Player Control, OR "How the game has changed over the years, and why I don't like it"

[chaochou]

Okay, what was being responded to, here, was that I said "I am convinced that you can only do one of the "core foci" really well at any one time". It might be worth my explaining a bit more what I mean by that and why I think it.

... lots of good stuff....

I must spread some XP around before repping that post, so if anyone can cover me, would be appreciated

 

[Bleys Icefalcon]

This is a very difficult issue for me to chime in on

As I find myself drawn into comparing the versions/editions of our game. In fact TO discuss this topic in it's fullest, I almost see no way to NOT compare editions...

First off, I must have some time on my hands, as I read not only the OP, but all of the replies. I even took th time to draft a lengthy reply earlier in the week, but the computer I was at had timed out, and about an hour's worth of writing was lost. This said, I feel strongly enough to try and share my opinion and insights (again) - hopefully it works this time around.

Player Control vice DM control is a touchy issue. For me - as a player - the one thing I have always enjoyed the most about DnD was not knowing everything. I really get a kick out of facing monsters and situations I didn't have experience in dealing with yet. So, naturally, for me, I don't necesarily want to know every possible rule, every possible exploit, every possible power gaming trick. I don't really want, nor have I ever been interested in having that "perfect character" with the most powerful ever combination of feats, skills, classes - etc. Why am I playing this game if all I want is an endless debate with my DM about rules, and my character is so rediculously powerful that (as the OP posted) he can lock down a Demigod with no, let me rephrase NO chance of said demigod doing anything to get out of it. This reminds me of the old old days - good old fashioned 1st Edition - and our ancient characters, in some cases ten plus 'real' years old. We had grown so insanely powerful, so rediculously uber, that our DM had been reduced to utilize Dieties and Demigods for our random encounters. And yes, we'd find Loki (not some avatar of him, but He - Himself) and we'd promptly open a can of whoop-ass on him. The rules were clear. We had the abilities and powers, and hell, we ALL had quite a few more levels, hit points and special abilities than any of the dieties listed in that book. Needless to say it got boring, real fast.

How this relates to this discussion? The DM works hard long and meticulously in creating a fun, interesting and challenging adventure for our Epic 4th Edition characters - only to find that the very Rules themselves take away virtually any threat of mortality to the PCs. In fact, those same rules literally dicate that it's the role of the DM to ensure the success of the players and their characters.

To the OP - sounds like you're not playing the right Edition. I submit it's not the DMs role to ensure the success of the players and their characters - it's the responsibility primarily of the players. Yes, it would be irresponsible of the DM to put a few challenge rating 20 monsters in front of the player's brand new 1st level characters, that's not what I am saying - what I am saying is it should not be the role of the DM to coddle our players, to hold their hands, hug them and tell them bedtimes stories - instead, he's there to challenge them, and to instil an element of mystery. 4th doesn't let you do that. In 4th, he's a simple referee. Yes he can tell a story, but he is tightly bound by the rules to make everyone a super-hero. What's the fun in that? What's the challenge?

Our group played 2nd Edition Rules for several years, and eventually everyone started just knowing the various monsters. Their weaknesses, strengths, abilities - everything. So I changed them. Orcs started having classes, and not topping off at 3rd/4th level. Oozes abilities began to change with the region and climate they were found in, and tons upon tons of new monster and threats were added into the game. I found that at least in our group's taste, they despised a lack of challenge, and hated "knowing" everything. The game got boring fast.

Now tying the hands of DMs might be a good idea, as I will be the first to admit, there are alot of them that simply suck at it. Many are egomaniacal dictators that live in a cave, with a sign at the entrance says My Way or the Highway. I get that, I've played with them. I didn't like it either. But I have also played with some pretty miraculous storytellers, that didn't always stick to the rules, and we for the most as players didn't care; as we were having the time of our gaming lives. Of course we'd have a few rules lawyers throwing a hissy over one thing or another - and our DM would adjudicate. And that's where most of the heat seems to lay in this long, long thread.

