DM's shouldn't fudge. The dice are likely a better dictator of drama than the DM. The dice will provide organic highs and lows throughout the game. The DM will provide a monotonous set of highs and lows that are easily seen through.
One shotting the BBEG? Great. Those rare moments make for great memories later. "Yeah, my character was so cool he one shotted the dragon, remember?"
Character dies? Great. Now there's some real room for role playing. Even if your games are role playing light, it highlights the need for serious thought behind future tactics. It creates consequences. Read that word again: consequences. That's important.
See, if the DM fudges the results then no character build really matters. No feat selections matter. No skill point allotments matter. In essence, the character doesn't matter. Frankly, I find it insulting when I'm playing in a game and the DM is fudging.
Worth noting: DM's who fudge rolls either think that they're smarter than they are, or that players are dumber than they are. I notice this stuff when it happens, and so do a lot of other folks. Used to, I would quietly seethe while pretending I didn't notice just out of good manners. These days, I outright refuse to play at a table where fudging is happening. I expect that the person DMing a game I'm playing in to be fair, and trustworthy. I sure don't expect him to insult me by thinking I'm too dumb to notice his juvenile attempts at force-feeding drama.
I'm an adult. I game with adults. I expect every member at the table to act like adults.
While I agree with you since you just promoted my type of game I will also say that many adults hate dying for various reason. Sometimes the players know you fudged, but don't care.
I really like that point about character builds not mattering. I have not read past you post, but I am assuming someone will say the build matters because it encompasses the player's idea of his/her character. I disagree, but that is a discussion that I don't think I could change anyone's mind on. If nothing I do really matters do I really even need a character sheet.
PS:I understand some things may matter, but if it is a foregone conclusion that I will succeed then to me there is a great lack of suspense. There may be suspense in the fact that I don't know what will happen next, but the suspense of waiting to see did your make the correct choice, and can do what needs to be done to bring that choice to action is also suspenseful.
PS2: I am still not saying anyone is doing it wrong for those that dont game like I do. I am just stating a preference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"You seem like a goodly person. Would you like to join us in our quest against The Shadow?"
THE SHADOW!
Revan, where to start?
As a DM I do not want my players to die either. That's a far cry from not allowing them to die.
There's nothing players notice faster than a DM too worried about whether they'll be upset to let their characters die. Once they do realize then they lose a little bit of anticipation in every scene. "Oh, it doesn't matter what I do in this scene, trust me, ol' Revan's not gonna pull the trigger. He'll save me."
Suddenly players are biting off more than they can chew, and divorcing themselves from the personalities of their characters -- simply because you've created a situation (albeit with good intentions) that disallows them from exploring the very survival instincts of the characters they probably once longed to play.
Fudging rolls to not kill characters just makes for spoiled players. Spoiled players enjoy the game as a hobby. Strong players enjoy the game as art. That's what challenging yourself in life is all about. And that's what challenging the characters in game is about.
In the same way that the creators of comics, movies, TV shows, etc. are unable to create tension and good storytelling because they know the main characters will not be killed off permanently, and that the bad guys won't prevail? Perhaps there is slightly more tension in watching the one-off, totally original movie that has the freedom to take such steps, but if you're invested in the story, I would argue the difference is ultimately negligible.
As an actor, I seek to make a living by reacting spontaneously and true to my character to totally scripted events, which I know the outcome of in far more detail and with far more precision than a player's knowledge of the outcome of a game where the DM fudges. For that matter, I have GMed games with a player who not only knew the campaign, but in one case, was running it for his own players back home, and I was using his conversion notes, with some alterations of my own. And I still consider that the most successful game I ever ran, with everyone involved creating strong characters, and extremely excited to seek out what was coming next, the player with metagame knowledge included. I'd argue that refusing to suspend your disbelief and get involved and invested because you 'know' you're not going to die is less adult than getting invested anyway--and, indeed, more concerned with the art.
Besides, just because I rarely, if ever kill them, doesn't mean I won't drop them to the negatives, slap them with an Overwhelming Presence in a boss fight, dominate them to turn them on each other, or otherwise challenge them in non-lethal ways.
Eacaraxe, I'll respond to your post last as it was the longest.
***
Bob, I'm not big on the idea of gaming with literal children. I think there's something inherently weird about that, especially if those children are not my own. It runs the risk of creating an inappropriate peer relationship that strikes me as unhealthy, both for the child and the adult.
