tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post9094152075422338724..comments2024-03-18T20:22:06.331-04:00Comments on GROGNARDIA: Old School ≠ Rules LightJames Maliszewskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-77691334235856671702010-09-15T04:01:53.320-04:002010-09-15T04:01:53.320-04:00There's often a connection, yes, but it's ...<i>There's often a connection, yes, but it's not an absolute one. I think EPT and RQ are both unambiguously old school games, as is Stormbringer, which is even a licensed property.</i><br /><br />The thing with <i>Runequest</i> is that most people's early campaigns, even if they were set in Glorantha (or more probably at the time, Prax), were all subtly different. And as <i>Questworld</i> shows, there was no absolute requirement to set the game <i>in</i> Glorantha. In fact the ability to take the basic skeleton of <i>Runequest</i> (ie what later became known as <i>Basic Role-Playing</i>) and reskin it effectively for different campaigns, such as the aforementioned <i>Stormbringer</i>, <i>Elfquest</i>, <i>Ringworld</i>, and even <i>Call of Cthulhu</i>, shows that it did not rely on an actual campaign for it to work.<br /><br />[In point of fact the nature of the "official" campaign changed over time as well. I mean, for example, take a look at the evolution of non-humans as a prime example. Early <i>Runequest</i> elves and trolls were quite different (given the Luise Perrin illustrations included in the rule book) from later 2nd Edition texts.]<br /><br />I hold that <i>Empire of the Petal Throne</i> was initially a re-skinning of D&D. Or at least, that was how we all treated it. Which is why there were many different official rule sets for Tekumel-based games, simply because <i>EPT</i> didn't truly support the nature of Professor Barker's official campaign, and so there were repeated attempts to construct a New School game system to support play in Tekumel <i>as envisaged by the designer</i>.<br /><br />In counter-point, take <i>Vampire: The Whatever</i> as an example of a New School game. While it may have a game system (ie the <i>Storyteller</i> system) that is common to various other games, that system is designed to encourage play in a certain manner (although the actual manner has changed between the various editions), making each and every game of <i>Vampire</i> rather similar in nature.<br /><br />Later editions of <i>D&D</i> followed this idea as well, as it slowly integrated campaign considerations into the rules system and presentation. By the time it reached the 4th edition it had achieved a complete cosmology that was the basis of how powers, abilities and monsters were defined as occurring. You were no longer using the rules to run <i>your</i> campaign, but setting your game in their campaign world.<br /><br />And this is what the Old School Rennaisance is rediscovering. The ability to create your own campaign worlds using your favourite system, that does not hew to an established official campaign world. And that means that each implementation of a rule set (even if it goes by the same name), is going to be slightly different. Which is a good thing. Monocultures are boring and inherently at risk of dying out.Reverance Pavanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01217657347160811310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-49209057124342120182010-09-15T02:26:40.772-04:002010-09-15T02:26:40.772-04:00I agree that old school isn't equatable to a p...I agree that old school isn't equatable to a paucity of rules. In the case of the LBB, I think all those involved had so much personal background with taking a set of rules (in their case, mostly Napoleonic wargaming) and applying layer upon layer of alteration and customisation, that they would innately expect this to happen with OD&D.<br /><br />The original February '74 product had a lot in common with the wargames they were familiar with, including its intentional(I feel) semi-skeletal, modular quality. There are several quotes within the books that encourage the reader to adapt and add, for example the passage dealing with whether or not to mail questions to TSR.<br /><br />This very quality engendered what I view as the real magic and mystique of D&D. In the 70s, talk of D&D was similar to talk about foreign films or suburban key parties. An arcane world, known only by a select few, only a small corner of which you were allowed to glimpse. Not only did it spark imagination, but burning curiosity! If all D&D games had been alike, this wouldn't have been the case. But they weren't, they varied widely, and its true nature was hard to nail down. The unknowable is infinitely mysterious.<br /><br />The problem then, for an author who was a perfectionist, came when some of the modifications went too far. One quote I remember from a Dragon of that time talked about a letter from a level 70-something Balrog who complained of boredom with the game. Such things weren't just adaptation or innovation, they were perversion of the essential intent. I think this, even more than tournament standardisation, is what led to explicit inclusion of extensive rules, rather than their assumed existence.migellitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17106614212764056058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-33024400511869532672010-09-14T21:02:47.665-04:002010-09-14T21:02:47.665-04:00The biggest problem is that "old-school"...The biggest problem is that "old-school" is a word that doesn't have a clearly defined meaning. At its heart it is really a community of gamers trading ideas on the internet. Not all of those gamers agree on all points.