OK, I'd like to suggest a new term for changing the creative details and focus of a game. Here's the issue: Take games like "Pantheon", "Donjon", and "Great Ork Gods". They are often assessed as supporting Gamism. Let's assume for the moment that that's true. Now D&D3 is also often assessed as coherently Gamist. Let's assume that as true as well.

OK, now suppose I have a D&D3 game, and I start adding in house rules and changing the social contract to be more like Donjon. What should we call this process?

The term "Drift" is theoretically defined strictly as change in GNS. From Ron's Provisional Glossary:

Changing from one Creative Agenda to another, or from the lack of shared Creative Agenda to a specific one, during play, typically through changing the System. In observational terms, often marked by openly deciding to ignore or alter the use of a given rule.

I tend to think that "modified" is the best word for changes to a rules structure of any sort; I would keep "drift" in its current meaning related to agendum. That, though, may be because I don't think I make that particular mistake in terminology, so it's not so much a problem for me.

I agree that "drift" is sometimes used to mean something other than agendum shifting, but I can usually spot it. Once in a while I have to ask for clarification or offer the terminology question, whether this is intended to mean agendum shifting or merely modifying the game to play differently, but ite's not that often.

I have often said that I played a heavily modified OAD&D game, for example (not mine--someone else's game). That seems to work for me, at least.

--M. J. Young

Firstly, I agree with John that a term for modifying vs. modifying to assist a given CA is a useful distinction. Shifting is a decent term. It even rhymes.

I have my own concerns about the term Drift that I'll list here since it seems a reasonable place. John: if you don't want my added concerns in this thread, let me know and I'm sure that Ron could move them.

I would like to see a distinction drawn between a change in situation and a change to mechanics.

Changes to setting if one is included might be a gray area--but even that I would separate from drift (playing historical Riddle of Steel instead of the presented world is, certainly, a big change--but I would still make that distinct from, say, playing without SA's).

The reason I think this should be presented as distinct is the following:

1. The idea that there is some "canonical form" of a traditional game (i.e. that 3rd Ed that's not 'in the dungeon' is breaking that form) seems, to me, to break down rather quickly on close inspection (did you include a dragon in every session too?) What's the canonical adventure in Traveler? Does it have to involve your crew on a Free Trader?

2. Very few traditional games have mechanics that are mandated in their use. You could theoritically play an entire game of Vampire without a single incident of combat. I *have* played games over many, many hours (say 25 hours of play) that had, maybe 1 hour of combat total.

Even reward mechanics and leveling up are at most optional to the PC's. If these things are truly optional then their use or lack there-of should be, IMO, considered apart from Drift.

3. Anomolies in tradional play don't necessiarily coincide with specific CA's. It's possible that everyone in an AD&D game could play a thief--and you could have awesome thieves gild adventures in any GNS mode.

-Marco

This is like the flip side of what I was getting at in that other thread over there. Changing rules without moving the CA at all (as opposed to changing the CA without changing the rules).

Seems like "drifting" is meant to imply that the change is not consciously directed. Like your raft going down the river without anyone paying attention to it. . . until the rocks rip the bottom out and the nar, sim and gamist players in your group go to war.

As for what to call this new stuff. Let's look at what it is. . . . I mean, it looks like drift until you realize that the CA is still there and never left. You've changed things, but not the thing that "Drift" refers to (namely a change in CA). It's kind of trippy, like: "Traveling Without Moving." That seems more like it. Or I could be an idiot. It's nearly 2:00am my time.

Hello,

I dunno about specific terms, but yes, I agree about the breakdown.

1. Drift = changing CA with (or via) an attendant alteration of System relative to the written rules. This is a little tricky because System is play and rules are written stuff. The group might have started using System as per the rules, then ended up using a slightly or greatly changed System over time, or they might have interpreted the rules to be their System from the start in a way which is not at all defensible (logically speaking) given the rules' text.

Terrible terms note: "changing the rules" is actually inaccurate because in either case, the rules just sit there, unchanged but ignored while the group does something else.

2. Changing CA without change to rules or condeivably to much text at all. This is not actually a change. That's important. Because this game typically is utilized successfully for (say) Simulationist play of a certain sort, and this particular group utilizes it successfully for (say) Narrativist play of a certain sort, is not Drift or even any kind of change. It's merely variety of play - no big deal at all, except that it's interesting to see how certain rules may be subtly emphasized or de-emphasized.

