The "home campaign" item

[Clark Peterson]

I didn't see this on on your list, Sean, but I think it is worthy of mention as we saw them all of my years judging--the dreaded "home campaign item." In other words, the item that comes from your home game that you understand and your players understand, that may be rad in your home game, but makes a bad general wondrous item. You can smell them a mile away. They usually have "powers at the DMs discretion" kind of powers. Sure, that works great for you, but not for a published item. Just 'cause it works great at your game table doesnt mean it is a great item from a design standpoint. Oftentimes, home campaign items work great with a particular set of players and their play styles, but are totally broken when released for general use. Just sitting here in my hotel room I can't think of a prior example, but I always think of the wand of viscid globs from the old classic drow series. Sure, they were awesome when the bad guys had them, but what about when the PCs capture them. Now you have a broken item on your hands that is just all ripe for abuse. Another identifying quality of the home campaign item is when it calls on knowledge or some limitation or some rule variant that is from your home game.

I'm sure one of the industrious scholars of the contest can link an item or two where I described this particular flaw in more detail.

Just a thought.

Good luck everyone!

[cynarion]

Clark Peterson wrote:

I'm sure [someone] can link an item or two where I described this particular flaw in more detail.

You describe the Strand of Beating Hearts in this fashion here.

Here is another: the Amulet of Mirrorwalking. Item rules are in the post above the one referenced by the URL. Then read the post two further down from Clark's review to see some feedback from the original author that everyone who runs a chance of falling afoul of this issue could probably do with remembering.

[Vic Wertz]

The first time you ever used the term "home campaign item" here, it was commenting on an item in Superstar 2008:

Clark Peterson wrote:

I forgot about this stereotype bad item--the home campaign item, that has no real mechanics because the DM knows how it is supposed to work in his home campaign but absolutely cannot describe it to anyone else and is convinced it is genius and we just cant see it.

Here's part of a comment on an RPG Superstar 2009 entry:

Clark Peterson wrote:

I have no idea what the hell this item is doing. There is a lot of sound and fury and dark, mysterious writing. But can anyone please tell me how to run this item in my game?

I bet this item rawked in the author's home campaign. And I'm pretty sure his entire game group told him, "Dude, submit that killer flaming undead thing that Steve's paladin always uses! That thing totally rawked! You'll win Superstar for sure!" But that isnt the same as actually providing an item with mechanics that you can print in a product and run in a game without the author there telling you what it does, exactly, since you cant really figure it out from what was submitted.

What exactly does this mean: "fueled by the essence of the lost soul within who also serves as a silent emissary to the undying." Is there some game benefit to this or is it just [bleep] cool writing?

Again, "All undead within the illumination are revealed by wisps of harmless bluish-white fire" is really cool writing, but what are the game mechanics to this? Is it like a detect undead spell? I shouldnt have to look in the creation information to find out the effects.

[snip removing non-"home campaign item" commentary]

But still, this thing screams "home campaign item." And it presumes to much and spends too much time being too impressed with the author's writing and not enough time actually spelling out what it does.

Either that or I am just dense.

And here's a definition you posted publicly a couple years ago:

Clark Peterson wrote:

The home campaign item. This is an item that normally (though it doesnt have to) come from a DM's home campaign. What makes it a problem, and earns its name, is that such items usually were designed by the DM and work great for the play styles of his or her particular game group. Such items also tend to have very general and undefined limits. That works fine when you are the creator of the item and you know waht it does. But you have to convey that in print to others who didnt create the item and only understand it from what you write. Often times, these items reveal themselves by having poorly defined restrictions or conditions such as "requires a close relationship" or "requires a friendly relationship with the wearer" or "influences like-minded individuals" or other similarly loosey-goosey vaguely defined conditions. Those arent game terms. I am sure those are terms the DM that created the item understands, but that isnt good enough. Sometimes an item is labeled a home campaign item when that isnt really what it is, but when it demonstrates these loosey-goosey DM-interpretation restrictions or conditions which often characterize home campaign items.

And a few from last year:

Clark Peterson wrote:

The "DM gets to decide what it does" item is a hallmark of the "home campaign item."

Clark Peterson wrote:

Ah, my favorite. The deus ex machina item, aka the NPC item. 'Cause really, what PC uses this? This is pure prop for a story. And smacks of "home campaign item," with its subjective mechanics that only the author really understands--"if the god of death feels favorable then the user can whisper a final message to the target."

