In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[Hussar]

Paradoxically, using the logic of disassociation, criticals would be least disassociated coming from the inexperienced and most disassociated for high level, highly trained characters. A lucky shot that you can't control or explain is fairly common for beginners--and not infrequently the result of the beginner fighting someone who also doesn't much know what they are doing. Give two untrained, stupid 14 year-old boys broadswords, and let them go at it, and I can almost guarantee that you'll see a real-life critical before the police haul you away.

LOL. Sorry, no xp for you. Just that this one made me giggle.

 

[Hussar]

Yep



A critical hit is a hit that is extra good, basically, right? The in-game reasoning can definitely be learned, explored, or observed; the creature has a weak spot that you attacked. You do not have to be able to learn, explore, or observe how to do something in order for it to be associated. You must be able to learn, explore, or observe the reasoning of a mechanic in-game.

To that end, critical hits are definitely associated, as far as I can tell. And definitely abstract.



Hopefully, now you actually know my definition.
/snip

Hang on a second then. So, we don't need to actually be able to learn anything, so your whole tangent on the difference between EX and SU powers was what? A red herring? Since the ONLY distinction between EX and SU was that you could be TAUGHT EX powers and that was the only thing making EX powers not disassociated, doesn't most of your point fall apart?

Now, if the point of disassociation is whether or not we can explain how X happened in the game, then 99% of 4e powers are no longer disassociated. How does Come and Get It work? Well, the baddies decided to mob my fighter and I laid about me left and right.

Now, by this definition of disassociation, CAGI is totally associated. We can explore how it works in the game with virtually no problems.

Why didn't I use that Rogues Feinting power in this fight when I did last fight? Sorry, I tried, but the baddie just wasn't going for it.

There, no more disassociation.

So, which is it JamesonCourage? Is disassociation defined by the ability to learn how to perform a specific effect or simply whether or not we can justify how the effect worked?

 

[innerdude]

It's no part of my agenda to tell other people when they may or may not be being wedged, or become "dissociated" from the fiction. My agenda is simply to show that the mechanics that produce this result, for those people, do not have some inherent tendency to produce that result. And I am showing that by instancing counterexamples to any such alleged tendency.

And my view is that, with the notion of such a tendency refuted, the theory of "dissociated mechanics", as stated by The Alexandrian and defended in the title of this thread, is dead. All that's left is some stuff that was already well-known before Justin Alexander put finger to keyboard - namely, that some players have simulationist priorities in RPGing, and that some metagame mechanics can disrupt those priorities.

And why is there no wedge in the actual play example that I gave? Well, I was there, and I'm faithfully reporting it (obviously you have to trust me on that, if the example is to have any force for you). And it happened as I said. To recount, with just a little more mechanical detail:

The paladin was subject to an effect from a human transmuter (MV, I believe) - turned into a frog and therefore unable to attack or use powers until the end of the transmuter's next turn. The player of the paladin therefore missed a turn in the combat - he didn't want his frog-paladin to move - and muttered about not liking it very much while the rest of the table made jokes about not stepping on the frog as the other PCs moved in to confront the transmuter and her flunkies.

The transmuter's next turn duly ended, and the paladin was the next character in the turn sequence. I told the player of the paladin that his PC turned from a frog back to himself. The player then declared his action, which was to move into melee range with the transmuter. And he said, in character, something to the effect that the transmuter was now going to get it (while laying down a Divine Challenge as a minor action). The transmuter replied something along the lines of "I don't think so - after all, I turned you into a frog!". And without pausing, the player of the paladin responded (in character), "Ah - but the Raven Queen turned me back." And the paladin then proceeded to beat up the transmuter.​

This is, to my mind, a clear example of a player "inhabiting" his/her PC. There is in character dialogue. The player is thinking in terms of his PC - "I move here, I challenge her, I say this and that and the other, I attack her". The conviction in the power of the Raven Queen is stated by the PC and reflects the experience that the PC is undergoing in having transformed out of frog form back to tiefling form.

This example has marking - which we've been told by The Alexandrian, and by innderdude upthread, is dissociated. It's got a player treating an "end of next turn" duration as an opportunity to narrate his PC's god's miraculous intervention on the PC's behalf - as analysed by The Alexandrian, not only is this a dissociated mechanic, but it's pernicious houseruling being required to try and "reassociate" the mechanic. And innerdude, upthread, has described this sort of thing as overturning rationality and antecedent/consequence causation.

