So, I just picked up Uncharted Worlds. I really, really wanted to like this game, but it’s left me a little flat.

58 thoughts on “So, I just picked up Uncharted Worlds. I really, really wanted to like this game, but it’s left me a little flat.”

1. “Personally, I prefer a system where there are small chunks of back and forth narration, punctuated by rolls”

   This sounds more like 5E than an AW-type game. Or am I misunderstanding?

2. It seems to me that AW games can vary greatly on how they deal with combat. Some games (Monsterhearts and AW itself, if I remember correctly) don’t really have combat, per se. Others, like Dungeon World, have a more traditional combat system.

   I’ve recently read through both Monster of the Week and Urban Shadows, and they would probably be my favorite combat systems for AW-inspired games so far.

3. Good to know! I’m looking forward to the print edition of UW. Reading the PDF was good but not great – I’m old enough to prefer killing a tree or two for a decent RPG core book 🙂 I was drawn to UW because of the PbtA system. I really like the idea of a more narrative SciFi setting and it was the first one I saw that wasn’t FATE-based (for some reason I just can’t wrap my head around FATE or FUDGE). Have you found any narrative-based SF game systems that you like?

4. The terms for this is usually: task resolution when rolling for discrete tasks, and conflict resolution when rolling for entire conflicts.

   Parley, in Dungeon World, is conflict resolution for social combat. Physical combat uses task resolution. It’s really up to the flavor of the game to use each. Maybe UW as designed isn’t intended to be combat focused, so combat is resolved quick.

5. I’ve been playing mostly Fate games for the past few years–so I’m afraid most of my recommendations would be Fate-based.

   I’m currently reading Firefly. It looks like a narratively-driven system. Of course it’s closely tied to that particular setting.

6. Aaron Griffin, I’d quibble a bit, since those terms represent the issue as a binary (either task or conflict), when there are actually a lot of shades in between the two, or aspects that aren’t captured by those definitions.

   For example, I don’t want a combat system where you roll for each individual cut, thrust, or riposte. I don’t want to have to track ammo or move in 5′ increments. 

   Also, “task” sounds like it focuses on the unit of work. e.g. Climbing 10′ up a wall is a single task. Want to climb a 30′ wall, you need to make three rolls. Which is definitely not what I want.

   Also, I would like to be able to control the pacing of a conflict by determining how much time will be spent resolving it. Taking out a group of mooks–that should only take one or two rolls. Fighting a duel to the death with your nemesis, that should take a while to resolve.

   So it’s more like simple conflicts (requiring one roll) vs. complex conflicts (requiring 2+ rolls).

7. Rich Warren You can quibble if you wish, but the terms are generally accepted and widely used in the rpg design community and are shared lingo among many successful game designers.

   Task resolution does not tell you what a task entails (your game system does). Task resolution tells you how it resolves. When you resolve a task, the stakes are that the task occurs or does not occur. There may be complications, success with a cost, or any other nuance, but the result of task resolution is to answer the question “did this specific event occur?”. Did I hit the goblin, did I climb the wall, etc

   When you resolve a conflict, the stakes are unique for the conflict and generally declared up front. The result of conflict resolution is “did I get what I wanted” not “did I get it in the WAY I wanted”.

   By way of example: I want to get out of a cave, and am trapped by three goblins.

   * I can use task resolution to terrify or attack or haggle with the goblins to get me out. How many rolls this is is up to the game system. In a PbtA game I could Go Agro or Hack and Slash until the goblins are dead or have fled.

   * I can use conflict resolution to simply “get out of the cave”. How many rolls this is is also up to the game system, but it resolves the entire thing. Systems of this nature will generally narrate consequences based on the success level of the roll, but the final goal of a success to “get out of the cave” is always that you get out of the cave (even if you’re missing your foot, or something).

   I actually only have an old copy of UW, but in that, Open Fire and Launch Assault uses Conflict Resolution.

8. The combat works on one roll per threat, right? A squad of mooks is going to be 1 roll. Elites might be a threat per actor. I suppose you could consider something to be a two stage threat without much difficulty. Peripheral dangers of face adversity to get into range or to maneuver or contend with other hazards. Plus a 7-9 allows the GM to introduce additional threats.

   Just like AW, description is going to be key.

9. Trevis Martin, I’m not saying you can’t do it, I’m just saying that it’s not designed for that style of play. Especially the guidance given (make one roll, then narrate back and forth to resolve the roll). It really just doesn’t work for me.

   I much prefer to have the portion of narration that is tied directly to a roll be very short. I don’t want to have to keep thinking, “oh, he’s going to win” and have to craft the narration based on that state over a prolonged interaction. Instead, I’d like each chunk of narration to be based on the current state of the story. And have the flow of narration punctuated by periodic rolls.

   As written UW doesn’t seem to be a good fit for how I want to play. If I try to force it to fit, there will be a certain amount of awkwardness since it’s not a natural fit.

10. In UW you sort of create your own class by choosing the careers, origins and skills that support that class.

    For example, if I wanted to make a detective character I’d start with a Clandestine Academic and take the skills Deduction, Interrogation, and Stealth. For my origin I think I’d pick Crowded and take the Contacts skill.

    Now I have a sharp character who can immediately figure out the scenes they witness, easily get information from people, and remain unnoticed as they do it. Plus if they need help or information they have a wealth of past contacts to call upon.

    If there were a Detective class in UW this is exactly the kind of thing I’d want from it as this clearly outlines the characters role in the team.

    For your point about combat, one roll isn’t necessarily supposed to represent a whole combat scene, it represents dealing with one threat.

    How big a threat is depends on the situation. It could be an entire fight with a few thugs. It could be a single sniper as part of a larger battle. It could be an array of point defense guns on a spaceship. In fact there’s an excellent post just a little below that shows how in Star Wars a dramatic duel can be represented by multiple threats.

11. “The moves are regularly shared between careers” is hyperbole, and not super useful when discussing a game. There are 50 moves, none of which are shared between careers but which are remixed amongst the origins.

    The end effect is that careers make your playbook, while origins provide a twist or left field splash of extra detail. As someone who has actually played the game, niche protection is pretty solid. It works.