Many of you don't want the DM to be able to adjudicate. If it's a rule, and by god even if the rule makes no damn sense at all, we're going to stick to it. Ahem... while yes it is a fantasy game, let's have a few checks and balances. In our campaign we have a house rule we wrote that adds Parry on top of Armor Class. We had a situation come up where a Melnibonean Mist Giant swung a two ton mattock at a dwarven warrior, and critted said warrior. Now, our house rule is Parry. Only that. Not dodge. Not twist aside at the last possible moment. Not get lucky and stumble to the left or right. Not feinting. No, our Dwarf raised his Silvered Battle Axe and Knocked the Mattock aside. This Mattock should have sundured the blade of that axe. Should have splintered the haft of it. Every bone in both of the dwarf's arms should have shattered, the tendons, muscles and ligaments shredded. Our dwarf should have been a wet, sticky, crunchy dead mound of bone, metal and flesh. Instead he performed the impossible. Not the unlikely. Not the fantastic and improbable. The impossible. The DM ajudicated an ammendment there and then - that a blow or object that should be unparryable - is just that, at DMO (Dungeon Master's Option), something generally missing from 4th.

4th is dumbed down to allow all of us to DM. The DMs powers and abilities are weakened, and we find ourselves role playing our way through a board game. For some people that's awesome. Especially the World of Warcraft players. What's the penatly if we die in WoW? What's that? a Little (and I do mean LITTLE) inconvenience? IMO we have a game now that coddles the players and simply doesn't challenge them, not really. I for one want to know that I had to work my butt off to win an Epic battle. I want, no need to be surprised, and yes, I also want a little pee to leak out because I am a bit skeered. I certainly don't want to dictate to my DM how ineffectual and limp his super powerful monsters are. If there's no challenge, no risk in it for me? I am not even remotely interested in playing.

 

[Thasmodious]

...instead, he's there to challenge them, and to instil an element of mystery. 4th doesn't let you do that.

In 4th, he's a simple referee...

...everyone a super-hero.

...at DMO (Dungeon Master's Option), something generally missing from 4th.

4th is dumbed down...

...board game...

Especially the World of Warcraft players...

2008 EnWorld called, it would like its posts back.

Seriously? The game's been out three years now, at least try and learn an actual thing or two about the game before trotting out the same tired, and untrue, cliches.

 

[TheUltramark]

again, we are life long early edition players just starting out in 4e (we are 3rd level) but we are all having a blast. My second night with the pencil last night and it went great, my first time running a combat encounter, went real smooth, one player went off by himself, he was the only one to be seriously injured, it was fast enough paced, only a few times were the players caught unaware (ya know "hey Joe, it's your turn" joe: "Oh?, crap, let me see here.....") I only forgot to do one thing with my monsters, and it turned out for the better really.

I know everyone says it gets sucky at the higher levels, but for right now, we are lovin it!

 

[Lanefan]

I know everyone says it gets sucky at the higher levels, but for right now, we are lovin it!

Suggestion: slow down your level advancement rate RIGHT NOW. That way, it'll take that much longer to get to the alleged sucky bits...

Lanefan

 

[FireLance]

Bleys Icefalcon's post sparked off a few thoughts, but let me just get the following out of the way first:

The DM works hard long and meticulously in creating a fun, interesting and challenging adventure for our Epic 4th Edition characters - only to find that the very Rules themselves take away virtually any threat of mortality to the PCs. In fact, those same rules literally dicate that it's the role of the DM to ensure the success of the players and their characters.

...

what I am saying is it should not be the role of the DM to coddle our players, to hold their hands, hug them and tell them bedtimes stories - instead, he's there to challenge them, and to instil an element of mystery. 4th doesn't let you do that. In 4th, he's a simple referee. Yes he can tell a story, but he is tightly bound by the rules to make everyone a super-hero.

...

The DM ajudicated an ammendment there and then - that a blow or object that should be unparryable - is just that, at DMO (Dungeon Master's Option), something generally missing from 4th.

4th is dumbed down to allow all of us to DM. The DMs powers and abilities are weakened, and we find ourselves role playing our way through a board game.

These are the parts that I generally disagree with. In many cases (IMO), the problem is not with the rules, but with the DM. Yes, you can play 4E as a board game. Yes, you can run a game in which there is no mystery. Yes, you can run a game that isn't very challenging for the players. But this is neither a problem that can be blamed on the 4E rules (with some caveats; see below), or a problem that is unique to 4E, based on your own example of boring fights with the gods in 1E.

That said, many people believe that the epic-level monsters that were released in the early days of 4E were not challenging enough for high-level characters. Monster design has improved since then, and the more recent epic-level monsters are considered to be more challenging.

