the world.

As for the more general question, I'd say it depends on the situation. (Yes, that's my answer to every damn question.)

If the character's goal was to make the run fast so that he can tell the King that the Lunars have been beaten back and the city is safe the major victory's speed seems to be it's own reward. There isn't any need for bonuses or penalties in the future -- the PC wanted to get there fast, and getting their fast is the reward. (Or dropping over dead and having people run races commemorating their feat for the next 2000 years could be....)

In places where just the success isn't the only reward you could give the bonus in areas other than the one tested with. If the character has just run farther and faster than anyone else then they may get a reputation bonus – everyone knows that they're the best runner in town, and treats them as such.

However, I don't see anything wrong with the general concept of giving the winner a bonus. Really, a bonus to one side is a penalty to the other, and if the PC is against the world in this test and the next, it all works out. It also would have the bonus of letting the PC write something cool down on their sheet rather than the GM having to silently track yet more stats.

[Mike Holmes]

If the character's goal was to make the run fast so that he can tell the King that the Lunars have been beaten back and the city is safe the major victory's speed seems to be it's own reward. There isn't any need for bonuses or penalties in the future -- the PC wanted to get there fast, and getting their fast is the reward. (Or dropping over dead and having people run races commemorating their feat for the next 2000 years could be....)

Well, that's always true. The rules do state that there's never a necessity to give out a penalty. But I'm assuming that I think it's appropriate in this situation.

In places where just the success isn't the only reward you could give the bonus in areas other than the one tested with. If the character has just run farther and faster than anyone else then they may get a reputation bonus – everyone knows that they're the best runner in town, and treats them as such.

Well, again, I'm being specific. I want him to have a self-confidence award. Do I give a bonus then? OK, how much of a bonus? Basically, I'd much rather have a well defined rule than have to say, "Hmm, you get a +4 on your next running roll." Basically, I'm trying to avoid fiat here.

However, I don't see anything wrong with the general concept of giving the winner a bonus. Really, a bonus to one side is a penalty to the other, and if the PC is against the world in this test and the next, it all works out.

Well, first, there are mechanically some small differences between bonuses and penalties and how they affect the outcome as I'm sure you're aware. Second, I'd also like to apply this if Ragnar goes against anything with his running. That is, if he goes against another hero in the next scene, I want to apply this to that resistance, too.

Is that problematic?

The obvious solution here that breaks the rules, is to simply give the player a bonus equal to the normal penalty. That is, if he wins a marginal victory, then he gets a +1 to his confidence in his running ability, as a bonus against his next opponent whatever it should be. Complete success, in this case, doesn't allow this, but there's nothing about this that says that you always have to use it, and the normal outcomes of things like Complete success can still be used.

The obvious "problem" with this sort of thing that people point out is that it encourages players to take on small stuff before taking on big stuff, just to get the bonus. My counter to that argument is that, again, if it's really not something that the character would benefit from, you can just use the normal penalty against the target. Or no result at all, as we mentioned above. Whether or not to give the penalty (or bonus in this theoretical system), and what it applies to, is completely up to the narrator at all times.

It also would have the bonus of letting the PC write something cool down on their sheet rather than the GM having to silently track yet more stats.

This is my default for play right now, even with penalties, and it's implied by the rules. That is, any penalty only applies to what it makes sense to apply to. Meaning that it has a nature to it. One can leave the record of this as -1 or -10%, but it really helps with remembering if you write , -10% Sprained Ankle.

Same thing is true for all of these methods being discussed.

Mike

[Doug Ruff]

What I've taken to doing some lately is that I'll say that, essentially, the whole world has a -2 penalty to their resistances to Ragnar's running, to reflect his current self-confidence in his running abilities. This is sort of a rationalization, but it works from a character-centric POV.

I'm a relative newbie to HeroQuest, but it sounds like Ragnar just got himself the "Self-confident" personality trait at 17, to Augment his running with.