<br /><br />I know the kids at my local university gaming club call my Planescape-based Pathfinder game "old-school" because I base it a lot on older 2nd ed material. I think it comes down to "generations". BX Blackrazor talked about gamers being influenced by what game they started playing with. For most gamers "old-school" is whatever they first began gaming with. I started with AD&D, but quickly moved to Palladium Fantasy because I liked having a skill system. When each gamer looks back at "old-school", they see something different.<br /><br />I think the OSR is best when people are talking about interesting things to do/change/add/modify their game and not arguing about what if something is "old-school" or not. Not that I'm saying you are arguing, you do an excellent job of stating what is important to you in an "old-school" game. <br /><br />I certainly like modular games, and my true "old-school" love is classic Traveller.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11286544022662495363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-64239184120274072822010-09-14T19:18:32.202-04:002010-09-14T19:18:32.202-04:00I too like Alexander’s comparison to law, but I th...I too like Alexander’s comparison to law, but I think there still needs to be a distinction between starting rules light and adding rules as you go versus staying rules light. In true rules light play, the GM considers each situation freshly. Precedence doesn’t have a lot of sway. The GM strives to make the best judgement in the present regardless of what might have happened in the past.<br /><br />Whether that is “old school” or not is left up to the reader to judge.<br /><br />fauxcrye: “But, how do you handle flavor changes to your campaign?”<br /><br /><i>shrug</i> This is a group activity. Not everyone in the group can get exactly their way all the time. Compromises have to be made and lessons learned. Nobody can make the call for your group over whether the GM’s or player’s vision should reign here except your own group. And it may be a different call each time it comes up.<br /><br />In my group, it would be up to the current GM. Either he is willing to make his game flexible to fit in the player’s preference, or he isn’t and the player realizes he should play something other than a caster in that particular campaign.<br /><br />Or perhaps you can come up with a way to get the flavor you want by a means other than casting checks.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16733274876782876659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-12271663032542840352010-09-14T18:19:58.026-04:002010-09-14T18:19:58.026-04:00On the note of creating rules for your own campaig...On the note of creating rules for your own campaigns. I know it is easy to create agreement in cases where you are trying to resolve a situation that has come up through play. <br /><br />But, how do you handle flavor changes to your campaign? I recently had to abandon a simple set of rules for spell checks that was supposed to add a more magic is rare and painful aspect to the campaign. I had one person take a caster and I eventually just dropped it after about 12 sessions due the look of defeat on his face constantly. We are talking about a very small chance of failure in most instances (but increased by being in areas with more Chaos for Divine or Law if you were Arcane caster) that could be still cast by using hit points or delaying the spell. When it comes to custom rules that challenge what a player wants to be, in this case a caster, against what you want to world to feel like. The rules had other modifications like taking mutations to increase your chance of casting arcane spells, acquiring certain objects, or using multi-classing to balance out your usefulness in certain situations. I imagined a world where no one dabbled to far into magic. I even added some perks if he rolled real good to give him a more sense of risk vs reward. But, he just couldn't get past the fact he had to roll to cast a spell. <br /><br />These rules were put forth before session one of the campaign and I happily adjusted them with game play as they were play tested. But, there was an obvious disconnect in our expectations of what made the game interesting. And I wonder how much of it was a difference in what we were referencing in our heads was fantasy. I grew up on Howard and Leiber. He grew up with TSR books from the 80's and 90's.<br /><br />When pushed this brand of gamer can be forced to see past their frustration to the fun of the challenge. Or eventually start to see the why the world works the way it does if you dress everything carefully. But it can be a hard sell.fauxcryehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13772555578908486849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-37232089176541710952010-09-14T18:18:57.998-04:002010-09-14T18:18:57.998-04:00A Paladin in Citadel quoted, and commented:
