In my opinion, making fluff is easy. It's what every DM can and should be able to do.
Making mechanics is not.
I'd much rather a game give mechanics that let me better create fluff then the other way around.
i was done with 3.5 when i was running age of worms and my powergamer group killed dragotha in one round.
so i have wanted something different for a long time. i was really glad when 4e came out.
my biggest beef with 3.5 was that the monsters had to be built exactly like characters. i am so glad that i dont have to go through that anymore.
its much easier to dm, and my players love their powers. it is very cinematic.
I could see how you would feel that way.
I had a similar experience when I ran Savage Tide in 3.5. I constantly had to alter/upgrade monsters and encounters to make them pose a challenge to players, especially once we got into the higher levels of play. I would have felt very frustrated it Dragotha had been killed in one round, given how hyped up he had been through the game as an uber baddie.
I really enjoyed running that game, but it got pretty exhausting towards the end, and I was eager to try a new version of dnd, one that would prevent magic from so thoroughly dominating the game.
i was done with 3.5 when i was running age of worms and my powergamer group killed dragotha in one round.
so i have wanted something different for a long time. i was really glad when 4e came out.
my biggest beef with 3.5 was that the monsters had to be built exactly like characters. i am so glad that i dont have to go through that anymore.
its much easier to dm, and my players love their powers. it is very cinematic.
In my case it was the Demon Lord Kerzit in Maure Castle. I'm getting all excited because my players are going head to head with a Demon Lord straight out of 1st edition - I've never got to run a Demon Lord in combat. I was psyched!
They cast dimensional anchour and Force Cage and then buffed like mad, surrounded the force cage completely and readied actions to attack when the force cage came down. Kerzit got maybe one action, before the Force Cage went up and none after it came down. It was such a let down.
I was fortunate that during Savage Tide in that I had seen the characters in action so many times that by the time they got to the big boss fights, I had a pretty good handle on what they could do, what their usual tactics were and how I might counter them. For instance, I had to beef Demogorgon up a little, but when they got to him they had already used a lot of their magical resources (debuffing them with a Mordenkeinan's disjunction ward helped with this), so it proved to be an epic fight. Demogorgon made (I believe) 7 PC kills in that fight alone, one character died 3 times in the battle (go rotting tentacles), but thanks to having more than one healer, a staff of healing and spells like revivify, death never kept a character out of the fight for long. It was truly epic, but it took a s&~* load of work and planning to prep it in such a way that I was able to ensure it would truly challenge the heroes. If I had just tried to run the adventure RAW, the PCs likely would have crushed it.
I find that 4E PCs can still be real bad ass, but it is much easier and less time consuming to prep nasty encounters that will give them a good challenge.
i was done with 3.5 when i was running age of worms and my powergamer group killed dragotha in one round.
so i have wanted something different for a long time. i was really glad when 4e came out.
my biggest beef with 3.5 was that the monsters had to be built exactly like characters. i am so glad that i dont have to go through that anymore.
its much easier to dm, and my players love their powers. it is very cinematic.
In my case it was the Demon Lord Kerzit in Maure Castle. I'm getting all excited because my players are going head to head with a Demon Lord straight out of 1st edition - I've never got to run a Demon Lord in combat. I was psyched!
They cast dimensional anchour and Force Cage and then buffed like mad, surrounded the force cage completely and readied actions to attack when the force cage came down. Kerzit got maybe one action, before the Force Cage went up and none after it came down. It was such a let down.
The only thing I feel 4E lacks (and I can understand why) is a good rules set for creating unique items and constructs. One of my favorite 3.5 characters had the Craft Golem feat. This feat requires the DM to trust the PC not to abuse its use; that trust factor is removed in 4E, imo.
Actually they heard all the complaints about this and are including a section on crafting skills in the players options book they're releasing next year (thank the gods...cause it really annoyed me).
The only thing I feel 4E lacks (and I can understand why) is a good rules set for creating unique items and constructs. One of my favorite 3.5 characters had the Craft Golem feat. This feat requires the DM to trust the PC not to abuse its use; that trust factor is removed in 4E, imo.Actually they heard all the complaints about this and are including a section on crafting skills in the players options book they're releasing next year (thank the gods...cause it really annoyed me).
Hmmm...
