# The Gaming Den

Welcome to the Gaming Den.

Skip to content

## Anatomy of Failed Design: Ability Scores

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

- Print view

20 posts • Page 1 of 1

Lago PARANOIA
  Invincible Overlord
  Posts: 10555
  Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

### Anatomy of Failed Design: Ability Scores

- Quote

Post by Lago PARANOIA » Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:44 pm

Time to confront a harsh truth. Statistic points are worthless and need to go. You might notice a distinct lack of swearing in this, but that's mostly because this really grinds my gear. Magic items and roles being messed up are annoying, but I don't really mind. However, now we're talking about how D&D ignorantly restricts you from roleplaying the character that you want to and that makes me really, REALlY... mad. The only thing that makes me angrier are how actual classes are handled, but that's another rant for another time.
So now that the introduction is finished, let's talk about just how much stats suck. Some of them are carryover problems from 3E while 4E managed to invent some new ones on its own.
- First of all, stats were originally used in D&D to differentiate people between people of a similar schtick. For example, even though a 3rd level fighter might have the same weapon proficiencies and item selection as another 3rd level fighter, the first fighter might have also been saddled with a really high intelligence score and the latter might have gotten a high wisdom score--because you rolled for everything. Now, back then stats pretty much did jack diddly unless you jacked them higher than you were expected to. And of course people hated (for good reason) the idea of not getting to roleplay their fighter the way they wanted to because of some roll of the dice five months ago. But at least stats had a point back then because sometimes you got saddled with strengths or weaknesses that weren't necessary but could find time to play.
Then came 3rd Edition. Stats started to become really pointless then. Except for the Constitution issue, which was annoying and intrusive, we didn't really notice because the real money of D&D was polymorphing (at first), magic items, and buffs and there was considerable power synergy anyway. With the exception of a couple of crummy feats like Pain Touch and the 3.5e Two-Weapon Fighting chain, character options were pretty light on stats. Hell, the 3.0 DMG flat-out said not to use stats as a requirement for PrCs.
Now came 4E. We still have the broken system but it isn't actually used for anything other than to piss you off. Unlike the previous editions, there's no chance that, say, a fighter might come away with an unexpected boon of charisma or intelligence, so there goes roleplaying potential. And since you can't raise them and every game effect relies on having a high stat, they're also simultaneously more important than ever. How many fighters do you see that have strength scores other than 18 or 20? I've seen a couple of dwarven battleragers who settle for a 16, but aside from that, who cares? How many fighters have you seen that have anything but an 8 and a 10 for intelligence and charisma? You haven't, so don't think about it too hard. By intentionally killing off diversity, 4E removed the one saving grace of stats in the first place.
- Secondly despite stats already becoming obsolete in 3rd Edition, at least then stats were unified and meant the same thing for everyone. If you wanted to use a ranged attack, you used dexterity. If you wanted to hit someone with a sword, you used strength. If you wanted to zap someone with arcane spells, you used intelligence or charisma. You want to smite people with lasers or squirrels, that's wisdom. This is what made the multiclassing and PrC system WORK. Yes, it there were some major problems such as caster levels not stacking, but if your swordmage experienced a shipwreck became Robinson Crusoe, they could still pick up levels in barbarian and/or ranger and not worry about getting a raw deal.
In 4E? Not so much. What stat do you use to swing a sword and stab someone in the groin? The answer... every single one of them. Which wouldn't be so bad, except for the fact that certain classes only have a use for certain stats. And you know what's retarded? The game doesn't weigh the stats the same. The game uses Strength for nearly anyone who wants to use melee combat and Wisdom for any character who wants to use divine power. So if you're a laser paladin, what do you do? You can grab warlock or bard powers--even though there should be natural synergy between that class and fighters/warlords. But there's not That's about it.
But 4E really hates multiclassing anyway and loves the rails, which we'll get into if I can ever control myself long enough to analyze what a failure the class system is.
- Thirdly, you can only raise two stats in 4E to any levels of competence. First of all (again), this is a beginner's trap when it comes to picking powers--ask any newbie who has tried to play a paladin for instance. If you're good or at least passable at a schtick at level one, it should not go obsolete without giving you some compensation in another area!
Secondly (again), this puts a shelf life on skills that don't synergize with the stats you want to raise. A Fighter can pick up the Streetwise and Heal skills and at least be passable at using these skills... for awhile. Then these skills drop off of the face of the earth and you realize that you've just wasted your time. Sure, you can use your precious 'retrain only one thing a level' to grab a real skill, but the fact of the matter is that skills shouldn't have a goddamn shelf life on them in the first place!
Thirdly (again), since 4E also decided to fully embrace the idiotic 'if you want certain feats, you need to have a certain stat!' paradigm that 3E wisely steered away from (aside from a token effort) as it matured, this screws over certain builds. Why in the name of alcohol should a warlord have an easier time qualifying for Heavy Blade mastery than an artful dodger Rogue? Whose bright idea was it to punish Shielding Swordmages for deciding to grab heavier armor or invest in any of the heavy blade feats?
- Fourthly, D&D shouldn't even have charisma and constitution stats. All they do is make all of the above problems worse. You can catch the rant here: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=49516
- Fifthly, 4E's stat setup goes out of its way to punish character concepts with its anti-synergy. STR/CON fighters, barbarians, wardens, laser clerics and paladins, wand wizards... they all get the shaft. There isn't any game balance reason or (except for the STR/CON fighters) even any compensation for this. If you play a wand wizard, you're supposed to be HAPPY that your 1/encounter power is supposed to make up for the fact that you're down a NAD. What's up with that? I'm supposed to only have one good NAD because 4E spits on the concepts of 'strong and hardy warrior' or 'quick-witted and nimble-fingered rogue' or 'wise and charismatic ruler'? That's garbage.
Last edited by Lago PARANOIA on Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:50 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top