    The “relationship mechanic” is found in the Factions and debt. This has been discussed elsewhere, though the link escapes me! Character relationships are flavored by how your factions relate to or another and what kind of expectations they thrust onto the PCs as a result. No, there is no blatant “DO YOU LIKE ME? TAKE +1” as you’d find in other PbtA games; instead, characters relationships develop actively and dynamically in response to how they’re caught between the gears of the factions. Rather than bolt on a rather useless “I Will Make ____ Into A Soldier” sort of bond that will only develop at the end of sessions, you have debts and faction favors that will push the PCs in different directions.

    Finally, considering that this is the only PbtA game to diagram gameplay and explain explicitly how the game functions, I don’t know how you think there’s no guidance.

    I mean, hey, not liking how UW does this stuff is fine and dandy! But saying none of this is represented doesn’t make much sense! 🙂 It’s certainly not represented like other PbtA games, though! It can be weird or hard to see from a read-through, without a play-through. I know that I didn’t see much of this until this game finally hit my (virtual) table.

12. Matthew Browne, I kind of like being able to create a character by mixing and matching different parts. However, I just didn’t feel the same excitement for any of the options provided as I usually do for PbtA games.

    I think a lot of this has to do with the moves. Like I said, they leave me feeling somewhat flat.

    For example, I really like moves where you must make a choice depending on the results, and you cannot possibly get everything you want. For example (from Dungeon World):

    Elemental Mastery

    When you call on the primal spirits of re, water, earth or air to perform a task for you roll+Wis.

    On a 10+ choose two.

    On a 7–9 choose one.

    On a miss, some catastrophe occurs as a result of your calling.

    • the effect you desire comes to pass

    • You avoid paying nature’s price

    • You retain control

    UW rarely has explicit choices, and where it does, its usually the GM who chooses (not the player).

    I feel like UW deliberately avoids enumerating specific effects, and instead relies on the players (or usually the GM) to come up with details on the spot. While this may work better for longer campaigns, I think there really is some power to having at least some moves with more specific, more flavorful, effects spelled out in advance. I also think it’s better to have the player choose in almost every case (though, as in the above example, the player’s choice still gives the GM a lot of room to maneuver).

    On combat, it’s easy to see how a group of NPCs could be treated as a single threat, or how each NPC could be treated as a separate threat. However, I have real trouble seeing how you would make a single NPC act as multiple threats, without it feeling very awkward or artificial.

    Again, the rules hint that this is possible, but they don’t give any examples.

    Alfred Rudzki, Reading through the book, it feels like I kept reading duplicate skills. That and given the fact that with each player choosing two careers, two players are likely to pick the same career, it felt like there was a lot less niche protection than other PbtA games. At least that’s the impression the rules gave when reading through them.

    On relationships, I really like the fill-in-the-blank relationships that many AW games have. First, the relationship descriptions really help solidify the character itself. It also helps build a background for the group. The mechanical affect (in play) is almost secondary. It’s the act of filling in the blanks that I find most useful.

    On guidance, a lot of interesting mechanical elements are introduced (for example debts and data points), but we aren’t really given any examples of how these can best be used at the table. Just reading the rules, it’s hard to figure out how many of the pieces should fit together.

    This is a general problem with PbtA games, since it is a very different approach to role playing from most mainstream games. And it may not be fair, but it feels like I’ve read a few games recently that have done an excellent job of not just explaining the mechanics, but of illustrating and explaining how to use the mechanics. I wish UW had more. Especially when it hints at possibilities, but then does not go into detail (which I felt happened a lot).

    Again, I’m not trying to say UW is bad or wrong. I’m honestly wondering if I’m missing something. Or if it just isn’t a good fit for me.

13. Honestly, as i have just wrote, the fighting system don’t like me neither.

    However the game is not that bad.

    I’m playing it and having fun.

14. Rich Warren​, probably the latter you said. I own UW, and I share your feelings. While I love the concept of Origin + Career, I miss something that is in Dungeon World or in Apocalypse World, as (armed) conflict resolution. You could search for other Hacks, and see if you can mix their rules inside UW. Maybe you will find your favorite sweet spot. I have a couple of titles in mind, but I don’t want to turn this post in an ad.

15. Rich Warren – only slightly related: I really wanted to like the Cortex system Firefly and Leverage use. I just hate the “Have a bat in your hand (d4)” sort of thing. Don’t know why. 

16. “I’m not saying you can’t do it, I’m just saying that it’s not designed for that style of play.”

    Uncharted Worlds is literally designed for the type of play Trevis Martin described to you. I’m not sure why you’re saying the game isn’t designed to work the way it’s written.

    “Especially the guidance given (make one roll, then narrate back and forth to resolve the roll). It really just doesn’t work for me. I much prefer to have the portion of narration that is tied directly to a roll be very short. I don’t want to have to keep thinking, “oh, he’s going to win” and have to craft the narration based on that state over a prolonged interaction.”

    Then make your narration short! The example in the book is extended because it’s one guys versus three or four, fighting at melee range, but even that didn’t have to be that long. You’re the GM, supplying flavor, but you don’t have to make it run long… in my game one of the fights was over in a really quick exchange, like three sentences between the two of us. 

    It’s also worth considering why defeating a threat was turned into one roll, versus a whole protracted series of rolls. The thought that I had on the subject was that in games like AW and DW, getting into a fight is a pretty shitty idea… because you’re going to roll 2 to 3 times more than you would when facing any other obstacle, just by nature of the fact that a SbF or H&S roll isn’t going to necessarily end hostilities.

    The enemy could very well still be up and at it, coming for you, and suddenly you’re getting swung at a lot more often, taking more risks, just because you attacked rather than talked. In UW, talking and attacking are going to be on roughly equal footing in-so-far as a Face Adversity+Influence roll and a Launch Assault roll are both going to be one roll, if we’re talking about a single threat.

    In some ways during my ongoing campaign, I’ve found this rather useful… all of the options are now pretty equal, without one having to suffer from being a mechanical rabbit hole we have to go falling through any time we want some action and adventure — because, after all, UW is Space Opera! Laser fights and sword duels are our bread and butter, and it’s hard to make them the bread and butter if every time they come out everyone is taking heavy HP damage or three to four harm-clock slices.

    DW and AW — and even MotW — are about shitty fights. DW is specifically the dungeon-crawling game and it’s all about the monsters making your lives miserable, and AW is the apocalypse so it looks like Fury Road and Book of Eli. But UW needs to be built so that you can blast your way through five or ten Stormtroopers, without having to roll five or ten times — because Space Opera just isn’t that type of story.