Of course, this means he could use it to augment other skills as well, but if he's feeling good about himself... alternatively, apply a penalty if he uses Self-confident in a situation where he hasn't proved his worth already. This seems in keeping with the chargen rules for Broadly Defined Abilities.

[Mike Holmes]

That works, yes, but has the same problems of requiring narrator fiat. In fact, I came up with an entire alternate system by which one could win new abilities mechanically ("currency based resolution"). Don't play with it because it's a tad too complex, outside the rules and untested. But it would mechanically accomplish what you're saying.

The problem with the narrator arbitrarily giving out abilities (or even persistent bonuses), is the question of how to decide how much to give. For example, I could give anywhere from a 15 to a 4W, and still have it be a +2 in terms of augmenting. But that's quite a range. Why 17?

More to the point, how often do I want to do this? That is, I can't give them out on every success, or soon the character sheet's will overflow, and the system will collapse under it's own weight. If I only give them for, say, one out of ten contests, then which contests? I'm assuming that the player would have to cement these with a HP - what if I give one player a cool one, and the other player a not so cool one?

Generally I have a problem with arbitrary assignment of bonuses - see my earlier entire thread on this problem.

So, yes, this is an option. But not one I particularly like. I'd prefer to have the system produce some bonus that I'd feel safe handing out as it was produced by the system as an unbiased participant.

Does your suggestion mean that you think that the penalty idea (and the alternate bonus one) is a bad idea? Or was this just an alternative?

Mike

[Doug Ruff]

Mike,

It's not a bad idea, it's just not one I like.

Firstly, giving the world a penalty against a specific character only is just the same as giving that character a bonus. Not in the mathematical sense (17+2 vs 14 is different to 17 vs. 14-2), but in the sense that it's an ability of that character only. That means that it's going to need tracking on that character's sheet anyway.

Now, either you want the advantage to be temporary, or permanent. If it's temporary, a Circumstance modifier is appropriate for as long as you consider the character to warrant the benefits. This means that it doesn't (cannot) be cemented, and you can dish as many of these out as you see fit.

Alternatively, it's a permanent ability. In which case, I think that it should be statted up like any other trait, on the sheet. Depending on the circumstances of the contest, it could be a personality trait, a new magical ability, or even a relationship - whatever fits the best.

In these cases, I think that the "coolness" of the award has to relate directly to the "coolness" of the action that earned it.

Of course, all of the above requires an "arbitrary" method for resolving who gets what bonus.

If you want a purely "mechanical" version, then it can be done. I would recommend that:

- The character gets a Circumstance Bonus equal to the normal penalty, as you suggested before
- This bonus is always won, even if the other party also takes damage; this avoids any "arbitrary" decision over whether it's appropriate or not to give a bonus. Success begets success
- The bonus "heals" over time. A (simple) mechanic is needed for this, but I suggest that the bonus "heals" a lot quicker than a corresponding njury would!
- If the character applies a bonus to a contest and loses the contest, he loses the bonus immediately

This might fit your requirements, but I'm not sure that I would be bothered with doing this myself - it seems a lot easier to "wing it" and award new (or increased) traits for notable Deeds performed (and only the notable ones).

hope this helps,

Doug

[Mike Holmes]

It's not a bad idea, it's just not one I like.

Fair enough.

Firstly, giving the world a penalty against a specific character only is just the same as giving that character a bonus. Not in the mathematical sense (17+2 vs 14 is different to 17 vs. 14-2), but in the sense that it's an ability of that character only. That means that it's going to need tracking on that character's sheet anyway.

All true. Again, all bonuses and penalties need tracking, so I'm not concerned about this.

Now, either you want the advantage to be temporary, or permanent. If it's temporary, a Circumstance modifier is appropriate for as long as you consider the character to warrant the benefits. This means that it doesn't (cannot) be cemented, and you can dish as many of these out as you see fit.

Not sure I get you here. I agree that they should be temporary in that they should fade over time as appropriate. However, it seems to me that these are precisely the sorts of things that are cemented with HP. That is, don't cement it, and it goes away, Cement it, and it stays forever.

