It's the system, stupid

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Matt,

I think we agree on the tactics: design good, focused games, and play them with enthusiasm as well as understanding some of the assumptions people bring to them. Plus talkin' on the Forge and walkin' the walk at conventions, and owning our own stuff so we can promote it without it getting diluted. All tweaked to individual combinations and tastes, of course.

The tactic I don't take, as a general thing, is to get involved in one-on-one debates. If a person gets the idea that I'm out to convince them of something, then they'll dig in their heels and we get nowhere.

Best,
Ron

[Matt Snyder]

Hi Matt,
The tactic I don't take, as a general thing, is to get involved in one-on-one debates. If a person gets the idea that I'm out to convince them of something, then they'll dig in their heels and we get nowhere.

As you say, we agree on tactics! I do NOT suggest, nor do I participate in, one-on-one debates like this. I never suggested as much (and I know you realize this, just clarifying for some future reader, I guess). I'm only out to "convince" folks in the ways we've already done so -- hooking Joe Gamer at the Con to play-and-maybe-buy Sorcerer, Little Fears, octaNe, Kayfabe, etc. is about as "evangelical" and overt attempt to convince as I can stand.

My "debates" with my own personal group are, I think, another matter. That's because we know each other quite well. No matter what the result of such disagreements, we'll end up playing something quite happily.

[Sylus Thane]

Hey Matt,
I agree and disagree with you but in an odd way. For me system does matter but it doesn't. Personally when looking for a game to play I first look at the setting/flavor/style, whatever you choose to call it, then I look at the system as to whether it is easy to learn and facilitates the game well overall. If the system does all the things it is supposed to do then it DOESN'T matter as it no longer pose's me any problems and I can easily move on to playing a fun game.

Now should the system NOT do what it is supposed to do then it very much DOES matter as I now either have to find fixes for it's problem (hence unfortunate drift) or have to find a system to replace it entirely. Which can be very troublesome, tiring, and make me wish I'd never tried playing the game, wich is most likely I think your friends problem with D&D.

I think perheps your angst, especially in seeing walls of D20 materials at the stores, comes not solely from system Matters/Doesn't Matter but the shelf dominance of, in apparently yours and at least mine, of for the most part inferior games. It may helpful to take this into consideration that perhaps it isn't solely about system but also the dominance of highly backed publishing machines that can force themselves on the masses while Indies are forced to work and build their reputaions more slowly.

Sylus

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Sylus,

Interesting that you equate "matters" with "causes me problems."

I agree with you about the shelf-space issue, big-time.

Best,
Ron

[Matt Snyder]

Sylus, you're on the right track here, but let's be clear. I do not equate D20 with this problem per se. I have in my bag currently a copy of Mutants & Masterminds my friend got me for my b-day. It's amazing what they did to the game in this book, and I applaud not only the presentation and content (design -- wow, the design -- characters, etc.) but also the implementaion/interpretation (as I understand it thus far) of the D20 rules within.

That said, I agree with you pretty much. That my "angst" -- let's call it concern -- is the RESULT of such market forces. But I don't care about the market, really. What I care about is what gamers think about. Ron has elsewhere rightly pointed out that consumerism IS a factor here. That's sad but true, I think. Hell, it's likely part of the reason I HAVE Mutants & Masterminds in my bag.

But, the concern is this: Gamers aren't doing enough critical thinking about their hobby. They think Product X is good because it has nigh-novel-like entertainment value, regardless of play value. (There are, however, other issues here, as this thread illustrates.)

Don't get me wrong -- wonderful settings are, well, wonderful. I just don't want that to become the emphasis for what makes playing a game good, which means that I'm NOT interested in READING a game, really. There are too many great authors out there for you to be wasting entertainment time reading games. Play the things, damnit! Wonderful settings should have wonderful systems, too, regardless of GNS mode.

Here's a question about the entertainment value of game books. Does anyone suspect that the reason some people enjoy reading games-as-books because they enjoy the idea that they could play in that universe . . . but never actually do. As opposed to a novel, where the reader does not participate on the same level as a "potential player." Is that faux-interactivity part of the reason you'd read Fading Suns rather than Dune?

[jburneko]

Hello,

I've done my fair share of system ranting.  I think the core of the "problem" is that there are A LOT of gamers who have come to see The System as literrally an extention of the GM.  That is, the GM not only determines what the results of the application of system are, but how, when and why the system gets applied in the first place.

