Den Next Design Challenge

Whatever · Post by **Whatever** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:19 pm

I'll throw together a sample "optional rule" module for the appendix.

edit: sent.

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:04 pm

So I'm making a lot of assumptions when writing this, and I've just realized that. Is it OK to spell out what I'm assuming right here? Because, seriously, I may reference things that aren't even brought up in character creation.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:28 pm

...You Lost Me wrote:So I'm making a lot of assumptions when writing this, and I've just realized that. Is it OK to spell out what I'm assuming right here? Because, seriously, I may reference things that aren't even brought up in character creation.

Yeah, that's my point from before. I say yes.

DrPraetor · Post by **DrPraetor** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:57 pm

You should have someone write an introductory adventure module as well. Ideally, that person should have zero contact with anyone else on the design team, but should only see a one-page overview planning document for each section.

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:01 pm

Kaelik, did you write up actual statblocks? Because then I probably need to pull from you.

I think for this we just don't kill any sacred cows. BAB stays, 6 attributes stay (though I'm not actually in favor of that), names basically stay where they are.

I do want to introduce more saves, to make the game more gamist because save diversity is something that makes me happy.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:31 pm

I will totally write that introductory adventure module.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:20 pm

...You Lost Me wrote:Kaelik, did you write up actual statblocks? Because then I probably need to pull from you.

I think for this we just don't kill any sacred cows. BAB stays, 6 attributes stay (though I'm not actually in favor of that), names basically stay where they are.

I do want to introduce more saves, to make the game more gamist because save diversity is something that makes me happy.

See that's the sort of thing that I think Frank and I should know. I'm writing 3.5 saves and BAB assumptions, because 2e is stupid and 4e defense are not a bad thing per se, but 4e was unpopular and 3e was super popular.

And fuck you don't add more save types. If you want to do that in a real game that's one thing, but in a game that other people are making with you with minimal coordination is fucking stupid.

Also more than 3 saves probably isn't a good idea anyway for a real game, what would you have them be that would actually be good?

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:52 am

I was planning on 3e all the way, but if you're not actually doing anything to the rules, then you're writing Pathfinder-style houserules and saying "it's a new game guise!" and that's novel and dynamic the way Pathfinder is novel and dynamic. By that I mean it's not.

And I'm using minimal communication right here, saying "We should include another save". In a game, I hate things having odd numbers, and three is an odd number. In addition, with one of my buzz statements was saves instead of AC, which puts +1 save actually even with 3e because AC disappears.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 2:01 am

Okay dumbass, you are being as stupid as Josh.

So every statblock is going to say:

Saves: +11 Fort, +13 Will, +7 Ref, +36 fhkldf;kjaseiofihads

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 2:31 am

I... yes? Incredulity is not an argument. Here, let me give you a name: Alacrity. It's intelligence-based, predicated on predicting things and avoiding them, or on mental agility as opposed to mental force.

If four saves are bad, they're bad, but just calling them bad doesn't make them bad.

and look, very little communication at all!

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:50 am

...You Lost Me wrote:I... yes? Incredulity is not an argument. Here, let me give you a name: Alacrity. It's intelligence-based, predicated on predicting things and avoiding them, or on mental agility as opposed to mental force.

If four saves are bad, they're bad, but just calling them bad doesn't make them bad.

and look, very little communication at all!

No dumbass, the point is that when I write a fucking stat block, you have to tell me the fucking name of the stupid save, or I can't write it into the statblock.

You refused to tell me the name of the save in your last post to "minimize communication" which makes no sense, because I literally cannot fucking write stat blocks without the name of the 4th save.

Now, all your reasons for adding the save are also dumb, since in sum total they are:

1) You like even numbers.
2) You want to make arbitrary changes to the system to justify a "new edition" of a game that is actually editionless, and being written as a joke.

But at least when you tell me the stupid save's name I can write it into a Monster statblock and make abilities that use it as a save.

Which is better than before where you were deliberately concealing the name from me for the benefit of... nothing.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:42 am

This is why kaelik isn't the leader because this is way more negative then it needs to be. If it helps my vote for this project is to keep the 3E set of 3 saves. They work and i don't see any reason to add a fourth.. If it ends this argument there are at least 2 votes for 3 and only one vote for 4.