I'm speculating but that could be very interesting. If its just points I'm not really on board as adventurers don't usually have much time to practice etc. but if they do it like Themes ala Darksun and they provide enough themes (cause we need more then just professions - we need themes like 'The Hero's Journey') then it might be interesting.
I'm concerned with themes mainly because they usually cannot provide enough themes so it can become a knock off feature that straight jackets backgrounds but it dawns on me that WotC has plumbed the depths of class options pretty hard. Themes were well received in Dark Sun so it may make a lot of sense for WotC to provide a ton of them as new content. Give them more stuff to keep publishing for some years to come and in turn allow there to be a very large pool of themes to choose from meaning players can design most any background for their character that they desire.
Because 4e is a fantasy game whereas older editions are magic games.
There's a difference, and it's a big one.
Granted, 3.5 supplements like Tome of Battle can fix that problem, but there you go.
but if they do it like Themes ala Darksun and they provide enough themes (cause we need more then just professions - we need themes like 'The Hero's Journey') then it might be interesting.
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere last night that this was the case, with black smith being a theme for example. Could be cool, allowing you to do black smith esque stuff in combat if you like in addition to letting you craft stuff. Other professions would be interesting as themes as well...
of course it could just be wish listing I remember.
(Imagine if Frodo did not worry about Gandalf and the demon, because he knew that Gandalf still had several healing surges left in him, or, even if Gandalf was killed, he would just wander back from the nearest graveyard, eat some cinnamon rolls and be ready to fight in no time.)Ummm... but Gandalf did just wander back. His Epic Destiny death ability must have kicked in.
LOL
Indeed!
In service,
Rich
www.drgames.org
Because 4e is a fantasy game whereas older editions are magic games.
There's a difference, and it's a big one.
Granted, 3.5 supplements like Tome of Battle can fix that problem, but there you go.
There is such a tactical, wargame focus to 4e. It has come full circle really.
D&D and then AD&D were designed to take the players out of the Chainmail(tm) miniature setting and enable them to role-play outside of a wargame/battle setting.
2nd Ed. AD&D cleaned up some of the rules ambiguity from AD&D.
With the advent of D&D 3.0 and then 3.5 and finally with 4th Ed., the game went almost all the way back to a miniatures game.
It is not necessarily a bad thing. It is just not what many of us were expecting.
The good news is that it really does not matter which version you like best, purely from a gaming perspective, because there are lots of folks out there willing to play almost any version that you want to play.
There is something to be said for buying current product though from a keep the industry going perspective.
In service,
Rich
www.drgames.org
There is such a tactical, wargame focus to 4e. It has come full circle really.D&D and then AD&D were designed to take the players out of the Chainmail(tm) miniature setting and enable them to role-play outside of a wargame/battle setting.
2nd Ed. AD&D cleaned up some of the rules ambiguity from AD&D.
With the advent of D&D 3.0 and then 3.5 and finally with 4th Ed., the game went almost all the way back to a miniatures game.
It is not necessarily a bad thing. It is just not what many of us were expecting.
The good news is that it really does not matter which version you like best, purely from a gaming perspective, because there are lots of folks out there willing to play almost any version that you want to play.
There is something to be said for buying current product though from a keep the industry going perspective.
In service,
Rich
www.drgames.org
There where rules for miniatures including such wargame staples as a flanking bonus and such in the 1E DMG (they even plug Grenadier miniatures as the only true D&D line of mini's).
Mr. Gygax pretty much all ways played with them and we get such classic staples as the rust monster from little Japanese plastic toys that he picked up for use in his game.
Really it was just 2nd edition that was actually free of mini's.
I played 2E with minis. Players Option: Combat and Tactics provided a very fun series of optional rules for their use.
I played 2E with minis. Players Option: Combat and Tactics provided a very fun series of optional rules for their use.
True - though that supplement did not come out for a long time. Something like 7 years after the initial release IIRC.
I played 2E with minis. Players Option: Combat and Tactics provided a very fun series of optional rules for their use.True - though that supplement did not come out for a long time. Something like 7 years after the initial release IIRC.
Granted but still i don't think I've ever played DnD (over the past 25 years) with out some kind of graph paper hitting the table for significant portions of game time, even if we didn't use mini's necessarily. It's definitely part of what distinguishes the game from a lot of the other games on the market- Gurps, White Wolf, Savage Worlds, all doa better job of handling the low tactics high drama kind of roleplaying that to be honest i generally prefer.
