Okay, so I've run SO many failed PBeMs that it's got to be me. And they all fail the same way. And my newest one is doing exactly the same thing. So please, somebody, anybody help me.

Here's how it goes: I establish situation, and give the PCs some modest goals which they accomplish with grace and joy. Everybody's happy, but eager to work together against a larger threat. Obligingly, I provide a larger threat, make a few attacks against the characters personally, link the fate of things they love and hate to the primary conflict, give them a few advisors to ask questions of, and sit back to see what they invent.

And what happens is: They ask questions, explore the problem from all angles, short of actually taking action that would commit them to anything or expose them to any risk. Then, one by one, they reject every possible solution as flawed, rather than choosing one and trying to make it work. Then the time between posts from PCs gets longer and longer, and eventually I pack it in for another cycle, to the disappointment of all.

So I figure (though I could very well be wrong) that I'm shifting too far away from providing Bangs, and toward giving the PCs responsibility for driving the course of events. But I don't know how to balance the two, or even whether they're supposed to be "balanced". It seems like every time I provide a new crisis, it increases PC paralysis by making the situation seem even more desperate. If I lay down the neat little railroad track of a single shiningly obvious plan that they must follow then I feel like I'm being shortchanged by the players, and that never ends well either.

Frankly, I don't really know what I'm doing wrong. I don't know enough to give the information you'll need to diagnose me :-) I just want to get better.

Well, the key to a bang is something that they cannot avoid.

Its there, and they MUST do something about it. There should be multiple options, and all should be valid (i.e. not weighted so there is an obvious "right" or "expected" choice).

Then you just throw it at them.

Its not a railroad because you don't care which way they jump. You're just arranging it so they have to jump.

Okay. How?

Honest. I'm not being facetious. When I create something that I think the character will be forced to respond to, they freeze, preferring the death of their friends, the destruction of whole worlds and their own messy demise to the alternative of making a decision that might be wrong.

UPS Man! Package for you, sign here, have a nice day.

Tick tick tick tick tick tick....

What do you do?

Seriously, man. Put a clock on them. If they dick around, blow them up. Make it clear that this bluff cannot be called.

That's one way.

Here's another:

"Stop me before I kill again!" says the raving homicidal maniac.

Now won't they feel guilty if they don't? I mean, people will drop like flies, and the PC's, as they mull it all over, will keep stumbling on the hacked and mangled bodies.

Here's another:

The cops know for sure that you burned down that warehouse. They're going to catch you, and fast, because a cop's baby brother died in the blaze.

Trouble is, you didn't do it, and they're not real likely to listen to reason. In fact, the pal of yours who warned you they're after you says they're planning to shoot first. I suggest you catch the bad guys, or flee like hell, really fast.

And if you flee, of course, the FBI is going to be on your trail....

This isn't hard. It's not a railroad, because you have no idea what they're going to do. But they have to do something, because time is running out.

The fact that they tend to freeze will generally go away if it's not a literal gun to their heads. That is, they have to do something soon, and the clock is ticking, but they don't have to do it RIGHT NOW OR ELSE.

Think of this like Chicken: you're driving cars at each other, real fast. Who's going to turn first? Trick is, you won't die if you get into the collision, but they will. So it's totally dishonest and sick. They have to turn. But when?

Chris Lehrich

[edited for confusion]

TonyLB wrote: Okay. How?

Have you clarified to the players that there is no single "wrong" answer? Or better yet, that they get to define "wrong" themselves?

If the players are used to "traditional RPGs" they might be laboring under the delusion that you have already decided what the right thing to do is, and they may be waiting for you to dole out more clues to point them in the direction to go.

maybe you're going for the wrong "threats" and should stick to smaller stuff. We used to have a similar problem in our group: it was either help out your neighbour or save the world in three hours.
The latter conflicts or problems were always so enormous, that players (not characters) got lost and confused and – on a "realistic" scale – "correctly" assumed, that their characters were out of their league.
If that's your problem, the solution is to make the adventure "cut out the middle man" instead of "kill the big evil master", otherwise, what everyone else said.
Hth

TonyLB wrote: And what happens is: They ask questions, explore the problem from all angles, short of actually taking action that would commit them to anything or expose them to any risk. Then, one by one, they reject every possible solution as flawed, rather than choosing one and trying to make it work. Then the time between posts from PCs gets longer and longer, and eventually I pack it in for another cycle, to the disappointment of all.