Now, if the child being gamed with is my own, well heck, I fully endorse teaching my child some basic tenets of honesty, and above board behavior. Further, I want my child, ideally, to have a reasonable, intuitive sense of statistics, and consequences. The last lesson I want to teach is: "don't worry, daddy's gonna fudge those dice for you cause the rules don't apply to you, no they don't."
Making slight adjustments to the reincarnation table is an obvious fudge, and there's no way your player doesn't realize that you engineered his roll. So, why roll? There's an overwhelming arrogance in someone who thinks they're clever enough to provide just what the player wants while pretending it's nothing more than luck. Who wouldn't see through that? Who wouldn't look at the table later and say, "why'd he even bother to make me roll?"
Getting what you want consistently as a player can be fun for a while, no doubt. But it's not organic; it doesn't come with a real sense of accomplishment. Rather, it's masturbatory, fleeting and empty, signifying only the catering heart of a would-be beneficent DM.
First, I have run games for kids as young as 8. I have done this at. Game stores to help promote the game. I have also run games for my friend's children. Most of the time, when I do run a game that includes children they average about 11 to 13 years old.
These kids don't have a grasp of statistics by any means. They also are learning a game that is vastly different from what they have ever played before. One of the things that turned me off to GURPS was a GM that stuck so closely to the rules that I didn't get to do anything while the rest of the group had fun. Being a spell caster sucked. I ended up dying because I didn't realize that simply casting a spell on a rock to make it more lethal would take me 3 rounds. The GM didn't have to even target me and when he did, he could have pulled some punches so that I could get the hang of the system.
As for fudging to change the character's race, how is it obvious? There is a result that says GM choice. That gives me a lot to work with. It doesn't say GM Choice from this list.
Learning a game where the GM just pounds on you because you don't understand the rules is not my idea of fun. It's why I have never found many competitive video games to be fun. I'm not given a chance to learn the controls. Instead I just get pounded on by the other players. I don't like being a punching bag.
I also want to address the idea of "don't worry daddy's going to save you." You have not paid attention at all to what we've said. We said it should be rare that the GM fudges. You are arguing from the standpoint that we fudge every chance we get. That is so far from the truth.
And for the honesty thing, get over it. No one is 100% honest and no one wants that either, contrary to what we say. We like our kids to believe in Santa. We love watching people like David Copperfield perform his illusions. I don't advocate being a liar. I advocate being a GM that reads his players and gives them what they want within reason.
Fudging a reincarnate roll allowed the player to play a race he wanted without me having to force the party to accept a new character they had never encountered but was identicle in all ways to the original character except race. When he no. Longer wanted to be a dhampir, he found a way within the game to change that. Everyone had fun. No one felt cheated. The game progressed.
I would rather play with a GM that knows when and how to fudge than one who never fusges. I also would never want to play with a GM who fudges often. I have walked from both types of games.
Lies are the grease of social interaction.
"Tact" The act of lying or ommitting truth to spare the feelings of another.
Every one lies, even if by omission. Ever have your guppy repeat something you said in private.
While I agree with you since you just promoted my type of game I will also say that many adults hate dying for various reason. Sometimes the players know you fudged, but don't care.There are many people in the world that cheat at solitaire. I mean it's cliche in fact. And they enjoy it, else why would they do so?
But when discussing the merits of a game, I don't see a problem with calling such people on that behavior. They have their reasons and that version of the game is fun for them, just not for me.
I do think that they are cheating themselves however as it's a better game when its done without cheating.
For D&D its more than that, as the game is not a solo affair. Perhaps you have a group that all prefer to cheat at solitaire so that they always 'win'. Enjoy.
But likewise I think its a better game when its done without the cheating.
Now you can claim 'its not cheating' but it really is. Just as much as you can cheat at solitaire, you can cheat here by 'fudging'.
And this is not getting into the deplorable case where one person is surreptitiously doing so without the consent of the rest of the group.
-James
Before you say people are cheating again, please address my clarification on the terms fudging and cheating.
All cheating is fudging. Not all fudging is cheating.
Fudging is the modification of the rules or dice results.
Cheating is the modification of the rules or dice results without consent of the play group.
If a group makes a house rule to change something, that can be considered fudging. For example, prepared spell casters could be given an ability to recast one expended spell per day. If a player than used this ability in another group, without their consent/knowledge, this would now be cheating.
If a group chooses to play a certain way, especially a game like this, it isn't cheating because YOU don't like to play that way. It's only cheating if they play with you and don't get your consent for changing the rules.
Stop using the term cheating please. This is a discussion about fudging, not cheating. Cheating is bad, we all know that. If you're playing competitive solitaire, cheating is bad. If you're playing at alone at home on a Sunday afternoon and no one else cares about the results, it's fudging, because you are creating your own game.
