Best way to start an "Adventure"

[Diogo Ribeiro]

This assumes that everyone who plays CRPG's are PnP or former PnP players. They are not.

 

Sorry, but you're the only one making that assumption. What I said is not in any way making any kind of assumption. You were the one that assumed that giving absloute character freedom to a player would be placing some form of burden on player's shoulders. All I did was point out that freedom is not a burden, unlike story-driven games, where you must comply with a larger, and usually stricter, set of rules.

 

If you somehow feel that what i wrote has anything to do with that answer, well, go you.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I hate Pre-Gens. I just can't get into a game's story with using a pre-gen. That was PS:T's biggest flaw and I think its rather stupid for developers to coninutally use the same flaw.

I dont hate them. I just see no point at all making choices for them.

As pre generated characters they should be perfectly capable of doing it themselves.

I dont mind helping out with combat and the other technical stuff.

But as Yuna put it in FFX-2, this is her story.The player was simply along for the ride as they would be if they read a book (damm fine book but not an RPG in the classical sense).

[Judge Hades]

The idea of ToEE's openings were a good idea, but poorly implemented as you say. In the bank scenerio I gave the players involved got themselves right in the mix of it. I was expecting them to keep their heads down, but the scrawny computer hacker snuck behind the head woman and wrestled her to the ground while the other (an off duty secret service agent) was trying to use that distraction to take out two more baddies.

 

Lets just say things got a bit messy when the necklace of missiles got used.

[Judge Hades]

I dont hate them. I just see no point at all making choices for them.

As pre generated characters they should be perfectly capable of doing it themselves.

I dont mind helping out with combat and the other technical stuff.

But as Yuna put it in FFX-2, this is her story.The player was simply along for the ride as they would be if they read a book (damm fine book but not an RPG in the classical sense).

I just find them terribly boring.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

All I did was point out that freedom is not a burden, unlike story-driven games, where you must comply with a larger, and usually stricter, set of rules.

 

If you somehow feel that what i wrote has anything to do with that answer, well, go you.

Along with that freedom comes work that the player has to do. Work is a burden.

 

In a story driven game you get a fully fleshed out character and a story written around them and you dont have to do anything in the least bit creative.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I'd say the problem in it is that they weren't as explored as they could've been. They were too simplistic and barely gave a reason to go along with it. They mostly felt bad, because you looked at some and realized that they didn't had necessarily anything to do with the alignment, as they could happen to an adventuring party of any alignment.

 

I'd find it more interesting if the vignettes were based on actions the party made before.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

The idea of ToEE's openings were a good idea, but poorly implemented as you say.  In the bank scenerio I gave the players involved got themselves right in the mix of it.  I was expecting them to keep their heads down, but the scrawny computer hacker snuck behind the head woman and wrestled her to the ground while the other (an off duty secret service agent)  was trying to use that distraction to take out two more baddies. 

 

Lets just say things got a bit messy when the necklace of missiles got used.

To me a series of opening scenes which gets all the characters to the same point (the start of the game) by different routes is the best compromise. It's the one I use in PnP all the time.

 

It's not exactly a new idea Wild Arms 3 did it ,rather better than TOEE I might add.

Four very different characters with four very different motivations but they all managed to arrive at the same place at the same time.

 

It's not total freedom. But then thats not realistic even in PnP. But it does give you some say in how your character gets to a certain place.

 

Ignoring for the moment that in KOTOR your a specific individual. How hard would it be to come up with some different ways of getting people to Taris and having some links to their particular prologue once they got there? Did you have to start BG in Candle Keep ? In a lot of cases you have to do a little suspension of disbelief if your playing a non human with that particular game.

 

Just one thing. How did a hacker and a necklace of missiles get into the same universe ?

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Along with that freedom comes work that the player has to do. Work is a burden.

Why, exactly? The player has to "work" in a more freeform environment as much as he'd have to work in a more strict one. The good thing about most RPGs, i remind you, is that they tend to give players the freedom to only input as much as they want, wheter the game is more or less freeform.

 

In a story driven game you get a fully fleshed out character and a story written around them and you dont have to do anything in the least bit creative.