    If you don’t like narrating back and forth? Fine; drop it. See how the player does, and tell them how they wrecked whoever they’re wrecking or ask them how they wrecked whoever you’re wrecking. What you’ll find is that, in effect, you’re just “saying yes” to whatever you and that player would have narrated back and forth anyway, but if it streamlines things, there is no problem with just going “Okay cool, you punch the shit out of this gang. They’re lying at your feet in their own blood; what do you do?”

17. Alfred Rudzki​ “But UW needs to be built so that you can blast your way through five or ten Stormtroopers, without having to roll five or ten times — because Space Opera just isn’t that type of story.” Well, of course Space Opera mean lot of different things, I think. Also, LOT of RpG players (at least, lot of players that I know) LOVE combat, especially Space Opera combat! I’m thinking about Mass Effect serie, for example. Of course, many of them won’t keep track of super precise initiative, or won’t move on a precise grid map. Maybe the “right” Space Opera (for me, and for Rich) is a “reskinned D.W.” or something similar.

18. I mean, hey, I’m thinking of Mass Effect too! You know, with the fights with literally dozens of enemies at once? Yeah, you’d probably get killed really fast rolling the 12 to 24 rolls you’d need with DW style combat. Which, again, leads into everything I just said about one roll – one threat allowing for more stylish space opera combat. I wouldn’t play ME with DW.

    And sure! Maybe the “right” space opera for people isn’t UW, obviously. Play the game you like! 🙂 But… I’m not here to discuss other games? This is the UW group, and I’m talking about UW. OP asked if he was missing something, so I’m talking about UW. If it doesn’t work for you, and you want to reskin DW, well, that’s rad too.

19. Alfred Rudzki, you sound like your getting a bit upset. I’m sorry if I said anything to piss you off. I’m not saying that UW is a bad game. We don’t all have to Iike the same stuff.

    Travis recommended adding multilayered threats. I’m just saying that UW, as written, hints about this, but does not give any advice on how to do it. And, for the examples I’m thinking of, I cannot come up with a way that feels organic. You cannot always just add new threats. I want to be able to model combat where the players are facing a single opponent, and they have to make multiple rolls to resolve that combat. UW (as written) does not seem to model this type of combat well.

    Yes, UW combat is good for blasting through a bunch of stormtroopers. I’m less happy with it when you have sides with equal numbers of roughly equal ability. And I’m really unsatisfied when you have a major threat that must be attacked by multiple people at once. (Think major bad guy or big alien creature).

    Good space opera should be able to support all three. For example, in Rebels, the characters sometimes blast through stormtroopers, but sometimes they face off against Vader or an inquisitor, with a single opponent standing easily against several main characters at once.

    Obviously, if you have more rolls to resolve a conflict, then the stakes for each roll must be less. However, other AW games manage this balance well. I can still let the players plow through a mass of opponents in Dungeon World, by modeling a group of goblins as a single opponent. This gives me a lot of flexibility when it comes to controlling the pacing (and narrative importance) of a conflict, and (to me) it feels very natural and organic. I feel that it’s a lot harder to get the same level of flexibility in UW. It feels like it is really pushing me towards the strong PC vs mass of weak opponents end of the spectrum.

    As far as the back and forth narration goes, the rules go into detail on how this should be a back-and-forth between the player and GM to describe what happens. This isn’t presented as an option. It’s presented as the correct way to play. Yes, I can do it differently–but then again, I could also just write my own AW hack. My point is, I don’t like the rules as written.

    Now, the reason I don’t like the lengthy back-and-forth resolution is a much longer discussion, but basically, you’re no longer playing to find out what happens. You already know what happens, and your just working your way through the details. This just isn’t interesting to me.

20. Nah, man, nothing was said that pissed me off. You’re totally right — we don’t have to like the same stuff, and I’m not saying we have to! If I sounded pissed off, my bad — not my intent. I only mean: I’m all for talking about UW and how it works or may be supposed to work, but if the conversation is going to be this back and forth of “heres how it works – i don’t like it – okay sure but heres probably why its like that – i don’t like it – okay sure but have you tried it – why isn’t it more like these other games?” then I don’t know why you asked if you were missing anything.

    That’s not me being pissed (and again, whoops – I’m sorry that I sounded that way), that’s me wondering what you want to hear. I’m happy to talk all day about UW and how it works in practice and how to implement its theory. If you want to talk about that, bam, I’m your man. If you just want to talk about what you don’t like — that’s a less exciting convo, you know?

    But I don’t wanna fight — I wanna talk about games! So, mind if I address some of the other points you had?

    Multilayered Threats. You’re right, the text doesn’t go in depth about multilayered threats! Its mentioned briefly in the Starship chapter under Starship combat, but that topic has seen more coverage here in the community than in the text. That said, the reason there isn’t much guidance is because multilayered threats function just like multiple threats. Let me see if I can break that down better? I’ll try!

    You could have some Riottroopers with shields as a Threat who are blocking the PCs way, and you could have a Machine Gun guy who is firing at them and keeping them pinned down, and you could have a commander guy giving the orders. As the GM, you could treat this as — lets say — three threats: the machine gunner, the shield guys, and the commander. The PCs will try to deal with these guys, and every roll of Launch Assault or Open Fire will tell you what happens. PCs could get hurt; Collateral Damage could do something to their gear, or the terrain, and force them to revise their tactics — or even require Face Adversity to proceed; the Threat could transform when – instead of just barring the way – the riot troopers pull out their batons and are now offensive walls… there’s options obviously, right?

    Now, the thing is, you could also roll all of these into a single enemy (not Threat, remember! Because we’re talking about multilayered Threats… so One enemy, multiple Threats). We could make an Assault Mech who is a Threat based on physical size and strength and armor, and you make a Threat that is its automated turrets that swivel around and target and fire independent of the Mech’s other actions, and you could have a Pilot Threat inside the Mech who is calling the shots and able to call for back-up just like a commander could. That’s still multiple Threats, requiring multiple Assaults/Open Fires, and still requiring all of the in-fiction tactical thinking that you’d expect from fighting a group of enemies.

    Now, you don’t have to do that for every mech they roll up against, obviously, but its handy if you’re trying to specifically make them into these terrible threats — and that is definitely the approach I would take if my party were going up against heavy weapons like tanks and such, or if I wanted to have them go up against a Vader-style opponent (I actually wrote about this recently, how I realized that Vader is actually three or four Threats stacked together, representing the man himself, the Dark Side of the Force, and the sense of dread that nearly overwhelmed Luke).