As for my part I'm going to have to adjust to Frank's part. I was going to make things steampunk but I suppose that idea is out the window with the lack of steampunk classes. I'll fold and not do the elf = pixie thing cause whatever. If 7ft tall elves are what people want then I'll give that to them. There aren't any objections to any other parts so I'm going to continue forward with the ideas i laid out.

While at work I took a liking to the buzzwords "setting integration" and "reinventing traditional fantasy". The idea behind setting integration, about which I'll be making a big deal in my part, will be me making a promise to include as many mechanical elements into the setting as possible. I will be promising the elimination of the need for a player to have to choose between being an effective character and being a flavorful one. I will make the promise that a lot of the settings assumptions will be based off of what the mechanics promote. I will also be extending Frank's mention of races meaning something and raise the stakes by saying race will be as descriptive of a character as their class.

On the reinventing traditional fantasy front I'll be trying to toss all kind of curveballs. I'm gonna claim that Fighters will be just as big as wizards when it comes to the fate of whatever the campaign setting's name is (haven't come up with a name). Then Icons will be mentioned. I am also thinking about tossing in something about "Evolving History" or "Dynamic Living World" promising to incorporate fan made content or some such dribble. Also promising classical adversaries that will fit neatly into the setting. Many many fantastic locations and shit. I think I'll be able to have the entire write up done Wednesday (my next off day).

Also if anyone has any pertinent info I should know about this still unmade game we are advertising then please mention it before Wednesday.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:17 am

I'd really love to provide some editorial feedback and directives.....but but but that would defeat the whole purpose of this exercise.

When we start by defining our goal as failure, the project is guaranteed to succeed!

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:23 am

...You Lost Me wrote:I was planning on 3e all the way, but if you're not actually doing anything to the rules, then you're writing Pathfinder-style houserules and saying "it's a new game guise!" and that's novel and dynamic the way Pathfinder is novel and dynamic. By that I mean it's not.

And I'm using minimal communication right here, saying "We should include another save". In a game, I hate things having odd numbers, and three is an odd number. In addition, with one of my buzz statements was saves instead of AC, which puts +1 save actually even with 3e because AC disappears.

So, in other words, instead of being novel and dynamic like Pathfinder, you want to be novel and dynamic like 4e (or Mutants and Masterminds), which is to say fucking idiotic and making yourself the target of the hateful wrath of everyone who's rolls typically suck and will thus go through 2 characters every three sessions, if not worse, all because you think even numbers are prettier than odd numbers.

No, leave AC. If you really want to add a fourth save, fine, whatever, alacrity can be like memory or something, but don't take out passive defense stats.

mguy wrote:There aren't any objections to any other parts so I'm going to continue forward with the ideas i laid out.

Still saying the goblins should have a demonic shamanism tradition or something.

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

[Kaelik][PhoneLobster]

All right Kaelik, you're obviously stupid and need some help. Let me use small words and you can read it slowly.

Kaelik wrote:No dumbass, the point is that when I write a fucking stat block, you have to tell me the fucking name of the stupid save, or I can't write it into the statblock.

The entire fucking point of me saying we should have another save is so that we think up another save. Only a dumb person would play guess-what with game design, and only a dumb person would accuse a rational human being of that very thing.

You refused to tell me the name of the save in your last post to "minimize communication" which makes no sense, because I literally cannot fucking write stat blocks without the name of the 4th save.

Because I didn't have one. But this is just an echo of the stupid above.

You like even numbers.

Oh you stopped being retarded for a second. How coy.

I recall a post here written by someone I actually read about how even numbers are inherently lie on the easier-to-balance scale than than odd numbers, so someone else who is mildly intelligence thinks the same. In other news, if AC is gone (which you don't seem to be disagreeing with), 3 is a stupidly small number to make an entire 17-class spread around.

You want to make arbitrary changes to the system to justify a "new edition" of a game that is actually editionless, and being written as a joke.