 

Well, for starters, not having to do anything for your character automatically removes a great part of roleplaying, and its a no-go in terms of roleplaying. While I'm not going to get into what constitutes roleplaying with you (as it'd be as fruitless as trying to bring a cement wall down by using nothing more than headbutts), having the character development handled automatically is a mistake. Defining a character is always, or should always be, dependant of what the player decides.

 

Also, I don't quite understand why you'd believe that being creative would imply some extra hard work. Most of the time, defining your character in an electronic RPG is based on choices you make. Choices are a staple of the genre. And most often than not, choices help define a character. Now, either you're telling me that making choices is hard, or you're talking of some other way of character development which is incredibly hard. If it's the first, well, that's subjective. Making a choice that defines your character is no more harder than choosing in between dialogue options, paths to go or quests to take. If its the second, then I don't see many other ways. Care to divulge a few of those, optionally pointing out where and why they're hard?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Why, exactly? The player has to "work" in a more freeform environment as much as he'd have to work in a more strict one. The good thing about most RPGs, i remind you, is that they tend to give players the freedom to only input as much as they want, wheter the game is more or less freeform.

 

Well, for starters, not having to do anything for your character automatically removes a great part of roleplaying, and its a no-go in terms of roleplaying. While I'm not going to get into what constitutes roleplaying with you (as it'd be as fruitless as trying to bring a cement wall down by using nothing more than headbutts), having the character development handled automatically is a mistake. Defining a character is always, or should always be, dependant of what the player decides.

Your very wrong here. You can create very deep characters in IWD but they are your creations , which requires your effort.The same effort that designers put in when they create characters for games.If you dont think thats work, then I suggest you take it up with them.

The game (IWD) will never acknowledge your effort in the way a game that is written for a specific character will. Because it simply cant. There is an almost infinite number of possible characters and no game can allow for those possibilities.

Even in a game where you have a strong element tying any character to the story there will still be discrepencies for some character types. A 16 year old elf growing up in candlekeep for example.

 

In IWD you can be anything you want for a background. It really dosnt matter because the game will never and can never acknowledge it. Which makes creating backgrounds for your characters a labour of love. Or in my case something I do out of habbit.

 

On the other hand if you take PST. No character freedom whatsoever. You are the Nameless One. Regardless of what choices you make, how the story changes what class you choose to play. That character can never not be the Nameless one.Change the character and the whole game falls appart.

The advantage of that is that the game is fully aware of who you are. It can make relationships and past events based on that knowledge. The player dosnt have to do anything except read whats there and pick an option. Any option will do they are all written for that specific character anyway.

 

So if you say that not having to do anything for your character removes the roleplaying (although in the case of pre gens its not your character anyway) why do so many people hold up PST as the best RPG ever ?

 

Perhaps KOTOR is a better example. When you arrive on Taris you "own" your character. Then over the course of the game your character is overwritten by this new character. A lot of people think that Taris is pretty vanila but the reason is there is nothing there to tie you to the plot at that point beyond rescuing Bastila who you dont even know.

 

First you become a Jedi. Now I really didnt want to be a Jedi but I had no choice. Because the designers now have some control over you. IE they know you are a Jedi they can tailor events to that. Like meeting Juhari at the grove. This is possible because the game knows you will be a Jedi at that point. A non Jedi would have no interest in guiding her back to the light, or pushing her further along the path to darkness.

Her hero worship of you because unknown to you she remembers who you are. It's a bit more subtle than PST but less complete.

 

The best way to think of it is like this. Imagine trying to write a book when you have no control over what the characters might do. The more control you have the the better story you can write. But the more control you take the more the story is yours and not whatever characters the player has created for themselves.

[Gromnir]

"Defining a character is always, or should always be, dependant of what the player decides."

 

fair 'nuff.

 

now, here is your task:

 

write a compelling story with a protagonist who is not only the main character but is alternately a neutral/elven/female/druid or a chaotic evil/halfling/male/bard or a lawful good/dwarven/female/fighter. furthermore, you is not to place any demands on that protagonist to advance the story in a particular direction.

 

take your time

[Darque]

The game (IWD) will never acknowledge your effort in the way a game that is written for a specific character will. Because it simply cant. There is an almost infinite number of possible characters and no game can allow for those possibilities.

 

You need to elevate your thinking.

