Ok first no power gamer I know of would give me a backstory. Now if you did that and optimize thier character, I could over look that.
You missed the point. Completely. The point was: what if you were subjected to an game which was just as discriminating against your preferred playstyle as you are against optimizers?
Look if you guys like beefy top heavy character their are GM's out there for you. I and most GM's prefer thoughtful, character builders that add to the story line instead of blasting though the game like some steroid fueled beast.
See? Here it is again. Language which exalts "thoughtful, character builders that add to the story line," and denigrates optimizers by describing them in a way that makes them appear one-dimensional, "steroid fueled beasts."
Not every RPG message board will cater towards your style of play, and god help us if this one does.
And a clear desire to deprive people who enjoy optimization of a place on the Paizo boards.
If a player is insisting that dipping into Barbarian is consistent with his character, he's probably right. It seems arrogant to tell someone that he's wrong about the inner motives of the fiction character he created.
This is exactly it. You are the DM. You are in charge of your adventure's story. You are not in charge of your players' characters' stories. If you want complete control over the world and the protagonists, write fiction.
The point at which you start telling someone else, "That doesn't fit your character!" is the point where you need to seriously examine whether you're prepared to let people play their own characters, or whether your need for control has gone so far that it makes the game less enjoyable for the players.
My issue with a CO forum is that it polarizes.Because the massive amount of CO hate just floating around the forums as is isn't polarizing, is it?
I don't want a Charop board on this site because it will draw a lot of undesirable facets of that community. WOTC boards are rife with trolls, a$$hats who just want to argue any point like debate club wannabes, and a good amount of immature people expressing their dominance through fits.Because none of that stuff has shown up in *this* thread so far, right? I'm sure glad that non of ya'll roleplayers have shown discourtesy, obstinateness, arrogance, and immaturity so far.
Your conduct has been unimpreachable, hasn't it?
Bingo.
It's pretty clear that the real problem, at least within this particular thread, does not lie with the optimizers. They have remained largely civil and respectful.
I felt it was worth coming by to chime in, since this debate has gotten......
Lively.
I'm an optimizer, unabashedly so. I spend a lot of time on the WotCO boards, and the GitP boards, and in my experience it is very rare for the community to treat people without respect. We're not here to "win D&D." We're here to make characters more fun and more interesting to play. In the process, we also hunt down errors in language or design that can lead to actual problems at real gaming tables. All of these we report, but many of them don't get fixed. Sometimes we use them to make silly things, or strange monsters. But no one was ever meant to play Pun-Pun, or Chuck, or the Circle-Mower. These were just theoretical examples, illustrations of interesting or inelegant parts of the game. If you're a programmer like me, you might better recognize the term "reduced case."
I don't think that we really understand each other right now, so I'm going to put my e-mail address here on this post and if you'd like to take this up with me either here or in private, I'd be delighted to talk it over.
I want to understand why you think so low of us, and I want to know what I can do better, or how I can help. I want, in other words, to understand your point of view, because right now I don't, and I certainly don't feel like I'm welcome here. I'd like to be, but it's clear that I'm not. Phrases like "CO's gunk stuck to my toes" really aren't the kind of things I want to hear.
doctor.von.rocktopus@gmail.com
A sidenote: Some of my builds are well-known for having long back-stories. Perhaps you'd like to see some of them?
That's very comforting. I really would like a CO forum over here, so that we'd have a place to tuck our guidebooks, reference threads, and such-like. I'm a active and fairly well-respected contributor over at WoTCO, and a number of us are looking for a new home again with the departure of one of our long-time friends. It'd mean quite a bit to me to have a place to set up kip and lay out the chant for the Clueless, you know? I don't think it's asking for much, not like it's gonna cost any jink-jink or nuthin'.
I mean, what's a blood to do when they start to get aimless and find their old haunts deserted? Figured it for my time to move, you know? And me, I think here's as good a place as any. Please, pity a ol' tiefling wretch and let me in...?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I've said it before, I'll say it again. In my experience, a "Charop Ghetto" is very good at dividing communties, spreading bad faith on either side of the issue, and on the long run creating vitriol both within and without, with champions of either side of the spectrum perceiving entitlement.