The example has all these allegededly roleplaying destroying, immersion destroying, wedge-driving mechanics and practices going on. And yet roleplaying has not been destroyed. The player has inhabited his PC the whole time. He is as immersed as I've even seen a player be immersed - the player in question, of all my players, is the one most inclined to what might be described as an immersive style of play - really trying to inhabit his PC and feel, and express via his play, his PC's emotional responses. And the anecdote I've recounted is an example of just this.

Again, to try and be crystal clear: I'm not saying that what I saw happen, at my table, with my player, is a universal template for how playing 4e will work out for others. But to refute the theory of dissociated mechanics I don't need to do that. All I need to do is show that the mechanics that are said, by that theory, to induce "dissociation" either of necessity, or by generalisation of tendency, in fact need not.

Whoah, whoah, whoah, there. I offered an olive branch upthread, when I finally came to realize the point of view you expressed. I don't particularly like the implications, nor would I want to ever play a 4e game with your group, but I at least understand it.

In spite of your declarations to the contrary, I think you are doing exactly what you say you aren't--equating your player's singular experience "where a Paladin became a frog and back" to some universal application that dissociation doesn't exist, that it's all in our heads.

This one experience doesn't nullify other wholly valid criticisms presented in the concept of dissociation (I know, I know, you say there aren't any, because it doesn't exist).

Do you not believe that there are mechanics that promote "immersiveness," and those that don't? Are all mechanics equally good or bad for promoting immersion, it's only a question of creating the right "narrative scene" and somehow getting the player and GM to find the right "association" to make it work?

The fact that the particular scenario you shared, that particular scene, allowed the player to create a valid, prescient association (in character, even) doesn't change the fact that in OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, with OTHER CHARACTERS, with OTHER situational factors, a dissociated mechanic can create circumstances that are implausible at best, and untenable at worst.

If you don't want to call it "dissociation," because you feel it has negative connotations, or because you think the Alexandrian's theory arose more out of spite than honest analysis, that's your prerogative. But it doesn't change the fact that those of us who WANT more "immersion" and less "dissociation" from our RPGs find value in the concept. In spite of your objections to the "attitude" or "tone" in which the original essay was presented, it provides value to some of us as a way to evaluate RPG mechanical structure.

You believe it doesn't exist. Fine. But telling us, "It doesn't exist, because I watched my player completely sidestep it IN ONE PARTICULAR INSTANCE" is just as much a fallacy as claiming that dissociative mechanics affect everyone equally. I have never, not once, in this thread claimed that the effects of dissociation are universal across groups or experience, but just because it isn't universal in all circumstances doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that no one finds value in the concept.

 

[Hussar]

At long last, I think I've finally come to understand what wrecan and pemerton are saying when they don't believe dissociative mechanics exist, or that even if they are "dissociative," there's no harm in it because it serves a narrative function.

The premise is based on the idea of situational narrative. In other words, any particular application/resolution of a 4e power should only be described, or "narrated," within the specific context in which it is invoked--i.e., the short-term situation surrounding the encounter in which it is used.

In this case, there is no need to "associate" the mechanic with any one particular flavor or end result, because the situation in which the mechanic is used may be completely different from encounter-to-encounter, allowing totally different narrative "flavor."

In one encounter, Trick Strike may mean the rogue found it "Fitting to use the rocky terrain" to get an opponent to move. In another encounter, Trick Strike may mean they used a piece of rope to feint the opponent and get in a strike. In another encounter, they may use the distraction of a wizard casting a spell to get in the right position.

I can see from a "narrativist" point of view how this could, in fact, feel freeing to a player or GM. It's no longer necessary to try and concoct encounters that plays to a party's strengths; you can simply assume there's always a narratively acceptable way for a given character "power" to work within the scene, and everyone gets to participate.

Fair enough and I'd say you've nailed it pretty much spot on.

However, I see several problems that go with this idea.