 

It can be done if desired, it just takes more work.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

You need to elevate your thinking.

 

It can be done if desired, it just takes more work.

Possibly Or wait for technology to evolve...

 

I dont see how it can be done though at least not from the examples of games that are already out there. You can plainly see where each one has made sacrifices in one area in order to strengthen another aspect of the game.

 

As Grommy said its really no use making comments about how this and that should be unless you can actually come up with some sort of implemtation.

 

But really how could you write something like PST without knowing who the main character is in advance ?

[Darque]

I fail to see how "technology" affects something that's most likely scripted

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Your very wrong here. You can create very deep characters in IWD but they are your creations , which requires your effort.The same effort that designers put in when they create characters for games.If you dont think thats work, then I suggest you take it up with them.

 

Er, creation != development, which was what was being talked about, if i recall. You mentioned how freedom placed a burden on players, though its still unclear on what grounds. Again, unless development is stunted because of abusive restrictions on what you can or can't do, freeform games aren't a burden. Its more of a burden to have your character develop automatically and against what you'd like to do with it, then it is to develop it as you want (within reason, o'course).

 

The game (IWD) will never acknowledge your effort in the way a game that is written for a specific character will. Because it simply cant.

Yes, that particular game can't. Doesn't mean there isn't a possibility to achieve this.

 

There is an almost infinite number of possible characters and no game can allow for those possibilities.

 

Multiple aspects of character creation must have different corresponding elements. Just because I am able to go trough 120 different character combos, doesn't mean I should have 120 different outcomes because of that.

 

On the other hand if you take PST. No character freedom whatsoever. You are the Nameless One. Regardless of what choices you make, how the story changes what class you choose to play.

If you're going by name and racial differences, true. But, no freedom? So, what do you call deciding what to explore? What to become, how to grow? How to solve problems?

 

That character can never not be the Nameless one.Change the character and the whole game falls appart.

 

Translation, please? You can never "not be" any other character aside the one you're predestined to be on a CRPG. How does this relate at all to PS:T?

 

So if you say that not having to do anything for your character removes the roleplaying (although in the case of pre gens its not your character anyway) why do so many people hold up PST as the best RPG ever ?

Could be because of what I said earlier. Despite its strict structure, you can develop the Nameless One as you see fit, within rules. Its not automated to the point of removing control and focus most of the times. Its possible to roleplay a premade character, who has to operate in a certain way within a story; however, how the character reaches the mandatory chokepoints is what matters, and can depend on the player. Fallout has chokepoints. How you reach them, however, is open to players' "work".

 

fair 'nuff.

 

now, here is your task:

 

write a compelling story with a protagonist who is not only the main character but is alternately a neutral/elven/female/druid or a chaotic evil/halfling/male/bard or a lawful good/dwarven/female/fighter. furthermore, you is not to place any demands on that protagonist to advance the story in a particular direction.

 

take your time

[Gromnir]

"I probably could, with the appropriate time invested into it, but then, not only is "compelling" subjective, but I honestly doubt you're speaking seriously, so excuse me if I also don't take the "homework" seriously."

 

no excuses... just do it.

 

"Regardless, what I wrote was about character development, which is possible of happening outside strict story-driven aspects. "

 

too bad you made remarks in direct response to sp comments 'bout story aspects... and unless you clarify much, what you is asking for has not really ever been done. complete freedom to define character and compelling story... ain't ever seen that.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[djkillingspree]

I think you can err too much in the direction of trying to make a comptuer RPG simulate the table-top experience. Until we have a dynamic story generation engine that is capable of generating a story comparable to what a human could author (which seems pretty unlikely to me), we're going to have to make do with giving players a defined starting location within the context of the world we're trying to create. Even a relatively open-ended game like Fallout firmly grounded the character within the role of a Vault Dweller. If you wanted to play a tribal, or a raider, you were out of luck. Ultimately, giving the PC a minimal background is a great way to tether the player both to his character and to the game world.

 

A good example of a game without any serious PC characterization would be Darklands. You could choose your class, the occupations your character had, and everything. Unfortunately, while Darklands is a great game, it probably wasn't feasible to implement in-game effects to your occupation choices, so ultimately your occupation/class choices have no effect beyond character creation. This doesn't really provide a satisfying way to ground the player within the game world, though Darklands made up for it by being a very fun game to play.