I'm with John on this one. The trick to Bangs is not to put the clock on them (not necessarily). The trick is to give them situations that need a resolution, & the resolution is up to them. Give them loads of information, so they can make an informed decision.

Examples? Okay.

Let's say the PCs are all police detectives. One PC gets a call from his best friend. The friend found out his wife was having an affair, & in a fit of rage he killed her. Now he needs help disposing of the body & covering up the crime. "I know you're a cop, but we've been friends since we were kids. You gotta help me!" Meanwhile, the other PCs have been told to investigate a homocide--the guy the wife was having an affair with. And the friend swears he didn't kill the guy.

Now, the PCs have to do something. But what? Will the one PC help out his friend or turn him in? Will the other PCs look the other way or do their best to solve the crime. Whatever they do, decisions have to be made.

EDIT: Information: have the NPCs be incredibly chatty. The friend spills his guts to the PC. "I didn't kill my wife's lover, but I know who did." And the real killer confides in another, probably different, PC. The point isn't to solve the mystery of who killed whom, the point is to make meaningful decisions.

Yeah, John's right. Bangs don't necessarily have to be high pressure "do it now or die" situations (although clearly, they can be). They just have to be things that:

No matter what the player decides the outcome makes a statement. It says something about the character (and indirectly about the player). The crucial thing is to not put a succeed vs fail option on it. Success or failure is important yes, but its tangental to the purpose of the bang. The purpose of the bang is to get the players to commit to the game. Success is great, but all failure needs to mean is that things just got more complicated.

And Markus is right too. A bang doesn't have to be huge. In fact, often they can be all the more effective if their personal. If the outcome doesn't matter to anyone else but the player and his character.

I'm reminded of that Frost poem. "Two roads diverge in the woods and I took the road less traveled by". Making that choice says something about the poet...he's the sort to take the road most others wouldn't. Your players may make the choice to take the road most traveled by. That's ok too. Because that also says something about them.


Joshua: That is a killer situation. I want to game that situation right now ;-)

It sounds like these players, given more information and power, will simply keep asking for even more info, and hold off on using any power for longer.

It sounds like this: http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/?040301crbo_books#top is happening.

They are terrorized by choice.

You may simply need to discuss with them the idea of scene framing. Ask them to trust you in that when you put them into a scene with action rather than you waiting for them to go there themselves, your doing it not to cheat them of choice, but so they are quickly presented with cool choices rather than 'walk up this corridor, left, right, look at water cooler, etc'.

I like the insights on both sides of the "more urgent/less urgent" divide. Thanks everyone!

One thing I've already done (in response to this advice) is to put my players on notice that I intend to push forward game-time fairly soon. I think that there may be an unconscious meta-game decision occurring that people want to investigate little things that don't consume much time, rather than risk advancing the clock and then discovering that they forgot to do something important.

But I'm still confused about how Bangs interact with PC direction of the plot. It seems to me that Bangs do a great job at helping PCs create story in reaction to GM prodding, but that they interfere with the ability of PCs to create story proactively that the GM then needs to respond to. Thoughts?

It's creative focus. Focus means leaving other options.

The trick is to leave behind small options like talking to the librarian for ten days, and keep focused on big ones, like the idea of tailing her boss who just walked out of his office with a musty old tome. Or they can sneak into his office. Or burn everything down.

Get big choices made, otherwise nothing happens.

Okay, but dropping a Bang means you're getting big choices made that the GM is interested in.

This means that the only provision for pursuing the plots the PCs are interested in is if the GM takes it upon himself to make it happen. Which they should, granted, but it's still a wildly unequal situation.

I don't have any objection to "all killer, no filler". But how do you spread that power around to the PCs as well?

A good GM tries to create bangs based on what his players seem to be interested in. In the first few sessions, this may mean quessing and throwing things out. In later sessions, after you've have a chance to see what the player's respond to in the situation, it gets easier to focus. You may even hear player's saying "wouldn't it be cool if ... "

Think of bangs as ammunition to throw at the players. You might have some developed before a session (Ron talks about a bandoleer of bangs), but their use is always optional, based on your assessment of the situation. Use them if they seem to improve play. If you throw a dud, just move on.

Finally, you might even ask players between session what they think is a cool thing to happen to their character. Or even let them suggest such a thing in play.