Marco, that fits your GURPS discussion points from earlier, right? Not Drift. Nor is it "playing GURPS wrong" (although it might be from another group's perspective, which is only to say they favor a different CA, bog standard).

3. Keep the same CA as is typically favored by the game's application, if any, but change the application of any number of rules, probably significantly, to specify that CA further, whether different from the typical application or the same.

This isn't Drift either, although I betcha it sure "feels like it, quacks like it" to most folks. Especially since, as I see it, a Creative Agenda is a very broad aesthetic category with multiple applications. Two theme-fiend artists may care very greatly about whether you do it This Way or That Way, and may resent being lumped together by an observer who says, "But you're both theme-fiend artists."

4. And just to complete the 2x2 matrix, I guess we also have, starting play with a given CA, finding the existing rules "sufficient to the evil thereof," and just freaking playin' it.

Other tricky terms note: "house rules" means anything that involves recognizing that the group is not using certain rules in its System (or inserting others, interpreting the existing ones in a certain way, etc), it can apply to both #1 and #3.

And since any rules-mod can be applied but not recognized, groups could be doing them and not acknowledging them as "house rules." This was very common back in 1980s Champions play, in my experience.

So "house rules" becomes one of those frigging terms that gum up discussions. Perhaps that's why it's been tacitly avoided as a term at the Forge ... I always wondered about that ...

Best,
Ron

I agree with this (and I'm pleased to note that no one said that'd be "Playing GURPS wrong" in the first place).

Ben and I had disagreed over whether an unusual focus of a game was drift and I would say this specifies it's not--just a play variant.

There are two other categories I would examine:

1. The creation of rules in a gray-zone. In a Savage Worlds game, a player "turned" some undead (I don't recall the specific term) and the text had the undead retreat--but there was nowhere for it to go.

So I had to make a rule--I ruled that it stepped back--and then held position unless attacked (it was a pretty powerful undead).

That was a house-rule that came into play when the game system didn't cover the situation.

I couldn't say I played Savage Worlds "completely by the book" but I'd make that distinct from ignoring some rule that didn't fit my agenda.

2. Ignorance. The bigger the game in terms of text the greater the room for either ignorance, forgetfulness, or interpertation. These are, in a sense, beyond ignoring rules.

I've studied GURPS 3rd carefully--but I can't regurgiate the exact rules for prone position behind partial cover in terms of the combat system. Since I know I don't know them, if they were called for and I simply house-ruled rather than looking them up that'd be a case where I am willfully ignnoring the text (to the betterment of the game, quite possibly).

But if I mis-remember the modifier then I am diverting from the printed rules in a specific fashion that still leaves me, as far as I know, playing "by the book."

I belive that interpertation of game rules falls into this area as well.

I'm not saying these are "like Drift" but I think they're extensions of breach-of-printed-mechanics that are useful for discussion (i.e. rules-heavier games will have a lot more people mis-remembering modifiers than lighter ones. Resolution systems that are open to a lot of interpertation will have different "by-the-book play" between different groups, etc.)

-Marco

Hi Marco,

I agree with all of that in principle.

BUT ...

I was also thinking about what amount to philosophical recommendations which play a "rules-heavy" role in understanding the game. I do think these are going to vary in their "weight" per reader, but here are a couple of examples which I think are difficult to miss, or which would require effort/attention to set aside.

In The Burning Wheel, sometimes text is set off by a cartoon imp's head. There are several kinds, but one of them is "The Raging Imp," which indicates the author is ranting. This does not mean one should ignore it, far to the contrary.

In one place, the Raging Imp points out that players who do not play toward their characters' Beliefs and Instincts should lose those Beliefs and Instincts. (These features are often the source of bonus dice.) The GM has full control over this loss, which is why the Imp is Raging; the author is telling the GM, in so many words, don't be a weenie.

Similarly, a character who is played toward a particular Belief or Instinct or Trait, even though he or she doesn't have it on the sheet, might acquire it over time, equally through GM authority.

Now - here's my point. Let's say in a particular group, the player gets tired of a particular Belief or Instinct, has played it out to whatever satisfaction it can provide (perhaps an awesome amount, who knows). So he plays the character without that, let us say, Belief. He is making use of this same rules text, as the GM (as he sees it) should remove the Belief sooner or later. We could talk further about whether he and the GM have agreed about this, or what could happen if they didn't, but that's not immediately important here.

