News:

Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.

Main Menu

Popular and damaging

Started by Marco, October 26, 2003, 12:04:43 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

greyorm

Quote from: John KimEmpirically, I have a hard time believing this.  The two games which have had the largest are AD&D and Vampire: The Masquerade -- both of which I believe you categorized as being solidly in the category of too many rules.
I would agree with you that my claim was false, if I were saying that more rules = less sales because of the number of rules...but I'm not. I'm not sure how to restate my point to get you on the same page, but I'll try:

The key is that games are successfully introduced to new players orally, via actual play or play example, not via the books. This is the established method of marketing and sales for RPGs, and shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone here.

What RPG books don't do is sell themselves "off the shelf" to the general, non-gaming public. For the general public, the games require too much reading (ie: have too many rules) to interest them, hence the all-too-common, "That's a GAME? Too much reading for me to want to play!" response.

Right...so why are AD&D and Vampire so popular? Like all RPGs, they're "popular" because of their network, and because they were taught orally to nearly everyone who plays them. The majority of consumers did not pick the game blind off the shelf and start playing it out-of-the-box with no other introduction to RPGs, or without a friend who interested them in the game first.

Now, yes, a percentage of people took the game off the shelf and bought it with no previous introduction to gaming, or because a friend told them it was cool, but the percentage of people who did that isn't the majority, and the majority is my concern in regards to this situation.

Games with "too many rules," like Vampire and D&D, are taught to a new individuals by individuals who have already played or bought the books, and gain sales that way. Those aren't the people we're concerned about here, because they're part of the network. The problem is attracting people outside the network without the use of the network, which doesn't happen because of the size of rulebooks and the perception of how many rules there are.

With me so far?

QuoteYou're left with the network effect and incidentally Ryan Dancy's argument that D&D/D20 is the best way to introduce new gamers.
Yep, possibly the only thing I agree with Ryan about; and the only reason D&D is such a popular seller is because of its network share.

Keep in mind, though, popular does not equal mainstream. D&D may be popular, but it is not a mainstream game...and that's what we're discussing: selling/marketing gaming to the mainstream. Selling/marketing to gamers is easy, by comparison, because you already have a foot in the door.

The presentation of and number of rules present a hurdle to selling off-the-shelf to the general public, however; and thus you require the network to do your marketing for you.

Now, importantly, it is the perception of the amount of reading that must be done which stands as the hurdle to overcome, because while gamers know that only a few pages in an RPG rulesbook contain all-important, need-to-know items...but non-gamers don't, and react accordingly, believing they have to read (and memorize/know) a hundred or more pages of rules just to play a game.

So, where did all those new AD&D and Vampire players and consumers come from? From friends and actual play, not off-the-shelf sales. Until a game can sell itself to a large percentage of people without needing the network to do it for it, RPGs are doomed to be a non-mainstream item.

In order to be viable being marketed to the populace, an introduction to gaming needs to substitue this oral teaching method, as well as appeal to the buyer before they know what they have (this replaces the network), as in the example of the the D&D Basic set.

A little anecdote: gaming in my town started with me. I bought the Basic D&D set, played it with some friends. They told their friends about it and one of them went out and bought the books themselves, and suddenly there were three groups where there'd been just me before.

The key here: other than myself, no one in those three groups learned to play by reading the rules, by taking the books home with them. Everyone learned to play via play.

We're talking a good fifteen people, of whom, only two actually bought the books. That number later increased as new groups formed, but never significantly, and the number of people who bought the books always remained disproportionately small in comparison to the number of players.

That's a very important point, actually. It means that none of the individuals who failed to buy the books even after exposure and long-term play would ever have bought them. Additionally, none of them bothered to read the rules, except on an on-the-fly, as-needed basis when necessary.

Now, I realize this is just an anecdote, but from what I've gathered over the past twenty years, this is also standard behavior on the part of gamers.

The conclusion is simple, straight from the facts: the majority, though regular players, would never have picked the books off a shelf, paid money for them, and brought them home to read just in order to learn to play.

These were the people, the majority, for whom there was "too much reading" to create an initial interest without some other impetus (friends coupled with the oral teaching method), and this is why "You want to play, here, read THIS" fails to work, and scares away potential gamers.

I hope that is clearer, John?