Clark Peterson wrote:

"cats may give advice or assistance to the wearer"? That type of open-ended "DM gets to decide what happens" design is bad design. Give me a mechanic. This is a mess. This seems like what I call a "home campaign item." Works great in your home campaign, and I'm sure you know what it does and what restrictions to put on it, but we don't and the info you give us just doesn't let us run this properly.

Clark Peterson wrote:

Home campaign item. You have to actually use rules when you design items, not just "DM can figure it out." That's not design.

[FireHawk]

cynarion wrote:

Clark Peterson wrote:

I'm sure [someone] can link an item or two where I described this particular flaw in more detail.

You describe the Strand of Beating Hearts in this fashion here.

The strand isnt a campaign item. Its downfall is that its was a tad to ambitious, and atypical. What Clark calls an old school nod was a direct quote from the rules. Due to my fear that a more simplistic execution of the fear mechanic would make the item seem too powerful. It also comes from me not not finding a proper "scared to death" mechanic in the rules. As for the the nightmare mechanic it could have been trimmed, but I kept it while fighting the word count. Unfortunately that struggle resulted in a poor execution of the positive vs negative mechanic that I had envisioned.

[Neil Spicer]

FireHawk wrote:

It also comes from me not not finding a proper "scared to death" mechanic in the rules.

You mean like phantasmal killer? ;-)

But, more seriously, there was just way too much going on in that item. And the presentation and messy mechanics were what probably gave Clark the impression that it was a home campaign item. There were many of the hallmarks of such a thing present in how you described it. So, rightly or wrongly, it made it feel that way. In and of itself, however, there were far more problems (many of which Clark cited before he even mentioned the "home campaign item") that killed it.

[FireHawk]

Neil Spicer wrote:

FireHawk wrote:

It also comes from me not not finding a proper "scared to death" mechanic in the rules.

You mean like phantasmal killer? ;-)

no not like PK ;) After submission I came across the mechanic I should have used. But as you stated it had other issues, I just wish I knew what they all were.

[Neil Spicer]

FireHawk wrote:

After submission I came across the mechanic I should have used. But as you stated it had other issues, I just wish I knew what they all were.

Okay. Brace yourself. If you really want an in-depth dive, open the spoiler. But I won't hold back on a full, true assessment since you asked for it and you've already publicly shared your item from last year for that purpose. Plus, I wasn't a judge last time around, so this is just my own personal assessment. I held no power to reject or keep your item around.

Spoiler:

Strand of Beating Hearts

First, not a bad name. Kind of gross, which isn't always something that clicks with every judge. But it was okay. Certainly evocative. But I go into reading your item with an eyebrow raised with regards to what this is going to be about. Too much additional gross and maybe it starts to tip the scales a little. But I don't get the sense that your item did so.

Aura faint necromancy; CL 3rd

Aura is fine. Somewhat low caster level given that you intend for a spell like symbol of fear to be involved.

Slot belt or neck; Price 2,800 gp per heart; Weight 1/2 lb. per heart

You're getting a little loose here with the either/or slot decision. Better to just go with one and let that be the end of it. Price is wonky, because it's variable based on how many hearts you intend to string onto it. Is there a cap or a limit? Your description never specifies, yet it seems to imply there's a chance in "# of hearts per D20" of something happening...so it would have a maximum limit of 20, maybe? Still, that's a very wonky mechanic, which I'll get into below.

Description
This collection of blackened humanoid hearts is bound together by strands of hair, bone, and fiber and worn around the neck or waist, or carried as a totem. Each heart is collected from the strongest of the victor's defeated enemies and then enchanted to grant the victor the power of the defeated enemy.

Can anyone really define "the strongest of the victor's defeated enemies"...? I mean, as a judge I'd take that as flavor text. But it leaves you with a frown as you're reading along.

A strand will typically have one to six hearts that grant the possessor with a +1 morale bonus on attack rolls, damage, and saves against fear, plus temporary hit points equal to 1d8 + the number of hearts on the strand.

