Interesting Threefold Model Essay

[contracycle]

Oh yes, I should also say that much of the conversation I was exploring was based on the question "how do I get you the player to tell me what you want from the game".  And the answer was "You can't, as soon as you ask me that question I lose my character".  Thius implies that not only would be Director stance be unavailable and unsuitable to such players, it would itself be the worst thing that could happen to them; it would destroy the experience for them.

[ This Message was edited by: contracycle on 2001-09-26 06:36 ]

[Le Joueur]

contracycle wrote:

Fang wrote:

What do I mean when I say immersive? While I do skew towards "[identifying] emotionally with theand experiences] of one character.

That is what I would expect from the term too, but I don't think it is what [self-defined] Immersives themselves are trying to describe.  I think a much greater portion of the players consciousness is invested in the character, there is a much greater submission of the "host" personality.


Part of the point is that this was substantially different from my normal In Character stance.  I routinely employ Actor, flipping in to others; during what I think was an immersive experience I would not have been able to do this.
[Snip more personal experiences.]

Anyway, as I say I think the phenomenon described by Immersion is substantially different from simply assuming a first person viewpoint;

I find this a little confusing when you start off essentially agreeing with me, "That is what I would expect from the term too."

it is the extinguishing of the distinction between player and character on a temporary basis.  As such it is a very, umm, profound behaviour, and I don't think it can be boxed with the more conventional player stances.

[Mike Holmes]

I believe that Contracycle's description of "Immersives" probably refers to the Turku (sp?) or e-thing guys and people of similar bent.

I think that desire for Immersion is a spectrum from heavily and more emotionally immersed to lightly and less emotionally. The E-thing guys and people like that are merely at one end of that spectrum. On the other end are those who couldn't care less.

So, I agree with Fang's definition in that the one thing in common is relating to the character in "first-person". In fact I agree almost completely with Fang, here. Again this falls into the player desire category. As Ron says GNS covers the decision making process essentially. So Simulationism (deciding things on verisimilitude) is the GNS mode that will most facilitate the fulfilment of this desire, and hence the linkage. Not to say that the other modes can't provide any fulfilment, just that it will be less easy, less common, and less effective to try and provide for this desire using these modes.

For example, in a Narrativist game (one with other players playing in a Narrativist fashion and using rules that empower them to do so) a player might only use narrativist director power to create things that are not at all related to their character if the player feels that use of this power in a fashion that relates to their character will destroy thier Immersion in the game. This player will probably get some satisfaction, but less than if they were playing a Simulationist game. Similarly, a Gamist can always play with the stats available, and try to power up their character in just about any type of game in order to satisfy their desire for such progress. Gamist games will cater best to this, however.

I think that syncretizes everyone's opinions here, no? What desire needs satisfying? What decision making process (GNS) will fulfil that need best? Immersion is best satisfied by Simulationism.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Gareth (contracycle),

I think your insights regarding the sensations of immersion are valuable. I completely agree with you regarding its incompatibility with Director stance, and in my experience much Author-stance play is severely discouraged by fellow players in this mode.

However, your reference of Actor stance as "in-character" or "first-person" play is skewed slightly, and so your conclusion about immersion and stance doesn't hold.

Actor stance is not synonymous with in-character or first-person play. *It means that the player makes all character decisions and determines all character behavior employing ONLY character knowledge and priorities.*

In-character can mean a lot of things, but I'll take it to mean "speaking with the character's voice," including gestures and so forth. This, frustratingly, is what corresponds to "acting" in the colloquial sense, but it is itself not Actor stance.

First-person means using "I" when describing a PC's actions, rather than "he" or "Sebastian." As I've said many times, first or third person diction is totally irrelevant to stance.

For those who are aggravated by my seeming reliance on private definitions, I sympathize - but attending to each and every nuance of RPG theory as a dissertation cannot be my priority in life. Believe it or not, a lot of the definitions ARE available in the right threads, and if you ask, someone will dig it up. As long as we continue to discuss these things in a civilized way, we'll get there.

Best,
Ron

[Ron Edwards]

Whoa - amazing thread. Reading my, Mike's, Fang's, and Gareth's posts, I'm pretty sure we're hitting on all cylinders. I'm with it so far.