And you want to make arbitrary decisions reflecting an edition that was already written, effectively creating yourself houserules to D&D 3e. Like, you're a fucking genius for rewriting Pathfinder. Stop being stupid for a second and think that maybe doing something differently to encourage symmetry, add some sort of mildly attractive difference, and kill all the baggage assigned to the term "Armor Class" could actually have benefits to it.

And the rest of that post is you being fucking stupid. Stop being fucking stupid. It's bad.

Prak wrote:So, in other words, instead of being novel and dynamic like Pathfinder, you want to be novel and dynamic like 4e (or Mutants and Masterminds), which is to say fucking idiotic and making yourself the target of the hateful wrath of everyone who's rolls typically suck and will thus go through 2 characters every three sessions, if not worse, all because you think even numbers are prettier than odd numbers.

No, leave AC. If you really want to add a fourth save, fine, whatever, alacrity can be like memory or something, but don't take out passive defense stats.

Achievement Unlocked: You're an idiot.

Here's how passive defenses and active defenses work: Passive Defense = Active Defense - d20 + 10. The fact that you didn't take the half a second requisite to figure that out means you should probably put your e-peen away before you hit yourself in the eye. Now let's look at Armor Class, if players rolled their AC - 10 instead of opponents rolling for an attack and compared each one to an opponent's AB + 10, do you know what would happen statistically? Precisely nothing, because those two things are fucking identical. Take your borderline-dysfunctional grognard spleerg somewhere that isn't wasting my bandwidth you fuckwad.

[/Kaelik][/PhoneLobster]

Of course, the argument "It's been that way and I like it that way" is actually a fine argument here, compared to the hot mess above. AC stays, which is a pity because Alacrity had more merit the harder I thought about it, but armor is still DR.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:09 am

I'm not a particular fan of "AC". I prefer using Reflex for dodging hits but meh.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:27 am

...You Lost Me wrote:
Prak wrote:So, in other words, instead of being novel and dynamic like Pathfinder, you want to be novel and dynamic like 4e (or Mutants and Masterminds), which is to say fucking idiotic and making yourself the target of the hateful wrath of everyone who's rolls typically suck and will thus go through 2 characters every three sessions, if not worse, all because you think even numbers are prettier than odd numbers.

No, leave AC. If you really want to add a fourth save, fine, whatever, alacrity can be like memory or something, but don't take out passive defense stats.
Achievement Unlocked: You're an idiot.

Here's how passive defenses and active defenses work: Passive Defense = Active Defense - d20 + 10. The fact that you didn't take the half a second requisite to figure that out means you should probably put your e-peen away before you hit yourself in the eye. Now let's look at Armor Class, if players rolled their AC - 10 instead of opponents rolling for an attack and compared each one to an opponent's AB + 10, do you know what would happen statistically? Precisely nothing, because those two things are fucking identical. Take your borderline-dysfunctional grognard spleerg somewhere that isn't wasting my bandwidth you fuckwad.

Oh I fully realized that. It's not an uncommon thing. My friend wants to switch to active defense. I didn't need him to explain it to me either.
Look, I can see it being valid, and yes, you're right, nothing much changes when you roll active defense against passive attack. It's still dumb. I could almost see an argument for active defense and active attack, except that's really even worse and is only defensible in the name of "realism." Fuck, I've heard worse ideas in the name of realism. Hell, I've had worse ideas in the name of realism.

So what would Save 4/Alacrity do? It's defense against being hit? Call it defense. Alacrity seems like it'd have something to do with learning things, or out thinking an opponent (not the same as dodging his attacks). MGuy's idea of using Reflex to dodge hits is ...better.

My personal shitty dice rolls aren't really any reason to say that active AC is dumb when working on a system. So, fuck, make it one of those modularity options, change to active defense for the sake of stupid change, and add in the sidebar. Whatever. Active Attack "feels" more natural, and I think people in general will prefer it because there's a greater feeling of control over your own attacks (thought experiment, what's your perception when you succeed on an attack because the opponent rolled shit on their defense, vrs you rolled well on your attack? What's your perception of failing your attack because your opponent rolled well on their defense, vrs you rolled shit on your attack?)