Alternatively, it's a permanent ability. In which case, I think that it should be statted up like any other trait, on the sheet. Depending on the circumstances of the contest, it could be a personality trait, a new magical ability, or even a relationship - whatever fits the best.

Yes, if cemented, this should add to an appropriate ability. If none exists, then the first point creates it at 13, and each subsequent pumps it up one. No?

In these cases, I think that the "coolness" of the award has to relate directly to the "coolness" of the action that earned it.

Of course, all of the above requires an "arbitrary" method for resolving who gets what bonus.

I don't have a problem with this, actually. It's no more than the game demands now in terms of deciding when a penalty should be applied. I'm just looking to avoid adding any more GM fiat to the situation. In any case, I think the benefits of GM interface here are large enough to merit it, as well.

This might fit your requirements, but I'm not sure that I would be bothered with doing this myself - it seems a lot easier to "wing it" and award new (or increased) traits for notable Deeds performed (and only the notable ones).

It's less complex, but simply feels very uncomfortable to me. I don't like doing it. Makes play less fun for me, because I'm a process nut.

Mike

[Doug Ruff]

Mike,

I'm a process nut too, for what it's worth, which I why I'm enjoying discussing your idea, even if it isn't one I'd use myself. The first half of my post (which you've responded to) is mostly about what I'd do. That's not particularly helpful, so please accept my apologies.

The last part of the post though (which you haven't responded too) is about attempting to deliver your requirements. Please let me know if it's useful, the following may also help.

Re: Circumstance modifiers. I picked these deliberately as they don't appear to cement ever. They seem to represent a temporary advantage, for example, holding the higher ground in combat, or performing a ritual on a High Holy Day. These advantages aren't "portable", so they can't be cemented.

As it seems that you don't want to dish out permanent traits as a matter of course (and I agree with you) then I figured that awarding a Circumstance bonus to reflect the "high spirits" that a victory would give the character was more appropriate.

If you consider that the injury penalties for losing a conflict are, in effect, a specialised sort of Circumstance Penalty, I think this is an appropriate "twist" to the rules.

however, you appear to want this bonus to have some duration, so it can be used in the next scene. Which is why I thought that the bonus could "heal", like an injury.

If this doesn't appeal, perhaps a one-shot "Inspiration Bonus" (as in Capes) could be awarded. The player chooses when to spend this (so it can have duration), but once it is used, it is struck off the sheet.

Any of this helping, or am I drifting away from your vision?

[Mike Holmes]

I'm a process nut too, for what it's worth, which I why I'm enjoying discussing your idea, even if it isn't one I'd use myself. The first half of my post (which you've responded to) is mostly about what I'd do. That's not particularly helpful, so please accept my apologies.

Not at all. On the contrary, thanks for trying to help. I'm always up for looking at alternatives, and somebody might like the solution you proposed there, whether or not it works for me.

The last part of the post though (which you haven't responded too) is about attempting to deliver your requirements.

Well, my point was that it over delivers. That is, I'm only uncomfortable with GM fiat for certain sorts of things, but not others. You're fixing things that aren't broken for me. I tried to indicate that in my response, but I'll tackle it in detail below.

- The character gets a Circumstance Bonus equal to the normal penalty, as you suggested before

OK, so far I'm with you.

- This bonus is always won, even if the other party also takes damage; this avoids any "arbitrary" decision over whether it's appropriate or not to give a bonus. Success begets success

See, I have no problem with the narrator making choices of when the player should get a bonus and when they should not. These things seem pretty obvious to me, and not really all that arbitrary. It's the level of the penalty that I had a hard time with. That is, in a system where the scale is determined by things like the mechanics, and not itself arbitrary, how do you select an appropriate bonus or penalty? Why is it +4 in this case, and +7 in the next? What I want the system to intervene to do is to set up the level of the reward.

- The bonus "heals" over time. A (simple) mechanic is needed for this, but I suggest that the bonus "heals" a lot quicker than a corresponding njury would!