While my personal feelings of Character optimization are well-known (I think), I won't mention them here again. Instead, I would ask why a separate forum for the mechanical aspects of the game is helpful. That way, a barrier is created that serves as a rallying point for rabid winy method actors, while at the same time cutting off the soulless number-crunchers from the more varied community.
If you want to go about discussing how to "pimp your ride" - well, that's an aspect of either the game, or the adventure path, or the sourcebook.
Where you see a ghetto, I see a home. A place for friendly faces.
I bear you and yours no ill-will. I don't talk low of you. I don't treat ye poor. I do nothing but make things. Why can't you let an old craftsman work and make and be? What's so wrong with me that's not wrong with ye?
On a more technical side, a separate forum will make finding important resources like indexes, summaries, and similar things easier to find, and will make searches less of a strain on the server. This is important, particularly as traffic increases. It allows a community to grow up around the unified purpose of exploring the parts of the game that might otherwise go untested. This is, after all, a game. It's got bits and bobs and pieces that may not work. As is famously touted in the computer science community, security through obscurity is just a categorically bad plan.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Busted. ;)
Yes, I admit I do not like character optimization that much. However, what really riles me is putting up a special place, because in other forums, that was the tipping point that turned a topic that personally does not interest me into an issue that tore the community apart.
You say you want to play the hobby in a way that appeals to you, and I think that is your right. However, why not post the kinds of threads you would put there under a more general heading? If anything, it would increase your exposure? I personally was surprised to find a well-thought out rebuild posted for some AP villains to be both interesting and thought-provoking a while ago. If it had been in CharOp, I might never have come across it. And maybe, you might take something away from a thread that is not strictly mechanically-focussed, too?
Divisions often bring about lots of drama, so I favor them only as a method of last resort, if topics lose cohesion or just overcrowd a single forum.
It's a valid argument, in some respects. I feel like you lean heavily on the idea that our way is incompatible with yours. I promise that it is not. To turn the argument on its head, wouldn't it be nice to know where to look for threads about building better villains? Wouldn't it be easier to be able to just fire a forum specific search?
There's no division there, not in the sense you mean.
I want a place where people won't yell at me for doing what I do. It's clear that there's a good chance some of my work might offend people. It would be useful, then for me to have a place to build and design things where I won't draw your ire. I don't want to upset you, or bother you.
Divisions often bring about lots of drama
I think it's clear from this thread that the drama and division exists now, with no help required from a sub-forum.
:: inclines my head ::
That may be so. This isn't particularly heavy on drama, but it isn't overwhelmingly heart warming either.
TerraNova:
I don't think that a place for me and mine is going to impede my ability to click links that lead elsewhere. :: gently sardonic ::
A taste of things to come? My future and yours don't match. I see a community where you see demons, and I don't appreciate that.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I would ask why a separate forum for the mechanical aspects of the game is helpful. That way, a barrier is created that serves as a rallying point for rabid winy method actors, while at the same time cutting off the soulless number-crunchers from the more varied community.
Howdy, TerraNova.
My best answer is (a) because the way these boards are set up, all posts addressing a common theme go into one sub-category. And (b) I wasn't a big fan of the Pathfinder BETA boards when they were up and active, so I toggled my little messageboard toggle and ignored them. If there were a Character-Optimization cluster, and I weren't interested in reading them, I could do likewise.
(Indeed, I imagine that much of the Character-Optimization threads would look a lot like the Playtest ones.)
(Indeed, I imagine that much of the Character-Optimization threads would look a lot like the Playtest ones.)
Likely more than just similar, to be honest. Many of us are effectively playtesters who never stop testing. :: genteel smile ::
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I don't see you as demons. I see you as fellow hobbyists, you have to take that much on faith, because I can't prove it.
What I do fear (and rapidly see repeating itself) is that some elements of our hobby just are controversial, and giving either side of the issue special treatment is a (in my humble opinion) a very likely disaster. I have no issue with how you play the game (as long as you don't have issue with the way I play it).
If you find like-minded people here, who share your preference, great. I look forward to see what you can do. I do not post as much as I like (time, other obligations...), but I like this community - and care for its welfare, in some way. Thus, I would invite you to contribute - in a general forum. When / If traffic for heavily-mechanical discussions threatens to overwhelm the rest of conversations, I am sure an own section will follow. Until then, why raise an issue?