TonyLB wrote: Okay. How?

Honest. I'm not being facetious. When I create something that I think the character will be forced to respond to, they freeze, preferring the death of their friends, the destruction of whole worlds and their own messy demise to the alternative of making a decision that might be wrong.

There might be a social contract issue here as well. I know in my online PBP style games, particularly the current one. We have a shared commitment to three player posts per week each, minimum. Now a couple of people have (including myself) fallen off that a time or two due to other circumstances but otherwise the effort is concerted and genuine.

The other thing that occurs to me is that, since you mention that they reject all solutions to a situation as flawed, then they are looking for a way to win the situation. In the narrativist bang approach there isn't realliy a win per se...there is simply a situation and a choice to make. I would definateliy talk to them about what you're going for. And that you aren't out to get them in any fashion. It took me a while to get this through some of my own group as well.

regards,

Trevis

TonyLB wrote: Okay, but dropping a Bang means you're getting big choices made that the GM is interested in.

This means that the only provision for pursuing the plots the PCs are interested in is if the GM takes it upon himself to make it happen. Which they should, granted, but it's still a wildly unequal situation.

I don't have any objection to "all killer, no filler". But how do you spread that power around to the PCs as well?

joshua neff wrote: Beyond that, you're also going on some social contract issues. Why are the Bangs about "what the GM is interested in" rather than what the players are interested in? Why isn't everyone interested in the same thing?

And what other power do the players have? They can do whatever they want.

TonyLB wrote:

joshua neff wrote: Beyond that, you're also going on some social contract issues. Why are the Bangs about "what the GM is interested in" rather than what the players are interested in? Why isn't everyone interested in the same thing?

That would obviously be great. But even if the GM thinks he knows what the players want, it's chancier than giving the players themselves the ability to deploy Bangs (as you describe above). It's like a family that comes into a restaurant and the father orders for everyone... no matter how prescient he is about what his family wants, it's not as equal as letting other folks order their own meals. Anyway, that was my thinking.

TonyLB wrote:

And what other power do the players have? They can do whatever they want.

Except go about their own story.

TonyLB wrote: I know that sounds like I'm just being contrary, but... well, I'm playing in a game where I had a plan of my own (opening a nightclub for supernaturals) rife with its own inherent troubles and conflicts, and the GM has done nothing to feed into that plot line, and everything possible to give me Bangs from his story.

TonyLB wrote: So I'm sensitized. It seems like a tool that can be easily misused, as of course all tools can.

joshua neff wrote: You seem to be going back & forth here, Tony.

Well, which do you want? Do you want to push the players into more action? Give them situations that demand action. Do you want your players to take the initiative & create the action themselves? Tell them that & wait for them to move into action.

Well, I hate to sound like a shill, but

I want to be one participant among equals, with roughly equal abilities and responsibilities.

I know that the answer to this one is presumably "practice".

TonyLB wrote: I want to be one participant among equals, with roughly equal abilities and responsibilities. So I worry about both extremes... hence the back and forth. I don't want to depend entirely on PC action... I want to encourage them when they falter. But I don't want to be drawn into being the only one who drives the action either. I want to give them a Bang and get a chain reaction of creativity.

Michael S. Miller wrote: Okay, it's been said several times on this thread, and you haven't responded to it at all. Have you talked to your PBeM players? Do they know that you want to be a first among equals? DO they know that they're expected to be stirring up their own conflict? Do any of their characters have something equivalent to your "nightclub project" that they've brought to the game? If so, have you been playing to that and having them ignore it?

You can throw as many Bangs as you want at players, but if they're waiting for the railroad because that's what they really want,

Michael S. Miller wrote: no good is going to come of it. Is it possible that all this time you've been asking "What do you do?" to players who are waiting for you to say "You should do this"? Forge-speak translation of the above: Are you sure your players are Narrativists?

I think you should do an OOC message to the players starting with "I'm concerned about the drop in frequency of posts and would like to know your thoughts on why this has occurred." In face-to-face play, you can always chat w/ folks before and after the game, so there's no reason not to do it in PBeM games.

Your dealing with a common problem, one which I've been struggling with some time back and I've had some good results by totally changing the approach. I'll do some explaining.