To recap, I'm not saying that games with "too many rules" will not sell, I'm saying they will not sell themselves without the consumer being shown that they don't have "that many rules" (or require "that much reading") after all -- which occurs via introductory play, not actual reading.
Rev. Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
Wild Hunt Studio

greyorm

Quote from: MarcoI think there's a chance of a sale on the basis of the art alone if she paged through it.

I think what sells a game in a major bookstore is the cover, the text on the back (which would, IMO, probably differ by target audience) and layout inside. Chances are, if she opened the book she'd find fiction and art--pretty eye-catching art, IMO, and I suspect this would have as good a chance of selling her as anything.

Artwork Does Matter.
Fiction Does Matter.
Fuck yes. Complete agreement from me.

For mainstream games: if it doesn't look good, if it isn't pretty-as-anything, if it's just text information, you might have the established geeks, but that's it. (Which, incidentally, is why I chuckle and shake my head whenever I hear from game designers --  and players -- that, "I don't like alot of art in my games.")

QuoteWant to know more about the tag-along? Firstly, I'm glad she doesn't read these boards. My words were "avid" and "quick study"--that you translate that to "tag-along" is, in my part of the world not flattering (over here that means someone who sort of wandered in after, in this case, her man, for the purpose of following *him* rather than coming for the main event).
Hrm, different cultural standards, then. A "tag-along" is just someone who shows up somewhere with someone else, for some other reason than the event -- regardless of what happens later or if they get into/show interest in the actual event. It's just an explanation of their initial reason for arrival.

The reason I chose the word "tag-along" is because that's what it sounded like the situation was from you first post: someone who came along with her boyfriend and then became interested, but her inital reason for coming was not the game.

I assumed that from the statements you'd made that she had no prior experience of gaming, and didn't even know what it was (quoting, "with no idea of even what D&D was.")

But given your explanation, I'd say that wasn't the case. They both showed up for a game, expecting to learn (to learn) to play a game (rather than clueless), so she wasn't uninformed about what the evening was all about, even if the details were unknowns, and showed up specifically to learn about it.

Given the rest of your explanation, and other than the derailed assumptions above, my bets as to her introduction to gaming were pretty much dead on. Friend interests individual in game. Individual shows up to game relatively clueless. Group teaches individual game via play. Individual has a good time and gets into it.

By all accounts, basically a pretty standard introduction to the hobby.

The reason that's important is because of the whole idea of trying to sell to the mainstream without this standard intro. That's why I'd asked, because while you proffered that the book (specifically list books) were mass-market friendly, and used her introduction as an example of why it was, I disagree, because it didn't really sell itself to her. The network did, the actual play did. Just like it does with all other gaming books.

Oh, BTW, you called the girl's boyfriend "avid" and "a quick study," not the girlfriend (quoting: "a new--but avid and quick-study gamer brought his girlfriend."). If you meant the girlfriend was avid and a quick study, that sentence should have been, "a new -- but avid and quick study gamer accompanied her boyfriend." So no shaking your finger at me that I translated those descriptions into "tag-along." So, I hope you can see why I translated your text the way I did.
Rev. Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
Wild Hunt Studio

Marco

Granted--about the verbiage--I re-read quickly to say if I'd used that. Her boyfriend had "played"--she had not. Basic concepts like GM and Player had to be ironed out (this was mostly done by her boyfriend).

So she was (unless I've been given bad info) completely ailen to gaming. Her boyfriend was not totally new but the game we were playing qualified as the first one that "had gone more than one session" (or had gone anywhere).

-Marco
---------------------------------------------
JAGS (Just Another Gaming System)
a free, high-quality, universal system at:
http://www.jagsrpg.org
Just Released: JAGS Wonderland

David Chunn

Well, I'm going to put in my two-cents and quickly fire off some ideas before work.

What is mass-market?  Why do you want it?

At what level do you consider a game to be mass-market?  100,000 sales.  1 million, 20 million?  Excluding necessity items and fads, I think all markets are narrowing and specializing, especially in entertainment fields.

There's an assumption going on here that board games and the like are mass-market, but I wonder how well they really sell and are subsequently played.  I own one board game, and I haven't played it in 6 years.  I own one card game, and I've only played it once.  Of the twelve friends I see the most, none have any board games that I've ever seen.  I'm thinking most board games sell to children or families with children.  