So when you say, "System Matters" to these people they shake their head and say, "No, only GM Matters."  Why?  Because even if they don't admit it, in their minds the GM IS the System.

THAT's the concept I try to fight.  Basically I rally heavy against the single most broken and disfunctional rule ever created -- the so called "Golden Rule," that the GM should feel free to treat the system with wreckless abandon and ignore and alter rules as the drop of a hat all in the name, of "fun."

And frankly, I don't care what mode you're playing in.  If the GM isn't bound by the System the same way the Players are (even if they are two different sub-systems) then you aren't playing a game, at all.  

Drifting is functional.  Just saying these are the rules except when the GM says so, is not.

Jesse

[Sylus Thane]

Interesting that you equate "matters" with "causes me problems."

Ron,
If you think about it isn't this usually the case? When you do or participate in something that works do you often think about it? In truth it doesn't matter because it does not cause you any discomfort, agitation, need for improvement etc. But, if something causes you these or any other myriad of potential problems then it does matter as it takes up time and usually effort on your part to make it so that it doesn't matter anymore because you have made it work for you and you are once free to enjoy doing something. So yes, at least for me, system doesn't matter if it serves it's intended purpose and requires no effort on my part other than perusal of rules and playing, but does matter if I must go through the motions of fixing a game that the designer should have done.

Sylus, you're on the right track here, but let's be clear. I do not equate D20 with this problem per se. I have in my bag currently a copy of Mutants & Masterminds my friend got me for my b-day. It's amazing what they did to the game in this book, and I applaud not only the presentation and content (design -- wow, the design -- characters, etc.) but also the implementaion/interpretation (as I understand it thus far) of the D20 rules within.

Matt I only used the plethera of D20 products out there as a large scale example. I do understand that there are a number of good d20 products out there and the amount of times I have heard Mutants and Masterminds brought up in converstaion is inclining me to give it a look.

That said, I agree with you pretty much. That my "angst" -- let's call it concern -- is the RESULT of such market forces. But I don't care about the market, really. What I care about is what gamers think about. Ron has elsewhere rightly pointed out that consumerism IS a factor here. That's sad but true, I think. Hell, it's likely part of the reason I HAVE Mutants & Masterminds in my bag.

But, the concern is this: Gamers aren't doing enough critical thinking about their hobby. They think Product X is good because it has nigh-novel-like entertainment value, regardless of play value. (There are, however, other issues here, as this thread illustrates.)

Ahh, but you should care about the market as an Indie designer and publisher for it is those very same large scale forces that influence gamers and give focus to they should formulate their critical thoughts. For example. You may have the greatest game ever designed called "Sliced Bread", but should you not have the means to get "Sliced Bread" to the masses no one will ever know. For all the great game bakers are the ones with their products in the bakery saying "We're good, who else do you see in the bakery but us few bakers, if they were all that great don't you think they'd be here in the store too for your convenience? If you want to go out and the woods and look for something better go ahead. But, you're just going to get hungry in the meantime. Why not just take a slice of our loaf and makes things easier on yourself?" If you want to give people cause to perform critical thinking you have to be in a position to influence it.

Don't get me wrong -- wonderful settings are, well, wonderful. I just don't want that to become the emphasis for what makes playing a game good, which means that I'm NOT interested in READING a game, really. There are too many great authors out there for you to be wasting entertainment time reading games. Play the things, damnit! Wonderful settings should have wonderful systems, too, regardless of GNS mode.

Here's a question about the entertainment value of game books. Does anyone suspect that the reason some people enjoy reading games-as-books because they enjoy the idea that they could play in that universe . . . but never actually do. As opposed to a novel, where the reader does not participate on the same level as a "potential player." Is that faux-interactivity part of the reason you'd read Fading Suns rather than Dune?

As far as reading versus playing I think that gets back into the realm of system does matter (my version). In that the designer gives an incredible setting that sparks the players/readers imagination, but gives them a flawed means of implementing it. And for the most part this is subconcious in the fact that they would prefer to read the game as the setting is enjoyable but the system is lacking for them to take it further.

Sylus

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Sylus,

I wrote,

Interesting that you equate "matters" with "causes me problems."