 

I don't even feel that it is desirable for a developer to abdicate the responsibility of creating a thorough backstory for the PC. Like I said before, ultiamtely giving the PC a motivation that the player can understand and empathize with (saving the vault in FO is a good example) will act to ground that player in the environment and help them empathize with their avatar. And, if our goal is to immerse the player within the game world, it is crucially important that they empathize with their avatar.

 

I honestly wonder what the problem with TNO is Torment was, in terms of what you wanted from the game. Clearly, if you want a completely freeform experience, you should look for a P&P game. PS:T allowed you to act with a pretty good degree of autonomy within the context of TNO's background. Also, it had the most dynamic and reactive alignment system of any of the IE games, which tended to be important as you were given a good degree of free reign over your characters decisions.

[Judge Hades]

Just one thing. How did a hacker and a necklace of missiles get into the same universe ?

Urban Arcana.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

no excuses... just do it.

 

Give me a reason why I should even bother. Its got nothing to do with what was being talked about, and is unrelated to the entire conversation, at least from my side.

 

too bad you made remarks in direct response to sp comments 'bout story aspects... and unless you clarify much, what you is asking for has not really ever been done. complete freedom to define character and compelling story... ain't ever seen that.

 

Too bad that for a change, i did clarify and people didn't understood. But hey, I'm getting used to it, so don't feel bad.

 

And if you've never seen character development being handled by players, i can only suggest you'd play more games.

[newc0253]

Clearly, if you want a completely freeform experience, you should look for a P&P game.

huh. freeform PnP is a nice idea but it rarely works out that way. the standard division of labour in PnP (the DM creates the world and the adventure, the players create the characters) means that there's typically very little use made of the PCs' backstories: the quality of the backstories varies wildly (e.g. farmboy with lust for adventure, parents killed by orcs, etc); and DMs prefer to push the story they have written.

 

conversely, where DMs do get involved in working PCs backstories into the campaign, then they tend to railroad players every bit as much as CRPGs do ("you can be anything as you like in this campaign, so long as it's either a human from the great kingdom named Thargos, a half-elven assassin from hyborea, or a gnome illusionist from the secret gnome city.")

 

let's face it - most PnP sessions don't actually involve that much roleplay anyway.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Yes, that particular game can't. Doesn't mean there isn't a possibility to achieve this.

 

Translation, please? You can never "not be" any other character aside the one you're predestined to be on a CRPG. How does this relate at all to PS:T?

No game have achieved this and until someone cares to point out how it can be done I dont think any game will with the current technology.

I notice your reluctant to say how. Which leads me to believe your clueless about how it could be done as well.

 

Ah see now we are on totally different pages here as to what a roleplaying game is. In BG you are destined to be a Child of Bhaal , nothing more than that. You can be Jack the Child of Bhaal , Jill the Child of Bhaal or Cob the mad axe murdering child of Bhaal.

Each of those characters will have a different background and a different outlook on life. When you play the game only some of the dialogue choices will fit the personality of each character. Which is what the whole concept of staying in character is all about.

 

In PST all the choices fit the character because all the choices were written for that character. You just pick whichever one you want. And thats not roleplaying because the choice is player driven not character driven. You can play PST by rolling a dice and your never not out of character for TNO (its not possible to be) but if you tried that in something like BG your character would act very out of character.

 

Characters dont just appear at the start of the game. They had lives and experiences before that too. Which is the whole point of having a background.

So you can draw on a characters past life experience to best judge how THEY (very imporatant that) would handle any given situation.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

huh. freeform PnP is a nice idea but it rarely works out that way. the standard division of labour in PnP (the DM creates the world and the adventure, the players create the characters) means that there's typically very little use made of the PCs' backstories: the quality of the backstories varies wildly (e.g. farmboy with lust for adventure, parents killed by orcs, etc); and DMs prefer to push the story they have written.

 

conversely, where DMs do get involved in working PCs backstories into the campaign, then they tend to railroad players every bit as much as CRPGs do ("you can be anything as you like in this campaign, so long as it's either a human from the great kingdom named Thargos, a half-elven assassin from hyborea, or a gnome illusionist from the secret gnome city.")