One, it can have the tendency to keep player focus more on the individual scenes, and less on the world as a whole (your mileage may vary, of course). Anyone who's ever complained that 4e doesn't provide as much "world building" opportunities isn't stating an objective truth, they're actually commenting on the mechanical elements that naturally push for scene-based resolution narrative. It's not that you CAN'T do world building in 4e, it's that the entire rules system is designed purely from a scene-based narrative resolution, rather than a holistic, "simulative" point of view.

Players don't world build. DM's world build. So, as far as the players are concerned, they don't really care.

And, wouldn't the fact that given effects are no longer tied to a single pre-defined explanation not actually give you MORE freedom to worldbuild? I mean, if all effects work in only one way, the mechanically defined one, then your worldbuilding must be informed by those mechanics. You cannot break out of those pre-definitions without rewriting the mechanics.

Second, making acceptable scene-based, "narrative" resolutions using these powers puts a significant onus on the players to create the narrative. If you're the type of player that naturally resists this tendency to begin with, it's certainly not going to aid your cause. I can see for groups that naturally "create" narrative, it's not an issue, and in some ways is even creatively fun, trying to make the associated connections. But if your group doesn't enjoy this, it creates big, big problems, likely leading to the widely recognized phenomenon of the 4e "battle slogfest." No descriptive narrative, just a play-out of the mechanics, in one encounter after another.

I would argue that forcing players to be more engaged at the table and to take be active participants, rather than passive consumers, is a feature, not a bug. If the players refuse to engage in narrative building, isn't that a failing of the players, not the system?

Or, perhaps a less charitable way of phrasing it might be - 3e players need to be spoonfed their narrative because they're incapable of creating their own?

I certainly wouldn't say that. I'd say that 3e players are every bit as creative as any other RPG players. Why not give them the opportunity to express that creativity?

Finally, somewhere along the way, no matter how good the GM, no matter how engaged the player, there's going to be instances that crop up where a narratively acceptable reason for some powers to work is simply not there--or at best, stretches the boundaries of credulity. No matter how hard one tries, there's going to be situations that dissociate the character from the construct. As many others have stated, it's not that ANY ONE instance of a power can't be "associated"--it's the fact that around every single turn, with every single character type, built into the core baseline of 4e, potential dissociations are there, just waiting to crop up.

There's a danger here of going a bit overboard though. Most powers and effects really aren't disassociated in any real meaningful way. Most are pretty easily visualized within the context of the scenario. Tide of Iron - hit the target and push it back one square so long as it's only one size larger than you or smaller - isn't likely to break anyone's immersion too easily.

And, even a cursory reading of the PHB shows that there are far more powers like Tide of Iron than like Come and Get It. It would be trivially easy for a group to have virtually no disassociated powers at any given level.

I'm guessing that pemerton and wrecan might respond, "Yes, this happens, but in our groups it happens so rarely that it doesn't pull us out of 'immersion,' and we simply play out the mechanical happening and keep moving, enjoying the other benefits of narrative resolution within the scene."

But if you're not the type of group/player/GM that enjoys this style of play, and doesn't want to have to engage with individual scene-based narrative at that level EVERY TIME YOU PLAY, then 4e is far and away NOT the right game. In fact, it's soooooooo far outside the line as to be untenable. In this case, every stinkin' little thing is going to be dissociative. You're really going to have a hard time feeling like you really are playing a character with any sense of rationality.

Play what you want to play, of course. But, again, don't make mountains out of mole hills. The number of truly problematic powers isn't anywhere near as great as all that. Most are perfectly easily justifiable. It might be beneficial to go back and actually look at the powers and think about which ones you would find problematic and see if they do, indeed constitute even a large minority of the available powers.

By the same token, I have to admit, Bards bug the crap out of me.

I think there's more to explore on the effects this has on long-term creation of "rational," "organic" world-building (namely that it makes it much, much harder), but at least on the scene/narrative level, I do think it makes sense. Don't think the effects/trade-offs are worth it, but it makes sense.

This only has an effect on world building if you insist on the idea that mechanics = the physics of the world. If, instead, you see mechanics as a tool for task resolution, then this problem vanishes.

Funnily enough, I've never seen anyone complain about having a difficult time world building in games like Spirit of the Century or HERO.

 

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by JamesonCourage View Post
sometimes meta mechanics help me fulfill my role, or stay immersed, as odd as that may seem. That's how I feel about "Luck Points" in my game (modeled after Hero Points). Even though they're definitely a meta mechanic, it tends not to pull me out of immersion (and I don't think it does to my players).