"...A Paladin in Citadel quoted, and commented:<br /><br />"'Back in the day, we were always negotiating stuff with the DM --- which I think was part of the fun -- there might have been a rule for it somewhere, but we seldom stopped to look that up. So if someone wanted to push a bugbear off a cliff, the DM might say, "I'll give you a 50% chance to succeed..." and the player might say, "Well, I have an 17 strength and I got a running start..." and the DM might counter, "I'll give you plus 15% for your strength, but since you are running at him, the bugbear is going to try to dodge to the side --- if you fail to hit him, you might hurl YOURSELF off the cliff..." and so on. The entire game was a series of negotiations.<br />These days there always seems to be something we have to look up... I think the rules have changed, but the RPG mind set (at least in my circle) has also changed.'<br /><br />Now that's old-school."<br /><br />The 3E game I'm currently running works in a pretty similar fashion--it's always been the best way for me to run games, and even though 3E has its Serious Skills System, how situations play out is pretty heavily modified by roleplaying, negotiation and interpretation of things between me (as judge) and the players.Taketoshihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17876641059472816784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-29268428387227489772010-09-14T18:16:17.529-04:002010-09-14T18:16:17.529-04:00I like the comparison to Call of Cthulu. The syst...I like the comparison to Call of Cthulu. The system is one of the few that progressed through the years virtually unchanged in two important ways. The rules are almost identical to the early versions. And also player expectations have not changed at all in that time period. A player who creates a CoC character understands what they are getting into and realize that part of the fun is how far they can get before death or madness take their toll.<br /><br />Oddly this game also shows that a core mechanic doesn't exactly mean you are not old school. I have always seen CoC as being very easy to learn and use since it uses a very basic system of central mechanics. <br /><br />Since it's mechanics are simple it is easy to adjust them to your own whim or flavor. You can easily see the cause and effect on other aspects of the game to maintain balance or unity. I vividly mixing the original Elric and CoC together to create some nasty dark fantasy back in the day.<br /><br />I also like the points about Common/Statutory law made above. As I have mentioned I run a 4e game since my players would cross the street to avoid a save vs death roll. And often exposed to the not so subtle world of "this is how the rules say this will happen". And scratch my head I had to home rule old school antics like flaming flasks of oil. Cruising forums of late for the new Essentials much needed change to acquiring magic items. I found many folks on those forums aghast at the changes. Calling it a return of "Gygax DM vs the players" school of thought. This made me giggle and also thankful my players have been fine with my tweaks to the system that removed a lot of that entitlement or the 4e mechanics of "I just roll my way out of a situation". This isn't anything new. Oddly I find the above statement a bit difficult to take serious. Since basically it implies that the DM is not working with the players to create the game. Their enjoyment instead seems to stem from controlling the world on their own terms. And any randomness or flavor that prevents that from happening is unfair to them. Even putting a challenge in front of them that will acquire the object they desire seems to frustrate them. Nor, do they consider the fact that putting some items in the game may take the fun out playing some of the other characters and even lowers the DM's satisfaction. I am not sure how to put in words what that expectation is, though I have a good grasp on what it is I dislike about it.fauxcryehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13772555578908486849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-5708839305859922052010-09-14T18:03:54.721-04:002010-09-14T18:03:54.721-04:00btw, my comment is not intended as a slight agains...<i>btw, my comment is not intended as a slight against any of the supplements that James is incorporating in his game.</i><br /><br>No need to worry. :)James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-49715280688434097082010-09-14T18:03:23.948-04:002010-09-14T18:03:23.948-04:00As such, I think that it IS a mindset and any role...<i>As such, I think that it IS a mindset and any roleplaying game can indeed be played in the Old School style.</i><br /><br>I suppose it's possible, but don't the rules of certain games make it hard to run them in an old school fashion? I mean, could you run a collaboration-heavy, narrative game old school style? I'm inclined to say no, but maybe I'm missing something.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-73817013762058521492010-09-14T18:01:10.044-04:002010-09-14T18:01:10.044-04:00Cole,
Lots of good points there. I am largely in ...Cole,<br /><br />Lots of good points there. I am largely in agreement.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-74643981850831050332010-09-14T18:00:37.232-04:002010-09-14T18:00:37.232-04:00I like the idea of the 1974 D&D boxed set as m...<i>I like the idea of the 1974 D&D boxed set as merely a starting point for each referee's own game/campaign. In that light, Supplement I: GREYHAWK is Gary's spin on D&D. EPT is Barker's spin on D&D. The Arduin Grimoire is David Hargrave's spin on D&D. Supplement V: CARCOSA is a spin on D&D by myself. Etc.</i><br /><br>I like this approach too, though it's hard to say if this really was the logic behind these Supplements/Games.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-56015628687997943922010-09-14T17:59:22.134-04:002010-09-14T17:59:22.134-04:00Sounds like you're doing what EGG did James, n...<i>Sounds like you're doing what EGG did James, not bad company to be in.</i><br /><br>Early Gygax perhaps, but I don't think I have the right perspective to ever contemplate producing something like <i>Unearthed Arcana</i>.