If the character is an elf, violating a Belief or Instinct may generate Grief tests, which if they accumulate too much, will result in the character's removal of play. Let's say the player knows this and doesn't mind getting a little Grief along the way of "changing out" the Belief. I'm adding this nuance because it puts a little edge in there, and more potential for among-group disagreements about the interpretation.

Now, I'm going to suggest that the Raging Imp text about this issue is pretty GM-power heavy. It's all about how players are going to try to get away with not playing to their Beliefs when it's not convenient, and how the GM isn't supposed to go all soft and limp and let'em get away with it. In keeping with this interpretation, I'm also going to suggest that this text, philosophically, does not support the player-driven "change out my Beliefs through role-playing" technique. Although mechanically, given a philosophical shift, it does.

In passing, I should say that I think Luke would be 100% in favor of a group-consensus, constructive use of this same text, with the elf guy taking a Grief hit or two along the way of exchanging one Belief for another. But we're not dealing with Luke, we're dealing with the book.

So ... would this be "changing the rules" as commonly construed, or not? I suggest that in this case it is.

Another example is a little less complex, fortunately. In the game Usagi Yojimbo, which features a very modified version of Fuzion for its resolution system, there is a special ability for the Monk characters - to use out-of-character knowledge in dealing with problems. It is, without using the term, absolutely picture-perfect Author Stance using my definition. The text right there in this section says something very like, "Of course, other characters should always be played strictly in the boundaries of in-character knowledge." It's really explicit - in my terms, in this text, the book is really saying that anything but in-character knowledge is cheating - bad play. You only get this if you play a monk.

Now, I suggest that Author Stance is very often utilized by most role-players at one time or another, just like the other Stances, and usually without anyone even noticing the Stance shifting during play. Let's say that a player is playing, oh, a Samurai in this game, and uses Author Stance in terms of his character going to see another player-character for a social visit - in full player knowledge that his friend is in a lot of trouble and really needs a Samurai bad-ass for help. The character is ignorant of all this and just wants a nice cup of sake with a pal.

Does the guy playing the Monk bitch about usurping his Monk-ly prerogative, by the rules? Or more likely, does the GM (who let's say has read those Monk rules carefully and is now very watchful for this cheating, bad-role-playing behavior in this game) crack down with the famous "You can't do that" decree?

If either of these happens, who's playing "by the rules"? I suggest that the philosophical position of the rules is very explicit and to play otherwise is indeed "changing them" (i.e. ignoring the text and doing something else for System).

Marco, does that seem like an interesting category of "rules" to investigate? John, anyone, what do you think?

Best,
Ron

It's a good gray area and some well raised points. A few observations:

1. Often there are not clear 'rant' signals next to the rules. Sometimes (as, often, in TRoS) the designer's notes and how-to notes appear in the back of the book. I would consider linking them to be more of an art than a science.

2. I am not one to rant against out of game knowledge or even out of character play--it's been ages since that's been a problem. When I see something like a usually timid PC behaving like dirty harry, I'll ask some clarifying questions ("Okay, so you've decided 'enough is enough? You're like real mad? Or what? What has brought about this change?")

That usually works for me.

But in a game that did specify it, I'd be more interested in making it a special ability (but, mostly, for the reasons you cite, I'd consider it a 'broken' rule: now, the Samuari is *prevented* from seeing his friend for tea because the player knows. If the player was in another room when the trouble was announced it'd be legal).

So even when applying philosophy of the rules, I think there has to be some examination of whether the rules were meant to be general case--universal (maybe the PC's linking up is okay--after all, they see each other a lot--but it's the Monk who manages to be there *just* as the ninjas strike).

Finally: I'm not sure that going against philosophical intent is the same thing as changing a mechanic. After all, appeals to the rules in a way that a given GM sees as abusive and beyond-the-spirit-of-the-game are a long standing part of what is often considered "Gamist" play (definitely in quotes).

If the player understands the mechanic, understands with the philosophy, disagrees with the philosophy, and uses the mechanic as-writ, I'm not sure that it's quite fair to say he's "drifting the game."

It's a you follow the spirit of the law, I choose to follow the "letter" of it type thing.

Maybe.