And you responded,

If you think about it isn't this usually the case? When you ... [etc]

No, in regard to myself. Emphatically not. This question and the paragraph that follows shows that you and I are apparently very different people in regard to this issue.

That doesn't make either of us right or wrong, but I do think it's wrong to ascribe one's own outlook to "them out there" without recognizing the diversity involved.

Best,
Ron

[Matt Snyder]

If you think about it isn't this usually the case? When you do or participate in something that works do you often think about it? In truth it doesn't matter because it does not cause you any discomfort, agitation, need for improvement etc. But, if something causes you these or any other myriad of potential problems then it does matter as it takes up time and usually effort on your part to make it so that it doesn't matter anymore because you have made it work for you and you are once free to enjoy doing something. So yes, at least for me, system doesn't matter if it serves it's intended purpose and requires no effort on my part other than perusal of rules and playing, but does matter if I must go through the motions of fixing a game that the designer should have done.

How does this refute that system does matter? All you're saying is that there are no objections, not that the system doesn't matter.

I'm not understanding how you can say that system doesn't matter if it works. Of course it does! That's how you got to that level of enjoyment in the first place. You had to choose that system from a sea of options, and for whatever reason (let's hope it was something to do with the system), it worked for you. This matters. It matters to you because it's the engine that propels you on the road to having fun. Why are we ignoring this? Why are we taking it for granted? That's a dangerous road, I argue. It will inevitably lead to taking something for granted that we should not. I think it's largely how we got to where we are, with no one questioning how RPGs could work, and how they might offer something really different and exciting.

We should be, and are certainly, championing that system matters because it WILL help you continue to have fun. Recognize and cherish that fact, don't just ignore it until problems arise.

Now, I think what you're saying is system problems don't matter, because they don't exist.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I think it's harmful to put forth the "if it ain't broke" solution. That's a purely negative viewpoint on why you play your games. We should (and are) take a positive viewpoint, a proactive and complementary stance that system does matter for your enjoyment, not just for your dynfunctionality.

Ahh, but you should care about the market as an Indie designer and publisher for it is those very same large scale forces that influence gamers and give focus to they should formulate their critical thoughts. For example. You may have the greatest game ever designed called "Sliced Bread", but should you not have the means to get "Sliced Bread" to the masses no one will ever know. For all the great game bakers are the ones with their products in the bakery saying "We're good, who else do you see in the bakery but us few bakers, if they were all that great don't you think they'd be here in the store too for your convenience? If you want to go out and the woods and look for something better go ahead. But, you're just going to get hungry in the meantime. Why not just take a slice of our loaf and makes things easier on yourself?" If you want to give people cause to perform critical thinking you have to be in a position to influence it.

Yes, this is one of the primary the reasons I started this thread! I have a game called Sliced Bread .. . er Dust Devils (and more on the way). I do not have the wherewithal to get it on shelves across the U.S. Heck, not even on shelves here in town, effectively. Therefore, my "fight" in the system-does-matter is quiet and largely un-influential. So, a good chunk of why I started this thread was to get people vocal about this stuff so 1) I can reach more customers (selfishly!) and 2) people enjoy their hobby more (selflessly?).

[Sylus Thane]

No, in regard to myself. Emphatically not. This question and the paragraph that follows shows that you and I are apparently very different people in regard to this issue.

That doesn't make either of us right or wrong, but I do think it's wrong to ascribe one's own outlook to "them out there" without recognizing the diversity involved.

Best,
Ron

Sorry Ron, I didn't mean to sound all inclusive of people when I said this. Overall I believe it does come down to point of view, which leads into Matt question of:

How does this refute that system does matter? All you're saying is that there are no objections, not that the system doesn't matter.

I'm not understanding how you can say that system doesn't matter if it works. Of course it does! That's how you got to that level of enjoyment in the first place. You had to choose that system from a sea of options, and for whatever reason (let's hope it was something to do with the system), it worked for you. This matters. It matters to you because it's the engine that propels you on the road to having fun. Why are we ignoring this? Why are we taking it for granted? That's a dangerous road, I argue. It will inevitably lead to taking something for granted that we should not. I think it's largely how we got to where we are, with no one questioning how RPGs could work, and how they might offer something really different and exciting.

We should be, and are certainly, championing that system matters because it WILL help you continue to have fun. Recognize and cherish that fact, don't just ignore it until problems arise.