The tactics heavy nature of the game has always been something that distinguished DnD from many of the other offerings, so when 4e moved more in that direction it wasn't all that jaring for me really.
+1
Even Savage Worlds encourages the use of battlemats and minis (or more likely paper figure flats) in their games. No matter what system I'm running, I've pretty much always used some sort of visual representation when I gm combats, even if it is just a quick diagram.
Granted but still i don't think I've ever played DnD (over the past 25 years) with out some kind of graph paper hitting the table for significant portions of game time, even if we didn't use mini's necessarily. It's definitely part of what distinguishes the game from a lot of the other games on the market- Gurps, White Wolf, Savage Worlds, all doa better job of handling the low tactics high drama kind of roleplaying that to be honest i generally prefer.The tactics heavy nature of the game has always been something that distinguished DnD from many of the other offerings, so when 4e moved more in that direction it wasn't all that jaring for me really.
Well no argument from me here. I agree that D&D is generally speaking a much more tactical orientated game then many others. A lot of this is in the monster design which, even back in the day, seemed to push things toward tactical solutions.
Take the Enhanced Iron Golem found in Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure for a good example of this. The creature us clearly designed, even in 1st edition, to be a handled tactically and most of Mr. Gygax's go to tactics where clearly accounted for and foiled when Mr. Kuntz designed the monster.
Its in large part this element that fuels the need, in D&D, for so many monster books.
I have the new WFRP, and it is kind of interesting to me that it is desinged to be played without a battle map. It still has components to show visual representation to gauge where different characters are in relation to one another. It is also quite a tactical game. I'm really interested in trying it out. However, I'd likely have to dm it, and I'm having some trouble getting my head around the system.
Even Savage Worlds encourages the use of battlemats and minis (or more likely paper figure flats) in their games. No matter what system I'm running, I've pretty much always used some sort of visual representation when I gm combats, even if it is just a quick diagram.There are games which don't need one, and games where they're not important, and some that are designed to avoid the concept (Like WFRP 3e). I've never played D&D without some representation on the tabletop of what's going on. Even if sometimes that has left a party of smarties attacking the salt and pepper pots.
I think the biggest reason why I've bought into 4E (I don't say switched because that creates the illusion of 1 choice over another) is because it's something new and has a greater "Game" element than 3E.
The game goes into a more tactical direction and focuses on combat for their mechanics while leaving the Role-Playing for a more open interpretation. Just look at the Alignment and how your no longer shoe-horned into a very specific style of game play. Also, the fact that the restrictions or requirements for cretain Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies is something that I really like. No more ranks 5 in skills that are only semi-relevant to the PrC, few Racial restrictions, and Alignment restrictions too.
The same goes for the simplified skill set. Sure, skills such as craft, Perform, and profession are nice and all but in 3.5 they were used mainly for fluff and I have a hard time spending fininte resources (skill points, feats) on fluff. And yes, I know you can use Craft in lieu of Caster Level to make magical arms and armor (something that I feel is agreat idea!!).
Plus, when you actually get into your class and figure out how things work, leveling up is alot of fun as your options are pretty extensive. It's no longer +1 BAB, saves, and some skill pts and hp.
I had no intention of changing until one day I decided to have a go at using the NPC rules to create a 4E version of a BBEG from the 3.5E game I was running.
The BBEG was a 22nd-level fallen paladin/blackguard. It was going to take me a good 3-4 hours to properly create using 3.5E rules so I grabbed the 4E DMG and built it from scratch, teaching myself as I went along, in about 90 minutes.
I would create that NPC now in 4E in about 20 minutes because of the Monster Builder. It was that huge reduction in prep time that convinced me to switch to 4E. Sure, there are lots (and lots) of things I don't like about 4E and/or I prefer about 3.5E but the reduction in prep time won me over completely.
|
I'm gonna be honest. I love 4th edition, and I love Pathfinder. See, the first time I was ever introduced to table-top RPGs was late in high school, so I cut my teeth on 3.0. It wasn't the best system but, much like 1e and 2e to many players, it holds a special place in my heart. The character sheets and gameplay mechanics of 3.5 just feel very inviting and friendly to me.