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-65651127227152506622010-09-14T17:57:47.690-04:002010-09-14T17:57:47.690-04:00Perhaps my law school background has colored my th...<i>Perhaps my law school background has colored my thinking on this matter, but I don't view games as "rules light" or "rules heavy". I view them as "common law" or "statutory".</i><br /><br>Heh, I like this! There's definitely something to this distinction.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-63363035821515033692010-09-14T17:57:01.173-04:002010-09-14T17:57:01.173-04:00I think that, for me at least, Old School games ar...<i>I think that, for me at least, Old School games are the ones that don't have an established campaign supporting them.</i><br /><br>There's often a connection, yes, but it's not an absolute one. I think EPT and RQ are both unambiguously old school games, as is <i>Stormbringer</i>, which is even a licensed property.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-20030864897161067542010-09-14T17:50:25.834-04:002010-09-14T17:50:25.834-04:00I wasn't born until 1982, so I really didn'...I wasn't born until 1982, so I really didn't get to play the "old-school" games as they came out; actually, I didn't start playing DnD until 1993...with the "Classic" Dungeons and Dragons game then with 2e. "Old-School" to me means two things: anything pre-3e and games that are more "open" than their newer incarnations. By "open," I mean the rules-lite system that many people talk about...a system that supplies the basic skeletal structure and allows me to add the muscles and flesh as I see fit.<br /><br />So, honestly, I think "old-school" is both a historical divider and a "rules mindset."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12563806398221625146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-29249302663023666672010-09-14T17:32:24.647-04:002010-09-14T17:32:24.647-04:00btw, my comment is not intended as a slight agains...btw, my comment is not intended as a slight against any of the supplements that James is incorporating in his game. my sense is that people producing "old school" supplements today or doing so with a sincere interest in making better and better games.Brian (brian_cooper at hotmail d o t com)https://www.blogger.com/profile/02805168206752602148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-77654284238862497902010-09-14T17:20:17.587-04:002010-09-14T17:20:17.587-04:00part of my problem with "rules heavy" is...part of my problem with "rules heavy" is that it seems like a cynical marketing trick. whenever the biz "introduces" (sells) a new book of rules, those rules' chance of being adopted depends on whether players see some way to work something to their advantage. rules creep and power creep go hand-in-hand.Brian (brian_cooper at hotmail d o t com)https://www.blogger.com/profile/02805168206752602148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-79488132693439559282010-09-14T17:18:43.436-04:002010-09-14T17:18:43.436-04:00One core concept of Old School is that the rules a...One core concept of Old School is that the rules are baseline generalized assumptions which the DM modifies to fit specific circumstances in his/her campaign as they arise. <br /><br />As such, I think that it IS a mindset and any roleplaying game can indeed be played in the Old School style. Whether the game designer intended that or not is a different (and largely unimportant) question.<br /><br />The number of rules and/or subsystems is irrelevant to the style of play.Nagorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04934827653905274555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-84527258112059101842010-09-14T17:14:07.253-04:002010-09-14T17:14:07.253-04:00James:
"Mostly because the game hasn't si...James:<br />"Mostly because the game hasn't significantly changed in nearly 30 years. I can use stuff written for the first edition in 1981 with the latest version available now without having to do much beyond swap APP for CHA."<br /><br />Well yeah, that was my point... >:)<br /><br />I guess one could argue that say "Savage Worlds" is "New School" and "Daredevils" (which I bought new last year) is "Old School", but I don't see much point. The OSR is all about D&D. It's producing some fine non-D&D-genre games, but D&D is very much the wellspring.<br /><br />And more importantly, understanding the differences between the editions of D&D is important to understanding what you want out of D&D. I can't think of any other game where edition differences are anything like as significant.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173759805310975320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-34738462367356031792010-09-14T17:08:16.300-04:002010-09-14T17:08:16.300-04:00I just feel that "Old School" and "...I just feel that "Old School" and "Rules Light" are two sets that partially overlap. I enjoy the advantages of a "lighter" game mostly insofar as it cuts down on the logistics I have to include in preparation as GM, how long I have to spend on any one combat, and how many counterintuitive particulars I have to keep track of.<br /><br />So if I'm the referee, RQ is probably too much of a pain in my ass if I have to dot my i's and cross my t's on how NPCs are built. But I wouldn't mind PLAYING RQ at all. <br /><br />I'm just plain not going to run AD&D as written. But if I'm a player, it won't make much difference to me. To a large degree, I my players could be PLAYING AD&D while I was RUNNING OD&D or Moldvay or Mentzer and it would scarcely even come up.