In my experience CO-interested posters are among the most intelligent and attentive I know. I know you are used to scathing attacks, and I really try hard to focus on the issue itself. I hope I have been successful. :)
|
I have to admit, the very title rankles me. We don't NEED a an optimization forum. Some posters might WANT one, but there is no need.
I have no evidence to support my opinion on this, but after reading those boards for a number of years, I can't help but feel that the board there have lead many developers to make some truely bad choices in trying to appeal to gamers. Something about the Monday morning quarterbacking and the constant back and forth about RAW and errata and the like makes for a truely fustrating situation between players and DMs who really should be having this discussion around the game table rather players who don't meet except on these boards.
On the other hand, I don't really feel that discussion should be stiffled so what do I know.
SO while thinking on how to accomidating this type of work, I can't help thinging that messageboards really arn't the sort of thing that works well for this type of discussion. Blogs really make more sense.
There is any number of places for that. I;m sure community use could cover it.
I don't see you as demons. I see you as fellow hobbyists, you have to take that much on faith, because I can't prove it.
I would hope, to the contrary, that you could prove just that.
It's not special treatment. I'd like to see a story-advice forum as well.I, unfortunately, do not feel you have been successful in focusing on the issue at hand. I can point you towards other forums where the separation of general boards into sub-forums has been tremendously beneficial. I don't know what other evidence you desire.
|
I think you might be confused; I'm on your side here.
My apologies. I misread your post earlier, taking it to mean that you would kick someone out for trying to optimize a character.
Maloo,
"Optimization" is not the same thing as "broken" or "power gaming". Optimization is about making a "usefull" and "usable" character around a concept you would like to play. Some times feats, spells, prestigue classes, or whatever might sound, look, or seem really nice, but then once you get there, it turns out not to work all that well.
I have no evidence to support my opinion on this, but after reading those boards for a number of years, I can't help but feel that the board there have lead many developers to make some truely bad choices in trying to appeal to gamers. Something about the Monday morning quarterbacking and the constant back and forth about RAW and errata and the like makes for a truely fustrating situation between players and DMs who really should be having this discussion around the game table rather players who don't meet except on these boards.
Errata are definitely not a bad thing! Why do you say this? I wish to know more. I play a lot of games, and some of them were literally saved by erratas, quick-fixes, or second printings. Ogre, by SJG, is a great example of where a incredibly dominant tactic was missed due to a narrow line of thinking. Basically, by using exclusively fast attack units, you could almost always destroy the OpFor with no trouble. No one ever thought that using just scouts would actually work, so they'd never tested it. They heard about it later, and fixed it quickly, thanks to a few observant players. These things are important. Really important.
I'm afraid that I just don't follow your logic. Why is it bad to have a cross-pollination of ideas, or the ready exposure of flaws in the system?
I have made the contrary experience in the past. Seems it comes down to personal histories. I think since there seems to be no common basis in good faith, there is not much to discuss. I said my peace, you said yours. :(
Forgive my poor wording. I meant that I hadn't seen it so far, but that I felt I could hopefully rely on you to prove it over time.
What I don't get is if people want one, but there is no need, why does that automatically mean that those that don't want one are right? There are few it seems people that don't want one, but there isn't a need not to have one.
Seconded. It costs nothing, loses nothing, and helps many. How is this bad simply because it isn't strictly necessary?
I did not think you were being rude.
|
What I don't get is if people want one, but there is no need, why does that automatically mean that those that don't want one are right? There are few it seems people that don't want one, but there isn't a need not to have one.Seconded. It costs nothing, loses nothing, and helps many. How is this bad simply because it isn't strictly necessary?
Well first It has to be set up which is an extra workload for Gary then there is the extra moderation a separate forum needs so it could be seen as more work to implement something that you could do just as well in the current forums.
Set up takes about three minutes, if they aren't using a crazy homebrew system. :) Take it from a friendly sysadmin. :)
I'm sure you could easily find reliable community members to moderate it, pro bono. Particularly with the enormous fan-base paizo has.
|
|
This conversation on different playstyles takes me back to when I used to spend a majority of my time playing Magic the Gathering instead of reading Pathfinder products. There was an article written by Mark Rosewater (head designer of M:tG) called Timmy, Johnny, and Spike which delved into the psychographic profiles of Magic players.