21. Alfred Rudzki, like I said before, I really want to like this game, but some of the design choices confused me. Basically, I wanted a couple of things:

    1) Is anyone else having these issues?

    2) Did I miss something in the book?

    3) Or are these issues going to be addressed in the upcoming supplement?

    The Vader example is interesting. I understand the idea, but I still can’t quite grasp how it would work in play. For example, what prevents the players from targeting Vader the man and one-shorting him the first turn? Or do you force the characters to deal with the threats in a pre-defined order? Neither option feels right to me.

    More importantly, I’d like to model a battle where the big bad can take a hit that clearly impairs his ability, but doesn’t take him out. More importantly, the original “hit” should be anything. A physical attack, a social attack (enraging him), or even just using a knowledge or notice skill to reveal a weakness.

    Not that all of these have to be modeled the same way, but I like systems that allow you to incrementally weaken a strong opponent using a wide range of abilities.

22. So the way it would work in play is something like this: each of the Threats has an agenda it is pursuing. Vader the man is trying to turn Luke to the Dark Side, so you represent that in the fiction (“Join me!”) — the Dark Side (his training and powers) are what is going to crush Luke, so represent that in the fiction (‘His lightsaber slices right through the catwalk supports — and down you come!’) — and Dread (the environment and atmosphere of the duel) is trying to emotionally compromise Luke, so you represent this in the fiction (‘Your heart is beating in your throat… and you feel this door open in your heart, but you know that nothing good awaits you on the other side.’).

    This is no different (generally… the fiction, of course, matters) than having a Goblin chief calling for the PCs to surrender, Goblin raiders throwing spears, and a dark wizard clouding the PCs minds. You handle just like you would expect: what the PC doesn’t address gradually worsens. If the player doesn’t address the growing darkness in their heart, make a hard move on its behalf. If the player doesn’t address the lightsaber blows raining down on him, make a hard move on its behalf. If the player doesn’t address Vader’s offers, make a hard move on his behalf.

    Luke chopping off Vader’s hand was, almost certainly a Hard Move on the part of Dread on a particular roll. “Hey… You can smash through his defense… but only by letting hate into your heart, man. You can absolutely kill him! But you’re going to have to trade in your Rebellion debt for Dark Side debt,” or something like that. 

    In theory, what prevents the players from one shotting him would be the Dark Side of the Force threat (which, in theory, represents his saber training and powers). This isn’t to say I slot them into having to deal with the Threats sequentially — no way! All I mean is, this is like the 16HP Dragon from DW… you can’t hit the damn thing until you deal with its 20 foot reach and how everything around it is probably on fire and also its probably flying and that sure is tricky. 

    The PCs have to get through Vader’s defenses to hit him — this is no different than the starship chapter’s use of Shields as a threat that has to be beaten before you can target a ship’s hull. How players get through this threat will vary… you could obviously try and penetrate it with Launch Assault if you have the fictional positioning: say, a lightsaber and training or the like… but just like other PbtA games, you can bypass Threats if the fiction is right, or if you Defy Danger/Face Adversity.

    Just like in DW you could Defy Danger to slip by some kobolds with spears, maybe you can Face Adversity with Expertise to examine and match Vader’s dueling, and now the Threat is postponed and put aside. Maybe you bypass it completely and you try to Face Adversity with Influence to get Vader the man to understand your appeals and listen to you! This is actually what Luke was trying to do, but sadly the dice or the fiction just weren’t on his side.

    This kind of addresses your other point! You can absolutely handle Threats in ways that aren’t Launching Assaults or Opening Fire! By way of another example: normally in UW shields prevent you from hitting a ship’s hull… but if a stowaway on that ship uses Interface to bring down the shields, then no one even has to address that Threat. The various moves absolutely come into play when dealing with Threats in UW.

    And you’ll notice that using multiple Threats does incrementally weaken an enemy, as long as the GM is doing their job and paying attention to the fiction. If you defeat Vader’s “dark side” Threat that gives him the swordfighting advantage, then the GM should treat the PC with a little better fictional positioning when it comes to that realm of narration, right? Similarly, if PCs were to disable a ship’s engines, the GM would be expected to no longer let that ship maneuver well or even fire its beams at maximum power, yeah? Multilayered Threats are interconnected by the fiction, and as long as the GM knows how they relate, then you’ve got the perfect set-up for incrementally weakening opponents.

    Obviously, this doesn’t work for all enemies. If you’ve got the five or ten stormtroopers from above who are one threat, then no, there’s no incrementally weakening them, sure. It does work best for groups of competent enemies who fight smart: using their abilities, their equipment, and their environment to the advantage. Another example would be Jabba the Hutt. Jabba got iced in one roll by Leia. He survived as long as he did because he relied on other Threats: his guards, his “friends,” his wealth, his palace, the palace’s death traps, and more. But all of those Threats meant little once someone got up close to him. These kind of details are what make me feel like UW Threat system has some pretty cool levels of flexibility… if you can find the cracks or the seams between the Threats, or force one open with the right roll, you can get at the pearl/enemy inside… and that’s really exciting to me, at least.

    You got good points, though! Made me think and I hope some of this makes sense 🙂

23. Jesse R I’ve read tons and tons of Fate Core stuff.  It may have been slow out the gate to produce space-opera science-fiction, though.

    –for far-future trans-human fiction, and extensive crunch, or background which can be mined for other games, adaptable to any tech-level since the Commonality is meeting the human diaspora at all levels of development, choose MINDJAMMER.  (Fate Core rules included).  A Mindjammer Traveller (Mongoose) sourcebook will be coming out soon as well.

    –for an advanced but hidebound, decadent society resembling Dune, Lexx, or Chronicles of Riddick, and an extensive background designed to be mined for other games (Fate Core rules not included but the variant is explained if you are using Fate), choose BAROQUE SPACE OPERA.

    –for rock-em sock-em space-trucker adventures, with colourful aliens and a Traveller-esque trader situation, choose BULLDOGS!  (Fate Core rules included)

    –for a Star Trek-like situation with the serial numbers filed off, try STARSHIP TYCHE. (Fate Core rules not included)

    As I say often, UW resembles Traveller rolls on the front-end (2d6+Stat).  You must analyze the character’s intentions and classify that into the proper Move.  On the back-end, the GM makes decisions about Move outcome like “success at a cost” that has some resemblance to Fate.