CatharzGodfoot
  King
  Posts: 5668
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: North Carolina

###

- Quote

Post by CatharzGodfoot » Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:57 pm

Wow, all that and you didn't even mention that being both smart and agile, strong and hardy, or whatever "wisdom" is and charismatic is a bad idea in 4e.
Apparently 4e has the worst use of ability scores ever.
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
Top

Lago PARANOIA
  Invincible Overlord
  Posts: 10555
  Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

###

- Quote

Post by Lago PARANOIA » Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:09 pm

Good point, I'll add in in real fast-like.

> Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
> In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.

Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:23 pm

> Lago wrote:We still have the broken system but it isn't actually used for anything other than to piss you off.

From a design standpoint, that's sort of what attributes are for. They are there to standardize yet differentiate minimum competence; arbitrarily group abilities; and prevent characters from surveying available abilities in a manner that treads on peoples' toes. Those are defensible design goals.
The problem with implementing them in 4e is that I don't see how any of that is needed. You already arbitrarily segregated all the abilities into rigid classes that you can't meaningfully escape, and the core bonus advancement mechanic pretty much ensures that if you haven't been raising an ability from the beginning that you pretty much don't have it. A character in 4e pretty much can't succeed at a diplomacy check unless Charisma is one of his tag stats and diplomacy is one of his tag skills, so Fighters don't really have any base competency in that field. So them even having a Charisma score is a waste of space.
But Attributes in general aren't necessarily bad. While I talk crazy smack about White Wolf and don't feel bad about doing so, the fact is that it is for whatever reason design intent that characters who are good at Memory Clouding magic are also good at forensics. Having an attribute that adds to both dice pools really does accomplish that goal.
So I can see putting attributes into a game with a straight face. 4e D&D just does not seem to be that game though. I don't know what they were thinking.
-Username17
Top

Lago PARANOIA
  Invincible Overlord
  Posts: 10555
  Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

###

- Quote

Post by Lago PARANOIA » Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:33 pm

> From a design standpoint, that's sort of what attributes are for. They are there to standardize yet differentiate minimum competence; arbitrarily group abilities; and prevent characters from surveying available abilities in a manner that treads on peoples' toes. Those are defensible design goals.

I didn't mean to criticize statistics in the abstract, it's just that as far as D&D is concerned they've always been bologna fucked and became outright useless after we went to mandatory point-buy.
Shadowrun uses statistics very well, for example.

> Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
> In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.