For some weird reason, most rpg-plots seem to be about avoiding the bad things and solving problems. Also, most GM's take pride in their ability to turn everything into a problem. What ever the players decide to do, the GM gives them hell. If there's a moment of peace it just means there will be an attack. If they ever reach anything, it will be a bittersweet victory at best and more commonly they are swiftly robbed of what ever they have gained.

In the long run, this leads to where your at. The players are afraid to do anything if their characters are not in immediate danger, since they know that anything they do will propably just get them in trouble. (Don't buy this? Look at what has been suggested as plots in this thread. A lot of trouble with nothing to gain.) Putting more Bang in the game tends to just make the situation worse. Instead, I suggest you forget trouble, problems and threats for now and come up with something positive for the characters to gain; some real goals. You should try to make the characters work for something, not against something. More importantly, when the players/characters reach something, reward them. Give the characters some happy moments for it. Give them a chance to actually change something for the better instead of just making them struggle to keep the status quo. After a while you will notice your players becoming more active.

In your case, try coming up with something great they could achieve instead of some great danger they have to avoid. What if it's not the enemy who is attacking, but it's the PC's who have a chance to bring that big bad down? For example, if the characters are cops, give them a big hint on a drug lord, big enough to maybe bring the whole organization down. If they succeed, make it show. Less drug dealers on the streets, less "mysterious disappearings", less cops dying on the job. Hell, give them medals and more resources; new cars if nothing else. I know, this all sounds very challenge-oriented instead of story-oriented, but these things don't need to contradict each other. Notice how in many stories not only do the characters win the bad guy, but they actually achieve something else on the side, like love and respect? Those are some big rewards.

Generally speaking, try to reward them for being active, even if you think what they are doing wouldn't really work towards the "big goal". If they look in the wrong places, they're not going to find what they are looking for, but maybe they'll still find something interesting. This is often easier to do, if the characters are not constantly under attack. If one wrong move could kill them, not only are they afraid to make any moves, but the GM will have his hands full just because he has to constantly come up with things to keep the characters alive, since they inevitably make those wrong moves.

"Think positive" ;)

Itse wrote:
In the long run, this leads to where your at. The players are afraid to do anything if their characters are not in immediate danger, since they know that anything they do will propably just get them in trouble. (Don't buy this? Look at what has been suggested as plots in this thread. A lot of trouble with nothing to gain.) Putting more Bang in the game tends to just make the situation worse. Instead, I suggest you forget trouble, problems and threats for now and come up with something positive for the characters to gain; some real goals. You should try to make the characters work for something, not against something. More importantly, when the players/characters reach something, reward them. Give the characters some happy moments for it. Give them a chance to actually change something for the better instead of just making them struggle to keep the status quo. After a while you will notice your players becoming more active.

"Think positive" ;)

Well, first, as I said this has been my experience in several games. So in the early ones, I didn't know enough to communicate this stuff up front. Now though....

Michael S. Miller wrote: Okay, it's been said several times on this thread, and you haven't responded to it at all. Have you talked to your PBeM players?

Do they know that you want to be a first among equals?

DO they know that they're expected to be stirring up their own conflict?

Do any of their characters have something equivalent to your "nightclub project" that they've brought to the game?

If so, have you been playing to that and having them ignore it?

You can throw as many Bangs as you want at players, but if they're waiting for the railroad because that's what they really want, no good is going to come of it. Is it possible that all this time you've been asking "What do you do?" to players who are waiting for you to say "You should do this"?

Putting more Bang in the game tends to just make the situation worse.

Give them a chance to actually change something for the better instead of just making them struggle to keep the status quo. After a while you will notice your players becoming more active.

I think there are some pretty good points made already on this thread.

In particular, I think sometimes it's good to have the conflicts involve *lower* stakes which then feed back into the game.

To make an analogy to movies and TV, I'm thinking of something like "The Sopranos" rather than "Die Hard." In "Die Hard", Bruce Willis has to get the bad guys or all kinds of terrible things happen and everyone dies. When Tony Soprano screws up, it often means "Damn, Uncle is going to be really pissed." Which makes for equally good drama IMO, since we-the-viewers know that this will come to haunt him in another episode or two.

When the stakes are too high, I find that: players freeze up because they don't want to lose their guys; and they also become much more passive and want to be railroaded. This is perfectly understandable; if you're going through a minefield, you're going to follow the instructions of the guy who laid it.