However, there are some meta mechanics that do that (subjectively) to certain players. This would be dissociated. With this term, I could theoretically say, "Luck Points are meta mechanics to me, but a barbarian's rage and a rogue's evasion are dissociated to me" and we have a nice, succinct term for separating the two.

Is it something new? No, it's basically "meta mechanics that draw me out of immersion." That's not a new concept. But I find the word is useful, in that sense, in the same way that something like the word "beautiful" is useful subjectively, yet allows you to communicate feeling or perception.

So, essentially, the diffence between meta-mechanics and disassociated mechanics is that you happen to like meta-mechanics but don't like disassociated ones. And the disassociated ones are disassociated simply because you don't like them.

Wouldn't it be a heck of a lot easier just to say, "I don't like this particular mechanic"?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Hang on a second then. So, we don't need to actually be able to learn anything, so your whole tangent on the difference between EX and SU powers was what? A red herring? Since the ONLY distinction between EX and SU was that you could be TAUGHT EX powers and that was the only thing making EX powers not disassociated, doesn't most of your point fall apart?

No, no, no. You can be taught some SU powers as well, I assume. The difference I noted was how it functions in an anti-magic field.

I should also note that I didn't bring them up. I think pemerton did, if I recall correctly, in a way that seemed to imply that EX abilities break the laws of nature, and are thus dissociated. I went into detail from there explaining why I didn't that was the case, as far as I can tell.

I didn't bring them up, nor did I make the distinction you're saying I did. My point is fine. Ask pemerton.

EDIT: I went back and grabbed the quote I think started it:

My point is that it's not enough for the game rules to stipulate that there is a method that can be learned, if the notion of such a method is contradictory or incoherent.

I would suggest that the notion, in D&D, of phasing my body as an EX rather than a SU ability, is an example of that sort of incoherence.

I then went on to explain that EX abilities are mainly divergent from SU abilities in the area of an anti-magic field, and that they aren't magic. I didn't make the claim you've said I made ("the ONLY distinction between EX and SU was that you could be TAUGHT EX powers").

Now, if the point of disassociation is whether or not we can explain how X happened in the game, then 99% of 4e powers are no longer disassociated. How does Come and Get It work? Well, the baddies decided to mob my fighter and I laid about me left and right.

Can the reasoning of the power be learned, explored, or observed in-game? Can we observe that the fighter caused the mobs to rush him, and how that happened? If not, than it fits the bill of dissociation that I've been discussing at length (which it seems you've been missing).

I think if you go back pages and reread my posts, and pemerton's replies to my posts, than it might be clear to you where I stand on things. As of now, you are not grasping (or are misrepresenting) what my point is.

Now, by this definition of disassociation, CAGI is totally associated. We can explore how it works in the game with virtually no problems.

Nope.

Why didn't I use that Rogues Feinting power in this fight when I did last fight? Sorry, I tried, but the baddie just wasn't going for it.

Again, nope.

There, no more disassociation.

Again, nope.

So, which is it JamesonCourage? Is disassociation defined by the ability to learn how to perform a specific effect or simply whether or not we can justify how the effect worked?

Neither. Go reread my posts again.

So, essentially, the diffence between meta-mechanics and disassociated mechanics is that you happen to like meta-mechanics but don't like disassociated ones.

It's not a matter of like or dislike. It's a matter of whether or not it pulls you out of immersion. If it does, it's dissociated. It can pull you out of immersion and you can still like it (as I believe pemerton does).

And the disassociated ones are disassociated simply because you don't like them.

Nope, you're not grasping it yet.

Wouldn't it be a heck of a lot easier just to say, "I don't like this particular mechanic"?

Not if I wanted to convey what I'm trying to say accurately.

As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

Yesway Jose, thanks for the reply.

if you want to prove that all/most swans are white, you need to show a whole lot of swans. Whereas, to prove that not all swans are white, you only need to show one black one.

Quite. I believe I've provided a couple of black swans upthread.

Perhaps the paladin and fencing examples went on too many tangents. Even with your new clarification, I don't see the disassociation of narrating the end of the enemy's effect on his PC, because the spell was going to end anyway and the Paladin can perceive that however he wants.