Top

Manxome
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 977
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Manxome » Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:06 pm

> Lago PARANOIA wrote: didn't mean to criticize statistics in the abstract, it's just that as far as D&D is concerned

That should probably go in your title and/or thesis sentence. Right now, the clear and distinct impression that a reader gets when he starts reading is that you're criticizing statistics in the abstract.
Top

Roy
  Prince
  Posts: 2772
  Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:53 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Roy » Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:09 pm

Am I the only one who sees 'statistics' and thinks of 'probabilities' before 'stats' or 'attributes'?
Top

angelfromanotherpin
  Overlord
  Posts: 9691
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by angelfromanotherpin » Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:11 pm

I had that response too. I think the properly D&D term is 'Ability Scores.'
Top

TarkisFlux
  Duke
  Posts: 1147
  Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:44 pm
  Location: Magic Mountain, CA
  Contact:
  Contact TarkisFlux
  Website

###

- Quote

Post by TarkisFlux » Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:11 pm

> Roy wrote:Am I the only one who sees 'statistics' and thinks of 'probabilities' before 'stats' or 'attributes'?

Nope. Did the same thing. Was very confused as to why someone would hate using math in game design.
The wiki you should be linking to when you need a wiki link - http://www.dnd-wiki.org
Fectin: "Ant, what is best in life?"
Ant: "Ethically, a task well-completed for the good of the colony. Experientially, endorphins."
Top

Thymos
  Knight
  Posts: 418
  Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:02 am

###

- Quote

Post by Thymos » Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:23 pm

Count me as another initially confused one.
Top

Roy
  Prince
  Posts: 2772
  Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:53 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Roy » Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Now, the second sentence clarifies it, but you might want to remove that initial 'What the Fuckity Fuckstar'.
Last edited by Roy on Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top

Psychic Robot
  Prince
  Posts: 4607
  Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Psychic Robot » Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:02 pm

Lago, I am disappointed by your lack of cursing.

> Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.

> Ant wrote:

> > Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?

> You do not seem to do anything.

Top

Roy
  Prince
  Posts: 2772
  Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:53 pm