In fact, those same rules literally dicate that it's the role of the DM to ensure the success of the players and their characters.

I think this is a misrepresentation of the advice in the DMG. It's been a while since I read the book, so I can't quote chapter and verse, but the general impression I get is that DMs are advised to present the players with winnable challenges. I think too many people focus on the winnable part and forget that they should also be challenges. Making them too easy is just as bad as making them too hard.

instead, he's there to challenge them, and to instil an element of mystery

This I agree with, but I would add that unfamiliar monsters and unknown monster abilities are not the only source of mystery in a game. NPC motivations, historical events and ancient secrets are other ways to add mystery into a game that do not require the DM to change monster statistics.

IMO, making changes to monsters is also something that should be done in moderation, changing enough to keep encounters interesting while maintaining a sense of consistency. If the PCs have fought similar monsters in the past, they should have a reasonably good idea of what to expect. Otherwise, it really does start looking (at least to me) like a board game.

Many of you don't want the DM to be able to adjudicate. If it's a rule, and by god even if the rule makes no damn sense at all, we're going to stick to it. Ahem... while yes it is a fantasy game, let's have a few checks and balances. In our campaign we have a house rule we wrote that adds Parry on top of Armor Class. We had a situation come up where a Melnibonean Mist Giant swung a two ton mattock at a dwarven warrior, and critted said warrior. Now, our house rule is Parry. Only that. Not dodge. Not twist aside at the last possible moment. Not get lucky and stumble to the left or right. Not feinting. No, our Dwarf raised his Silvered Battle Axe and Knocked the Mattock aside. This Mattock should have sundured the blade of that axe. Should have splintered the haft of it. Every bone in both of the dwarf's arms should have shattered, the tendons, muscles and ligaments shredded. Our dwarf should have been a wet, sticky, crunchy dead mound of bone, metal and flesh. Instead he performed the impossible. Not the unlikely. Not the fantastic and improbable. The impossible. The DM ajudicated an ammendment there and then - that a blow or object that should be unparryable - is just that, at DMO (Dungeon Master's Option), something generally missing from 4th.

This part made me appreciate the elegant simplicity of AC. Because AC is composed of many factors - parrying, dodging, armor, etc., a miss can be flavored in whatever way is most plausible. If it makes no sense for a dwarf to be able to parry a giant's attack, then the giant's miss means that the dwarf dodged the blow instead. In fact, I'm starting to think that subsystems in which cause and effect are more tightly linked are actually inferior to those which present the DM and the players with more narrative flexibility.

 

[Dannager]

As I find myself drawn into comparing the versions/editions of our game. In fact TO discuss this topic in it's fullest, I almost see no way to NOT compare editions...

That's kind of a shame.

Player Control vice DM control is a touchy issue. For me - as a player - the one thing I have always enjoyed the most about DnD was not knowing everything. I really get a kick out of facing monsters and situations I didn't have experience in dealing with yet. So, naturally, for me, I don't necesarily want to know every possible rule, every possible exploit, every possible power gaming trick. I don't really want, nor have I ever been interested in having that "perfect character" with the most powerful ever combination of feats, skills, classes - etc. Why am I playing this game if all I want is an endless debate with my DM about rules, and my character is so rediculously powerful that (as the OP posted) he can lock down a Demigod with no, let me rephrase NO chance of said demigod doing anything to get out of it. This reminds me of the old old days - good old fashioned 1st Edition - and our ancient characters, in some cases ten plus 'real' years old. We had grown so insanely powerful, so rediculously uber, that our DM had been reduced to utilize Dieties and Demigods for our random encounters. And yes, we'd find Loki (not some avatar of him, but He - Himself) and we'd promptly open a can of whoop-ass on him. The rules were clear. We had the abilities and powers, and hell, we ALL had quite a few more levels, hit points and special abilities than any of the dieties listed in that book. Needless to say it got boring, real fast.

An interesting comparison. Thankfully, 4e stays exciting over all 30 levels.

How this relates to this discussion? The DM works hard long and meticulously in creating a fun, interesting and challenging adventure for our Epic 4th Edition characters - only to find that the very Rules themselves take away virtually any threat of mortality to the PCs.