That said, 4th edition does so many great things. I like to brag that it's so easy my wife can do it, and it is. And that's what it does well. It's a very, very simple system. I mean, some of the rules are a bit odd (I still haven't figured out how grabbing works), but most things are pretty much self explanatory, which is nice. That, combined with the really cool artwork and the clear character archetypes make it just a really fun system.
|
As the thread title says why did you pick 4E over other existing versions of D&D. Keep it civil and please do not turn this into an edition war.
I play because I enjoy it. Clarification: never "switched" to 4E: I (and my group) have no problem playing multiple game systems. Thus I play Pathfinder, True20, C&C, Savage Worlds as well as the current DnD rules.
Fun Having is the best, regardless of edition.
(Imagine if Frodo did not worry about Gandalf and the demon, because he knew that Gandalf still had several healing surges left in him, or, even if Gandalf was killed, he would just wander back from the nearest graveyard, eat some cinnamon rolls and be ready to fight in no time.)Ummm... but Gandalf did just wander back. His Epic Destiny death ability must have kicked in.
In 4e PHB III, a 30th LVL RuneLord can obtain the destiny Rune that makes him indestructible. Really.
So, Gandalf is probably secretly a 30th lvl RuneMaster.
In service,
Rich
www.zhalindor.com
I would create that NPC now in 4E in about 20 minutes because of the Monster Builder. It was that huge reduction in prep time that convinced me to switch to 4E. Sure, there are lots (and lots) of things I don't like about 4E and/or I prefer about 3.5E but the reduction in prep time won me over completely.
4e is like a quickie Eurogame in that way.
I have jumped back into a campaign now and run 6-7 sessions on a Monday night.
The group is all older folks, all with jobs, and many with kids and families.
Honestly, I could not have run a campaign in a 3-4 hours block with previous versions of D&D.
That is a positive side, and I am thankful to be gaming again.
The downside is that nearly every ability, every power, etc. is completely, completely, completely gearted toward combat encounters.
Some of the meta-game magic is gone, but if you are just looking to play a quick game and smash, smash plot not so important then you simply cannot beat 4e.
In service,
|
The downside is that nearly every ability, every power, etc. is completely, completely, completely gearted toward combat encounters.
This is true unfortunately, but remember that there are Rituals to cover the non-combat spells something which unfortuunately seems to have been excised from Essentials (which is why I didn't buy the Rules Compendium).
Also some skills do what some utility spells did too - Arcana is basically Detect Magic :)
but if you are just looking to play a quick game and smash, smash plot not so important then you simply cannot beat 4e.
You can also do investigative, exploratory and social plots as well, I know because I just wrapped up a 26 session campaign that had all that in - indeed some sessions had no combat and others had a quick combat thrown in only because one player was unhappy that the session was going to have none.
Although 4e isn't my favourite game, it isn't a bad system at all - able to do pretty much everything I want out of an RPG.
This is true unfortunately, but remember that there are Rituals to cover the non-combat spells something which unfortuunately seems to have been excised from Essentials (which is why I didn't buy the Rules Compendium).
Rituals get a sidebar in the Rules Compendium; it's clear that support hasn't been dropped for them, just that they apparently didn't want to overcomplicate things in the Essentials line by introducing another whole system (not to mention the pages they'd have to dedicate to ritual write-ups). In the same way that the Full Discipline keyword is mentioned in Essentials products but doesn't actually show up in any of its powers, so too do they mention the existence of rituals but leave the meat of that system to other books.
|
|
so too do they mention the existence of rituals but leave the meat of that system to other books.
They mention rituals but don't give the general rules for them in any of the Essentials books, which to all intents and purposes means they aren't supported by Essentials.
I wouldn't have minded if they didn't necessarily list any rituals (although a couple of examples would make sense) but at least give the rules of how to learn them and cast them, and how to determine which components map to which skills etc. That way a GM with just Essentials who has a player create a character with rituals at least has the rules to arbitrate.
|
|
My only disappointment with the essentials line is the lack of rituals and that they cancelled the Class compendium book, I know they've put the CC online but I like books.
Personally I'd have been happy with four more books;
Class Compendium
Heroes of Natures kingdom: the other two druids, and some more primal sub classes.
Heroes of some such kingdoms (detailing some more specialist mages, more martial & divine subclasses and whatever seemed appropriate).
Essential Magic: a book containing rituals, magic items and item creation (maybe an alchemy subsystem)
With that I'd pretty much be set.