But I'm still considering. I haven't read burning wheel or the other game so I'm reserving real judgement.

I definitely am convinced that if a game has strong philosophical statements they can be used to make a reasonable argument--but not one as black and white as a person who says "I'm taking the success-rolls out of GURPS outside of combat in clear violation of what the skill mechanic says."

-Marco

I'd initially wondered about John's question, but I'd remembered the dials Ron uses in his articles when describing gamist, for example. The idea of the dials seems applicable to me. Turning those dials up and down is still drift in my mind.

Also, D&D is not pure gamist design. There's a fair bit of sim and a touch of nar (I think). You might be going from primarily gamist to primarily gamist, but the sim and nar elements might be increasing or decreasing even if you didn't intend them to. Thus your always drifting.

How far off am I?

Noon wrote: Also, D&D is not pure gamist design. There's a fair bit of sim and a touch of nar (I think). You might be going from primarily gamist to primarily gamist, but the sim and nar elements might be increasing or decreasing even if you didn't intend them to. Thus your always drifting.

How far off am I?

Marco wrote: 1. The idea that there is some "canonical form" of a traditional game (i.e. that 3rd Ed that's not 'in the dungeon' is breaking that form) seems, to me, to break down rather quickly on close inspection (did you include a dragon in every session too?) What's the canonical adventure in Traveler? Does it have to involve your crew on a Free Trader?

John Kim wrote:

Marco wrote: 1. The idea that there is some "canonical form" of a traditional game (i.e. that 3rd Ed that's not 'in the dungeon' is breaking that form) seems, to me, to break down rather quickly on close inspection (did you include a dragon in every session too?) What's the canonical adventure in Traveler? Does it have to involve your crew on a Free Trader?

No, but it pretty clearly implies that the PCs are on a starship regularly traveling from world to world. D&D3 doesn't strictly require a dungeon, but it still has pretty clear expectations for adventures. For example, they involve a party of mixed-class, mixed-race PCs working as a team, and will involve some fighting of monsters and acquiring of treasure. None of this is strictly required in the rules, but it is heavily implied in all the support material and examples.

Hi Marco,

I agree with you about this level of implication - e.g. whether play must be in a dungeon, or similar stuff. I expect we'll find people who really did receive that "weight" of instruction from the rules (and more likely, from the people they learned to play with). I also expect we'll find people who would look at us and say, "are you nuts? our first game was on a ship at sea. So?"

However. To stick with my post above, I don't think we're talking about this spirit vs. letter issue, or anything that requires knowing what the authors "meant." I think we're really dealing with game text which carries rules-weight, especially since it's integrated with the application of both quantitative (BW) and qualitative (UY) techniques of play.

So there's clearly a continuum.

One end: "Rules say: play in the fucking dungeon. This is a dungeon game. Do it this way or go play something else." [no RPG examples, more typical of the card game Dungeon in which nothing else is possible; Dungeon obviously does not actually contain such text as I've described]

Moving toward the middle: "Rules are all about dungeons, equipment is all about dungeons, characters are different kinds of dungeoneers, setting is carefully built to explain dungeon-crawling and make it interesting. Most out-of-dungeon stuff is pretty light and abstracted" [Example: Tomb Reavers, fairly seriously; Tunnels & Trolls, more light-heartedly]

Past middle, toward other end: "Must we play in a dungeon?" "Um, all the examples seem dungeon-y, but I guess nothing says we have to. Oh, and look, if we use these movement rates and terrain rules, we'll know how long it takes to travel between towns. Boy, looks like we can ignore about half the book if we do that." [Example: Forge: out of Chaos, many other fantasy heartbreakers]

Other end: "Hey, there're dungeons, and we can play in them or never go in, we can go on ships, we can do stuff in towns, etc, etc." [RuneQuest]

I'm suggesting that there are lots of examples of game text which are surprisingly close to the first end - not about dungeons/not-dungeons, but about other stuff. If you stick with examples that are clearly on the other end, then I certainly agree with you, but it'd be interesting to come over to the first end and consider stuff there.

Part of the difficulty, I think, is that many of us have developed the skill of reading all of the book as if it were "suggestion," to the extent that when we encountered someone who read it as "rules," they seemed simple-minded or unimaginative. However, now at this late date, I have decided that this skill is a bit of a self-delusion - that people do read a lot of the book as "rules" and cherry-pick what is or is not "suggestion" without really processing which is which, or why.