If this were true, 4e characters would not die. In my extensive experience both playing and running 4e, PC deaths can and do happen, and not infrequently either. Smart players tend to have characters survive longer, and players who are not as on top of things tend to have characters die more often. Just like in every edition.

In fact, those same rules literally dicate that it's the role of the DM to ensure the success of the players and their characters.

Yes. The role of the DM is to facilitate the game for the players. If the DM orchestrates a situation by which the PCs all die, the game is (arguably) over and must begin again. There is almost no narrative or hedonistic upside to killing off all the PCs, and the upsides of their continued survival and progress are significant and many.

To the OP - sounds like you're not playing the right Edition. I submit it's not the DMs role to ensure the success of the players and their characters - it's the responsibility primarily of the players.

That responsibility is not exclusive. It is shared between the DM and the players.

Yes, it would be irresponsible of the DM to put a few challenge rating 20 monsters in front of the player's brand new 1st level characters, that's not what I am saying - what I am saying is it should not be the role of the DM to coddle our players, to hold their hands, hug them and tell them bedtimes stories - instead, he's there to challenge them, and to instil an element of mystery.

You can challenge your players and you can instill a sense of mystery in them without any real threat of the game coming to an abrupt, disappointing end. As in any edition of D&D, the point is to create a plausible illusion of mortal danger whereby the players experience the thrill of being put in harm's way without jeopardizing the game.

4th doesn't let you do that.

Yes, it does. What I think you meant to say here is something along the lines of "I don't know how to make my game work like that." You don't speak for the entire edition, and you certainly don't speak for the countless DMs running 4e games featuring the very suspense, thrills and mystery you claim are impossible.

In 4th, he's a simple referee.

This is false. The DM, in 4e, is storyteller, encounter designer, group arbitrator, referee, motivator, and game facilitator. You will not be taken seriously claiming otherwise.

Yes he can tell a story, but he is tightly bound by the rules to make everyone a super-hero.

No, he's not. The DM can houserule however he would like, just like in any other edition of the game. Or any game, period, for that matter.

What's the fun in that?

I can't possibly imagine what the fun could be in pretending to be awesome for a few hours a week. Why would anyone want to have a good time in their shared escapist fantasy world?

What's the challenge?

Just like in every other edition, the challenge is crafted by the DM to entice the players to play their characters well. And, just like in every other edition, a DM who casually allows a total party kill to take place is probably doing harm to his game.

Our group played 2nd Edition Rules for several years, and eventually everyone started just knowing the various monsters. Their weaknesses, strengths, abilities - everything. So I changed them. Orcs started having classes, and not topping off at 3rd/4th level. Oozes abilities began to change with the region and climate they were found in, and tons upon tons of new monster and threats were added into the game. I found that at least in our group's taste, they despised a lack of challenge, and hated "knowing" everything. The game got boring fast.

Cool. I'm glad you agree that the ability to easily modify monsters is an important tool for DMs to have. Isn't it awesome that 4e makes this easier than any other edition of the game ever has?

Many of you don't want the DM to be able to adjudicate.

Really? I haven't seen that anywhere.

If it's a rule, and by god even if the rule makes no damn sense at all, we're going to stick to it.

You have failed to understand the opposing argument. We don't believe that nonsensical rules should be followed. We believe, however, that just because the DM is unable or unwilling to come up with a plausible mental image of a particular event doesn't mean that the DM should feel that it's his right to deny his players something that they want, and is allowed in the rules. I can totally imagine how an ooze could be affected by the prone condition. If you, as DM, cannot imagine it, that's not my problem. When one person has the rules and an imagination on his side, and the other merely has a lack of imagination, there is precious little reason that the decision should be in favor of the one without the imagination.

Ahem... while yes it is a fantasy game, let's have a few checks and balances.

We have them. They're called rules. What you want is different. You want carte blanche to overrule the actual rules and your players' desires on the fly in order to bring the game more in-line with your personal desires. That is the issue being discussed here.