24. One point, if it helps.

    3) The game usually (though not always) includes some sort of mechanic to model the relationships between characters.

    Enterprise Moves cover the basic trade activity of space opera games as in Traveller.  One is Cramped Quarters which encourages a roll to see how two characters on a spaceship relate to each other, or drove each other crazy.  As some skills can improve this, you can track back to the skills that affect interpersonal relations.  If the Navigator rolls for a good trip, it adds +2 to the Cramped Quarters roll.  And remember that a third-party can Get Involved in another player’s Move, and Cramped Quarters is a Move.

25. Pierre Savoie​ also, remember the good transhumainst Nova Praxis, fate core based.

26. Alfred Rudzki, thanks that helps. I still think it puts a huge burden on the GM, and is just one step too abstract for my taste, but that’s largely my problem.

27. Pierre Savoie, It’s mostly the character and background building that comes from filling in the blanks that I miss. The actual mechanics are not that important.

28. Goodness this thread got enormous before I had a chance to respond. First off, Rich Warren, thanks for picking up UW and giving it a fair shake. And even if it turned out to be not for you, thank you for taking the time to write your critique!

    Your points are all very fair assessments, and in a way I’m glad that each of those points were conscious design decisions on my part, to build a game the way I enjoy playing, and/or eschew the aspects of other PbtA I didn’t enjoy.

    I’m certainly not going to try to convince you “why I’m right” or whatever. You’re totally allowed to not like the direction I took things. However, I figured I’d at least address why I made those decisions, if that’s cool with you. (More response to come!)

29. 1) Unique playbooks. This project started as a Traveller by way of PbtA. As such, the source inspired the design. In Traveller, there are no “classes”, only life experiences and careers that shape your character. In that system, there is absolutely no role protection, while DW and AW-style games are very rigidly separated. I tried to strike a balance between the two.

    That said, in all my playtests over the past year or two, I’ve almost never seen two characters majorly overlap. Even if they had the exact same Origin and both same Careers, they can make two very different archetypes just from the skill choices

    For example, two Regimented Clandestine Academics:

    The Detective

    Deduction, Stealth, Surveillance, Education.

    The Detective is a slow, methodical investigator, silently picking apart data and putting clues together.

    The Interrogator

    Discipline, Interrogation, Surgery, Chemistry.

    The Interrogator is a terrifying figure, tasked by the administration to extract information from the most hardened enemies of the state. His rubber gloves and apron are  reddish-brown, to better hide the stains.

30. 2) Moves and built-in Hard Decisions: I admit, this decision was a bit contentious. Basically, the 7-9 results of some moves force a specific set of choices on the player. However, after playing a lot of Dungeon World, I eventually came to dislike those canned choices because they were “hard choices” in a vacuum.

    I agree, this puts more onus on the GM to create custom hard choices that match the current narrative, rather than relying on a pre-made list of choices. Honestly I went back and forth a LOT on some of those (you should have seen the long list of Brace For Impact results).

    In the end, I felt that the only way I could cover all the things that could happen is to either have an exhaustive list, or to make things so vague that I might as well not have anything at all, and leave it to the GM whether they want a choice there or not.

31. 3) Model relationships: This one others have covered in this thread. But, fair warning, this deals with a lot of personal experience, so your mileage may vary.

    Basically, I am definitely not a fan of the “Bonds/Hx” approach. I feel it’s far too gamey to attach numerical bonuses to relationships. It also cheapened something as complicated as relationships to create a one-way, pithy statement as a summary.

    Instead, the relationships are created by the Faction system. I wrote about this elsewhere in this G+ group, but basically: Factions create two important dynamics that, in turn, create relationships between characters: Debt and Ideology.

    Debt is the more obvious one. Decisions the group takes will affect every individual’s Debt or Favor with a Faction. Those with the greatest Debt suffer the most when more Debt is gained. Furthermore, two characters indebted to opposed factions will find themselves in a tenuous inter-personal dynamic.

    Ideology is a more subtle but soooo much more pervasive force. See, by introducing a faction, that faction’s ideology becomes a measuring stick which characters measure themselves and each other. Do they agree? Disagree? Oppose? Support? Characters are naturally inclined to make decisions on ideological grounds, which makes it easy to form and break relationships and create tension. The formation of these dynamics happen very organically through roleplay, and are vastly entertaining to watch.

    Ultimately, inter-personal relationships hinge on one’s overall social and ideological situation. This is one aspect of the game that I’ve worked very hard to implement, to get away from Hx/Bonds, and it’s worked very well for me.

32. Oh god Sean Gomes now I’m picturing mapping the Factions ideologies like AW does scarcities, and mapping where PCs or major NPCs fall on it, just as some kind of neat exercise.

33. 4) Extensive Guidance for the GM: This one has come up a couple of times as a comment, but I’m not quite sure what to say to it. I mean, I think I gave enough guidelines on the flow of the game and sequence of play.

    So part of the issue, I feel, is the lack of overarching campaign structure with Fronts and such. Full disclosure: I’m not a big fan of Fronts, which is why I didn’t include them.

    But more than that, with UW I tried to create a more episodic feel, which is why I put such emphasis on Jump Points. It’s sorta modeled after Star Trek and Firefly; there’s continuity, but the session will often be self-contained with an in-media-res establishment of conflict/problem, and a resolution.

    Furthermore, I’ve tried to push the GM of Uncharted Worlds into a much more ad-lib, reactive role by really pressing hard on the Prompting. The GM of UW is only vaguely aware of what will happen, if at all. This allows the GM to feel discovery.

    Anecdote: I started toying with the reduced GM knowledge/pre-determination/Fronts when I ran a game with a mystery without really knowing what the solution was. I had an idea, in case things fell flat, but I wanted to see what the players could come up with by prompting them to describe the state of the corpses they found, etc. I was greatly entertained, and the ending was actually a great twist. (Psychotropic saline contamination in the salt air, inducing paranoia!)

34. Sean Gomes,

    First, I think there’s s huge benefit to having the fill-in-the-blank relationship statements. The very nature of the statement helps define both characters, and it helps create a shared background between the characters. This is a huge benefit, regardless of the actual mechanics associated with the questions.

    Second, the debts and factions define a character’s relationship with external forces. While these will help shape the relationship between characters, it does not explicitly define the characters’ relationship or provide a shared background. So I’d argue that they really help define individual characters, not the relationship between characters.