Red_Rob · Post by **Red_Rob** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:37 am

Only on the Den could a thread about a joke RPG, designed to be as disjointed as possible as a parody of D&DNext, devolve into tooth and nail arguments about game design.

IMHO having one section of the design wank on and on about how the Alacrity save is the new great thing about Next that will bring parity to the save system, only for none of the example monsters to use it would have been a perfect piss-take of the bounded accuracy nonsense.

I think you need to decide, is this an honest to goodness attempt to create a better RPG than Next, or the original intent which was a joke RPG design document made by people who didn't coordinate. Kaelik seems to want the former.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:45 am

Red Rob, this is the den, even when we're joking, it's SRS BZNS.

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:37 am

It doesn't even matter whether it's an active or a passive defense. God, I wasn't even arguing that until you brought it up as if it somehow related to the argument. Players could roll all the dice, or none of the dice, I don't care, because all of those things are the same.

You may notice that at no point have I ever said "ERMERGERD ALACRITY FOR ALL TEH DODGES". I want Reflex for dodging blows. In fact I want either of reflex or Alacrity for dodging blows, because multiple options makes attack rolls not a swamp of agony for 75% of the crowd. I mean, we can call it "Blue Save" if you want, because this is the english language and we can arbitrarily toss definitions everywhere and as long as they kinda make sense they stick.

The point of an extra save was "If AC is gone, we need another number in its place so the game doesn't feel homogenous". I am not planning on name-switching, I'm planning on shifting the game around, the way new games do. And I was saying that since I wanted to do that, I'm telling you all I want to do that. You can feel free to say you like AC or that you don't want to kill a sacred cow, but making up things that I haven't actually said and then claiming I said them is just... WWHWHAWHALARGRALURR.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:42 am

...You Lost Me wrote:The entire fucking point of me saying we should have another save is so that we think up another save. Only a dumb person would play guess-what with game design, and only a dumb person would accuse a rational human being of that very thing.

...

Because I didn't have one. But this is just an echo of the stupid above.

Which of the following is more likely:

1) It is completely impossible for any rational person to believe from what you wrote that you were not going to tell me the save name, but I pointed out how stupid that was anyway because... a reason.

2) You wrote something that did not communicate your intent.

...You Lost Me wrote:I recall a post here written by someone I actually read about how even numbers are inherently lie on the easier-to-balance scale than than odd numbers, so someone else who is mildly intelligence thinks the same.

That person either wasn't saying what you are talking about now is helpful or is an idiot, or both.

It is not inherently easier to balance 4 saves than 3. It may or may not be inherently easier to balance four pokemon types than 3, but saves are completely one sided, there is nothing on the other side to make it easier or harder to balance 3 than 4 or 40.

...You Lost Me wrote:In other news, if AC is gone (which you don't seem to be disagreeing with), 3 is a stupidly small number to make an entire 17-class spread around.

1) Any number is a "stupidly small" number to make a 17 class spread around. But that's fine, because saves are not the fucking thing you develop a class spread around. Clerics and Druids have the same progression, and they are different classes. Because they are different fucking classes with different class features.

I haven't taken a position on the AC thing yet, don't confuse that with agreement.

...You Lost Me wrote:And you want to make arbitrary decisions reflecting an edition that was already written, effectively creating yourself houserules to D&D 3e. Like, you're a fucking genius for rewriting Pathfinder.

No dumb shit. Inventing new saves is not necessary to create a radically different game. 4e didn't even do it, and it still was way the fuck different. There are a lot of changes you can make to 3e rules that create a different game that are both less stupid and create larger differences.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:15 am

...You Lost Me wrote:It doesn't even matter whether it's an active or a passive defense. God, I wasn't even arguing that until you brought it up as if it somehow related to the argument. Players could roll all the dice, or none of the dice, I don't care, because all of those things are the same.