So, my modest philosophy is to make "failure-safe" scenarios: if the PC's fail to engage the situation, or completely botch it, things get worse and/or NPC's get the good things the PC's might have gotten. I'm honestly not at all fond of the "The world will be destroyed and you may die!" school of plotting.

DannyK
P.S. I really like also the comments people have made about players needing a "safety zone." Especially in a more threatening or paranoid game, I think it really helps for the PC's to have someplace to interact where the pressure is off. (That could be the donut shop for a cop game, or underground haven for the Sabbat vampire game, or whatever.)

DannyK wrote: I think there are some pretty good points made already on this thread.

To make an analogy to movies and TV, I'm thinking of something like "The Sopranos" rather than "Die Hard." In "Die Hard", Bruce Willis has to get the bad guys or all kinds of terrible things happen and everyone dies. When Tony Soprano screws up, it often means "Damn, Uncle is going to be really pissed." Which makes for equally good drama IMO, since we-the-viewers know that this will come to haunt him in another episode or two.

TonyLB wrote:

If so, have you been playing to that and having them ignore it?

They have not entirely ignored it. They have done precisely as much as I actively encouraged them to do, then dropped the projects.

You can throw as many Bangs as you want at players, but if they're waiting for the railroad because that's what they really want, no good is going to come of it. Is it possible that all this time you've been asking "What do you do?" to players who are waiting for you to say "You should do this"?

I think you're quite right. But I ASKED for people who were willing to take some responsibility for driving the story. Pretty much in those words. I've asked for them several games in a row. It doesn't seem (from my personal experience) to be helping.

So I'm sorry if I haven't responded to people's suggestions that I do so, but I was worried that I might be snappish about it. I hope I've managed to express my concerns without biting anyone's head off. It's a sometimes frustrating situation.

Blankshield wrote: Yeah I think you've mananged to retain politeness. But ya know what it really sounds like to me? Your players do not really want what they said they want..

Well, I worry that I'm being patronizing to my wonderful players, but there also exists the possibility that the PCs do not know what they want, and are uncomfortable with anything new until it is presented in a way that jibes with what they have done before, or appeals to their inner needs.

I find that a somewhat (though not very) comforting notion, because it implies that if I can just figure out how to present things just so, I'll be able to convince folks to try something a little new and have fun with it.

On the other hand, I've heard the following definition: Insanity, n.: Doing the same thing over and over, but expecting a different result. :-)

As one of the players who has let Tony down in the past, I figured I'd chime in.

The problem for me was that the PBeM format let me freeze. I'd try to figure out the "correct" solution to whatever situation my character was in, and the only-marginally-interactive nature of email let me dither far too much. I could never have gotten away with that in a face-to-face game. Of course, if I lost my fear of doing the "wrong" thing (which was completely irrational, I now realize), it wouldn't have been a problem at all, but that's a side issue. What I think would have help me would have been a "ok, you've been dithering too long and here's the result of your inaction" type response (which is what I'd do as a GM in a face-to-face game).

--Paul

Hi TonyLB,

Well basically author stance is either shared and they can make, from whole cloth, a choice they want to take. Or the GM has the author stance and they can only ever make choices from what he's interested in (and hopefully one thing he's intersted in is what they are interested in)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but either you have author stance or you don't. It's one of these situations or the other.

But that doesn't mean the GM can't hand out temporary author stance, on the understanding it will be removed at a certain point or if its used in a certain way.

That way your dickering players can be handed authorship stance so that they can at least create a line of approach (but not author their own success/author an earlier end to the session/campaign). EDIT: I didn't notice we'd hit three pages and more info was given, so I'll add this: Be clear when your handing over author stance to players. They either have it or they don't, IMO, so saying 'look, you can all drive the story' means that at some point they will be handed this stance so they can do that. Make sure they know when they have it...the net equivalent of body language is not going to tell them.

But you'll find players just don't know how to handle author stance unless hand held through it the first few times (even as I write this, I wonder how I'd go as a player handed author stance...and I GM a lot!). Even then, they might not like it or might not like another player 'playing god/author/GM'.

In the end, I myself have tried to run games that were a beutiful reflection of just what the players wanted to do. But the fact is, every time you make a choice, you give up power. The ablity to make a choice is power...having made the choice isn't power, it's just events in motion now. By not making choices those PC's remain powerful and everyones afraid to let go of that.