    Partially, I am looking at PbtA primarily for cons and one shot games, not for long campaigns, so that may flavor my preferences here. However, like the shared backgrounds in Fate, I think it could be a great way to help kick-start a campaign as well.

35. Sean Gomes, I didn’t see your other posts due to the way the notifications came on my phone.

    Think, in general, I’m looking for something that requires less effort at the table by the GM, and works well for one-shots. It seems like UW is geared more towards longer campaigns, and tolerates a greater cognitive burden on the GM.

    I do wish that more of the moves had the players making decisions (even if there aren’t specific choices) since that’s one less burden on the GM. On the one hand, I could just run the game that way; however, there’s at least one skill that would then become useless.

    Thank you so much for the feedback. It really helps me understand the game better.

36. I totally get that; sorry it turned out UW was not what you were looking for. I really do appreciate the constructive criticism, too: as a first-time game designer, I’m learning a lot both from what people like and what they expect. (One of these days I’ll have to look back into Fronts. Didn’t do anything for me when I was running AW and DW, but so many people like them that I feel I may be missing something)

37. My only real beef is I like the Moves in PbtA games to be very specific, and UW has a few moves that are not specific enough, IMO.

    All the moves that have variable stats options are not good moves to me. These I will definitely house rule to better reflect how they should be.

38. That’s gonna be a shame, Stacie, because the three whole variable stat moves sing beautifully for letting PCs intelligently handle situations 🙂

39. Alfred Rudzki I’ve read and reread your Vader analogy, and it makes sense for the one-on-one fight that was in RotJ, but….I have six players in my game; how would you adapt the Vader fight with six players that probably should have a very, very difficult time, even working together, to overcome him?  Six assaults, all of which have to overcome each threat?  Get Involved from 5 to hinder/help one?  Something else?

    I’ve been debating having them name what they’re each doing ahead of time, then rolling to resolve everything at once, but it’s tough for me to wrap my head around how I’d adjudicate/run that combat.

40. I think the first question I would have is “why is this single person so much stronger than 6 badass Space Opera characters?” Because usually, a 6-to-1 fight is going to be one-sided.

    Heck, I’d ask “what makes this character immune to a sniper bullet from a block away”.

41. Sean Gomes Very true, it probably usually will be! Of course, when we’re looking at a single NPC that is actually a Composite Threat (I dunno if I like that term, but hey) we should remember that it won’t feel like 6-to-1. And I think that’s what is important for a 6-to-1 Vader fight (or Mech fight, or Vipers taking down a Heavy Raider, or marines hunting a xenomorph, etc)…

    Threats are, even when they’re passive, “acting” on agendas — they will accomplish some things, given half the chance. If your threat is a Composite Threat, you need to know what each of these agendas is going to accomplish if left to its own devices. If we step away from Vader as an example, briefly, let’s engage with this question in a more general sense: your party of six is in a firefight with a boarding crew of pirates in a narrow hallway on your ship… your engine has been disabled, and there are coolant leaks breaking out across the ship.

    Your Threats in this scenario might include the Low Gravity since the grav plates are down (with an agenda to disorient its victims and expose them to harm), the Darkness (with an agenda to obfuscate danger and complicate delicate tasks), the Boarding Crew (with an agenda to secure a foothold, disable the PCs, or kill them if they’re in real danger), and the Coolant Leak (with an agenda to choke and poison and obscure). All of these Threats are acting simultaneously, remember. The PCs, if they do nothing, are all going to wind up disoriented, surprised, boarded and/or shot, and poisoned and choked.

    And of course, focusing on any one of these alone might be dangerous. Trying to just fight the boarders will get folks poisoned; trying to just mend the coolant leak will get everyone shot; worrying only about securing everyone down against the lack of gravity will get everyone poisoned and shot… So, likely, the party will split up tasks beyond just taking shots at the guys gunning for them. And if they don’t, that’s fine… just hit them with all of the other problems, and make your GM moves. Everyone is poisoned, everyone misses something important while disoriented, etc (I am generalizing here, but you get the idea).

    So too, I imagine, would this go for multiple people taking on a Composite Threat such as Vader or the Xenomorph or a Mech or the like. Your dark psychic swordmaster will thrash people with his starsword, hurl people across the battlefield with telekinesis, offer wealth and power to join his side, and threaten all that you hold dear in a way that chills your bones… and whatever is ignored comes to pass. That PC winds up pinned to a wall by the power of the psychic’s mind because he chose to shoot instead of avoid eye-contact — that PC takes a nasty sword-burn because he steeled his will and resolve but was in the way of the melee attack — and so on, through all the permutations. 

    Again, this is all generalizations that will really only play out effectively in specific scenarios, in specific campaigns, with specific characters, but the foundation is solid:

    >One NPC can be threatening for many reasons

    >You can represent these different reasons as different Threats

    >Threats that the PC fail to stop, or leave unattended, act on their agenda

    >Fewer Threats than PCs is easy, and More Threats than PCs requires dangerous and difficult choices.

    As a closing thought: I probably wouldn’t have 6 people fight Vader… I’d have 6 people fight two or three Inquisitors. Or bring the Emperor into the picture. You eventually hit a point of diminishing returns as you stack more and more Threats into one NPC, so spread the love around.

42. This is probably just my own, personal issue, but I really don’t like composite threats. I first saw the idea in Fate, and I had problems with it there as well. It just feels to me that we’re strapping this odd, awkward structure onto the scene, instead of modeling the scene in a way that lets the narrative flow more naturally. Perhaps it’s just one step too abstract for my brain to handle. Maybe I just haven’t seen anyone really pull it off well. But, all the descriptions I’ve seen have felt forced, awkward, and hard to use at the table.

43. Composite threats are really meant to be used super lightly, in my opinion. Mostly because I feel that almost everyone in the universe can be taken out with a single Move, and that UW was never intended to simulate prolonged, multi-hit-point “boss fights”.

    At best, as Alfred Rudzki pointed out, supernaturally powerful, incredibly talented or heavily equipped individuals could theoretically have a second threat surrounding and protecting them. BUT that secondary threat can’t provide blanket protection, but rather shut off certain means of addressing the main villain. (He has a shield belt, but it doesn’t protect from gas or vacuum, and he takes it off to shower, etc)

44. Sean Gomes, I understand your point, but I feel like it forcing people to play only a selective subset of SF. After all, science fiction is filled with powerful characters who (for narrative reasons, if nothing else) cannot be one-shot.