I'm also thinking that most near mass-market rpgs sell to teens.  The biggest constraint on most adults I know from buying more rpgs is lacking the time to play them all.  We're busy.  Modern life is increasingly fast paced with lots of quick and easy entertainments.  Our job hours lengthen.  Spouses and children and houses, etc.  Old players get transferred and we struggle to get new ones and then they move on, and the cycle keeps going.  We just don't have a lot of demand for rpgs.  Yes, we still play but we have to struggle to get in that weekly game session some times.  Why own more than two or three good games?

Video games you can play by yourself or online with some guy living across the states from you.  And I have to mention that between work and rpgs, I've had to sacrifice video games.  There's always an entertainment sacrifice.  But for some people, it's hard to spend $35 on a game they may not get to play and only when everyone can get together instead of a little more money on something to entertain them every day after work.

And lots of current sales go to people like me who like to read games that they know they will probably never get to play.

As for rules-length, whatever works works if it's well made.  Axis and Allies is a classic game with a lot of rules while Scrabble is relatively easy.  You're going to appeal to certain markets using certain techniques whether it's a large market or not.

Look at other publishing areas.  Sf and fantasy books for instance.  LotR sells like hotcakes, often multiple copies to the same old folks but what about the other books, some of which are just as good, often many that are better?  Tens of thousands.  Hundreds of thousands makes you a top-seller.  

Not everyone has time to read or likes to read.  Reading in general is obviously mass-market.  But is reading epic fantasy mass market?  And btw, how many of those epic fantasy readers play epic fantasy rpgs?  Not as many as you might at first think is my experience.  Numerous attempts to bring those folks in to roleplaying have failed, though they are obviously the most likely targets.

I think the rpg industry needs to maintain a solid, realistic focus but remain open and accessible to new blood as it trickles in.  A specialized market must maintain a specialized focus.  One day a fad might strike again, but then things will die back down.  

Rpgs offer a level of sophistication and adaptability that no other form of entertainment offers.  That makes them a little more complex and repels folks who are a little more unimaginative who like simple entertainments.  Another episode of Friends and a game of Hearts is just fine for them.

Finally, most games could do a little more to make their presentations and rules a little more outsider friendly.  

For instance, most game companies don't have clue one about graphics and text layout.  Most of the ones who do the best job only focus on one aspect, either graphics or text, to the detriment of the other.  I get a headache when I try to actually read some of the fine-print, broken-lined WotC books.  What does that do to average-joe browsing the shelves?

Minx

Wow.

Two hours ago, I discovered this thread. After some reading, I find some of my own, not yet finished, ideas in this thread. Some time ago, I´ve had asked myself how one may introduce new gamers in the hobby and started to think about small, stand-alone games, maybe even just adventures.

I don´t know if gaming has the potential of becomming mainstream (I´d rather say no.), but I think it could become bigger as it is at the moment. I totally agree with those people who think that one problem of gaming is that the hobby produces games for gamer, thus limiting itself. I also agree that one prerequisite of games for mass appeal would be its ability to sell itself. It would have to break with industry standards, not in necessarily in a controverial or "innovative" sense, but it would have to be written for someone with no knowledge of gaming whatsoever. And it would have to look fucking great. Its pictures would have to say "Look how cool I am, you could play someone as cool, so buy me and show me to your friends."

M
------------------
When you love something, let it go.
If it doesn´t return, hunt it down and kill it.

David Chunn

One more thought.  I think that if designers want to broaden the appeal of rpgs they should clearly define the point in playing their particular games.  What makes the game successful, what constitutes an ending?  How far off is the ending (rough estimate of the norm)?  Etc.  GNS helps a lot in this regard.

Perhaps the problem that began this thread lies with the Simulationist design takeover of the 80s.  The average person may not like the ideal of "Well, the game keeps going as long as we keep dreaming it and besides the point is how much fun the dream is."

John Kim

Quote from: greyormThe key is that games are successfully introduced to new players orally, via actual play or play example, not via the books. This is the established method of marketing and sales for RPGs, and shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone here.