Now, I think what you're saying is system problems don't matter, because they don't exist.

Having been a Cultural Anthropology student I believe we are now getting into what is commonly referred to as a regional view between people of the same culture. Things that would be commonly considered problematic for you in your area may not be problematic for me in mine. For example, you may live in an area with a high crime rate where it matters whether or not you lock your car, but for me it does not as I may live in an area with virtually no crime rate to speak of.

In some areas this viewpoint carries over into other things. For you system does matter because it works well and does not cause you any undue aggravation, whereas for me living in an area possibly more care free (please note this is just an opinion not to be taken as fact) would say that it doesn't matter as it causes no undue aggravation to me and therefore does not take up any of my time in order to fix it.

I don't believe we truly aren't arguing the semantical viewpoint of system matters (we are agreeing, just from different points of view) but perhaps we are edging along a finer arguement of not that system/setting does/doesn't matter but now more along the lines of Game Matters, of which system is an integral part of the whole.

For you system matters because it does work, and works well, and should be continued as a practice in general throughout the industry. (Please note that this is the viewpoint I am getting from you and please correct me if I'm wrong.) Whereas I on the other hand feel system does not matter when it works well with the intended game. We are in fact agreeing that system does matter, but for you when it works and should be emulated and I when it doesn't work and should not be emulated. It is now that I believe we are in the larger discussion that it is overall that Game Matters. Perhaps it is not sytem nor setting we should be drawing attention to but games as a whole that are well thought out designed to a degree that surpasses the larger companies that tend to just churn out product with no real care as to whether all of it's parts work well as a whole?

I'll stop for a minute so I don't get lost in my typing and quit making sense. (I hope)

Sylus

[Le Joueur]

If the idea that a 'bad system' can keep you from playing or enjoying the play of a game isn't enough reason to say that "System Matters," I don't know if any other argument will.

Right, and on that we'd agree. But how does this relate to the questions I posed? It wasn't about systems this person isn't playing, it's about this person actually playing "any" system (in actuality games like: Werewolf, Earthdawn, Shadowrun, and lately Riddle of Steel and Avatar-13).

Interesting point, Fang: this person loathes D&D. Much of the group has played lots and lots of D&D, but she hates, hates, hates the game. This basically is because it's only a "combat" game. I've had little success in pointing out that saying a group can play "anything" is contradictory to not playing D&D because of its concept and rules. The counter-argument, I think, is that "campaign" or "story" matters, and one cannot achieve that with D&D. Therefore, the "any game works" argument stands.

I'd have to say your friend has actually been 'burned.'  Who does she blame?  Dungeons & Dragons?  No, it sounds like she makes the mistake of blaming 'system' in general for a problem with a single system.  To her, 'burned by systems' is why she says they don't matter, even if it was 'burned by Dungeons & Dragons.'  Until you can get her to separate what good a system can do from the bad that that system did, you won't 'reach her.'

And about 'the questions you posed,' all I can say is 'so what?'  "It's about this person actually playing 'any' system;" no it isn't.  All you've managed to say (to me) is that they deny the value of system.  If she's 'projecting' as I speculate, there isn't a lot you can do directly.  Like everyone else is saying, "Forget arguing with her, she's only 'digging in her heels.'  Run something else that's narrowly focused; if she likes that then 'reveal' that it was the system that matters."

Many people don't think beyond the moment they're in (getting from A to B), it's just a learning process to see 'the big picture.'  Don't expect to convince anyone, but know that they'll figure it out eventually.

I don't agree, here, Fang. I think saying we can't "convince" anyone is false.

You've got a real uphill battle if you want to convince me that you can make that 'horse' drink after 'leading it to water.'  Just like you can't "convince" me, I caution you against thinking you can, on your own, change someone's opinion.  You can make all kinds of convincing arguments, present all manner of supporting data, but only the person themselves can change their opinion.  Thinking that you can will only cause them to 'dig in their heels' as Ron puts it.

Forget trying to "convince" anyone.

Yes, they have to have that moment of realization themselves, but the Forge has done a lot actively to get people there. The entire point of my question in my first post was to say, "Why aren't we doing something about this?"