Okay, so it "typically" has one to six hearts. Doesn't say it has to only have that many. So you've left yourself way too open-ended right off the bat. This item is open to abuse. Also, the way you've worded it, the reader is left a little unclear as to whether each heart grants a cumulative +1 morale bonus or just collectively the strand does so. Later, you indicate each heart adds an extra temporary hit point due to the aid-like effect. Once someone damages the person wearing it, however, and those temporary hit points go away...what then? Does it no longer provide temporary hit points at all? Do they renew each day? Mechanically, this isn't thought through.

During combat the hearts will begin to beat as if still alive.

Gross. But okay. Obviously, it's meant to inspire fear. So fine.

This unnerving effect will cause fear in an engaged humanoid target whose hit points are reduced to under 15% and fails a will save.

Okay, "engaged" isn't a defined condition in the Pathfinder RPG, so you're being way too ambiguous here. Obviously, you mean for it to be when someone is threatened during combat...but does that mean no one at range trips the heartbeating effect...and only people up close and in a threatening square do so? Mechanically, this is half-baked. In addition, the under 15% hit point reduction requirement is a nightmare from a record-keeping standpoint. What if someone is surrounded in combat? You have to track everyone of them to determine when they go under the 15% threshold to then force them into a Will save vs. fear...only you don't give us the DC of the save. So, this again misses the mark. Also, saves are always capitalized...so it should be "Will save."

While feared if the target's health is reduced to -1 or fewer hit points by the possessor, the target must save or die.

This is bad grammar. Rightly or wrongly, the "While feared" lead-off to this sentence calls your writing acumen into question. And that's never a good thing, because that's one of the most important skills to demonstrate for RPG Superstar. Again, you've also created a recordkeeping nightmare for the GM who's supposed to track any opponents and not just their hit point threshold, but also whether or not they were already affected by fear. But, is that any "fear" condition? There are multiple levels of fear in the condtion track...e.g., shaken, frightened, panicked. Will any of the above qualify? Does it have to be fear generated just by the beating hearts? What if your wizard spellcaster buddy casts fear in a cone over everyone you're fighting? Again, you're way too open-ended here. Lastly, items that force people to "save or die" are old-school vicious. That type of design is frowned upon pretty universally now.

If the slain target is the same level or greater then the possessor then the spell bane will be triggered by the bloodshed.

More recordkeeping nightmares for the GM. He now needs to compare the slain targets level to whoever is wearing the strand. And you've layered another Spell-in-a-Can effect into the mix with bane. This doesn't add any value to the item's design.

The hearts will also resonate with the rhythmic beats of any drumming.

So, now you're counting on your bard drummer buddy to magnify the effect of this item even further? It's getting weirder...and less focused the further we go into analyzing your item design.

This resonance can be manipulated as many times per week as hearts in the chance (number of hearts in d20) to cast crushing despair in the direction of the focus of the possessor.

Really messed up mechanics here. First, more number-crunching is required to compute how many times this can be done. Secondly, we've got another uniquely situational power that gets activated as a Spell-in-a-Can effect. So, you're bordering on Swiss-Army-Knife territory now. And it focuses the crushing despair spell (which is already cone-based) in the direction the user is facing...which kind of goes without saying if it's just going to duplicate the spell.

If the possessor of the item is not the one who collected the hearts then the possessor will suffer from nightmares up to four times a month.

Again, you're glomming on too much to this item...apparently as a drawback to help offset some of the prior abilities. All of which are becoming almost impossible to price now. And you've got a strange mechanic for determining how and when nightmare will be visited upon the wearer if he or she didn't "harvest" the hearts themselves. Four times a month? Does that correspond to the phases of the moon? Do they all happen in the first four days and then you're okay for the rest of the month? Is it only on holidays? Or, more likely, it's just left to GM fiat. And that's never good design.

Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, Knowledge (arcana), perform (ritual dance), heart(s), ashes of aid and symbol of fear scrolls; Cost cost of scrolls per heart

If you list a skill requirement in your construction requirements, you're supposed to indicate the necessary number of ranks in it. Including material components isn't necessary. They're assumed. And, rather than indicate actual spells that are required in the item's creation, you've turned it into a material component by saying they need to uniquely be the ashes of scrolls of those spells instead. That's not innovative. It's incorrect design. Lastly, the cost of a wondrous item is never the cost of the scrolls of spells. This is an indication that you didn't properly consult or understand the pricing guidelines for wondrous items.