An ongoing Monster Vault line would be nice as well, more monsters, some adventures and pogs.
The upcoming Monster Vault book looks really, really cool.
I use the Monster Vault book for every session.
Righto on the arcane skill being a detect magic.
Some of the fun of DMing in earlier versions was coming up with cool meta-game puzzles.
I used to love to put poems on plots that would give clues about upcoming adventures, do riddle battles with sphinx, etc.
Some of the most fun that I ever had with players was bringing them into a simulated treasure vault of the big, bad, evil guy after the final fight and asking the players to show exactly what they did with all of the items - with mock-ups for the various magical implements. Very fun on both sides of the screen.
Yes, you can still do those things, but players can legitimately claim that the rules say that if you make a sufficiently high (pick your skill) and beat the DC then you should know everything about everything about something.
It takes away the fun of not really knowing about how something works or whether a magic item is helpful or hurtful. Players used to make those kinds of decisions through experience and taking risks.
Different approach in 4e.
In service,
Rich
The Original Dr. Games.
Although 4e isn't my favourite game, it isn't a bad system at all - able to do pretty much everything I want out of an RPG.
You would probably very much enjoy the Songs of Fire & Ice book. Great all around RPG rules system.
The setting is ... meh, but the rules are very nice.
In service,
Rich
The upcoming Monster Vault book looks really, really cool.
I use the Monster Vault book for every session.
Righto on the arcane skill being a detect magic.
Some of the fun of DMing in earlier versions was coming up with cool meta-game puzzles.
I used to love to put poems on plots that would give clues about upcoming adventures, do riddle battles with sphinx, etc.
Some of the most fun that I ever had with players was bringing them into a simulated treasure vault of the big, bad, evil guy after the final fight and asking the players to show exactly what they did with all of the items - with mock-ups for the various magical implements. Very fun on both sides of the screen.
Yes, you can still do those things, but players can legitimately claim that the rules say that if you make a sufficiently high (pick your skill) and beat the DC then you should know everything about everything about something.
It takes away the fun of not really knowing about how something works or whether a magic item is helpful or hurtful. Players used to make those kinds of decisions through experience and taking risks.
Different approach in 4e.
In service,
Rich
The Original Dr. Games.
You actually have two distinct encounter design elements here. Sphinx' riddles are in fact puzzles as defined in the DMG and like other puzzles they are not really open to DC checks unless the DM says they are. Figure them out and they are worth XP however. Usually such puzzles represent bonus elements of the adventure simply because having it so that the adventure can't proceed if they can't figure out the puzzle can wreck an adventure. My experience is its best to have such puzzles be not only somewhat isolated but also be open to the players encountering them, leaving them, and coming back when and if they figure it out. Mainly I've found that figuring out such puzzles only appeals to a minority of the group...but those guys just love it. So having it so that those that are interested can wrack their brain for the right answer while the adventure continues is a good idea.
The magic elements hooked into items however is not normally puzzles and are therefore subject to arcane checks. Usually these do involve a standard action so using them in combat means the wizard player normally gives up most of a turn to make the check. The exception is a knowledge check to recognize what a monster that falls under arcane knowledge actually is (and some stuff about it). That is a free check but can only be made once per PC.
Hence designing a 4E encounter in which there are magical elements that can help/hinder the party is usually done by imbedding either Skill Checks or smaller Skill Challenges into the encounter and having the players make cost/benefit calculations on whether it is worth it to spend time identifying what the heck the magic involved is. Its entertaining but requires some skill on the DMs part to balance correctly. Done right it can lead to the PCs splitting up - maybe even sending the wizard with one of the PCs to guard him to the far side of the encounter (or to the top of a pyramid or some such). Often you'll see the players make interesting cost/benefit decisions in this regard - maybe sending not the wizard but a quicker more defensible PC that has the second best Arcane skill in the party to check on these things.
Such encounters also tend to work better with larger parties where the PCs are more capable of splitting the group int smaller 'task forces'. Hence encounter design should take into account your groups size. Elements like this can be more spread out and more complicated the larger your groups size is while they should be more concentrated and simpler if the group is smaller. Also if you want them using their turns to make such checks don't be subtle with the magical effects in the encounter...my experience with players (and as a player) is you don't give up rounds unless whatever is going on is really in your face.