So even talking about this is difficult, because we can always apply our "skill" and imagine ourselves doing so. "Is that what the Burning Wheel text says? Well obviously I'd read that as a suggestion and play it my own way."

But ... if we shift to discussing actual play, I bet this would happen more than most people would anticipate: "Hey, our group did it this way," and perhaps discover that they did so with specific reference to an influential section in the book, after all. I for one was astounded at how much I was doing that, when I started reflecting critically about the whole thing.

Best,
Ron

Almost every RPG book I own seems to have a "default play style" and a default type of "party" for the players to make up. MLwM has Minons, Vampire the Masquerade has Camarilla Neonates, D&D has the archetypal combined arms party. Sorcerer doesn't, but the mini-supplements seem to.

I think it's very helpful when the rules specifically identify the "default party" and "default play style"; it's even better when they go on to discuss interesting alternatives with pros and cons.

Ron,

I'm 100% down with you on saying that there are, indeed, gradients of philosophical value to the rules. I think that there might be some useful language around that and discussion of what that means to various types of players.

Also: I agree with Ben that universal systems (my "specialty") have their own philosophies embeded in their mechanics--and I think there is some value in looking at that as well.

I think that how a person interperts a set of rules will, in part, be dictated by what their priorities of play are since very few rules come with philosophical underpinnings built into the text--and even if they did, I think a sophisticated player might see fit to use their preferred philosophy and view the game as a simply a set of (hopefully) playtested mechanics.

-Marco
I have an essay on the JAGS site that has some thoughts on this with reference to traditional games.
http://jagsgame.dyndns.org/jags/viewMessage.jsp?message=329&thread=109&forum=3

Hi Marco,

I swear I did not go hunting on the Burning Wheel homepage forum for purposes of this thread. I was surfing for snippets that might help us in our current game ...

... and I found this thread: I think the game needs better coup-de-gras rules

The part that prompted the "spoo! must tell Marco" reaction is toward the bottom of the second page and really gets tooting on the third and final page. The relevant posters are Eruditus, Manicrack, and Blackberry.

This is exactly the sort of "hunt for philosophical guidance" process that I have observed many times across groups, and much to my own surprise, in myself once I started looking. You can even see the point in the thread when everyone abandons the read-resolution-mechanics approach to answering their question.

I also want to ask for a reflective moment or two on your text in your post:

... very few rules come with philosophical underpinnings built into the text--and even if they did, I think a sophisticated player might see fit to use their preferred philosophy and view the game as a simply a set of (hopefully) playtested mechanics.

Hi Ron,

A few things just to be clear:

1. For the record I don't find those guys unsophisticated at all. I think they were spot on. I'll try to be more clear and less perscriptive.

2. I have Kult, Unknown Armies, and TRoS handy--I'll go through them and see what I think about the philosophical content.

NOTE: I agree that almost all games have philosophies. I'm talking about a wedding of philosophical context to actual mechanics in the way you describe with the rant (allbeit usually less explicit than that). You may be right. I'll look at them, reading specifically for that, and see what I think.

-Marco

I have a query regarding Drift, which I think bears on the original topic.

How far across CA's does a given play style have to go before it becomes "Drift" as opposed to just modification?

AD&D, for example, has (as I recall*) a lot of rules investment in gamist play with Players-as-a-group competing together to beat the GM's challenge. As this discussion goes, it seems fairly clear that playing AD&D to model a co-operative commune amongst the various orc varient monsters would be Drifted play. It also seems fairly clear that (say) modifying how THAC0 works so there are no negative numbers isn't Drift.

What about a play style where the play group is heavily competing with each other and the 'group-vs-challenge' model is either bare window dressing or dropped all together? Still gamist play, but a very different kind of Gamist, and pretty much incompatable with the first style. (Drop one of these guys into the first kind of group, and watch the disfunction explode). Is that Drift? It's still the same broad catagory of CA, but is a very different kind of play.



James
*I am running off memory, it could be selective.

Hi James,

We dealt with this question earlier in the thread - see my breakdown of possible different versions of "changing the rules."

The short answer to your immediate question is that Drift concerns both changing the CA of play and altering/re-interpretating textual rules in doing so.