<br /><br />I'm not a lazy person, but I would rather put my preparation effort into more numerous or more detailed locations than into the stats of what's there. I'm not going to fudge statistics, just keep them to the likes of <br /><br />"Undead Salt Miner : AC6, 3HD, 12 HP, Damage 2d4+Pain (-2 to rolls). Vulnerable to water."<br /><br />Or "Goblin. AC6, HD 1-1, 4HP, ML7."<br /><br />I don't need to note movement, since putting them in the adventure to begin with, I know they're both at 60. I don't need to note that the Undead doesn't check morale. I'm going to use common sense on what vulnerability to water entails. (I figure a flask of plain water is as good as holy water, holy water does double, if it falls in a river it probably dies. But I don't think I'm "cheating" not to have evidence of that on the books.<br /><br />I think "Rules Light" and "Old School" overlap pretty well when the "Lightness" is a feature of <br />convenience and avoiding unneccessary rules. When "rules light" is its own agenda, it's less likely to be old school, and may well be "too damn light." :)<br /><br />T&T is a great game in part because it's about as light as you can get while still having the game firmly "objective." If I'm a DM, I want to be honest, fair, and work within what the rules lead players to expect in unforseen situations. I just don't want to do extensive bookkeeping to "prove" I'm doing so.Welcome to Dungeon!https://www.blogger.com/profile/14346914156633328775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-28288414256495151832010-09-14T16:50:13.253-04:002010-09-14T16:50:13.253-04:00I like the idea of the 1974 D&D boxed set as m...I like the idea of the 1974 D&D boxed set as merely a starting point for each referee's own game/campaign. In that light, Supplement I: GREYHAWK is Gary's spin on D&D. EPT is Barker's spin on D&D. The Arduin Grimoire is David Hargrave's spin on D&D. Supplement V: CARCOSA is a spin on D&D by myself. Etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-59369874792351392042010-09-14T16:36:22.994-04:002010-09-14T16:36:22.994-04:00Maybe there was a good reason stuff got added to O...Maybe there was a good reason stuff got added to OD&D in the first place? <br /><br />Sounds like you're doing what EGG did James, not bad company to be in.<br /><br />That said, I *do* believe that there was something uniquely wild and wooly about the AD&D era.Vigilancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12302020918798504358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-50146380818233831652010-09-14T16:32:10.369-04:002010-09-14T16:32:10.369-04:00“If ‘old school’ is merely an attitude or mindset,...“If ‘old school’ is merely an attitude or mindset, then any game can be ‘old school,’ a conclusion that, on the face of it, strikes me as absurd.”<br /><br />Well, like any term there are subtle differences depending upon the context. Just because there is a “old school” mindset that can be applied to any game (with various levels of success), that doesn’t mean that a game can’t be designed with (or without) “old school” principles in mind.<br /><br />Here’s an attempt at an analogy: You can say a certain guitar is a “shred guitar”. It will likely be some form of “super strat” with a locking whammy bar and certain other features. That does not, however, prevent Joe Satriani from “shredding” on virtually any electric guitar you put in his hands.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16733274876782876659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-52670413629050290002010-09-14T15:46:38.752-04:002010-09-14T15:46:38.752-04:00The benefit of statutory games is that you are not...<i>The benefit of statutory games is that you are not reliant on the rulings of a Judge.</i><br /><br />If only it worked that way in the courts around here. :)Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00155926145150934199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-47413915165573720882010-09-14T15:44:20.321-04:002010-09-14T15:44:20.321-04:00Perhaps my law school background has colored my th...Perhaps my law school background has colored my thinking on this matter, but I don't view games as "rules light" or "rules heavy". I view them as "common law" or "statutory".<br /><br />A "common law" game is one in which only the basic principles are given, and then it is up to the GM to elaborate those principles into the law of his campaign over time. However, a good GM does not run such a game by whim; he acts like a judge, following his own past precedents. Over time, the game ceases being rules light, because it has accumulated a campaign's worth of rulings, house rules, and interpretations. <br /><br />In contrast, a "statutory game" is one in which all facets of gameplay are spelled out by the game designers. Questions that arise during gameplay are solved by re-reading the text and determining what they say, and ambiguities are resolved by trying to understand the intent of the writers. <br /><br />The benefits of common law games are that they end up being customized to the experiences of their particular set of players. But they rely on having a good Judge (in the literal sense of the world) to issue good rulings, and keep track of his "case law". A bad Judge can screw things up with bad rulings, unbalanced decisions, and so on.<br /><br />The benefit of statutory games is that you are not reliant on the rulings of a Judge. The drawback is that the games are more complex to understand up front, and may have just as many problems as a common law game, but be harder to fix.Restitutor Orbishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05625086532637410710noreply@blogger.com