Um

one of my buzz statements was saves instead of AC,

Yeah you did. "Saves instead of AC" is "Active Defense instead of Passive Defense"

You may notice that at no point have I ever said "ERMERGERD ALACRITY FOR ALL TEH DODGES". I want Reflex for dodging blows. In fact I want either of reflex or Alacrity for dodging blows, because multiple options makes attack rolls not a swamp of agony for 75% of the crowd.

Um

Alacrity. It's intelligence-based, predicated on predicting things and avoiding them

Yeah you kinda did. Well, not all, but for some. Granted, you also threw out the idea of mental agility, but "Alacrity for Dodges" was the first, wordier thing you said.

I mean, we can call it "Blue Save" if you want, because this is the english language and we can arbitrarily toss definitions everywhere and as long as they kinda make sense they stick.

See the thread about vices and virtues in NWoDare rpgs becoming more liberal for an explanation as to why habitual redefinition is bad.

The point of an extra save was "If AC is gone, we need another number in its place so the game doesn't feel homogenous". I am not planning on name-switching, I'm planning on shifting the game around, the way new games do. And I was saying that since I wanted to do that, I'm telling you all I want to do that. You can feel free to say you like AC or that you don't want to kill a sacred cow, but making up things that I haven't actually said and then claiming I said them is just... WWHWHAWHALARGRALURR.

I haven't made shit up. I may have inferred things you didn't intend, but that's your fault for not being more clear. Now... I can keep quoting you to show you that you did in fact say things, or we can make this fucking game and try to have a modicum of civil discussion, but you, at least, have to be slightly less of a reactionary asshat. Granted.. others do as well. But, given who some of those others are, and that I'm trying to be more reasonable...

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:42 pm

Guys, can you stop being serious about this and do the disjoined RPG you set out to make? You're missing the entire point of this exercise.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:53 pm

Like someone said. This is the Den.

I don't think they know how to not take game design seriously, or without profanity.

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 6:25 pm

*Sigh* For length

Kaelik wrote:
Which of the following is more likely:

1) It is completely impossible for any rational person to believe from what you wrote that you were not going to tell me the save name, but I pointed out how stupid that was anyway because... a reason.

2) You wrote something that did not communicate your intent.

Ah, so you misunderstood my intent and so you made up an intent that you thought it was and attacked that. That makes a whole lot more sense. My bad.

That person either wasn't saying what you are talking about now is helpful or is an idiot, or both.

It is not inherently easier to balance 4 saves than 3. It may or may not be inherently easier to balance four pokemon types than 3, but saves are completely one sided, there is nothing on the other side to make it easier or harder to balance 3 than 4 or 40.

I looked, and it was an off-hand quote on the SAME page about how factors of 2 are easier to balance, by Frank. It's vague and unelaborated, and so perhaps I misread the intent there.

Point conceded.

Clerics and Druids have the same progression, and they are different classes. Because they are different fucking classes with different class features.

Maybe I'm playing the Cleric wrong, but the way I won with ClerTank was getting easy AC boosts persisted and easy attack boosts persisted, and then attacking and dealing lots of damage. Which would, like, now be relegated from AC to Reflex or something. So now the Cleric's autoattacks and the druid's entangle are hitting the same save as the warlock's eldritch blasts and the wizards fireball and the paladin's attacks and the druid's companion's attacks and the sorcerer's lasers, and the fuckIdon'tcare's nuke.

I haven't taken a position on the AC thing yet, don't confuse that with agreement.

As a general rule, Kaelik seems to have an opinion on everything houserules- and homebrew-wise, and if you don't scream and rage and call the poster an idiot, then you're at least somewhat in approval. But point taken.

No dumb shit. Inventing new saves is not necessary to create a radically different game. 4e didn't even do it, and it still was way the fuck different. There are a lot of changes you can make to 3e rules that create a different game that are both less stupid and create larger differences.

So you're saying it's a good idea that this joke game, in order to differentiate itself from 3e, should rewrite the entire mechanic of abilities for each class, feat, theme, and spell? I mean, 4e was different because it re-did abilities, and of course made them all the same and crappy. So we could easily distinguish this joke game by saying "Yeah it uses a totally different resource mechanic that takes re-learning and is a lot of work to write up" or we could distinguish this game by saying "Yeah, we have another defensive stat and some abilities key off that now". Alternatively, we could go back to Pathfinder houserules.