These bangs mean that if they make a choice (loosing some power), it'll lead to more information and more choice latter (gaining more power). Spending some money to make even more money.

But if they keep getting a reward of more choice (more power) by just snooping around and not making a choice (zero investment), they'll repeat that process. IMO.

Hi Noon,

You might be confusing author stance with director stance. In author stance, a player makes a decision about his character's actions based on what he, the player, wants the character to do. In director stance, the player makes a decision about what happens outside his character. Directorial power is what historically has been reserved to the GM.

Tony,

I don't know if you mentioned it but what format exaclty are you playing in? Is it all done by private emails? Are you responding to all players individually? Is it in a mailing list? Does everyone see all interations or turns? Do you even run in a formal turn structure? Are you on a bulliten board system of some type (more commonly called Play by Post)?

I'm asking because my more successful games have been play by post, either on a bbs or a wiki. There is more of a sense of community with everyone watching. There were also specific threads for kibbitzing, etc. One of the things that helped me keep up with it is that I had to log into the sites everyday to check them, like I do with the Forge.

I'm not saying that any other format is inferior. I just want to know the kind of feel you've got going with your PBEM.

regards,

Trevis

TonyLB:

Well, one question is how you can make a positive Bang with the same sense of urgency... something they must respond to, but which leads them to achievement rather than just letting them spin the consequences of trouble.

sort of hard to put into practice in an existing game, unfortunately.

Trevis Martin wrote: I don't know if you mentioned it but what format exaclty are you playing in?

I'm asking because my more successful games have been play by post, either on a bbs or a wiki. There is more of a sense of community with everyone watching.

ptevis wrote: As one of the players who has let Tony down in the past, I figured I'd chime in.

The problem for me was that the PBeM format let me freeze. I'd try to figure out the "correct" solution to whatever situation my character was in, and the only-marginally-interactive nature of email let me dither far too much. I could never have gotten away with that in a face-to-face game. Of course, if I lost my fear of doing the "wrong" thing (which was completely irrational, I now realize), it wouldn't have been a problem at all, but that's a side issue. What I think would have help me would have been a "ok, you've been dithering too long and here's the result of your inaction" type response (which is what I'd do as a GM in a face-to-face game).

Michael S. Miller wrote:
This is exactly what the first page of posts was talking about: consequences for inaction as well as action. In a PBeM game, would this take the form of a real world time limit? e.g.-"The ransom demand states that the ransom must be paid in two days' time. OOC: That's two in-game days. In real life, I'd like all posts regarding pre-ransom drop activities by April 15."

Not having done much PBeM, I'm not sure how feasible that would be. Just a thought.

I would like to speak for a moment about nuts and vices. Principally what you lack is enough nuts in enough vices.

You've talked about players being willing to let the world go to hell in a handbasket. That's hardly shocking, since most likely they make water on the world on a daily basis. Rather give them something that's valuable to them. Now threaten the valued thing with something bad. Hence the nuts in the vice.

People don't give a rat's backside about the world, society, or the anonymous unknown person about to be crushed by the falling gargoyle in front of the bank. They care about their own welfare and people tied to them by bodily fluids, usually either blood or semen (or at least a hopeful exchange of one or the other). You need to give those things to your players, then threaten to take them away. They need to be things that have real value in the story.

As for player freedom, at the level you're talking about it's a load of fertilizer. The world won't sit around waiting for them to act. The world will act all on its little lonesome, and the players will have to hop to keep their nuts out of the vice. Keep the world active and throwing stuff at them. Don't let them lollygag about. While they're chatting up the librarian for half the day, their sister is fighting off the black hats who want to send a message. This puts his nads in a vice and gives him the opportunity to be the hero.

Your players are never going to drive the story by themselves. You need to put their nuts in a vice and force them into action. Provide them with the opportunity for heroism, and make sure that they can't avoid that opportunity.

Clay wrote: Your players are never going to drive the story by themselves. You need to put their nuts in a vice and force them into action.

Hi everyone,

If I'm not mistaken, the basic topic of this thread has been beaten into the ground insofar as it deals with actual play.

Tony, I think you've been remarkably tolerant of over-hasty comments from some people who should know better.

So, everyone, let's take theoretical stuff to Theory, and specific actual play stuff to new threads in Actual Play, and close this one down.

Best,
Ron