Well, at the level of mechanics, the spell was going to end anyway because that's what the rules say. But in the fiction, it doesn't follow that the spell would have ended but for the Raven Queen's intervention. The point of the player's narration is that (given that no one at the table contested it) it establishes that, in the fiction, it was the Raven Queen who turned the paladin from a frog back to a person.

So according to Justin Alexander, this is an example of a "dissociated" mechanic - because there is no reason for the mechanically dictated event to occur in the fiction other than that supplied ad hoc by the player (Alexander calls this houseruling).

And according to Alexander, a "dissociated" mechanic of this sort is bad because

it disengages the player from the role they're playing​

.

But in the example I gave, the so-called dissociated mechanic didn't disengage the player from the role he was playing at all. In fact, it gave him an opportunity to reinforce his engagement with the role he was playing.

That's one of my black swans.

I don't know that mechanics can have "inherent" tendency, and the game theory of the essay never interested me personally.

OK. Once you take the theory out of the essay, though, I'm not sure what's left other than that Justin Alexander doesn't like 4e.

I believe that certain mechanics do have some tendency to produce that result and for some reason I feel compelled to justify that. I don't know that it has been turning out well for either of us, as I'm not aware of anybody seriously changing positions on this thread

Well, as you've seen, my compulsion is the opposite of yours - ie I'm compelled to present the black swans that I've witnessed with my own eyes.

I've got no doubt that, when you play an RPG, certain mechanics have a tendency to make you disenage from the role you're playing. So you don't need to justify that to me.

But I'm not sure how far you're wanting to generalise your experience. Sometimes it seems you don't. But then sometimes it seems that you do, which is what triggers my compulsion to respond!

Maybe another thread

Well, the issue of 4e and roleplaying crops up pretty often on these boards, so this'll probably come true . . .

 

[pemerton]

While it's true that it is a meta mechanic, I don't find it dissociating because of a few reasons:
1) They're used quickly, so the focus on them is brief. They don't last long enough to pull you out of your role.
2) They have no discernible pattern. They are unlike dailies in this regard. You could go 10 days, 10 months, or 10 years without even gaining a Luck Point.
3) They help capture part of the essence of the fantasy genre while only enhancing already existing simulation-based mechanics.

Predictably enough, I'm going to compare this to my experiences with 4e.

I'm not sure "agree" is quite the right word - maybe I should say I have similar experiences - but anyway, I tend to agree with (1), partially agree with (3), and have the greatest difference from you, I think, in relation to (2).

(1) is generally true for 4e daily powers etc. Sometimes, though - like Come and Get It when the situation isn't obviously just deft polarm work - it's not always the case that they're quick. This can pull the participants out of their roles and into a discussion of what exactly is happening in the narrative. If this looks like it could be a problem, I as GM try to come up with a narration quickly - and if the players accept it then things keep moving along.

The first part of (3) I believe to be true of 4e powers. The second part is not true. But the powers, in my experience, do enhance or express the established ingame fictional reality. So they work to reinforce the shared fiction, although by a different means from that of reinforcing simulationist mechanics.

(2) is one of the obvious points of difference that's emerged in this thread. My play experience with 4e is that the pattern of daily use is not discernible in any meaningful way. Maybe it's the fact that our sessions are normally two to three weeks apart. Maybe it's the fact that we don't use the convention of one session = one day, which means that it's not just a case of each daily once per session.

The fact that there is an in-principle discernible pattern, which defies simulationist causation, is true, but not a problem for me. As in my partial overlap with (3), as long as the shared fiction is expressed and reinforced, it doesn't both me that this is happening via metagame mechanics that aren't just piggybacking on simulationist ones.

By the way, I take it from (3) that you don't allow Luck Points to be spent to produce narrative elements that aren't linked to a pre-existing action resolution event (so eg no spending a Luck Point to bring it about that your faithful servant smuggles a dagger to you in prison). If I'm right, this would make your Luck Points similar to HARP Fate Points and more constrained than OGL Conan Fate Points. (I can't remember whether Arcana Unearthed Hero Points can be used for "fiction tweaking" outside the context of enhancing a die roll.)

 

[pemerton]

It's not a matter of like or dislike. It's a matter of whether or not it pulls you out of immersion. If it does, it's dissociated. It can pull you out of immersion and you can still like it (as I believe pemerton does).