Well, I see this as a normal extension of the rules. That is, the rules give guidelines on times for healing injuries naturally, but then they say that all penalties fade with an appropriate amount of time. That is, since the system can be used to model humiliation, this, too "heals" with time...just with an amount that's determined to be appropriate. So, yeah, these would be no different.

Let me put it another way, I see all bonuses and penalties of this sort as "transient" statistics for the player. If/when a player pays a HP, to cement them, they become permenant.

- If the character applies a bonus to a contest and loses the contest, he loses the bonus immediately

Again, this would depend on circumstance for me. I'm not looking to remove judgement from this part of the equation. If it made sense for the bonus to fade here, yeah, it would fade. But I think you're thinking in terms of my (poor) example.

Let's take another. If the bonus was "Battlefield Position +3" (or +10% in the proposed system) and I used it to defend against an attack, then if I fail, it might not mean that I lose the bonus. It could be that the unit I'm leading has it's morale shaken, or takes casualties, etc. If the penalty gained was a -10%, then I might decide to say that it cancels the first, or I might just attatch another different penalty. Depends a lot on the description of the attacker's goal. For example, if the attack is aimed at getting the defender off the hill, then it'll probably do that. If it's just to cause casualties, it'll do that instead.

(Forgive the example, but I'm using HQ to run a war right now, and thinking in terms of units).

The point is that what's important is the magnitude of the bonus or penalty, not what that bonus or penalty is.

Re: Circumstance modifiers. I picked these deliberately as they don't appear to cement ever. They seem to represent a temporary advantage, for example, holding the higher ground in combat, or performing a ritual on a High Holy Day. These advantages aren't "portable", so they can't be cemented.

I'm not seeing the distinction. That is, they're as "portable" as they're described to be. For example, Self-Confidence is certainly portable, and a circumstance of winning a contest. Even if you use the book definition, this is true. There are examples of doing something and getting the good will of an individual to give you a bonus to, say, convince then to do something. The point is that this goodwill could last forever under the right circumstances.

In any case, the rules say that you can cement these bonuses. I think it's left a tad grey as to how this works, but let's say you had Friend of Ragnar 13, and you got a +3 bonus to deal with him because you got his sheep back for him. Assuming the conditions still exist at the end of the session, the rules seem to say to me that you can spend one HP, and increase the ability from 13 to 16.

One of the reasons that I want a system arbitrary method here is because this represents a big discount on cost. I don't want to be throwing one bonus to one player and another to another and have them cement them both for one HP. Seems just unfair. Unless they "earned" them through use of the system.

As it seems that you don't want to dish out permanent traits as a matter of course (and I agree with you) then I figured that awarding a Circumstance bonus to reflect the "high spirits" that a victory would give the character was more appropriate.

I agree that it is more appropriate, it's just not supported in the rules. But this is precisely what I'm talking about, giving "circumstance bonuses." I just see that as a really broad category including any bonus.

What is supported by the rules is giving narrator arbitrary bonuses, and also, actually, giving whole abilities out. That is, the primary method that you indicate way above is also allowed by the rules. It's just even worse than the bonus cementing idea. Because you have an even larger range of ratings from which to be arbitrary. Do I give a 13, 17, 5W? What?

Again, I've come up with a system that mechanically does determine the rating of a new ability in such a circumstance. You can see it (you might have to join the list to do so) here, in a file called "Currency Based Resolution": http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/HeroQuest-rules/files/

As I've said, the reason that I don't use the system is that it's a tad overblown, IMO. Using the system as it stands to generate cementable bonuses seems much simpler.

If you consider that the injury penalties for losing a conflict are, in effect, a specialised sort of Circumstance Penalty, I think this is an appropriate "twist" to the rules.

Actually that's always been my assumption. I can't see any real difference between the two.