What RPG books don't do is sell themselves "off the shelf" to the general, non-gaming public. For the general public, the games require too much reading (ie: have too many rules) to interest them, hence the all-too-common, "That's a GAME? Too much reading for me to want to play!" response.  
OK, I'm with you on the first part.  I completely agree that RPGs have historically have sold via networking of players.  

However, you're trying to add in an assertion that this is (primarily?) because of the length of the game books.  I'm saying that short RPGs have sold through networks just as much as long RPGs, if they have sold at all (which they generally haven't).  So while the next big thing might be a short little booklet, I am not sure of that.  I don't know what -- if anything -- will make RPGs sell to the mass market.  It could be lots of things.  However, I am also skeptical of anyone else's claims to know.  

Incidentally, the public does read for entertainment.  There is usually a stack of novels beside the checkout counter at the supermarket.  Arguably, if a game book is pretty and entertaining to read, then its length may help sales rather than hurt them.
- John

Walt Freitag

Interesting discussion, but I think an important part of my hypothesis about AD&D (1e, 3 hardcovers only) being more accessible than almost all other role playing games is being missed.

Sure, the books are long. But the books contain mostly lists of things. By picking things off these lists (either at random, or based on some idea in mind), you can create your own dungeon crawl adventure. You can do this without having to make up any plot. Ever. Not in preparation, not in play. Nobody has to author anything.

That certainly isn't everyone's ideal form of play, but it is a form of play. (And once you learn to do it, you can move onto other forms, if you want.)

Try this with a superficially similar game like Boot Hill and it just isn't the same. You can't design a Western town the way you can get away with designing a dungeon. In the town, things have to make a modicum of sense. The guys playing poker in the saloon can't plausibly ignore gunshots in the street outside. NPCs have to move around and do things. Most importantly, there has to be (or players tend to think there has to be) "something going on." Unless you make the intuitive leap directly to no-myth or some form of director stance play (any of which require going against most of what the game text is telling the GM to do), or immediately commit to pure open sim (which, unlike in a dungeon, will usually result in all the player characters quickly getting killed), you need to author some kind of coherent plot. (The plot might possibly be open-ended, but it still must be an authored plot). Or you need to use a module. And then you need to deal with the impossible thing / interactive storytelling problem. when you try to put that plot into play.

Haunted houses, lost mines, and derelict spaceships can be a lot like dungeon crawls. But usually there's the expectation of at least a "something going on" plot (even if it's just a backstory) in those milieux. With a nice old-school dungeon you don't have to worry about that if you don't want to. You can throw a bunch of stuff together (clever stuff if you want, random stuff otherwise) and let plot take care of itself.

In '77 I played OD&D for a year before any notion that play or preparation for play had anything to do with stories or storytelling crossed my mind.

Can't do that today with just about any game system on the market, including recent editions of AD&D. The price of admission is higher.

- Walt
Wandering in the diasporosphere

Ben Lehman

Quote from: Walt FreitagSure, the books are long. But the books contain mostly lists of things. By picking things off these lists (either at random, or based on some idea in mind), you can create your own dungeon crawl adventure. You can do this without having to make up any plot. Ever. Not in preparation, not in play. Nobody has to author anything.

BL>  Thank you.  That just smacked me upside the head with a 2x4 about some of my own design decisions.

mmm... lists.

yrs--
--Ben

Ian Charvill

I share Raven's experience of getting into roleplaying via buying the red D&D basic set and working out how to play with me, my brother (as GM) and my friend Lee and his sister Donna and sitting around a table playing.

(That's not 100% accurate - I bought the Basic and Expert sets together, cos I happened to have the money and we started play at - I think - 3rd level with the Isle of Dread adventure that came in the expert set.)

For a long time (years at least) our standard mode of play was (1) everybody reads the rules book (2) group character generation (3) play via prewritten adventures.

I'm not sure the length of the book is anywhere near as important as how daunting the whole thing looks - and how unlike the games we have played in the past and had fun with.  The length and textbook-like appearance of most game rulebooks are pretty daunting.
Ian Charvill

Valamir

QuoteIn '77 I played OD&D for a year before any notion that play or preparation for play had anything to do with stories or storytelling crossed my mind.

Not to devolve this into reminiscings and anecdotes, my early play of D&D looked like this also.