The only minor bug is the "Actor stance" part, both in (1) the terminology itself, as Fang has stated; and in (2) its relationship to (a) Simulationism and (b) immersion. For #2, I'm pretty content with the way I've constructed it above ... any more discussion, so I can be sure?

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

url=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=225&forum=3]More FAQ comments (long and bloody)<All-out dissection (LONG AND BRUTAL))All-out dissection (LONG AND BRUTAL))

[Mike Holmes]

Ron,

I think that by "First-Person" we are not referring to diction so much as the computer game concept. That is in a first-person shooter, you see things from (and presumably then make decisions based on) the character's viewpoint. This is, BTW, almost exactly equal with your definition above of Actor mode. Defined thus, yes, actor mode and Immersion have a one-to-one relationship in their most basic meanings.

If I may, I see Immersion as an input to the player and Actor as an output. That is that Immersion is something the player recieves, while Actor mode is what he does. And yes, Actor mode is the best mode for players to be in to get Immersive feedback from the game. If the player does nothing to damage SOD then the player's SOD is heightened and the player is more Immersed.

I think again that the urge that I have to split this up into player input and output is what causes people like me and fang to talk about Immersion. We want to know not only what the player is doing, but why. By this model we'd say that the another motivation or input that a player can recieve is the satisfaction of an interesting portrayal of the character. This is the demonstrative thing that Fang refers to. The problem with the Stance terminology as it stands is that the demonstrative type may be just as satisfied being in other modes than just actor and may switch freely. Yet the term Actor does so imply the demonstrative activity to the uninformed.

Just to get the idea across, here is a model that might satisfy our objectives I think.

Motivations - Stance - Behavior Associated
-------------------
Entertainment, Socializing - Audience - Listening, absorbing, recording, slight participation

Play, Strategy - Pawn - describes character actions in a fashion designed to promote the pawn

Immersion, Safety - First Person - describes character actions designed to suspend disbelief

Demonstration, Approval - Actor - speaks IC, physically acts out character actions

Background Creation, Character Development - Author - describes previously unrevealed and new facets of character

Protagonism, World Creation - Director - describes results of character activities or anything else.

I may have missed a few stances, and there are certainly more motivations.

Mike

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-09-26 11:46 ]

[Mike Holmes]

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-09-26 11:45 ]

[Le Joueur]

Ron Edwards wrote to me:

Your take on immersion - seems to fit the XYZ thing referred to by me as Actor stance.

[Mike Holmes]

On 2001-09-26 11:38, Le Joueur wrote:
I think a good case can still be made that GNS still leans towards the gamemaster point of view, but it is a very complicated implication.

I agree with Ron here. It's about decisions, no matter who makes them. Why did you have your character/game do that? Answer that question and you find your GNS prediliction in that circumstance. To the extent that a player tends to go one way or another I personally find it useful to lable them.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

	Logged

Member of Indie Netgaming
-Get your indie game fix online.

[Le Joueur]

Mike Holmes wrote:

Le Joueur wrote:

I think a good case can still be made that GNS still leans towards the gamemaster point of view, but it is a very complicated implication.

I agree with Ron here. It's about decisions, no matter who makes them. Why did you have your character/game do that? Answer that question and you find your GNS predilection in that circumstance. To the extent that a player tends to go one way or another I personally find it useful to label them.Quote

A

I'd argue that a [gamemaster] can play [a non-player character] in a stance. I'm writing a [gamemasterless] game. It seems obvious to me that all people playing are under the same constraints and pressures.

I can understand that a gamemaster can<cannot<could play immersive, but that seems mostly incompatible with both Gamist and Narrativist play.  Finally, if such were conducted, do you think it would be more accurate (and at least less confusing) to call it Simulationist or immersive?

I guess in one way I could be saying that Simulationism is not really in what a player does, whereas immersion is not really something that anyone (or thing) does other than the player.

Quote

Quote

Quote

	Logged

Fang Langford is the creator of Scattershot presents: Universe 6 - The World of the Modern Fantastic.  Please stop by and help!

[Mike Holmes]

Quote

Quote

I can understand that a gamemaster can<cannot<

A gamemaster is always in Director stance when not playing a character. The GM is always in a stance as well. Almost the definition of director stance is doing stuff most often reserved for the gamemaster.
 