The Forge hasn't done anything like that 'actively' any more than a garden pushes up the plant.  It's a fertile environment, but you still can't 'make them drink' it.  You also make the mistake of implying that we aren't doing anything, much less our best.  Who here would evangelize, mostly already likely is.  Then whom are you 'preaching to?'  Your tone carries this 'big stick' of 'why aren't you evangelizing?'  Hey, 'I'm dancing as fast as I can,' waddaya want?  Blood?

In fact, we are, but I just wanted to call attention to it again to re-focus efforts in that regard. Letting them "figure it out" seems to me to ignore the premise of the Forge. So, that leads to -- should we be so "evangelical?" I'm saying yes. I sure as hell don't know how to go about it very well, but I think we've seen much that works.

If I remember the last time this came around (perhaps Ron can find the reference), it was stated that the Forge isn't about 'spreading the gospel' in any way, shape, or form.  If you've come here for that, we're very sorry you've been mislead.

And again you make the grievous mistake of pretty much saying none of us 'are focused;' we are, but that's not what the Forge is for.  I'm actually feeling a little insulted that you imply that I'm not 'evangelizing.'  I'm sorry your efforts aren't converting the uninitiated, but don't project you situation onto us by saying, 'Why aren't we even trying?'

Next, "letting them 'figure it out'" is far removed from what I meant.  It should be clear that you can't change someone else's mind.  You can get that 'horse' water all you want, but forcing it 'down their throat' will only make you an enemy.  Represent your philosophy without 'pushing' it and you might see people 'come around.'  It just isn't something you can make happen.  Make it look like 'a lot of fun,' and I bet someone will be interested.  Single out a target for conversion and expect problems.

Another one of the biggest problems is how far will evangelizing 'system matters' seem different from 'buy my system' in the eyes of the consumer?  Kinda makes 'evangelizing' a double edged sword.

How about some clarifications:[list=1][*]What do you want us to do specifically for you?
[*]What do you think you can force your friend to believe?
[*]What do you think the Forge is for?
[*]What makes you think we aren't doing that already?[/list:o]That's all I can think of for now.  I just want to get this conversation away from 'how can the Forge help me force my agenda on my friend,' because I don't see anything constructive in that discussion.  All these implied accusations of 'failure to promote...' are pretty much false and my getting defensive over them will lead nowhere.

Fang Langford

[Sylus Thane]

Yes, this is one of the primary the reasons I started this thread! I have a game called Sliced Bread .. . er Dust Devils (and more on the way). I do not have the wherewithal to get it on shelves across the U.S. Heck, not even on shelves here in town, effectively. Therefore, my "fight" in the system-does-matter is quiet and largely un-influential. So, a good chunk of why I started this thread was to get people vocal about this stuff so 1) I can reach more customers (selfishly!) and 2) people enjoy their hobby more (selflessly?).

Perhaps a good topic for another thread should be on how to gets ones Indie game more competitive space on store shelves, In this I mean beyond LGS's but in such places as chain book stores such as Hastings and Barns and Noble. Not sure if the thread would belong in publishing as it is more of a distribution thing. But surely it is a worthy cause for Forge members to put their minds and talents to work on. If I've gotten ahead of myself and there already is such a thread please let me know.

Sylus

[Walt Freitag]

I've done my fair share of system ranting. I think the core of the "problem" is that there are A LOT of gamers who have come to see The System as literrally an extention of the GM. That is, the GM not only determines what the results of the application of system are, but how, when and why the system gets applied in the first place.

So when you say, "System Matters" to these people they shake their head and say, "No, only GM Matters." Why? Because even if they don't admit it, in their minds the GM IS the System.

I'm completely with you that far. I just don't see this as a problem. Those people's failure to appreciate the technical point that "system" also includes their GMing practices doesn't, in and of itself, imply anything about whether or not their games are fun.

- Walt

[Matt Snyder]

Fang, with respect, please refer to my several replies in this thread. I'm getting the notion from your reply here that I'm taking a personal issue of mine, and my group's, and projecting that onto "the Forge." Not so. I offered up other instances of evidence for my reasons for posting, including evidence as presented in RPG.net's poll. I frankly regret bringing up my group's discussions because folks are not getting my larger point, apparently. Forget about "fixing" my group. Ain't broke.

Further, you said I "implied we aren't doing anything" and that I "imply [you're] not evangelizing." I really don't think I did, and there's no reason to bristle. I'm on your side.. Please re-read, and don't assume the negative of what I'm proposing. I am emphatically not saying anyone here isn't doing enough.