### Re: Anatomy of Failed Design: Statistics

- Quote

Post by Roy » Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:21 pm

> Lago PARANOIA, fixed wrote:Time to confront a harsh truth. Statistic points are fucking worthless and need to die in a fire. This really grinds my gear. Magic items and roles being messed up are annoying, but I don't really mind that brand of bullshit. However, now we're talking about how D&D ignorantly restricts you from roleplaying the character that you want to and that makes me really, REALlY... fucking nerdraging. The only thing that makes me more intent on molesting kittens with bottle rockets is how actual classes are handled, but that's another bitchfest for another time.
> So now that the introduction is finished, let's talk about just how much stats suck on a barrel of fucking cocks. And by this I mean they actually orally engulf the fucking barrel and start sucking it down. Some of them are carryover fuck ups from 3E while 4E managed to invent some new ones on its own.
> - First of all, stats were originally used in D&D to separate people who would otherwise be exactly the fucking same. For example, even though a 3rd level fighter might have the same weapon proficiencies and item selection as another 3rd level fighter, the first fighter might be really fucking smart while the second would be really fucking wise--because you rolled for every fucking thing. Now, back then stats pretty much did piddly shit unless you jacked them higher than you were expected to. And of course people hated (for good reason) the idea of not getting to roleplay their goddamn fighter the way they wanted to because of some roll of the fucking dice five months ago. But at least stats had a fucking point back then because sometimes you got saddled with mother fucking strengths or weaknesses that weren't necessary but could find time to fucking play.
> Then came 3rd Edition. Stats started to become really fucking pointless then. Except for the fucking Constitution issue, which was fucking annoying and intrusive, we didn't really fucking notice because the real money of D&D was polymorphing (at first), magic items, and buffs and there was considerable power synergy anyway. With the exception of a couple of shitty feats like Pain Touch and the 3.5e Two-Weapon Fighting chain, character options were pretty light on stats. Hell, the 3.0 DMG flat-out said not to use the fucking stats as a requirement for PrCs.
> Now came 4E. We still have the utterly triple raped system but it isn't actually used for anything other than to fucking piss you off. Unlike the previous editions, there's no chance that, say, a fighter might come away with an unexpected boon of charisma or intelligence, so there goes roleplaying potential. And since you can't raise them and every game effect relies on having a high stat, they're also simultaneously more important than fucking ever. How many fighters do you see that have strength scores other than 18 or 20? I've seen a couple of dwarven battleragers who settle for a 16, but aside from that, who gives a shit? How many fighters have you seen that have anything but an 8 and a 10 for intelligence and charisma? You fucking haven't, so don't think about it too hard. By intentionally killing off diversity, 4E removed the one saving grace of stats in the first place.
> - Secondly despite stats already becoming completely fucking obsolete in 3rd Edition, at least then stats were unified and meant the same damn thing for everyone. If you wanted to use a shoot a fucker in the face, you used dexterity. If you wanted to stab a fucker in the face, you used strength. If you wanted to zap some dumbass with arcane spells, you used intelligence or charisma. You want to smite bitches with lasers or squirrels, that's wisdom. This is what made the mother fucking multiclassing and PrC system WORK. Yes, it there were some major fuck ups such as caster levels not stacking, but if your swordmage experienced a shipwreck became Robinson Crusoe, they could still pick up levels in barbarian and/or ranger and not worry about getting sexually molested by sentient D4s.
> In 4E? Not so fucking much. What stat do you use to swing a sword and stab someone in the groin? The answer... every single mother fucking one. Which wouldn't be so bullshit, except for the fact that certain classes only have a use for certain stats. And you know what's fucking retarded? The game doesn't weigh the stats the same. The game uses Strength for nearly anyone who wants to use facefucking combat and Wisdom for any character who wants to use laser fucking combat. So if you're a laser paladin, what do you do? You can grab warlock or bard powers--even though there should be natural synergy between that class and fighters/warlords. But there's not That's about it. You just fucking Fail.
> But 4E really hates multiclassing anyway and loves the railraping, which we'll get into if I can ever control myself long enough to analyze what a utter fucking failure the class system is.
> - Thirdly, you can only raise two stats in 4E to any levels of competence. First of all (again), this is a bullshit beginner's trap when it comes to picking powers--ask any newbie who has tried to play a paladin for instance how bad they fucked up. If you're good or at least passable at a schtick at level one, it should not go fucking obsolete without giving you some compensation in another area!
> Secondly (again), this puts a shelf life on skills that don't synergize with the stats you want to raise. A Fighter can pick up the Streetwise and Heal skills and at least be passable at using these skills... for awhile. Then these skills drop off of the face of the fucking earth and you realize that you've just wasted your fucking time. Sure, you can use your precious 'retrain only one thing a level' to grab a real damn skill, but the fact of the matter is that skills shouldn't have a goddamn shelf life on them in the first place!
> Thirdly (again), since 4E also decided to fully embrace the idiotic 'if you want certain feats, you need to have a certain fucking stat!' paradigm that 3E wisely fucking steered away from (aside from a token effort) as it matured, this screws over certain builds. Why in the name of alcohol should a warlord have an easier time qualifying for mother fucking Heavy Blade mastery than an artful dodger Rogue? Whose bullshit idea was it to punish Shielding Swordmages for deciding to grab heavier armor or invest in any of the heavy blade feats?
> - Fourthly, D&D shouldn't even have fucking charisma and constitution stats. All they do is make all of the above problems worse. You can catch the rant here: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=49516
> - Fifthly, 4E's stat setup goes out of its way to punish character concepts with its anti-synergy bullshit trap. STR/CON fighters, barbarians, wardens, laser clerics and paladins, wand wizards... they all get the fucking shaft and are supposed to LIKE it. There isn't any game balance reason or (except for the STR/CON fighters) even any compensation for this. If you play a wand wizard, you're supposed to be HAPPY that your 1/encounter power is supposed to make up for the fact that you're down a NAD. What the fuck's up with that? I'm supposed to only have one good fucking NAD because 4E spits on and rapes the concepts of 'strong and hardy warrior' or 'quick-witted and nimble-fingered rogue' or 'wise and charismatic ruler'? That's bullfucking shit. Full fucking stop. QED.

Better?
The bolded part isn't mine. He slipped and swore anyways.
Top

Psychic Robot
  Prince
  Posts: 4607
  Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Psychic Robot » Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:41 pm

Very much so.

> Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.

> Ant wrote:

> > Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?

> You do not seem to do anything.

Top

TavishArtair
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 593
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by TavishArtair » Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:08 pm

You should perhaps call them Ability Scores (what D&D usually refers to stats as), or Attributes (what everyone else refers to the stats as) and alter the name of the thread appropriately if possible.
Top

Doom
  Duke
  Posts: 1470
  Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:52 pm
  Location: Baton Rouge

###

- Quote

Post by Doom » Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:32 am

And this is why I don't bother bosting...I read this Lago's post before there were any replies, said "Gee, I wonder if I should post asking him to change 'statistics' to 'ability scores'.
Come back half a day later, and it's already been called.