    For me, for UW, the problem isn’t really Darth Vader. It’s the massive, armored alien beast. Or a group of infantry soldiers aiming blaster rifles at a star fighter. There are many cases where players may be facing opponents who are seriously out of their league, and who should not be one-shotted.

    In Fate, I feel like I have a lot of knobs I can use to adjust the scene, so I get something that is narratively satisfying, seems to flow naturally, and still feels like a challenge. I can give the big threat a large number of stress points. I can give it a lot of armor. I can give it extra consequences. I can let it perform multiple actions (usually, a few Create Advantage action, with one or two attacks). I can give it area of effect attacks. I can make it bulletproof (all attacks against them are converted into Create Advantage actions, unless the player can justify how they can damage the target).

    Even there, though, creating a single opponent that can stand up to the entire party is HARD. After running Fate for many years, I feel like I’m just starting to get things right.

    In UW, I feel like my only option is either to create an obstacle that must be overcome first (basically the bulletproof example), or create a composite threat or external threat to go along with the main opponent. There are just fewer knobs to play with–which seems to make the job much harder.

45. Sean Gomes We (you+me) may just have a different agenda in our games.  My players want to be relatively normal people in a Star Wars universe, and they’re going to want to face Jedi, or a General Grievous type…something that could put a hurtin’ on them with them having a slim chance of survival.

    Using the situation we’ve been talking about, if Vader had only two threats I don’t see what’s stopping my players from killing him within seconds…that runs counter to the scene from Empire where Vader surprises them, Han Solo pulls a pistol and Vader literally blocks the energy blasts with his hand.  There’s nothing that Solo, or Leia, or Chewy could do at that moment to get through Vader’s defenses.  He is in complete control.  How do I simulate that in game?

    Am I better off just not letting my players go to combat moves and, instead, using the fiction to explain to them “This is a hopeless situation; find another means to get what you want, combat isn’t going to work?”  I feel like that’s a bit cheap, but if it’s the way the rules were intended, I can at least explain that to them.  I wouldn’t let them Open Fire on the Death Star, for instance, so there’s clearly a line that should be drawn.  I guess I’m wondering where that line is and what to do about the gray areas around it.

    Alfred Rudzki One thing I might be confused about…you said: “That PC winds up pinned to a wall by the power of the psychic’s mind because he chose to shoot instead of avoid eye-contact.”  So I’ve been holding off on moves until players roll 9-…given your example, you’re saying that the characters focusing on one threat to the exclusion of another means the GM can trigger a move “because the characters actions demand it” (p.37).  So my 6 characters, each trying to make an attack on a BBEG, would need to collectively overcome the composite threats, otherwise I should be making hard moves even in the face of their success.  

    That sound right?

46. Rich Warren & Zach Swain  Remember always that narrative comes first, and that Moves are called only when the action could succeed. If the established narrative is that this character or creature cannot be harmed by the weapons/tools at the player’s disposal, then they cannot even make an attempt at a Move.

    You as GM call for a Move when the situation could go either way. If the narrative has already established that this enemy is too badass to face, then don’t call a Move at all. Until the characters come up with an action or attack that could harm the villain, they don’t get to make a Move where the outcome is to harm the villain.

    This applies for every issue. You can fire your laser pistol at a starship hull all you want, that won’t trigger a Move. You can swing a chainsword at a fire, it won’t trigger a Move to put the fire out.

    For an actively aggressive/violent enemy like say General Grievous, the Moves the players make are not to harm him, but to escape harm. Be sure to lay that out as plainly as possible: ‘You can’t hurt this guy right now, you need to put him in a real bad position to even have a chance of getting past his awesome skill. Oh and he’s coming at you with four lightsabers and is about to cut you to ribbons WHAT DO YOU DO?”

    Major villains aren’t whittled away. They are defeated decisively at a single climactic moment, and previous encounters set the stage for this single action.

47. Zach Swain In theory, yes, ignoring a Threat may mean that the PC’s actions demand the GM make a move. Things like:

    • The gangsters have you pinned down with blaster fire, and you want to cross the alleyway to your waiting gravskiff: if you just run through the hail of lasers, rather than do something to trigger avoiding harm, the GM can just assign damage.

    • The gravflyer is bucking left and right to weave through traffic, jostling the PC and his magboot-equipped would-be assassin fighting on its wing, and then goes into a dive: if the PC doesn’t address the threat of the environment (with an asset like magboots, or by grabbing a tail fin and holding on, or the like), then the GM can describe how the character falls off the edge of the flyer and is now clutching the wing by his fingernails.

    • The PC is rummaging through a stack of crates, trying to find a weapon, while the cyborg serial killer stalks the abandoned military base in search of him: even if the PC gets a perfect 10+ on whatever roll the GM is giving them to cobble together a weapon, if the fiction works — like the cyborg has HyperOlfactoryDrones or is linked to the base’s security net — and the PC hasn’t actively addressed being hunted, then the killer can show up.

    Things like that. I say in theory because it will depend on the fiction at the table, the specific agendas of your threats, how threats might change or develop as a result of Launch Assault/Open Fire or other moves, and what Assets and Skills PCs bring to bear.

    In general, most Threats aren’t waiting around for their turn. They do what they’re here to do, unless a PC’s action or asset or roll or mere presence is actively interfering with that agenda. If it’s not being interfered with, it’s may be happening regardless of the PC’s roll. It’s ultimately about following the fiction truthfully and honestly.

48. Sean Gomes.

    We may just have to agree to disagree about this. Of course, a lot depends on what you mean by “whittling away.”

    First, yes. Obviously the narrative should always come first. However, the mechanics also need to support and interact with the narrative. To me, if you’re relying too heavily on GM fiat, then there is a mismatch between the narrative scene you’re trying to model and the mechanics you’re using. That causes problems for me, both as a GM and as a player.

    Second, if by “whittled away” you mean:

    Player: “I swing with my sword. I hit! 10 hp damage!”

    GM: “Great, only 590 to go!”

    Then, yes. That’s definitely not the way I want to run an encounter.

    However, fictionally, you often have characters injury, harm, or otherwise impair other characters. As an example, in The Force Awakens (spoiler alert), Arguably Ray is only able to defeat Kylo Ren because he is already injured.