On this particular point I'm actually closer to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION].

I think that whether or not a given mechanic pulls a given player out of immersion will be relative to that player. So "dissociated" always carries with it an (implied or express) relativisation.

With at least a good number of the 4e mechanics which (I think) you find dissociated, I'm saying that they don't pull me (or my players) out of immersion. The paladin anecdote is one example, and I talk a bit about Come and Get It in my immediately prior post.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Predictably enough, I'm going to compare this to my experiences with 4e.

Go for it, I'm interested.

I'm not sure "agree" is quite the right word - maybe I should say I have similar experiences - but anyway, I tend to agree with (1), partially agree with (3), and have the greatest difference from you, I think, in relation to (2).

It's okay to "agree" with me sometimes (kidding, of course)

(1) is generally true for 4e daily powers etc. Sometimes, though - like Come and Get It when the situation isn't obviously just deft polarm work - it's not always the case that they're quick. This can pull the participants out of their roles and into a discussion of what exactly is happening in the narrative. If this looks like it could be a problem, I as GM try to come up with a narration quickly - and if the players accept it then things keep moving along.

The fact that you do this would make the game much more tolerable in my eyes. I think I could probably play in a game you ran and participate in the spirit of the social contract.

The first part of (3) I believe to be true of 4e powers. The second part is not true. But the powers, in my experience, do enhance or express the established ingame fictional reality. So they work to reinforce the shared fiction, although by a different means from that of reinforcing simulationist mechanics.

Right, I agree from what I've heard from those who play 4e (such as the reliable pemerton). This is just a matter of preference.

(2) is one of the obvious points of difference that's emerged in this thread. My play experience with 4e is that the pattern of daily use is not discernible in any meaningful way. Maybe it's the fact that our sessions are normally two to three weeks apart. Maybe it's the fact that we don't use the convention of one session = one day, which means that it's not just a case of each daily once per session.

Last session about 60 days past in-game, so I think I can relate there. I think it's a matter of "could the ability be observed theoretically" that throws me off. Knowing that it can be is somewhat discouraging to me, for whatever reason. It draws me out of immersion. It might go away after a few session, with regular use, or it might not.

The fact that there is an in-principle discernible pattern, which defies simulationist causation, is true, but not a problem for me. As in my partial overlap with (3), as long as the shared fiction is expressed and reinforced, it doesn't both me that this is happening via metagame mechanics that aren't just piggybacking on simulationist ones.

Right, and it's just an immersion issue for me. Again, just preference difference.

By the way, I take it from (3) that you don't allow Luck Points to be spent to produce narrative elements that aren't linked to a pre-existing action resolution event (so eg no spending a Luck Point to bring it about that your faithful servant smuggles a dagger to you in prison). If I'm right, this would make your Luck Points similar to HARP Fate Points and more constrained than OGL Conan Fate Points. (I can't remember whether Arcana Unearthed Hero Points can be used for "fiction tweaking" outside the context of enhancing a die roll.)

You are correct in how they're not used . They are merely used to modify the results of rolls. They do not allow new rolls, or allows you to say "this happens" in any way.

I do like and allow that type of mechanic with Hero Points in my Mutants and Masterminds 2e games, but those happen months apart, and are always one-shots. We don't play them to immerse, really. It's a different type of enjoyment, but it's now what my group is looking for in the long term.

As always, play what you like

On this particular point I'm actually closer to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] .

I think that whether or not a given mechanic pulls a given player out of immersion will be relative to that player. So "dissociated" always carries with it an (implied or express) relativisation.

With at least a good number of the 4e mechanics which (I think) you find dissociated, I'm saying that they don't pull me (or my players) out of immersion. The paladin anecdote is one example, and I talk a bit about Come and Get It in my immediately prior post.

I've said several times that it's subjective. I compared it to another subjective word ("beautiful) that is meant to communicate subjective perception of something. I said you can say "hit points are meta to me, but barbarians rages are dissociated" and someone can agree or disagree, just like I could say "that music is beautiful to me" and you can agree or disagree. It's the communication of a feeling or perception, not an absolute statement about how others feel or perceive it.

I thought this was clear from my earlier posts. As always, play what you like