It might do, if you're interested, to see my game Synthesis (which takes all of this for granted) to get an idea of how I think of bonuses, penalties and abilities. A version can be found at Indie Netgaming in the Synthesis folder: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/indie-netgaming/files/Synthesis/

Also, my general ideas about Bonuses, and the problem of arbitrarily setting ratings is more deeply enumerated here (though I admit it's largely a personal problem overall): http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8220

One place where I have made the conversion to "stats only" is in that I make equipment work this way (see about that in the thread above). The way I envision all of this working together, bonuses are temporary, abilities are permenant. That's nice and clean, at least in my mind.

I probably should have given a lot of this background at the start. Might have made things a lot more clear.


One other note: When cementing a "temporary" stat, I make a couple of other assumptions. First, of course it has to make sense. So my unit can't remain on the hill forever, and keep it's +10% for good terrain. It loses it as soon as I narrate leading the unit off of the hill. That said, I'd allow "conversion" to happen at this point. That bonus could become "Pride at having held Ragnar's Hill +10%" which, when cemented just become part of the unit's pride. I'm not too stingy this way, and will allow a lot in terms of conversion. I want the characters to change this way a lot.

Second, where there's a bonus that should add to some default ability, or where it's cementing should not add directly to the ability that it was a bonus for orignially (basically when it calls for a new ability), then I'd start a new ability at 13 and add the bonus to it, minus one point for starting the ability. So, if I had, say, "Self-Confidence in Running +50%" I might not allow that to add to running directly, but instead give a Confident Runner 19 ability for cementing it. Which provides a persistent +2, but only for the right contests. I prefer more specialized abilities to stacking, because it makes for a deeper character.

Lastly, penalties are, of course cementable as flaws - this is free, however, and can be done at any level the player likes. That said, I'd allow the player to "eliminate" the temporary penalty by making it a permenant flaw by taking a level that's at least a level that produces a reasonably high negative augment. For example, on the recieving end of a botched healing spell, I decide to change Ragnar's -50% leg gash into a 5W2 Limp. The -5 augment that this provides is not nearly as bad as the -50% in most cases. But it's permenant now, and has to be bought off the normal way.

Thanks for indulging me,
Mike

[Mandacaru]

Mike, you could make the temporary bonus an augment based either on the original ability or the original rating used in the contest. (i.e. Running augmented by Running). It'd be an objective rule and broadly graded to the level of the abilities being used. Makes sense to me in rules terms and "realism" terms.
Sam.

[Mike Holmes]

Mike, you could make the temporary bonus an augment based either on the original ability or the original rating used in the contest. (i.e. Running augmented by Running). It'd be an objective rule and broadly graded to the level of the abilities being used. Makes sense to me in rules terms and "realism" terms.
Sam.

Not terrible (does provide objective output), except that it doesn't take into account the level of success. Also, does the player get that augment in addition to the normal augment he'd get from the rule? Or just the augment? If the latter, then what's the difference between this and the normal system? If the former, it just seems a tad odd. "I've got that running augment from the success I got with running, and now I'm going to agument with running again."

Another method that we've looked at that's similar to what you're proposing is something like the "Heroforming" rule or the transfer rule. That is, if the standard augment provided is +2, then:

Marginal = +1 (always)
Minor = standard augment
Major = Standard augment x 2
Complete = Standard augment x3

Or something like the variable augment (though I'm not fond of how that table works right now). That is, potentially every success or failure is basically some sort of variable augment in effect, teh effects of which are only as ephemeral as the description of them would be. In this case, I'd actually consider changing the penalties to follow the same chart, too, instead of the current one, just to keep it all one system.

In this way, all rolls would roll over to something else. Making "variably augmenting" simply using the primary system as stated. I like that from an elegance POV, and for how I feel that it might get variable augments back into the game.

But there are some downsides. Using large abilities is a gamble, with this system. Because it makes losing harsher with large abilities than with small ones (with the current system, you just get a percentage penalty or the flat minus one). This is why I've gotten to the system that I have. Not only is giving a penalty to the "world" consistent, but it doesn't have any problems of scaling with the ability.