In our campaign we have a house rule we wrote that adds Parry on top of Armor Class. We had a situation come up where a Melnibonean Mist Giant swung a two ton mattock at a dwarven warrior, and critted said warrior. Now, our house rule is Parry. Only that. Not dodge. Not twist aside at the last possible moment. Not get lucky and stumble to the left or right. Not feinting. No, our Dwarf raised his Silvered Battle Axe and Knocked the Mattock aside. This Mattock should have sundured the blade of that axe. Should have splintered the haft of it. Every bone in both of the dwarf's arms should have shattered, the tendons, muscles and ligaments shredded. Our dwarf should have been a wet, sticky, crunchy dead mound of bone, metal and flesh. Instead he performed the impossible. Not the unlikely. Not the fantastic and improbable. The impossible. The DM ajudicated an ammendment there and then - that a blow or object that should be unparryable - is just that, at DMO (Dungeon Master's Option), something generally missing from 4th.

Right. Your dwarf went in with the expectation that the world and the rules worked a certain way, and the DM threw that out the window because he couldn't find a way to mentally reconcile the narrative with the rules. Of course, I can certainly imagine a fantasy movie scene where a giant swings a massive two-ton club at a dwarf, and the dwarf manages to angle the trajectory of the club ever so slightly upwards such that it passes barely over the top of his (admittedly low to the ground) head. And perhaps the player running the dwarf you're talking about could imagine exactly the same thing. You're talking about pitting two mental narratives against one another, and calling the one without the rules on its side the winner.

4th is dumbed down to allow all of us to DM.

Dumbed down? Hardly. This is the sort of thing I hear from people talking about newer video games. Touch any overly complicated sacred cow for the sake of streamlining and focusing on the exciting gameplay, and a tiny but incredibly vocal minority of players starts screaming "IT'S DUMBED DOWN!"

4e provides clear guidelines and effective tools for running a game that make it easy to DM without investing huge amounts of time. You can call it dumbed down if you want, but to anyone actually running 4e games effectively, it just sounds like bitter whining.

The DMs powers and abilities are weakened,

Nonsense. DC by level charts alone have made the DM more agile and responsive than he's ever been.

and we find ourselves role playing our way through a board game.

Oh look. Someone calling D&D a board game because they haven't figured out how to run an enjoyable game of 4e. It must be Tuesday.

For some people that's awesome. Especially the World of Warcraft players. What's the penatly if we die in WoW? What's that? a Little (and I do mean LITTLE) inconvenience?

What does that have to do with 4e? Are you saying that all that's required of a 4e character when he dies is a 30 second corpse run? Because that's what it looks like you're saying, and that's wrong.

IMO we have a game now that coddles the players and simply doesn't challenge them, not really.

4e challenges players just as much as every other edition of the game. No more, no less.

I for one want to know that I had to work my butt off to win an Epic battle. I want, no need to be surprised, and yes, I also want a little pee to leak out because I am a bit skeered. I certainly don't want to dictate to my DM how ineffectual and limp his super powerful monsters are. If there's no challenge, no risk in it for me? I am not even remotely interested in playing.

I played 3e for years. I played 2e for years. In both editions I played in games where I had to explain to the DM how ineffectual and limp his super powerful monsters were. And, occasionally, I had the same explained to me as my own monsters were steamrolled.

On Sunday, when I ran my 4e game, my players were terrified of the gnoll archers they were up against. Were their characters in any danger of a TPK? Nah, the NPCs they'd told to wait outside would have conveniently shown up to rescue them if it looked like they would be wiped out. Did the players have any idea that was the case? None whatsoever.

The problems you're pointing out are DM problems, not problems with the game. You keep saying "4e does this," or "4e says you can't do that," and yet you have all these people telling you that it works exactly the way you want it to work. It's time to consider a different explanation.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

Significantly inconvenienced, heh, I like that. The point is that you're (theultramark) getting way to hung up on a single word and not imagining that the word could apply in a more broader sense. It does. The word prone is defined by the dictionary in a certain manner. In 4e D&D it is defined explicitly as granting combat advantage, getting a bonus to AC against ranged attacks, and taking a -2 to attack rolls.

Aye, there's the rub.

The fundamental problem that we are facing is that the game designers have attached a series of mechanical effects to a condition or status applied to a creature in the game, the condition or status to which they have attached a label which is misleading in a reasonable number of cases.

In my long and varied legal career, I have been a professional legislative drafter. This is the reason that I hold the very firm view that the consistency and integrity of the D&D 4E rules - and every other incarnation of the D&D rules - is an illusion that one set of gamers desperately clings to. It is also why I find these sort of semantic discussions deeply amusing. If I had developed a legislative scheme with so little coherence and consistency as the D&D ruleset, I would have been sacked. A word to WotC - if you want to establish a robust ruleset, hire some legislative drafters.