And by the way, is yours a Simulationist game?  One game, while a good example of one way of doing something, does neither a trend nor generalization make (or break).

Sorry to use a personal example. But many games these days are sans Gamemaster. In those games, certainly, everyone has the same status. They just all assume director stance much more often.

The idea I am trying to get at here (I did say it was complicated), is closer to examining which of the GNS parts would likely be played in a gamemasterless game.  Clearly everyone could play immersive, but that seems mostly incompatible with both Gamist and Narrativist play.

Finally, if such were conducted, do you think it would be more accurate (and at least less confusing) to call it Simulationist or immersive?

I'm not positive that games without gamemasters do go best with one of G, N, or S, I suspect that they can do any of the three. But the players have a lot of directorial power, FWIW. This would make them seem to have something in common with Narrativism. And it is much harder to be Immersed in these games because of it.

I'm not sure where you are going, but I only brought up the Gamemaster-less games to demonstrate that there are games in which you cannot differentiate between players and GMs.

I guess in one way I could be saying that Simulationism is not really in what a player does, were as immersion is not really something that anyone (or thing) does other than the player.

Simulationism is making decisions based on the idea that the choice selected will have verisimilitude. So, when a player makes such a decision, he is Simulating, or being Simulationist. It is not the same as Immersion, no, Immersion is a thing which is most easily obtained when employing, of all available modes, the Simulationist one.

Do you consider this common enough to be representative or rather exceptional?  

Who knows, I can only speak for myself. But I usually spend my time in Director stance if that helps. The Immersion part occurs mostly as I play NPCs, just as it does for players when they play their characters (as opposed to when they might be in Director mode and having little or nothing to do with their characters).

How do you deal with the emotional attachment to a non-player character when something happens to them?  Are there many similarities to how (light?) immersive players do?  Are you sure this is not the exception, because I have never encountered the like.

I'd say that if one doesn't empathize with one's characters at all that one is missing something. That said, my Immersion is very light on the average, and I don't break down and cry when I lose characters be they NPCs or PCs. I will hazard a guess that many people feel this way. Indicative of this was the movement to change NPC to GMC or Gamemaster Character. These characters can be just as fun; why not?

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I mean, if there is a bias towards immersion being a mode mostly ascribed to Simulationism, yet apparently almost exclusively a player issue, why should it be subordinate to the title Simulationism?  Why not make them twins?  (Especially considering that Simulationism - described by you as working towards the goal of verismilitude - would be at odds with immersion.)

Good summary. Each of these points is addressed above, I think. I hope that I'm advancing the understanding of the problem but I sense we are going in circles possibly. Lett me know if that is the case. Keep in mind that my understanding of such things is certainly imperfect, and that this is just my attempt to sort them out into an order that I can find use for.

Mike

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-09-26 18:17 ]

[Le Joueur]

Mike Holmes wrote:

Fang wrote:

Except when the decision is "because I (my character) feel it is the right thing to do."  That kind of decision, if based on the mode of immersion, does not seem to fit well under the generalized intentions of Simulationism.  You can make it fit, but that seems to be either a perversion of immersion or of Simulationism.

This I don't get, and seems to be a large part of the problem in communication here.

Exactly right.

If I make a decision because I think that this is what my character would do, I am simulating the character. This is exactly Simulationism.

Again, exactly correct.

You say again later that acting with verisimilitude is not to be Immersive. How not so? If I want to Immerse myself in the character, I make decisions based on what I think the character *would* do given the circumstances. To do else would destroy the suspension of disbelief that Immerses one in the character and situation.thinking<still<can<), you are not immersing as I describe it.  As strange as this sounds, I think some aspects of it are more common than seems to be the assumption.  In fact, I would go so far as saying that it is at the root of the concept of many of the forms of escapism had in role-playing gaming.

As an aside, the immersive quality, and the potential for too deep of immersion, is what seemed to scare the public about role-playing games early on.  (If you remember, that pejorative novel Mazes and Monsters was about a college student who immersed too deeply and had trouble differentiating reality from fantasy afterwards.)

Quote

I can understand that a gamemaster can<cannot<

A gamemaster is always in Director stance when not playing a character. The GM is always in a stance as well. Almost the definition of director stance is doing stuff most often reserved for the gamemaster.