We played for many a moon with nothing more than a maze one of us had doodled in class (back then I seem to remember drawing mazes and challenging your friends to finish them faster than you could finish theres was a typical waste-time-in-class activity).  To this maze one would draw in iconic pictures of the monsters we had (a circle with triangle pointy ears for an orc).

That was the extent of the prep.  We'd then virtually travel through the maze "we go right...always go right" and whenever we got to a picture...bam time to fight however many monsters there were...which was always a random roll on the no.appearing line followed by random treasure roll..."Man Type T...I hope its Type T"

It was really a game...almost identical in nature to the old Electronic D&D game (with the red plastic wall pieces and the big dragon mini).  We won if we could get out of the maze without getting killed and after each of us had had a turn "DMing" (and actively trying to kill the other players) the one with the most loot won.

It was basically HeroQuest (the board game) long before there was a HeroQuest.

Story?  I don't think any of us had even heard of Lord of the Rings yet back then, we were only in 2nd-4th grade or so.

M. J. Young

I agree with John that at least some people have to be able to pick up the game and play it out of the book, or it never goes anywhere. I will certainly concede that the majority of gamers learn from friends--but frankly, this doesn't really mean anything. I'm sure that the majority of board games and card games are learned the same way. It's likely that a large number of authors gain their followings by people mentioning them to other people, or by borrowing books. Most people have their first experience in bowling or miniature golf because someone they know invites them to play and tells them how its done. It's been a very long time since I learned to play baseball or football, but my impression is that I learned from kids in the neighborhood who had older brothers who taught them how to play. I know I learned to play knock-hockey down at the pool from kids who played there (I'm not sure I ever read the rules, although I did eventually own a table)--and speaking of pool, I think my uncle taught me.

Most people learn most games from people who already play. That's an important part of the deal.

It's still true that some people pick up the games originally and learn on their own, and that's what brings it into new places and introduces it to new people.

There's a guy down in Tennessee I've never met. He heard about Multiverser bought it, read it, and runs it at conventions in the south. A lot of people have heard of Multiverser because he runs games. There's still him. There's always still a him, a guy who picked it up and learned it first. I'm sure that there are some people on this list who can trace their role playing game introduction back to Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson (who taught Joe, who taught Bob, who taught Jack, who taught Peter, who taught me)--but I'll bet that there are a lot more people in this hobby who played their first game with someone like me, who bought it and read it and started playing, or from someone who learned from people like me, or the from people who learned from them. Those "starting people" are certainly the minority, but they are the critical minority--and we do exist, and we do actually buy things like OAD&D because they look interesting.

Sure, I'd bet you could create new role playing games in shorter format rules/scenarios books that would reach people that the current books don't reach; the problem is trying to introduce people who know nothing about role playing games to a playable game without making it long. These are people who need that paragraph on what are polyhedral dice and where do you get them, and a wealth of other things that experienced gamers probably don't need. Cut too much and you wind up with this really looks interesting; I wish I knew what it was.

--M. J. Young

Jonathan Walton

Quote from: Walt FreitagSure, the books are long. But the books contain mostly lists of things. By picking things off these lists (either at random, or based on some idea in mind), you can create your own dungeon crawl adventure. You can do this without having to make up any plot. Ever. Not in preparation, not in play. Nobody has to author anything.

There's at least one modern game built on this model, Robin Law's Rune.  I just figured it was a marvel of re-inventing traditional Gamists styles, but now I'm feeling its more like a return to roleplaying's roots, rather than a re-invention of anything.

greyorm

Quote from: Walt FreitagSure, the books are long. But the books contain mostly lists of things. By picking things off these lists (either at random, or based on some idea in mind), you can create your own dungeon crawl adventure.
Nonetheless, it doesn't matter that the book is mostly lists, because of the perception of what the book is. Non-gamers don't know that the book is mostly lists because they don't know what it is beyond that it is a game. The non-gamer consumer thinks: "This is a game. This is the rulebook for the game. All these pages are the game's rules. That is a lot of rules." So, unless they actually read it and play it, they'll have the feeling that the book is all rules, and you have to know the rules to play a game.

Most consumers will balk at having to study that many rules in order to play a game -- ie: relax and have fun. It doesn't matter whether the game actually consists of that many rules or not, the perception (uniformed as it might be) will be the consumer's valuing judgement about the product, and thus whether they will buy it or not.