So, all in all, that's about as detailed an analysis as anyone probably gave your item. Looking back at the judges' chambers, I can tell you that Clark posted his exact commentary for you. Wes just noted it was a mess mechanically and none of the mechanics were couched very strongly in the rules of the game. Sean just rejected it. And that was it.

Judges pretty simply look for a reason to stop reading your item. As soon as enough broken elements trip their assessment meter, they pull the plug on it. And that's pretty much what happened here. To give you at least some advice...and maybe to serve as an example for others since you already posted the item for feedback...I've gone into a lot more depth than any judge would normally do. And I've done so in the hopes of helping you. So, hopefully, you take this more as constructive criticism than bashing. It's quite obvious you tried hard. Things just didn't work out with this design. And, hopefully, you've learned a lot more about item design since then.

My two cents (yeah right),
--Neil

[Azmahel]

Hey, In my "Being the Judge" Experiment I noted most of the things Neil just pointed out, albeit may more shortly. Go me! ;)

Neil Spicer wrote:

Judges pretty simply look for a reason to stop reading your item.

Also this. Don't give them a reason! :)

Seriously.

[Vic Wertz]

FireHawk wrote:

The strand isnt a campaign item.

"Home campaign Item" probably isn't the most *accurate* of possible names for this flaw, but it has kind of settled into accepted parlance for the competition at this point. Whether it was designed for your home campaign or not isn't the point; the point is that it includes bits that seem to be intended as rules (as opposed to flavor), but that don't actually use the language of rules. You either have to tell us what you mean with words that have already been defined, or you have to define them yourself. You can't just assume we know what you mean.

Specific examples of "home campaign" language in your entry:

• "the strongest of the victor's defeated enemies"
  
• "engaged target"
  
• "will be triggered by the bloodshed"
  
• "resonance can be manipulated"
  
• "in the direction of the focus of the possessor"
  

And here are some other issues that Neil didn't mention:

• "This collection of blackened humanoid hearts" confuses flavor and rules. "Blackened" is a flavor word, but "humanoid" is a game term. Assuming that "each heart is collected from the strongest of the victor's defeated enemies" is meant to be mechanical, "humanoid" should have been specified there instead ("victor's defeated humanoid enemies").
  
• "...worn around the neck or waist, or carried as a totem." Neil already mentioned that choosing between multiple slots is potentially a problem, but this sentence says that it can be held as well, so it apparently doesn't even have to use either of the slots you specified.
  
• "...the possessor will suffer from nightmares up to four times a month." Up to four? Who decides? The owner? (I'll take "zero times," please.)
  

[James MacKenzie]

The idea for the strand of beating hearts was kind of cool! It's unfortunate that it wasn't executed differently.

It's always a good idea to get someone who isn't like you to look over your submission ideas. Find someone whose gaming style isn't like yours, who drives you nuts when you play together. If you're very wild and imaginative, grab a literal-minded bore. If you're a rules lawyer, find someone who prefers free-form roleplay.

That person will be the one who sees the problems in your submission, where your closest friends may not.

[Chris Mortika]

FireHawk, with this feedback, what would your revised Strand of Beating Hearts look like?

This is a serious question. One trait of professional designers / writers is a willingness to revise material when the editors need something tweaked. Criticism like Neil's is what an editor might give you, if you were able to sit down together face to face. He'd then want you to fix things.

So, what would the fixed version look like?

[Curaigh]

Vic: I am a huge fan :)
Neil: Nice job, (this is going to be a long ride for you if all your two cents get this expensive! :)
Az: Go you.
Vic: seriously, that was awesome :)

[Neil Spicer]

Curaigh wrote:

Neil: Nice job, (this is going to be a long ride for you if all your two cents get this expensive! :)

It's okay. I found out I got a raise at the office this year. And, apparently, since my role at the company also influences the bottom line in terms of earnings per share, I qualify for an additional bonus scale that'll kick in next year. That should hopefully give me enough pennies to keep spending them here. ;-)

Now...if only my wife could land another job in this down economy.... :-[

[FireHawk]

Neil and Vic big thanks for that. I wasn't expecting anything and yall gave a lot of great critical insight to my failure. I suspected some of the item's failings, but I'm glad that you pointed out so many specific details.

A question if humanoid is a game term, what would be the in game simple collective term for all the races be? Is that term non-pathfinder specific as to avoid any judging issues

[Azmahel]

do you mean the term creature for all creatures,
or living creature , for well all living creatures (of which many do have hearts)
or humanoid creatures for all humans, gnomes, dwarves, elves, orcs, ....