I honestly think there is still more to gamemastering than just director stance.  Simply?  I might suggest its things parallel to having author stance with the entirety of the game.  (Director stance works on a game within it; gamemastering calls in external factors as well as a grand overview external perspective that I think is absent in even the highest level of player director stance.)

And by the way, is yours a Simulationist game?  One game, while a good example of one way of doing something, does neither a trend nor generalization make (or break).

Sorry to use a personal example. But many games these days are sans Gamemaster. In those games, certainly, everyone has the same status. They just all assume director stance much more often.

Clearly director stance is outside of immersive mode, right?  Then gamemasterless games that employ it are outside of a discussion on immersion, right?

The idea I am trying to get at here (I did say it was complicated), is closer to examining which of the GNS parts would likely be played in a gamemasterless game.  Clearly everyone could play immersive, but that seems mostly incompatible with both Gamist and Narrativist play.

Finally, if such were conducted, do you think it would be more accurate (and at least less confusing) to call it Simulationist [and not] immersive?

I'm not positive that games without gamemasters do go best with one of G, N, or S, I suspect that they can do any of the three.mostly incompatible."

But the players have a lot of directorial power, FWIW. This would make them seem to have something in common with Narrativism. And it is much harder to be Immersed in these games because of it.Quote

I'm not sure where you are going, but I only brought up the Gamemaster-less games to demonstrate that there are games in which you cannot differentiate between players and GMs.Quote

How do you deal with the emotional attachment to a non-player character when something happens to them?  Are there many similarities to how (light?) immersive players do?  Are you sure this is not the exception, because I have never encountered the like.

I'd say that if one doesn't empathize with one's characters at all that one is missing something. That said, my Immersion is very light on the average, and I don't break down and cry when I lose characters be they [non-player characters] or [player characters]. I will hazard a guess that many people feel this way.

Are you sure you are not confusing sympathy with empathy?  This relates to the subtle difference between Simulationism and immersion.  In simulation, you have sympathy<empathy; you (in some fashion) feel their emotions (at least some of them).  You can identify (the term I prefer) with a character without empathizing (or even sympathizing) with them, and that is what I think would be the "missing something" of which you refer.

Quote

As Ron would say that by Gamist we mean a player who makes Gamist decisions more often than not. This is to me actually the most important factor of GNS, that if you can identify a proclivity in a player you can cater to it more effectively. My players for the most part do not like Narrativism (and aren't comfortable making Narrativist decisions as it tends to crush the light Immersion that they are after), so I don't run Narrativist games for them.I<

Quote

What is an external perspective of the game? To some spectator?Quote

No, verisimilitude is for the benefit of the participants, both player and Gamemaster alike.
Verisimilitude can result in suspension of disbelief, but it can also merely provide for a likable game without it.  Suspension of disbelief can result in immersion, or it can simply cause play within the context of the sequence of in-game events.

In reverse, immersion rarely happens without suspension of disbelief, but play within the context of the sequence of in-game events can.  Suspension of disbelief can be hard to maintain without verisimilitude, but you can like games without it.

[/PEDANTIC]

Quote

Quote

They are also related in my opinion. Not one-to-one either. I think that there are a whole lot of other desires that are satisfied by Simulationist play. I need a Ven Diagram here....

I also believe they are related, perhaps nearly parallel.  That is why I suggested first that the GNS seemed thus more gamemaster-centric and then that perhaps a twin of it should exist for players.  (Possibly suggesting them in reverse order, I think.)

Quote

Quote

I mean, if there is a bias towards immersion being a mode mostly ascribed to Simulationism, yet apparently almost exclusively a player issue, why should it be subordinate to the title Simulationism?  Why not make them twins?  (Especially considering that Simulationism - described by you as working towards the goal of verismilitude - would be at odds with immersion.)

Good summary. Each of these points is addressed above, I think. I hope that I'm advancing the understanding of the problem, but I sense we are going in circles possibly. Let me know if that is the case. Keep in mind that my understanding of such things is certainly imperfect, and that this is just my attempt to sort them out into an order that I can find use for.

[Mike Holmes]

Quote

Quote

I honestly think there is still more to gamemastering than just director stance.  Simply?  I might suggest its things parallel to having author stance with the entirety of the game.  (Director stance works on a game within it; gamemastering calls in external factors as well as a grand overview external perspective that I think is absent in even the highest level of player director stance.)