Basically, after spending a bunch of money on market research (back when Magic was bringing in an insane amount of money to WotC instead of just a ridiculous amount of money), they realized there were three general categories of Magic players and they decided to cater to them all. Sometimes they would make a card that would appeal to some players, but would really turn off others. Sometimes they would strike gold and make cards that please all the players. But the main theme in the design is inclusion.
So where am I going with this? I argue that the D&D/Pathfinder audience is similar in its constituents; you have those that want to play the game to create entertaining stories and characters (Timmy), you have those that love to make crazy builds and feat/spell combos (Johnny) and you have those who want to "win" at D&D, whatever that means to them (Spike). And none of these play styles are inherently better than the other.
The point of a game is to have fun, but I don't think the way we have fun really matters. D&D 3.5 catered to all the play styles just as 4e has and Pathfinder will. So, suffice it to say that I support the creation of a "character optimization" forum in spirit(though I agree with previous posters in this thread that "Character Design" would be a much more inclusive and appropriate name), but I think it would need to be a topic that comes up more often for Paizo to actually open up a new forum for it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Only because you will make it so.Sad to say, but: Just a taste of things to come...Divisions often bring about lots of dramaI think it's clear from this thread that the drama and division exists now, with no help required from a sub-forum.
Me? No. I fought my message-board battles. They were futile, won nothing and destroyed things I cared about. I was trying to warn, but it seems if anything I poured oil into the fire.
Once it starts in earnest, I will be gone.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
The enemy you are afraid of meeting already exists; he is you.Now, let me ask you something. Do your barbarians have high strength scores? Your sorcerers high charisma scores? Guess what, you're optimizing. Shocking, isn't it?
Not shocking at all.
I am not getting into that issue with you. In fact, shutting up now.
I am optimistic that it will never start in earnest. I'm willing to do what I can to ensure that it doesn't. Communities are made up of individual people who each have full control over their actions. It might sound hokey, but I think we can avoid anything really vitriolic. If you have serious complaint with me, my e-mail address is just a few posts up.
This conversation on different playstyles takes me back to when I used to spend a majority of my time playing Magic the Gathering instead of reading Pathfinder products. There was an article written by Mark Rosewater (head designer of M:tG) called Timmy, Johnny, and Spike which delved into the psychographic profiles of Magic players.
Basically, after spending a bunch of money on market research (back when Magic was bringing in an insane amount of money to WotC instead of just a ridiculous amount of money), they realized there were three general categories of Magic players and they decided to cater to them all. Sometimes they would make a card that would appeal to some players, but would really turn off others. Sometimes they would strike gold and make cards that please all the players. But the main theme in the design is inclusion.
So where am I going with this? I argue that the D&D/Pathfinder audience is similar in its constituents; you have those that want to play the game to create entertaining stories and characters (Timmy), you have those that love to make crazy builds and feat/spell combos (Johnny) and you have those who want to "win" at D&D, whatever that means to them (Spike). And none of these play styles are inherently better than the other.
The point of a game is to have fun, but I don't think the way we have fun really matters. D&D 3.5 catered to all the play styles just as 4e has and Pathfinder will. So, suffice it to say that I support the creation of a "character optimization" forum in spirit(though I agree with previous posters in this thread that "Character Design" would be a much more inclusive and appropriate name), but I think it would need to be a topic that comes up more often for Paizo to actually open up a new forum for it.
This is insightful, and I always appreciated that breakdown of playstyles. Everyone should read that article, regardless of what game they play.
Scott, I answered this, imo, further upstream, but I think you missed it. So, although quoting yourself is the hieght of message board bad taste, here it is (I'm too pressed for time to retype it (heading to my parents for Father's Day dinner). It summarizes what I've seen from a number of people (including myself) as well as expressing my opinion and, of course, I'm interested in yours.
Here's an idea, though.
It's been demonstrated in this thread that having a character optimization board would be useful to a number of people.
For those who don't want to see one, please explain the argument for how the existence of such a board would harm the experience for the rest of the forum.