Again, there's nothing wrong with any of this, I'm just not seeing how it's any better than penalizing the world. Do you see the method as superior (or any of the extensions that I've listed here), or is this just another alternative method?

Have I given the impression that I don't like the "penalizing the world" method? Because that's not the case. I'm looking for critiques of it, yes, and suggestions to replace it with a better system, yes. But sans any of that, I'll stand by the method as the best I've found so far.

Again, the advantages of penalizing the world.
1. It's not really against the rules. That is, I can argue that, since only PCs get to roll anything, and that the penalties that they emplace on others are representative of potentially abstract concepts, that, in fact, from a very Bhuddist POV, you are always penalizing the world, even when you seem to be penalizing a character or something. That is, everything outside of the characters is "the world," and you can penalize that as limitedly or openly as you like.
2. Since it follows the rules, I don't have to change anything to make it work. Not one rule has to change even a little, or be added. Only the perspective on how you apply penalties. So there's no new system to learn or anything.
3. It scales. Since you're penalizing some percentage, instead of a flat rate, this means that the penalty will be of the same significance for small and large abilities alike. Some might see this as a flaw, but it's how the current system works, and that's always worked for me.
4. It performs as mostly as required. That is, it produces a standard feedback for use.

What I'd really like to hear is why Doug doesn't like this system (and Mandacaru, if he doesn't, or anyone else who doesn't). Where is it problematic? Feel? Outcome?

Same thing for the bonus system - for me it's pretty much as good, except that it creates an exception to the rules as written. Basically, before I'd use it, I'd have to understand why it was substantively better than the penalize the world system. Right now, I'm actually leaning towards it, because it's more intuitive to cement a bonus than it is to convert a penalty to a bonus, and then to cement it. Which would seem to be the alternative in terms of getting system arbitrated bonuses.

Mike

[Mandacaru]

I was just making a suggestion. I don't have anything against at all your system. If truth be told, my set of interpretations of the rules or minisystems for bits tends to change all the time as I don't really care. I have enough of that fiddly sort of thing at work. I have at least one player who seems to know the rules. Of course he might be being very sneaky :)

As for longer term outcomes of major contests, I just try to make it fun and to leave it to the players if I can. If there's an imbalance or there are injustices I'm sure they'll even out or be forgotten.

Looking at your first para though, yes of course, why not however many augments from the same skill piling up? So you're on a roll - fine. Sometimes in sport, for example, it's just working well. You do something well, then you do it a little better (soccer here). Starts to become an extended contest but I'm sure they can be distinguished.

And I was sort of assuming multiplications or divisions for levels of success.

Only a half answer to your Q I know, but it's late. That won't have advanced your cause much Mike - sorry :)

Sam.

[Mike Holmes]

I was just making a suggestion.

Which is great. What would help, however, is if we could get some comparison going. Because what I'm doing here is trying to ensure that I'm using the best tool for what I need. Sans comparison, looking at the pros and cons, I can't make that decision.

If truth be told, my set of interpretations of the rules or minisystems for bits tends to change all the time as I don't really care.

Not sure what you're getting at here. But I should say that for my part, my requirements are a very stringent system. That is, once I start playing with a modification, I'm not going to alter it at all in play, barring finding it completely broken. I like to have a very stable, unchanging, consistent system to work from.

As for longer term outcomes of major contests, I just try to make it fun and to leave it to the players if I can. If there's an imbalance or there are injustices I'm sure they'll even out or be forgotten.

Lost me there. I'm not incapable of winging it if I have to. But why, if a better tool is available, would I do so?

Looking at your first para though, yes of course, why not however many augments from the same skill piling up? So you're on a roll - fine. Sometimes in sport, for example, it's just working well.

OK, I guess that makes sense. Especially if you label them something else.

And I was sort of assuming multiplications or divisions for levels of success.

Cool. Then we're on the same wavelength there. Again, I like this method some, I just need some comparison.

Only a half answer to your Q I know, but it's late.

No problem, that's half an answer more than I got from everyone who didn't post. :-)

Mike