The interesting thing about this is that both of the following are therefore possible:

1) Major re-interpretations, ignoring, modifications of the textual rules, but with no Drift as the basic CA stays the same

2) Minor re-interpretations, etc, maybe even the barest amount, maybe not even considered a "real" change by the group, with indicative of a very significant shift in from one basic CA to another

Best,
Ron

In terms of the 'playing D&D but out in a field or something and not in a dungeon' that isn't important, what's important are the agreements that shape play.

For example, perhaps the party starts play on a boat at sea. And then pirates attack. How do they respond? Well, move up four squares so as to get past some rigging to get a clear shot. Five foot step back the next round when a baddie gets close and you want to stick with the ranged weapon.

Err, that could just as easily have been a dungeon manouver. That doesn't represent drift or change. Now, if the pirates stay away in their boat and it becomes just an exchange of arrows, that purposeful contrivance means a lot of rules just get ignored. In fact without any manouvering or anything (and lets assume their isn't any real tricks you can do), it'll be just dice rolls to see if the arrows hit or miss, which is just sim.

A change in setting doesn't change what the game does by itself, it can still be a dungeon fight on the deck of a boat. You don't get out of what D&D is designed for, by just leaving the dungeon.


Now a hi to John,

Is the idea of drift supposed to be binary or scaled? Binary as in, its only drift if the primary CA gets switched. While if the idea is that drift is expressed in amounts, ie small drift, large scale drift, then it can encapsulate what I talked about.

The binary version is clearer, but it leaves a gap for describing smaller stuff. And weve already got a lot of jargon around.

Marco wrote: But if I run a Traveler game and set the crew as security on a space station, am I 'deviating'? If I run a game that's 80% outdoors and has only a small component of ruins delving, what then? Yes, some of the values of standard character types are different--but if I'm fairly clear about what I'm doing up front is that really a deviation?
...
A reasonably good statement can be made about what an example of typical play might be like. That is, IMO, very credible--but claiming that you are really "changing something" when you focus on a specific piece of that standard game (in the Traveler example, suppose the PC's are, as per standard, all ex-military, for example) is, IMO, too close to the "D&D is all hack-and-slash" dialog for my taste.

Ron Edwards wrote: John, are we getting off-topic? I do think that the thread achieved its goal of clarifying just what the term Drift is referring to, and how it relates to other forms of re-interpreting or ignoring rules text.
...
So John, it's up to you. Call this one done? Bring it back to the orginal topic of Drift per se and continue? Or continue with this nuance thing (a.k.a. can of worms)?

Hrm. Sorry Ron, I wasn't clear enough in what I was asking. In hindisight I see I should have ditched the example, and cut to the point.

I get what is meant by Drift as you say. What I am trying to drive at is:

How far must the CA move for it to be Drift? Assuming sufficient change in rules is occuring, is it drift to go from Gamist "Us against the Situation" to Gamist "Player vs Player", two strongly Gamist agendaes that are also fairly strongly incompatable.

Is it only "Drift" per the definition if it goes across a catagory, or is it still drift if it crosses to a different specific CA that still generally identifies in the same catagory of agendae?

And put that way, I suppose the corollory would be: Assuming sufficient change in CA, how much rules change is enough? Are these both dials with variable settings that only hit capital-D Drift once both are past a certain point?

James

Hello,

James, here goes:

How far must the CA move for it to be Drift? Assuming sufficient change in rules is occuring, is it drift to go from Gamist "Us against the Situation" to Gamist "Player vs Player", two strongly Gamist agendaes that are also fairly strongly incompatable.

Is it only "Drift" per the definition if it goes across a catagory, or is it still drift if it crosses to a different specific CA that still generally identifies in the same catagory of agendae?

And put that way, I suppose the corollory would be: Assuming sufficient change in CA, how much rules change is enough? Are these both dials with variable settings that only hit capital-D Drift once both are past a certain point?

John Kim wrote:
Well, what would you call it? Seriously. I agree that there should be a distinct term for "modifying explicit rules" as opposed to "differing from implied expectations." However, I think the implied expectations and support at least exist, and we need to at least be able to refer to differing from them.

For example, I could run a by-the-rules D&D3 campaign which is purely court romance and intrigue (i.e. no combat or magic). Again, this is no change to explicit rules, but I would argue that at some point differences in expectations add up to be significant. At this point, I don't want to argue over how common or major it is -- I would just like to be able to refer to it without having an argument just over terminology.