Simple. A number of people believe a dedicated board would increase the amount of character optimization and broaden it's scope -- beyond the legitimate usages you espouse. Personally I think that rp concept development is bast served cooperating with your DM. I've worked with a number of players to help them develop their character within the framework of my game. Stress testing the rules is best served through a testing cycle, which Paizo has done quite well. Finding broken / exploitable rules later would not change the core rules book already being printed. It would require house ruling / errata and these changes would not be as widespread as desired. The knowledge of how to exploit the rules would, imo, outpace any fix. The "doing it for the fun of it" would be fine... if that's all it did. I think the legitimate uses of it are easily contained within existing boards (including playing around with ideas) and the collateral damage is limited in comparison to a specific charop board. Btw, it's not the "experience" of the forum I'm worried about, it's the experince of the players in the games. That's my opinion of course, ymmv.
*edit* Personally I wouldn't visit those forums dedicated to it and I don't have a problem with the legitimate uses of character optimization, I just think having dedicated boards would lead to a much higher incidence in the game of the damaging use of it vs. the legitimate use. As for the good stuff, have at it within the existing forums. No complaints from me there (or even if it has it's own board -- I'll just have to spend more time policing my game *shrug*).
|
|
So you're saying that if we had a optimization subforum, it would destroy the message boards?
Bit of a hyperbole, don't you think?
Not really. We have a couple of Charop advocates here now who seem to be respectful and mature. In my experience, mostly at WOTC's site in the past, there are some who are just like this group, respectful, mature, etc.. but there are more who are as I described in my former post as immature, a$$hats, etc....and those have ruined the entire WOTC boards IMO. I would like to avoid these boards becoming a WOTC clone board for Pathfinder.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Whether folks like or dislike Char Op threads, I certainly think this community can do those conversations better than other communities as far as attitude and being pleasant goes. I don’t see the need for a separate section, however. Until the CHarOp threads start accounting for a large percentage of the threads in a particular section, they can stay right where they are. Hell, we need a free form role play section to clear up the Off Topic section more than we need a CharOp one.
I'm with Daigle on this one.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I agree we could use one of these but there seems to be a lot of hate on here for CO so like some people said lets start making multiple threads each about the characters and then they will create a seperate forumSeriously.
Us CharOp regulars in the 4E forums do a very good job of finding "bugs" in the system. In our quest to build the most powerful characters, we expose the hard-to-find loopholes and flaws in the rules that the playtesters missed.
So how about it, almighty moderators? Can we have a CharOp forum for Pathfinder?
Seems like the way to do it. Put [CharOps] into the thread title and get the discussions started. If anti-CharOps people start entering those threads and being jerks then the claim that "there seems to be a lot of hate on here for CO" might have some merit.
Whether folks like or dislike Char Op threads, I certainly think this community can do those conversations better than other communities as far as attitude and being pleasant goes. I don’t see the need for a separate section, however. Until the CHarOp threads start accounting for a large percentage of the threads in a particular section, they can stay right where they are. Hell, we need a free form role play section to clear up the Off Topic section more than we need a CharOp one.I'm with Daigle on this one.
As am I. While I can see why CharOp folks want a forum of their own, I say as Tarren has, start posting in the already established forums (whether Pathfinder/3.5/4E/other) with "[CharOp] xxx xxx" as the title. If dozens of these threads begin to clutter up the various forums, the folks who might be resistant will actually swing to your side, if for nothing else to have those established forums less packed with threads they don't care about.
Also, there are sub-communities here who have been pushing for their own forums who haven't got them yet, as I and others have referenced. Having a section of the community who have only posted several threads in the past get their own forum when others have been waiting patiently to get theirs is not really fair. Show the larger Paizo community that there is a large sub-community that is actively posting CharOp threads and my guess is you will get your forum sooner or later.
To the detractors: Arguing the merits of CharOp is missing the point. People post here about movies, books, funny YouTube videos, politics, what have you. Who's to say a post or thread isn't worthy of inclusion? Also, comparing us to WotC and other forums is apples and oranges. We may have had issues during the playtest, but where are all the worst offenders now? Most true @$$hats can't stand posting here because we do a good job of ignoring/shutting them down. I'm sure if we did have a CharOp forum it would evolve into a model for others.
... taking a level of Barbarian for the movement when it doesn't fit the character (city noble) and fighting and screaming that [the decision] is [consistent with] his character.
Bending the polymorph rules till they break before they were fixed.