Quote from: John KimHowever, you're trying to add in an assertion that this is (primarily?) because of the length of the game books.  I'm saying that short RPGs have sold through networks just as much as long RPGs, if they have sold at all (which they generally haven't).
Marketing, John, marketing. As I've already (repeatedly) stated: short game books aren't going to sell any better than long game books just because they're short. Remember my statement about the two-pronged assault?

Marketed correctly, a shorter rules-set for a game has a better chance than a longer one. However, the RPG companies that produce short games do not have the marketing budgets of the larger companies...

Both companies are thus still selling to gamers: the small company because it can't afford to break out of the niche, the large company because it is creating products for the niche. The small company can't sell its short product to niche gamers because that's not what they want, but it can't get at its real market.

QuoteArguably, if a game book is pretty and entertaining to read, then its length may help sales rather than hurt them.
There's a big difference here, however, game books and reading books are not one and the same, nor seen as one and the same. "Book" does not mean the same thing as "game" to the public, and the public doesn't parse a game as a book, or vice versa.

Pitched as a game, an RPG suffers because of its length because "nobody wants to read that much to play a game." Period. That may bother some of you, but based on experience and extensive supporting evidence, this point simply isn't arguable -- it is unquestionably the general response to RPG books in the wild.

(Yes, not all of them, but, again, we're talking the majority here, the general trend, not any minorities or specific individuals.)

Quote from: MJ YoungThose "starting people" are certainly the minority, but they are the critical minority--and we do exist, and we do actually buy things like OAD&D because they look interesting.
MJ, here's the deal: again, no one is decrying that the network exists, or that starting people exist, or that games are spread via an oral, experential tradition.

The network is a problem though -- the small amount of individual buyers who get friends into it -- because that's all the hobby can rely on to sell itself. That -- the reliance -- is the problem from a market-share standpoint.

Yes, those people are good for the hobby and they're the ones right now who keep it going, but there's a wider world, a wider market out there that those people aren't reaching and can't reach (such as cases where folks attempt to introduce friends to the hobby, but the large size of the books scares them away -- a regular and inarguable occurence). So the fact that "starting people" exist and are the driving force behind the current network has nothing to do with anything and doesn't dismiss that RPGs could gain greater market share by changing the items I've listed elsewhere.

You are right that many hobbies and products rely on word-of-mouth advertising -- friends showing friends -- but the most successful ones do not rely on it for sales. They make their own sales. Miniature golf, for example...miniature golf makes sales as a sport via exposure to the masses and common experience. Same thing with board games.

People buy and play board games they've never heard of in far greater numbers than they buy RPGs. Board games do not rely on the single individual introducing friends to the game to sell it -- that's a bonus part of selling it to one person -- board games sell themselves in greater numbers than RPGs, and this is because of their presentation and marketing -- because what the consumer thinks they are sells them to that consumer.

RPGs lack this. End.

Note to everyone: I'm getting the strong sense that many of the reponses to my statements are meeting with reactionary criticism rather than examined criticism. That might sound a little insulting, but the fact that I've had to repeat (not defend or redefend, just repeat) all the main points of my arguments no less than four times already as they apply to a profferred criticism pretty much sinks that as what's going on in at least some of the situations.

Please, think about what you're posting in regards to the whole of my statements, rather than choice responses to bits. Having to reply "Yes, but you're forgetting X...So how does that stand up when you consider this part of my point?" is getting frustrating, as I hope you can understand.

Thanks, everyone.
Rev. Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
Wild Hunt Studio

C. Edwards

I'd just like to present an observation, one which perhaps supports Raven's point.

Whenever a group of our "mainstream" counterparts opens up a new boardgame only to find themselves ambushed by a 10 page (or even 5 page) booklet of rules they balk. One person (and this is inevitably the same person every time this happens) skims the rules and then explains how things work to everyone else as they play.

Now, assume that the person who "teaches" the game to the others is not the person who bought the game. I don't know about you, but I wonder if the game would even have been purchased had it been known before hand that there were a whole 10 pages of rules to learn in order to play.

You can argue with that observation all you want, but when you do so realize that the very fact that you're here discussing this means that you are hardcore. Hell, if you play non-rpgs with non-gamers YOU may be the one who always reads that overwhelming little booklet of rules.

-Chris