This is the reason that I brought in games that have no Gamemaster. In those games the players do have all of the power of the Gamemaster. The stance model pertains to all types of play.

Clearly director stance is outside of immersive mode, right?  Then gamemasterless games that employ it are outside of a discussion on immersion, right?

This sylogism doesn't float. I need water. Trees need water. Therefore I am a tree. I never implied that gamemasterless games didn't or couldn't employ Immersion, only that it was likely rare. And as you say below you know of a good example.

The idea I am trying to get at here (I did say it was complicated), is closer to examining which of the GNS parts would likely be played in a gamemasterless game.  Clearly everyone could play immersive, but that seems mostly incompatible with both Gamist and Narrativist play.

Finally, if such were conducted, do you think it would be more accurate (and at least less confusing) to call it Simulationist [and not] immersive?

I'm not positive that games without gamemasters do go best with one of G, N, or S, I suspect that they can do any of the three.mostly incompatible."

Yes, my point is, in fact, that Immersion is "mostly Incompatible" with Gamism and Narrativism. That Simulationism is the best mode to be in to satisfy the desire to Immerse.

But the players have a lot of directorial power, FWIW. This would make them seem to have something in common with Narrativism. And it is much harder to be Immersed in these games because of it.
Yes, very incompatible. But keep in mind that players shift stances constantly to satisfy their various desires. This may also be a source of confusion. Players rarely only play in one stance (in fact I'd venture that it's impossible). They flip back and forth as circumstances dictate. One minute I'm Immersed in Actor stance, the next I'm creating in Director Stance.

Quote

Are you sure you are not confusing sympathy with empathy?  This relates to the subtle difference between Simulationism and immersion.  In simulation, you have sympathy<empathy; you (in some fashion) feel their emotions (at least some of them).  You can identify (the term I prefer) with a character without empathizing (or even sympathizing) with them, and that is what I think would be the "missing something" of which you refer.

Off topic, but you're right, I sometimes do some of each, but to be fair, I sympathize a lot more than I empathize. Still, the effect is the same and game design would be accomplished the sme way to suppport either, so I'll use Simulationist tactics to get me there.

Quote

This gets back to the other point I was trying to make.  If you have players who like for you to run a Simulationist game so they can play immersively, and yet they are not actually playing in a (verisimilar) Simulationist way, does it make sense to call them Simulationists?

As much as calling Power-Players Gamists. Categories. Ven Diagrams. Falls inside easy. No, I don't want to hear about Power-Playerism.

Quote

Quote

What is an external perspective of the game? To some spectator?
Motivations?

Quote

Verisimilitude can result in suspension of disbelief, but it can also merely provide for a likable game without it.  Suspension of disbelief can result in immersion, or it can simply cause play within the context of the sequence of in-game events.

In reverse, immersion rarely happens without suspension of disbelief, but play within the context of the sequence of in-game events can.  Suspension of disbelief can be hard to maintain without verisimilitude, but you can like games without it.

All true. Simulationism can lead to Immersion but other things as well. Again, it is not a one-for-one relationship. Simulationism satisfies many desires. You haven't refuted anything that I've said.

Then you agree with me?  If they are patently different things, then how can you call an immersive player a Simulationist?  As they are clearly not attracted to Narrativist or Gamist pursuits either, this means they are divorced from the GNS model.

Just like I can call myself a Human and a Gamer. I am more than one thing. These each describe me in different realms. One is species, and the other is hobby. Simulationist is the way a player makes decisions, Immersion is a goal (or maybe stance). If I want Immersion, then I am best off with a Simulationist game, note that if I want to explore a setting, I may also be best off with Simulationism (which is why Ron says that Explorationism is a subset of Simulationism, BTW).

I also believe they are related, perhaps nearly parallel.  That is why I suggested first that the GNS seemed thus more gamemaster-centric and then that perhaps a twin of it should exist for players.  (Possibly suggesting them in reverse order, I think.)

They are not parallel, that would suggest one-to-one. This is just not the case. For each of the three modes there are multiple stances or motivations that are associated. And if you want to say that mode is more a gamemaster thing, and stance more a player thing, that doesn't change that fact.

I do see your viewpoint, and, believe it or not, take it very well.  All I wanted to see was how you interpreted the immersive play mode as I described it.  We have gotten into what looks like an argument because I have not communicated it very well.  Is it clear now?