 

let's face it - most PnP sessions don't actually involve that much roleplay anyway.

Creating the world dosnt really preclude using character backgrounds. Unless your talking about those DM's who create the world down to the tiniest little detail and then sort of squeeze the player characters in ?

 

I suppose the thing a lot of DM's forget (new ones especially) is that if a character is 16 years old they have already had 16 years of life before the player "took over". The character should be a natural part of the world. It should know people and be known (at least locally) have a family, or some reason why it dosnt have have a family. Have friends and all those things that "normal" people have.

but equally you have players who want to be the son of a king , or daughter of a high mage (so daddy can give pressies) and so forth. Things that are generally to give the player an avantage. Imagine if BG was a PnP session and you could only have one Child of Bhaal. It wouldnt be very fair to the other players. So in PnP at least you need to have a somewhat level playing field (or agreement from all the players involved in the game).

 

Ideally character creation should be a compromise between DM and player if the player wants to be the son of a king. Then the DM may want him to be the son of a king in exile. The player may get some extra wealth, but not enough to disrupt the game. And the background is an absolute cornocopia for adventure possibilities which should get any DM's creative juices flowing.

 

The daughter of a high mage may well find out that daddy is one of those parents who wants her to "make it on her own" and chucks her out of the tower without a penny. How she deals with this shock to the system after being pampered for most of her life should make for an interesting character. She may end up resenting daddy and wanting to replace him. Daddy may well be spying on her and helping out unkown to her.

 

Well everyone has their own idea of what roleplaying is. When I was at university I roleplayed with my classmates and our roleplaying focussed almost entirely on the personalities of the characters and how events shaped them rather than looking for treasure without. They were looking for treasure within.

 

Where CRPGs "fail" is they cant predict anything about the character the player will create. Any family and friends your character has will have to be created by them.And that concept may well be completely alien to the sort of background the player has visualised. Which is why people complain about having to start in CandleKeep in BG.

 

In essense when you "arrive" in the game you are an unknown quantity. Actually Ultima got around that very cleverly by really making you an unknown. As a traveller from another world you really dont expect to know anyone , or have friends and family.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I fail to see how "technology" affects something that's most likely scripted 

That it has to be scripted is the root of the problem. It's one that a human DM never faces.

 

Here are two really easy examples.

 

Dialogue. Now in a CRPG all the characters will get the same dialogue options be they dwarf or dark elf (excepting the odd "racail/class dialogues).

 

Obviously people from different cultures dont talk in the same way. You only have to listen to the voice samples for the characters to see that.

 

Morrowind actually solved this problem. By giving you goals for your dialogue rather than dialogue itself. You could pretty much "imagine" your characters speech. But again this is something you as the player has to do for the character rather than dialogue being written by the designers in advance.

 

Another one which you see now games are being voiced more and more is the characters name. In KOTOR no one could actually call me by my chosen name. Because they (Bioware) didnt know what it would be when they wrote the game. On the other hand everyone could call me Lord Revan because the designers knew all along thats who I really was.

 

If you play FFX-2 Yuna never calls Tidus by name (because in X you could rename him). She always refers to him as well, him. Clever if you think about it because it avoids the whole but my character wasnt called XXXX that you sometimes get in sequels. BG for example if you never Multiclassed Imoen.

 

To account for every possible outcome would require more scripting that you could possibly imagine. Which is why the technology needs to move away from scripting to solve the problem. With regards to voice overs that one may never have a solution until a computer can speak like a human B)

 

Even on the simpleist level of refering to a character by the name given to it how many voice samples do you think that would require?

Of course you could give the player a choice of first and last names, but again thats a limit placed on the freedom of character creation.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Each of those characters will have a different background and a different outlook on life. When you play the game only some of the dialogue choices will fit the personality of each character. Which is what the whole concept of staying in character is all about.

This is untrue. No character will have a different background. Every one of them will be an orfan, brought to Candlekeep by Gorion at an early age (the only difference in background will be who your mother was and where she came from, and that is handled automatically also, based on gender and race). There is no such thing as a different background in BG games. Sure, you can type it, but typing something you made up is useless given the game still overrides that and goes with its own enforcement of predetermined background.