Two fundamental principles of rules drafting:

1. Do not define a word that is unnecessary to define. If the plain and ordinary meaning of a word, when read in the context in which it appears, is clear and unambiguous, it does not need to be specifically defined.

2. If you have to define a word, then how it is defined must not be inconsistent with the word's plain and ordinary meaning.

So... if I were to say to you, in normal conversation, "I had to chase a snake out of my back garden yesterday. Lucky I was able to pick it up and throw it prone before it bit me", you'd think my use of the word "prone" was a bit unusual. Because, well, knocking a snake prone is not something that one can do, in the ordinary sense of the word "prone".

While I think the "prone" condition in D&D 4E is merely a bunch of mechical effects given a label, that label causes confusion and the sorts of debates we see here, because it does not accord with our instinctive understanding of what the label means.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[Thasmodious]

Aye, there's the rub.

Nay, here's the rub - D&D is not a legal contract or a piece of legislation that will later be used in court proceedings. It's a game played a bunch of cheeto-eating dudes to escape from their mundane lives pouring over legal contracts and such. On a message board we can have a 30 page discussion about knocking a snake prone, around the game table it just isn't an issue. A group deals with the corner case however the group normally deals with the corner case and moves on. In many cases, that involves applying the listed modifiers to the snakes status and continuing to the next players action without any hesitation, because its a game and knocking a snake prone is not difficult to imagine as this thread has demonstrated a dozen times over.

One of the design goals of 4e was not to fall into the trap of the corner case legalese. "Well, there are some things that the word prone doesn't seem to fit as well, so we have to build in a bunch of special exceptions and use extra small print so they will still fit on power cards..."

Corner cases fly by when the system isn't built around adjudicating them so the books must be consulted to see if it covers the 1 in 30 sessions oddity the group is currently facing.

While I disagree with the way ultramark says he'd handle it, it would still fly by at the table without an hour long nuanced, semantic discussion. It's just ultimately not a big deal around the table, so no, D&D would absolutely not benefit by bringing in expert legalese craftsmen to "shore up" the rules of the GAME so there could be no misunderstanding in a court of law.

Today on The Gamer's Court...

 

[Lanefan]

Nay, here's the rub - D&D is not a legal contract or a piece of legislation that will later be used in court proceedings. It's a game played a bunch of cheeto-eating dudes to escape from their mundane lives pouring over legal contracts and such. On a message board we can have a 30 page discussion about knocking a snake prone, around the game table it just isn't an issue. A group deals with the corner case however the group normally deals with the corner case and moves on.

Which, for an experienced group and-or a group familiar with on-the-fly rulings, makes perfect sense.

However, there's many groups and DMs out there who see the rules as the game, the whole game, and nothing but the game.* And for them, when a corner case arises - which it inevitably will, and different every time - the first reaction is to reach for a rulebook to sort things out with the full expectation that it can, and will. But if the rulebook is unclear in wording, intent, or specifics then it isn't much help.

* - disclaimer: I don't personally subscribe to this point of view; in fact, I see it as rather shortsighted. But I know it's out there, both from my own experience and from what I've read here on occasion.

One of the design goals of 4e was not to fall into the trap of the corner case legalese. "Well, there are some things that the word prone doesn't seem to fit as well, so we have to build in a bunch of special exceptions and use extra small print so they will still fit on power cards..."

In which case, why not just find a better word - or invent one - and use that instead. Askew is one possibility - my 4e-fu isn't good enough to come up with the full 4e wording of what the condition means, but it would be much the same as for prone but with this change:

- remove reference to falling down, replace with "a creature askew falls prone if it can and must spend an action getting up, otherwise it is disoriented and must spend an action finding its bearings."

This way there's no arguments about oozes being knocked prone, nor about someone already prone being knocked prone, etc.

Now, if I can dream that up in two minutes surely a professional designer who knows what they're doing can come up with a better one.

D&D would absolutely not benefit by bringing in expert legalese craftsmen to "shore up" the rules of the GAME so there could be no misunderstanding in a court of law.

I'm worried about the court of the game table, which is sometimes much less forgiving.

Lan-"could this thread please be subtitled 'attack of the prones'"-efan