Again, I asked are we doing enough? Should we be doing more? I later said we should be evangelizing -- how about advocating, I now hate the term "evangelizing" -- our viewpoint, AND that we do so by creating good games.

So, in effect, I'm asking for nothing new. My point, then, was 1) a simple reminder to everyone that I at least, and others too I'm sure, think this is a good thing and 2) bringing to light recent observations (not just within my own group) that gamers at large seem to emphasize issues counter to what we're advocating.

I find little to fault in me simply posting for discussion of the topic (which has happened in droves in just a few hours) and reminding folks or retreading "old" territory. I think it IS worth saying something on this issue, even if it's just repitition. I think it's more than simple repition, but failing that chanting the mantra, so to speak, can only be a good thing.

To answer your points:

[*]What do you want us to do specifically for you?

Fang, this thread is emphatically not about what you all can do for me. It's about large concepts and advocacy of indie games. While I understand my bringing up my own group's discussions give the appearance that I want some kind of help, I want nothing of the sort. To quote Han, "We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?"

The reason I brought them up was to illustrate a larger point -- that is, how can we keep advocacy of system does matter going, can it be better, or should it just ride as is?

[*]What do you think you can force your friend to believe?

Again, this isn't anything I'm interested in doing, at least not in this thread. I'm not foolish enough to think I can make her believe anything she doesn't want to, Fang. I think we're arguing semantics here. I said "convince" in the sense that we can make rational arguments, show good examples in and out of play, and let folks make decisions." You at least seem to be  trying to prove to me that I can not "convince" anyone of anything they don't want to. Yep. You're right, and I never suggested otherwise. We simply saw the word "convince" and that lead us each to different conclusions.

[*]What do you think the Forge is for?

Advocacy of Indie games. That's all I can say, other than I think that's a damn broad stroke.

[*]What makes you think we aren't doing that already?

I never said otherwise, and in fact effectively said at a minimum "Keep up the good work, and here's a reminder to so do." Hopefully, there's more to my point than just that, though.

[Le Joueur]

I am emphatically not saying anyone here isn't doing enough.

Again, I asked are we doing enough? Should we be doing more?

...The reason I brought them up was to illustrate a larger point -- that is, how can we keep advocacy of "System Does Matter" going, can it be better, or should it just ride as is?

What do you think the Forge is for?

Advocacy of Indie games. That's all I can say, other than I think that's a damn broad stroke.

What makes you think we aren't doing that already?

I never said otherwise, and in fact effectively said at a minimum "Keep up the good work, and here's a reminder to so do." Hopefully, there's more to my point than just that, though.

A compliment makes sense, but needing a reminder says we're forgetting.  Hence my bristle.

I'm getting the feeling I should add something to the imponderables thread, like 'What more can we do?'  Hey, if we knew the answer to that, we'd be doing it!  I mean, that's a way-open question, also not a good place to start a thread.  (Worse, it almost always comes off as a rhetorical introduction to someone's beliefs about 'how things should be.')

And more importantly on the "Are we doing enough?" question.  Why not start a thread like this (since it seems to beg no question) with an answer (not necessarily the answer) to 'what more can we do?'  I'm a little tired of being reminded to do something I'm already doing; it begs me to do more as though I am forgetting something.  I like compliments (I am flattery operated, after all), but if all you're saying is 'don't forget' you're adding gristle, not meat.

It really gets me in that spot I can't 'itch.'  'Should we do more?' overlooks if we can.  'Are we doing enough?' begs if we can do more and implies that we aren't even if we can't.  'Can it be better?' has so obvious an answer I'm forced to wonder why you're asking it.

All of this strikes me as:[list=1][*]You've spotted somewhere we've missed.
[*]You 'feel' like such a thing exists.
[*]You want conversation on what 'that' is.[/list:o]Well, if it's number 1, let's hear it!  If its number 2 and 3, nobody's gonna solve this one for you; you need to do the work yourself (even if that means offering stimulating possibilities and letting the conversation sort it out).

If there's more to your point, what is it?  So far you've boiled it down to, 'solve the problems you'er solving, do the stuff your doing, thanks a lot (p. s. do it better).'  How about some suggestions or directions?

Fang Langford

p. s. I'd like to think a compliment is reminder enough; anymore sounds like parenting.