    I’m not sure how I would model that in UW (e.g. someone shooting an opponent and injuring him, but not killing him or otherwise taking him out of the fight). Obviously I could just use GM fiat and just narrate the result of the first shot without using any mechanics–but that does not feel satisfying to me (again, a mismatch between the story and the mechanics). After all, the shot could have missed. So I feel like I’m no longer playing to discover what happens, but rather just telling the players what happens.

    Again, for me, it’s largely a matter of being able to fine-tune the pace of the game. Sometimes I’m fine with resolving the combat with one roll. Other times, I want to slow things down and focus in on the blow-by-blow. While there are ways to do that in UW, it feels like there are fewer knobs that I can adjust (and many of them are heavy-handed switches that are either ON or OFF).

49. Also, I feel the “show don’t tell” rule applies to role playing games. I typically want to avoid explicitly telling the players “This guy is too powerful for you to defeat. You’re only hope is to try and escape.” Instead, I’d like to use the game’s mechanics to show them that they’re in over their heads, and that running would be a very, very good idea.

50. Rich Warren, maybe I’m misunderstanding, but it seems like you’re looking for a lot of mechanical reinforcement in places where no PbtA game offers it. Ie, there’s nothing mechanical that says a PC’s gun can’t damage a tank in AW or their sword can’t damage a ghost in DW… it’s just the truth of the fiction.

51. Yeah, I feel that perhaps the PbtA system doesn’t quite simulate things the way you’re hoping. Not to say the way you want to run is bad, mind you, just that the fundamental structure of the rules don’t quite shake out that way.

    On a side note, something that could be a whole topic by itself: You mentioned “Use the game mechanics to show them they’re over their heads”. Now, in most games with prolonged fights, the decision to engage is predicated by the tacit understanding that victory is possible. Without engaging, it is not feasible to mechanically convey the contrary.

    I have yet to see a game that can mechanically convey the difference between a winnable scenario and an “over-their-heads” scenario without significant and unavoidable loss to the characters, up to and including death of one or more characters before the situation is spelled out. Even then, by that point the players are invested in their desired outcome, and no amount of mechanical reinforcement will convince them.

    Leading descriptions and established narrative truths will do in a phrase what an evening of frustrating wrong-choice-you-should-run combat will also accomplish.

    [Edit] I will say, you’ve provided very interesting food for thought! So thanks, Rich Warren . Even if UW isn’t your cup of tea, it’s cool you took the time to discuss 🙂

52. Alfred Rudzki, No. That’s totally not what I’m saying.

    Look, there’s an obvious spectrum with complete GM fiat at one extreme, and an infinite encyclopedia of rules that defines mechanics for every possible situation at the other.

    UW (and specifically, UW’s one roll treat resolution) is just a little bit too far towards the GM fiat side of the scale for my taste. But it is much closer to my ideal game than, say D&D.

    Other PbtA games (in particular, I’m thinking about Urban Shadows and Monsters of the Week) come much closer to my personal sweet spot. 

    If there’s a massive difference in power, then I’m OK just saying “He raises his hand, and absorbs your blaster shot.” But, make no mistake. Here, I’m blocking the player’s action through GM fiat, and implicitly telling the player that they have no hope of winning this fight. No rolls necessary.

    However, this is not something I like to do very often (and, in my experience, most players don’t like having it happen to them). So, it really needs to be a flapping-your-arms-and-trying-to-fly level of obviousness. No, you cannot take out the tank with a slingshot.

    However, if the power levels are closer AND if the scene is dramatically important (say Luke v. Vader in Empire), then I’d like the option of  slowing the fight down and have more of a blow-by-blow resolution.

    In my opinion, that means dice need to hit the table. Multiple times. And I want to show the player (by letting his attacks succeed but only have minimal affect) that the fight is likely hopeless (unless he can find something to swing the odds to his favor), or that the cost of victory may be unacceptably high.

    To a certain degree, having more variables to manipulate (things like armor value, weapon value, stress points, etc.) gives me more flexibility in fine tuning the pace and perceived threat level of a scene. Of course, too many variables, and things quickly become unmanageable in the other direction. So it’s a delicate balancing act.

53. Single roll conflict resolution is the farthest thing from GM fiat imaginable, as the stakes are negotiated up front and the player knows precisely what they are rolling for. If combat took N rounds, that is N chances for the GM to throw their fiat powers around with hard moves.

54. Aaron Griffin, I’m only talking about the case where the PCs are facing a much more powerful opponent. And I was specifically talking about the advice that the GM could simply not allow the attack based on the fiction. That, in my opinion, is GM fiat.

55. If the opponent is significantly more powerful and there is no hope of them to win, there is no roll. You only roll when both success and failure are possible.

56. By way of example:

    GM: You round the corner and see the hatches for the escape pods at the end of the hall. But between you in the pods is a hulking humanoid droid with Executron 9000 written on the thigh, its shoulders nearly brushing the ceiling. It notices you. What do you do?

    Player 1: I open fire. I’m gonna roll for…

    GM: Hold on. You open fire on Executron 9000, and see your blaster fire simply disappear a finger’s width from his body. He has some sort of shielding you’ve never seen! He begins advancing towards you. What do you do?

    Player 2: I throw my impact grenade under his feet. I roll for…

    GM: Hold on again. The grenade detonates under its legs, giving it a slight push backwards which stalls its foward movement for a second before it continues to move. It’s moving slowly but is almost on you. It doesn’t seem like you’ll be able to harm this thing. What so you do?

    …

57. Aaron Griffin. I understand that. However, as I said before, I don’t find that style of conflict resolution particularly satisfying. In my opinion, you are blocking the player through GM fiat. And, while that is acceptable (and even very useful) in some situations, it should be used rarely and very, very carefully. After all, you’re no longer playing to discover what happens. The GM is simply deciding what happens.

    But again, that’s just my opinion. Clearly you have a different opinion.

    While I love to discuss game design theory, and debate the various advantages and disadvantages of design decisions, I feel like this conversation is starting to go in circles. Just to be clear, I don’t mean to sound like UW is a bad game. In fact, I’m often most critical of things that are very close to, but not quite, what I want. I think UW falls into that camp. There’s nothing inherently wrong with it, but it seems clear that it’s just not what I am looking for. Most importantly, the “problems” I have with UW are not simply my misunderstanding of the game, but actual design decisions.

    So thanks for helping me think through these issues. And for helping me understand the intent behind UW.

58. Rich Warren Just wanted to say thank you for clarifying your position and answering my previous question 🙂 I was genuinely trying to follow what you meant, so thank you.

Comments are closed.