WotC sent ninjas to steal all of my 3.5 books and burned them and replaced them with 4th ed books....your house might be next. Keep watching the skies.
WotC sent ninjas to steal all of my 3.5 books and burned them and replaced them with 4th ed books....your house might be next. Keep watching the skies.
LoL - well, I actually feel a lot better now! Here I thought that all my gaming stuff was stolen by the folks who were supposed to be watching my house while I was in Iraq last time!
:-(
In service,
Rich
www.drgames.org
They've got a new one coming out in the next few weeks, and from the previews, it looks to have some really cool monsters in it.
Those actually do sound quite cool.
Back a billion years ago, or at least in the late 1980s, White Dwarf, used to be kinda sorta the UK version of Dragon Magazine, but WD was generic. It used to run interesting scenarios and NPCs. I used to love using them in sessions. One of my favorites was Con-man the Barbarian, who would lure adventurers out to be rolled outside of town.
In service,
Rich
www.drgames.org
Despite all the above, it is certainly true that D&D has, from 3.0 onward, moved towards emphasizing character abilities over player skill. Whether one likes this or not is a matter of personal preference.
Matthew, first, excellent, excellent post ... all very good points.
Great discussion in general. Thank you all for the great suggestions and practical advice. I suspect that I am not the only one benefiting from your excellent suggestions.
WoTC has been very successful with 4e. They clearly understand the demographic that is going to buy their products.
I've been working hard to move my players away from some of the perceptions that 4e encourages.
Taking your point one step further, I completely concur that there is a place in the gaming discussion for the point that "hey, I as a player have no idea, but my character is a 30th level thief with an INT score of 28. Really, he should be able to figure this out."
One of my memorably worst experiences ever in the gaming realm involved something called the "wall of chaos." The story is recalled here under Gaming Horror Stories.
The challenge that I have been running into is that the players have some expectations that if you are playing D&D 4e then you should be able to resolve any issue with a quick toss of the dice so that you can get back to the business at hand (that being using your expensive minis to explore a gridded challenge filled with terrain, traps, and monsters).
You're absolutely right that the DMG talks about other approaches, but the PHB and the large majority of the rules suggests that the preferred approach is to use a few dice tosses to get around challenges rather than use social interactions at the gaming table to figure things out.
You can move player expectations. My folks actually look forward to the handouts, historical descriptions, etc. now, but they did not come to the gaming table expecting it.
My gut tells me that what they were expecting was a largely tactically focused experience. The system seems to promote that.
I just think that a lot of the magic of table top role-playing comes in the meta-game with the player interactions.
It is also interesting that nearly all of my players have spent an extended period of time playing WoW.
4e definitely resonates with the WoW players. When they go into an encounter, they talk about "tanking" and "heals" as well as "AOE."
Folks do not play WoW for the great role-playing drama.
I had an almost six year hiatus in gaming (2005-11) because of combat tours outside the US.
I'm thankful that I could put a gaming group together at all, and I could not have done it if Hasbro/WoTC had not published 4e. I tried to get groups together with other systems and earlier versions, but 4e was definitely the hook that got things going.
In service,
Rich
Bold Beginnings: a D&D 4e Campaign set in the World of Zhalindor
You actually have two distinct encounter design elements here. Sphinx' riddles are in fact puzzles as defined in the DMG and like other puzzles they are not really open to DC checks unless the DM says they are. Figure them out and they are worth XP however. Usually such puzzles represent bonus elements of the adventure simply because having it so that the adventure can't proceed if they can't figure out the puzzle can wreck an adventure. My experience is its best to have such puzzles be not only somewhat isolated but also be open to the players encountering them, leaving them, and coming back when and if they figure it out. Mainly I've found that figuring out such puzzles only appeals to a minority of the group...but those guys...
Thank you Jeremy!
Excellent points!
In service,
Rich
www.drgames.org
|
WotC sent ninjas to steal all of my 3.5 books and burned them and replaced them with 4th ed books....your house might be next. Keep watching the skies.
Skies? Nah, you gotta watch the ground. They use mole-ninjas.
LoL - well, I actually feel a lot better now! Here I thought that all my gaming stuff was stolen by the folks who were supposed to be watching my house while I was in Iraq last time!
Man, and I complained about my brother cracking the spines...
Condolences. :(