 

In PST all the choices fit the character because all the choices were written for that character. You just pick whichever one you want.

 

How different from BG!!!

 

And thats not roleplaying because the choice is player driven not character driven.

I think the worst part with this line of thought is that not only is it poor, its also not the first time you try to use this. It didn't work back at the IPLY forums, and it won't work again.

 

For one, you claim that all the choices in PS:T fit the character, but then claim choice is not character driven, but player driven. Guess what? Every choice you're given in a CRPG is character-driven, as its being formulated based on your character. Its only player-driven in the context of you choosing it yourself.

 

You can play PST by rolling a dice and your never not out of character for TNO (its not possible to be) but if you tried that in something like BG your character would act very out of character.

 

And second, that dice-rolling concept is as inane as they come, and useless to the whole point. It is possible of doing that wheter in BG or PS:T, and guess what? You can "act out of character" by just choosing wrong and/or weird options, but never to the point of acting out of your predetermined character. All choices fit the characters in both games because they were made to do so.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

This is untrue. No character will have a different background. Every one of them will be an orfan, brought to Candlekeep by Gorion at an early age (the only difference in background will be who your mother was and where she came from, and that is handled automatically also, based on gender and race). There is no such thing as a different background in BG games. Sure, you can type it, but typing something you made up is useless given the game still overrides that and goes with its own enforcement of predetermined background.

 

How different from BG!!!

 

I think the worst part with this line of thought is that not only is it poor, its also not the first time you try to use this. It didn't work back at the IPLY forums, and it won't work again.

 

For one, you claim that all the choices in PS:T fit the character, but then claim choice is not character driven, but player driven. Guess what? Every choice you're given in a CRPG is character-driven, as its being formulated based on your character. Its only player-driven in the context of you choosing it yourself.

 

And second, that dice-rolling concept is as inane as they come, and useless to the whole point. It is possible of doing that wheter in BG or PS:T, and guess what? You can "act out of character" by just choosing wrong and/or weird options, but never to the point of acting out of your predetermined character. All choices fit the characters in both games because they were made to do so.

In BG thats the case which I already pointed out even growing up in the same place though the characters you create can have different experiences just as people who grow up in the same neighbourhood and the same family can.

Enviroment is not the only determining factor of who you turn out to be.

 

Its very different from BG because its all done for you. If you cant get your head around why then thats too bad if your not a PnP player it wouldnt suprise me in the slightest anyway.

 

If your making the choices for the character based on your own wants then your not roleplaying. Thats all there is to it. Creating a "talky" character for the express purpose of talking your way through a game is not roleplaying. It's simply a different form of powergaming.

 

Of course its player driven. Thats why they removed the characters memory

 

Oh yes you most certainly can.

The underdark in BGII I was creeping around there as a drow for ages and it felt wrong. I wasnt enjoying the game in the slightest. The reason was it just wasnt in character. My Cavalier was champing at the bit at having to hide his identity.

In the end I gave in dropped the disguise and had one of the most epic battles ever. Hiding his identity was clearly not an option that was applicable to my character. Even though after seeing what was there and coming to the conclusion it was probably a battle I couldnt win at the time it was the option that I as the player wanted to take.

 

It's kind of funny that you were the one preaching for character freedom isnt it ? When PST dosnt have any at all.

[Gromnir]

no excuses... just do it.

 

Give me a reason why I should even bother. Its got nothing to do with what was being talked about, and is unrelated to the entire conversation, at least from my side.

 

too bad you made remarks in direct response to sp comments 'bout story aspects... and unless you clarify much, what you is asking for has not really ever been done. complete freedom to define character and compelling story... ain't ever seen that.

Too bad that for a change, i did clarify and people didn't understood. But hey, I'm getting used to it, so don't feel bad.

 

And if you've never seen character development being handled by players, i can only suggest you'd play more games.

why should you do it? why, because you said it were not hard. so do it.

 

you is acting as if the tendency of developers to make characters with more defined backgrounds is an issue separate from story... and they is not. must ask why a developer would give more limited character development to a player.

 

write compelling story for a character that can be anything.

 

you is back to complaining that you is misunderstood... and you is not. you just don't understand the issue. makes others have to work twice as hard if they wish to keep discussing with you.

 

HA! Good Fun!