?

[FireHawk]

FireHawk wrote:

A question if humanoid is a game term, what would be the in game simple collective term for all the races be?

Azmahel wrote:

humanoid creatures for all humans, gnomes, dwarves, elves, orcs, ....

[Azmahel]

FireHawk wrote:

FireHawk wrote:

A question if humanoid is a game term, what would be the in game simple collective term for all the races be?

Azmahel wrote:

humanoid creatures for all humans, gnomes, dwarves, elves, orcs, ....

Ah, but I think I understood you wrong. Did you want a non-game-term term for "humanoid" ? I would most likely go with Person for that.

(Hey, Orcs are persons too! )

But mind, if your design is good and tight you don't need no special words to avoid game terms. the game terms will fit right in and everything will "click".
And if you use non game term - terms people might start saying that you aren't precise and will try to figure out, what "person" means in game terms. (A good starting-point would be the "... person" spells which define persons as humanoid creatures ;) )

You should seriously do what Cris suggested. recraft your item from last year.
And Yeah, get some feedback from all around. If you don't have anybody to dissect your item, I might offer myself, but i won't pull punches ;)

[Andrew Christian]

FireHawk wrote:

Neil and Vic big thanks for that. I wasn't expecting anything and yall gave a lot of great critical insight to my failure. I suspected some of the item's failings, but I'm glad that you pointed out so many specific details.

A question if humanoid is a game term, what would be the in game simple collective term for all the races be? Is that term non-pathfinder specific as to avoid any judging issues

creature is the collective term for all things that could move around autonomously and hurt you.

[Noteleks]

Yah, and lets hear you say "autonomously" three time real fast.

[Andrew Christian]

Noteleks wrote:

Yah, and lets hear you say "autonomously" three time real fast.

I have 10 ranks in perform (tongue twister) and it happens to be a class skill of mine.

[Noteleks]

Well I have -1 in the DM skill so looks like I am foiled once again :(

[Clark Peterson]

Vic and company, thanks for posting the links and quotes of my prior comments and definitions of what I call the "home campaign item" (whether or not it actually comes from your home campaign is immaterial). I knew someone would.

Neil, have I ever told you that you are awesome? That was a great analysis. Way better than mine. And spot on.

Firehawk, take a stab at redoing the strand. I have to admit, the name is great. And as I have said many many times there is no better way to start of a superstar item than with a great name and no better way to stumble out of the blocks than with a bad one. Though I don't specifically recall, my guess is I was likely really excited to read your submission given the name. I still like it today. I'd love to see you take the feedback here and actually do a mechanically sound item based on the help you got.

Clark

[Neil Spicer]

Clark Peterson wrote:

Neil, have I ever told you that you are awesome? That was a great analysis. Way better than mine. And spot on.

Not necessarily better. It takes me a bazillion words to say what you, Wolf, Sean, Wes, and Erik can pretty much convey in a few sentences. I'm just way too OCD and analytical for my own good sometimes.

[Cartigan]

random item wrote:

Again, "All undead within the illumination are revealed by wisps of harmless bluish-white fire" is really cool writing, but what are the game mechanics to this? Is it like a detect undead spell? I shouldnt have to look in the creation information to find out the effects.

Slightly unrelated, but that's probably influenced by a spell in one of the Complete series. I think it was a magic candle that lit up the undead like a Christmas tree.

[Matthew Morris]

An example of 'DM Powers' of mine came to mind. Hope the example helps.

Spoiler:

I had an ancient blade, Glorious Hand of Imperial Wisdom. It was psionic, (yes, Clark, start booing now :P) and as a DM I gave it a quirk that it 'remembered' things and would impart those memories to people around it as dreams, but they'd be filtered by the person's subconcious. It's not intelligent, it's a side effect that allowed the DM to plot it.

In my campaign, it had the following effects.
* When they needed a hilt for it, the smith crafted an exact replica of the hilt the weilder saw in their dreams.
* The Half Orc barbarian saw herself in the role of one of the orc generals, who was killed by the Imperial captain who weilded it last (in her dream it was the party ranger that killed her though)
* The priestess of Loviatar saw herself fighting alongside the last weilder (this time seeing him as the party bard, players were married IRL) (The last weilder and the priestess the blade was 'remembering' were lovers)
The blade didn't radiate any sort of enchantment magic, (or any magic really) and they never quite figured out how it worked. It was a DM tool to work world backstory into the game without long monologues.