> Kaelik, to Tzor wrote: And you aren't shot in the face?

> Frank Trollman wrote:A government is also immortal ...On the plus side, once the United Kingdom is no longer united, the United States of America will be the oldest country in the world. USA!

Top

ckafrica
  Duke
  Posts: 1139
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: HCMC, Vietnam

###

- Quote

Post by ckafrica » Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:08 am

I have a problem with attributes and it is that they generalize too much. I want to be a good shooter. If I don't take a high dex I'm an idiot. But I also want my character to be a lazy fat slob (which is why he's a good shooter, he hates the exercise of melee). Now everything else Dex represents doesn't make any sense for the concept yet it is impossible for me to accurately represent his awesomeness with a crossbow without that high dex (or burning a feat for the privilege of using Wis).
I'd really like to just say "I'm good at hitting shit" rank X and let my imagination explain why I happen to be good.
The internet gave a voice to the world thus gave definitive proof that the world is mostly full of idiots.
Top

Fuchs
  Duke
  Posts: 2446
  Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:29 am
  Location: Zürich

###

- Quote

Post by Fuchs » Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:41 am

> ckafrica wrote:I have a problem with attributes and it is that they generalize too much. I want to be a good shooter. If I don't take a high dex I'm an idiot. But I also want my character to be a lazy fat slob (which is why he's a good shooter, he hates the exercise of melee). Now everything else Dex represents doesn't make any sense for the concept yet it is impossible for me to accurately represent his awesomeness with a crossbow without that high dex (or burning a feat for the privilege of using Wis).
> I'd really like to just say "I'm good at hitting shit" rank X and let my imagination explain why I happen to be good.

My rule is "in maiore minus", meaning that I can always choose to have something less than I could have. So if I have a Dex of 18 I can state that it's actually limited to shooting, while for other aspects it counts as 10.
Top

ckafrica
  Duke
  Posts: 1139
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: HCMC, Vietnam

###

- Quote

Post by ckafrica » Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:40 am

Fuch: But if I have max dex but only choose to apply it only to ranged combat, I am devaluing a resource without getting remunerations for it. I'm getting kicked in the nuts for stepping out of the box.
I mean in 3e where you've got skill ranks, why not just use skill ranks to show how good you are at something? Why do we have to add the attributes?
How do you know my character is good at talking to people? HE HAS THE FUCKING SKILLS THAT SAY SO. I can then actually have a charismatic fighter because it's just the diplomacy skill that can be just as good as the bard's or the sorcerer's.
The internet gave a voice to the world thus gave definitive proof that the world is mostly full of idiots.
Top

Fuchs
  Duke
  Posts: 2446
  Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:29 am
  Location: Zürich

###

- Quote

Post by Fuchs » Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:07 am

> ckafrica wrote:Fuch: But if I have max dex but only choose to apply it only to ranged combat, I am devaluing a resource without getting remunerations for it. I'm getting kicked in the nuts for stepping out of the box.
> I mean in 3e where you've got skill ranks, why not just use skill ranks to show how good you are at something? Why do we have to add the attributes?
> How do you know my character is good at talking to people? HE HAS THE FUCKING SKILLS THAT SAY SO. I can then actually have a charismatic fighter because it's just the diplomacy skill that can be just as good as the bard's or the sorcerer's.

Talent (aka ability scores) and skill will beat skill, if skills are equal.
As far as "Not getting remunerations" is concerned, that depends. Do you actually want to have mechanical disadvantages for being a fat slob, or do you simply want to have a fat slob that's otherwise good?
If the former I'd pick some flaws to represent the disadvantages, which net some advantages/traits.
In a game I run though, I don't really care about all those "give and takes", all I care about is if the end result is a character that fits into the party. I don't care how that character was built, how many points were doled out for stats, and how efficient the feat and skill and gear choices are. It's simply "build your character as you want, the other players can veto it though if it would ruin their fun":
Top
Post Reply

- Print view

Display:
Sort by:
Direction:

20 posts • Page 1 of 1

Return to “In My Humble Opinion...”

Jump to

- Main
- ↳ About the Gaming Den
- ↳ In My Humble Opinion...
- ↳ I Gave the Mouse a Cookie...
- ↳ In The Trenches
- ↳ It's My Own Invention...
- ↳ MPSIMS