Prak Anima wrote:Yeah you did. "Saves instead of AC" is "Active Defense instead of Passive Defense"

No, because like I showed you, Active and Passive defenses differ by adding the number 10. So, like, (here's the revolutionary idea) maybe when you're attacked saves are a passive defense. Like, WOAH. I'll be honest, I hadn't actually written up what would happen without AC, but considering this is a new game, you're thinking of something and telling me I said it when the actual proposed change doesn't actually say that thing. That's like in the transition between 2e and 3e, where AC was scaled upwards instead of down, some grognard saying "OBVIOUSLY AC HAS AN UPPER CAP, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW MY GAME WAS PLAYED BEFORE".

But whatever. The difference between the two is statistically identical, and the concept was removed, so this point isn't even worth arguing.

Yeah you kinda did. Well, not all, but for some. Granted, you also threw out the idea of mental agility, but "Alacrity for Dodges" was the first, wordier thing you said.

Notice I never said "reflex isn't going to be used for dodging anymore". Also read this: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combat ... htm#reflex

Notice how "dodge" is basically in there right the fuck away. Yes, avoiding things happens, and yes, perhaps Alacrity could be used to dodge things, but under no circumstance if you were actually thinking about how these saves worked and what the common replace-AC-with-saves patch was, would you actually think that I'm just changing the name of AC to Alacrity. Hell, it wouldn't even make sense because then you couldn't use Alacrity (it's predicating on noticing your opponent and predicting them) when you're flat-footed, so then the game breaks down into this awkward mess of "I don't know what the fuck I'm doing" and that's stupid. I'm not stupid, don't assume I'm stupid. Jesus.

See the thread about vices and virtues in NWoDare rpgs becoming more liberal for an explanation as to why habitual redefinition is bad.

I totally would except that's a page full of flames and I'm not going to dig through 7 pages of garbage to find some small amount of information related to this point.

I haven't made shit up. I may have inferred things you didn't intend, but that's your fault for not being more clear. Now... I can keep quoting you to show you that you did in fact say things, or we can make this fucking game and try to have a modicum of civil discussion, but you, at least, have to be slightly less of a reactionary asshat. Granted.. others do as well. But, given who some of those others are, and that I'm trying to be more reasonable...

OK, so basically you're going to take everything I said one step further with your expectations and then criticize me because you thought I said that thing you made up.

As opposed to you, you know, saying "I'm not actually sure what that means. If it means what I think it means, it's dumb." and implying that you're confused about the situations instead of you know more about my plans than I do. I have not elaborated fully in my statements, but that's OK because they were buzzword statements and if you explain those then they're not fucking buzzword statements anymore. Seriously, have you actually read the premise of this thread or did you just see Kaelik rageposting and decide it would be OK to ragepost something incoherent that way you could waste everybody's bandwidth?

Updated statements:

AC is lower relative to AB so hits come in more often, and scales with BAB
Mobs are easy to deal with and pose a threat to PCs without critfishing and all characters can deal with mooks effectively
Acting as the party tank is a viable strategy. You can reliably stop Team Monster from hitting the squishies for at least a turn.
The math still just works
Actions are streamlined and all players will have something more to do than just "Full attack".
Character's relative base combat abilities (like BAB) can greatly influence the fight without directly rolling the dice.

(For Prak and Kaelik) WARNING: THESE DO NOT INCLUDE MY ENTIRE THOUGHT PROCESS FROM START TO FINISH. DO NOT ASSUME THAT THIS IS THE WHOLE THOUGHT. FILLING THIS IN WITH IMAGINARY RULES OF YOUR OWN CAN END UP GIVING YOU EXPECTATIONS UNALIGNED WITH THE ACTUAL RULES TO BE WRITTEN. ALSO YOU'RE AN IDIOT.[/u][/i]

The Gaming Den

Den Next Design Challenge

Awkward Assumptions

Re: Awkward Assumptions

Heated Responses

Re: Heated Responses

Re: Heated Responses

Seriously, Guys...