Now it was very effective at serving its designed function, and the players enjoyed the effect (though they were unnerved). How do you capture that flavour in < 200 words? It's the oposite of 'bearer never gets lost' in that it is a powerful source of information the DM only can manipulate.

[Andrew Christian]

Matthew Morris wrote:

An example of 'DM Powers' of mine came to mind. Hope the example helps.

** spoiler omitted ** Now it was very effective at serving its designed function, and the players enjoyed the effect (though they were unnerved). How do you capture that flavour in < 200 words? It's the oposite of 'bearer never gets lost' in that it is a powerful source of information the DM only can manipulate.

Wasn't there also one of those advice thingy's about not making the DM's job harder? I think this item would fit that advice column just as well as the "home campaign" one.

I really like the idea of it. I might steal it for my home campaign!

[Cartigan]

That reminds me of the Penny Arcade belt for Dragon Age that imparts to the wearer resistance against what the last wearer died of.

[Azmahel]

Cartigan wrote:

That reminds me of the Penny Arcade belt for Dragon Age that imparts to the wearer resistance against what the last wearer died of.

I totally did an item based on that thing. Will post it come Jan 1st, in the "Voluntary Reject bin" along with my other training items :)

[james knowles]

I think that people just coming into the industry, or at least just coming into Dnd/Pathfinder have a much easier time with this problem. When you're new to a game, it's easy to look at it from a fresh, "neutral" perspective. When everything you've created for the past 15 years is for a homebrew world, however, it's more difficult to take off the blinders when designing for a generic system.

My inability to do that with the Amulet of Mirrorwalking last year cost me. Kudos and much respect to those of you who did it successfully. Perhaps this year i'll be able to join your ranks.

[vikking]

In my games I generally create my items to be universal as to fit in any game I may write or to be able just to throw into a pre-written module. Thats not to say that I dont create items specific to the game I wrote, but most of those are specific to just that game and wont/cant carry over to others well at all.
That and I am more of a tech writer and writing in the neutral third party comes naturally to me.

[Clark Peterson]

Don't misunderstand me. I create home campaign items in my home campaign all the time--items tailored for my specific players and that may not have all the mechanics ironed out. That's because I am old school and that is how you play D&D. D&D at my home game table isn't math, its a fluid and interactive experience. So if magically an item needs to have a power, then it has it if I as the DM think that is right for the game.

So I'm not dissing home campaign items or DMs that use them. I use them all the time.

BUT for Superstar, they cause problems.

[vikking]

No misunderstanding at all, I was just throwing my 2 coppers into the conversation....:)

[Nicolas Quimby]

Clark Peterson wrote:

Don't misunderstand me. I create home campaign items in my home campaign all the time--items tailored for my specific players and that may not have all the mechanics ironed out. That's because I am old school and that is how you play D&D. D&D at my home game table isn't math, its a fluid and interactive experience. So if magically an item needs to have a power, then it has it if I as the DM think that is right for the game.

This whole thing really reminds me of some things Monte talked about in the AU/AE design diary and "reclaiming the DM's throne" articles, which all tie into the greater debate of "make the DM's job easier" vs "rely on the DM's narrative power". A few of the things that have been mentioned would fit just fine into Arcana Evolved, and probably a lot of other games, but they aren't appropriate for 3e D&D or for Pathfinder.

The fact that we can all play the "same game" and end up with such different playstyles is awesome. I would love to game with the makers of any one of these items, and many of them would fit just fine into my own game. That's just the thing, though; with all the DMs running the PFRPG, there are a lot of playstyles out there. All of them are valid. Does your item make sense for all of them?

An item that "requires a strong relationship" could be good design for a lot of games, but it's definitely bad design for official Pathfinder rules.

[Curaigh]

Nicolas Quimby wrote:

...

An item that "requires a strong relationship" could be good design for a lot of games, but it's definitely bad design for official Pathfinder rules.

AAAWWWW Nic, C'mon!. I put two examples in, as well as "GM's discretion". what more canna wyrm do?

Spoiler:

just kidding of course. I did and do appreciate the feedback :).