Hi, Beckett. Hi, Maloo. I've kept out of this fight while I assemble my opinion and support, but I do have a couple of comments on Maloo's argument here, about what makes for optimization.
I've been accused of "optimization" in the past, and one of those accusations arose because I had, indeed, decided that my character, who had begun life as a free-wheeling, devil-may-care Swashbuckler, would take her next level as a Barbarian.
I offered an in-character explanation. During the previous two adventures, a PC had been killed and reanimated as a Wight, and her favorite tavern had been razed to the ground. I'd been playing her as getting angrier and angrier, and I chose a level of Barbarian as a way of reflecting that anger in the game stats.
Secondly, when it comes to exploiting the polymorph rules, the player and his character are on the same team. Each wants to be as effective in combat as possible. Each wants combat to be as safe as possible. I can't see a difference between a player choosing to use polymorph to its potential to make an optimized character, and a player running a character who wants to use polymorph to its potential in order to survive the threats she sees coming.
In both of these cases, Maloo, I think you would be better off talking about intent, rather than actions. Dipping into Barbarian, or transforming into a War Troll, might be a twinkie player, or might be a realistic decision for a professional adventurer.
If a player is insisting that dipping into Barbarian is consistent with his character, he's probably right. It seems arrogant to tell someone that he's wrong about the inner motives of the fiction character he created.
Your right I should talk about intent. The character had no real reason to take a lvl of Barbarian, other than for the move bonus and the rage ability.
Even if we got a charop forum for apartheid reasons, that would by no means stop the RP-Nazis from threadcrapping in it now and then as it happens with the 4E's forums and some of PF's "cruzaders" (for use of a politically-correct name).
Before having a charop build what we NEED is more of a "live and let live" mentality in the community, it's sad we have one too many preachers of The One True Way to do things.
So you're saying that if we had a optimization subforum, it would destroy the message boards?
Bit of a hyperbole, don't you think?
Not really. We have a couple of Charop advocates here now who seem to be respectful and mature. In my experience, mostly at WOTC's site in the past, there are some who are just like this group, respectful, mature, etc.. but there are more who are as I described in my former post as immature, a$$hats, etc....and those have ruined the entire WOTC boards IMO. I would like to avoid these boards becoming a WOTC clone board for Pathfinder.
:: gently spoken :: I've never met them, and I post probably 5 times a day in what we lovingly call 339. These unwashed masses that you cite simply don't exist as far as my extensive experience indicates, and certainly don't hold sway in my home turf of 339. You know, though, you're probably the most acerbic poster currently in this thread, so I have to question the structural validity of your claims. Perhaps your particular style just rubbed people the wrong way? It certainly bothers me to a degree.
If a player is insisting that dipping into Barbarian is consistent with his character, he's probably right. It seems arrogant to tell someone that he's wrong about the inner motives of the fiction character he created.This is exactly it. You are the DM. You are in charge of your adventure's story. You are not in charge of your players' characters' stories. If you want complete control over the world and the protagonists, write fiction.
The point at which you start telling someone else, "That doesn't fit your character!" is the point where you need to seriously examine whether you're prepared to let people play their own characters, or whether your need for control has gone so far that it makes the game less enjoyable for the players.
Look GMs make a attempt to make the game fun for all. We work hard and try to give every player what they want(high adventure, gritty city scapes, outdoor survival). It goes both ways, when a player is only interested in how to build the best blaster ETC, I am not interested in them. Wow inner motivation would be nice from a pwr gamer but all you get is a hassle and a self-serving attitude and to heck with other players enjoyment.
...Before having a charop build what we NEED is more of a "live and let live" mentality in the community, it's sad we have one too many preachers of The One True Way to do things.
Actually, given what I've seen on other RPG boards, the level of 'threadcrapping' here is fairly low. We have flags and we can shut down forums we have no wish to see. While some flaming is inevitable (this is the Interwebz after all), I think if folks started posting CharOp threads they would be pleasantly surprised at the level of 'live and let live' you find around here. Most of the regular posters here, even the edition partisans, are not one note posters, they have other reasons for being here than dissing their rival game system.
Make a thread discussing your ideas for an optimal character and build the CharOp community up organically. I guarantee it will bring only good things. Just don't ask for everything all at once. Be patient.