Yes, this may very much be a viewpoint discussion. And interestingly I have some things in more in common with your viewpoint than with the standard. Like believeing that motivations should be considered separately drom methods. That has a lot in common I think with your desire to separate out Immersion. I just see a different realtionship.

I think that they are just different and related things, and that there is no hierarchy. I don't mean to imply one.Well, I accept it out of hand as well. Tell me how making decisions based on story helps Immersion? Tell me how making decisions based on tactics helps Immersion. Not narrativist, not gamist. Must be Simulationist. Does this mean that Immersion can't occur in a Narrativist game? Hardly. It's just more difficult. When you are smapping out of character to make directorial decisions it can be very hard to feel immersed. There is a tendency therefore for players who demand immersion to play simulationist games. This is all anybody is saying, and I'll stand by you and fight anyone who says otherwise.

But if I want to cater to those of my players who want immersion, I'll be maing a Simulationist game.

	Logged

Member of Indie Netgaming
-Get your indie game fix online.

[Le Joueur]

Okay, we seem to finally getting to the (hoped for) point on which we agree to disagree.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Quote

As I spent a whole couple of posts trying to explain, this definition is pointless.

That, sir, is purely a matter of opinion.  (And one of generalization, more later.)

It doesn't help me out at all.

Truer words have never been spoken.  This was neither my intent nor any expected result.  (Quite frankly, this also comes from our widely different approaches to analysis.)

Whether you act a certain way because the motivation is the character's, or because you've become the character, the action will still seem Verisimilar. How could it not?Quote

As I've said, I consider the motivation for a particular style of play to be a separate thing from the style itself. So, Immersion is the motivation, and Simulation is the style used to best satisfy that motivation.player<gamemastering<

What I would agree to is considering Deep Immersion and Immersion Light to be different motivations and consider the ramifications of that separately (though at this point I'm not sure that I can see any obvious ones).

As such, you could extrapolate that there was a style that followed from this reason for making decisions, let's call it Immersionism. But then you'd also have Portrayalism, Safetyism, and any other ism that you'd care to make of a motivation.

And that was what I wrote about earlier.  I do<

<
• Playing to entertain the other players (this would be "Portrayalism?")
<
• Play where the player shares the chores of the gamemaster insofar as they relate to their own character (much like your gamemasterless experiences, I believe)
<
After reviewing these and others, I concluded that not only did these kinds of differentiation not<

The point of GNS is that these motivations are broad and do subsume a number of similar motivations. Why? Because it is a high level model.


This both underscores the approach to generalize and adherence to the GNS model.



I honestly think there is still more to gamemastering than just director stance.  Simply?  I might suggest its things parallel to having author stance with the entirety of the game.  (Director stance works on a game within it; gamemastering calls in external factors as well as a grand overview external perspective that I think is absent in even the highest level of player director stance.)

This is the reason that I brought in games that have no Gamemaster. In those games the players do have all of the power of the Gamemaster. The stance model pertains to all types of play.Quote

Quote

Are you sure you are not confusing sympathy with empathy?  This relates to the subtle difference between Simulationism and immersion.  In simulation, you have sympathy<empathy; you (in some fashion) feel their emotions (at least some of them).  You can identify (the term I prefer) with a character without empathizing (or even sympathizing) with them, and that is what I think would be the "missing something" of which you refer.

Off topic, but you're right, I sometimes do some of each, but to be fair, I sympathize a lot more than I empathize. Still, the effect is the same and game design would be accomplished the same way to support either, so I'll use Simulationist tactics to get me there.


Except I wanted note made that while Simulationist games work for both, both were not included under your description of Simulationist play.  I realize because of the difference in our analysis techniques that this again, "doesn't help [you] out at all."  That was not my point.  I am trying to understand this difference myself.  Discussion, I thought, would be the prime way to come to an understanding; yet my usual brief tone has lead to what appears to be another attack on the GNS model.

Just another quote (this time out of context), one that made clear a difference of approach.



Narrowing further is not useful in coming up with a whole mode of play.Quote

You haven't refuted anything that I've said.Quote

We are definitely circling.

Any better now? Probably not. eh


Depends on how you view die-hard deconstructionists.

Fang Langford