So, I fudged last night, I fudged like there was no tomorrow. Why? Because the dice weren't dictating excitement but the absolute opposite: sheer and utter frustration for everybody. Not character frustration, player, and GM, frustration.
<snip>
Thanks to the dice, what was to have been a fun battle turned into a candidate for the fight we all want to forget.
When the results entertain no one, there's no point in playing. Better to sacrifice the rolls than to sacrifice everyone's enjoyment.
Well done!
Stop using the term cheating please.No, it is the accurate descriptive word. That it carries connotations that you don't like might perhaps inspire you to self-reflection on the matter.
I do find it interesting that you don't have an issue with the phrase 'cheating at solitaire' as according to you that is an impossibility. Yet people do use that phrase to mean exactly what I mean by it.
People like to find euphemisms like fudging. *shrug* Simply face it.
Some people do like to cheat at solitaire. They would prefer to win than to lose, even if it would make it a hollow victory for someone else they find some enjoyment out of it. It takes all kinds.
D&D is a better game to me when you don't storyboard an outcome, play with training wheels, or force results by fiat. But if you prefer to make sure that your group can't lose, etc then so be it. It's up there with cheating at solitaire for me however and I find nothing redeeming about it.
-James
Fudging isn't cheating though. That's the problem. You see it as such but not all fuding deals with die rolls. Simply adding or subtracting hit points from a creature could be fudging. Adding or subtracting opponents to a battle could be fudging. Changing where the magic items are or even what they are can be fudging. Changing what the opponents or traps are can be fudging.
The point of the game is to have fun. If the game isn't fun and the GM has control to enhance or increase that fun, then he has an obligation to do so.
I'm also curious what you would do if the session was so unfun that people were ready to call it for the night.
Had a situation similar to the above one the party was level 6 dealing with a pair of level 3 goblin warriors and the dice would have let the little buggers kill the party and walk away scot free.
6 rnds into this the highest roll anyone other than the goblins saw was a 3 and that was the wizard. The goblins however rolled 18 or above on every attack save or what ever.
Had i not borrowed some fluff and had one of them suddenly go prone from being distracted by something under a log it would have been about 4 more rounds till dead party.
While true i didn't alter a die roll i did alter the situation which is no more "Cheating/Fudging" than having the goblin's roll "come up" a one.
Stop using the term cheating please.No, it is the accurate descriptive word. That it carries connotations that you don't like might perhaps inspire you to self-reflection on the matter.
I do find it interesting that you don't have an issue with the phrase 'cheating at solitaire' as according to you that is an impossibility. Yet people do use that phrase to mean exactly what I mean by it.
People like to find euphemisms like fudging. *shrug* Simply face it.
Some people do like to cheat at solitaire. They would prefer to win than to lose, even if it would make it a hollow victory for someone else they find some enjoyment out of it. It takes all kinds.
D&D is a better game to me when you don't storyboard an outcome, play with training wheels, or force results by fiat. But if you prefer to make sure that your group can't lose, etc then so be it. It's up there with cheating at solitaire for me however and I find nothing redeeming about it.
-James
You don't address my point though. Whats the difference between a house rule and cheating? If group A has a house rule that the GM can fudge the dice, that is a rule then. Since it's within the rules, it therefore cannot be cheating.
If I modify the rules of solitaire for my own purposes, I'm not cheating, I'm just playing my own version.
Lets say you and I play H-O-R-S-E. After missing your last shot you immediately retake it, because where you play, that's the rule, but where I play, that's cheating. Your way isn't wrong, it's just different, but the lack of agreement beforehand makes the act circumspect.
If a group has an agreement or rule about fudging BEFORE it happens, it is no longer cheating, because it is now an acceptable behavior within the game. Just because you're walking past the table and don't know our rules doesn't mean we're cheating, it means you don't know our rules. If it were competitive D&D, it would be cheating, but it's not. If this were PFS, it would be cheating, but again, that's not what we're talking about.
So tell me again, if we make a house rule, how is that cheating? By your logic, all house rules are cheating, because that means you aren't playing by the printed rules (like not following the 'standard' rules of solitaire).
Saying someone is cheating carries a moral implication. If you aren't trying to make a moral implication, that people making house rules is immoral, than you should stop using the term for this discussion.
And of course, page 402 in the core book actually says that is allowed in the game, making GM fudging an actual rule, therefore it isn't cheating, it isn't even a house rule. Page 402 explicitly states that the GM is allowed to modify the results and rules as they see fit for their game. Since it's in the book, it can't be cheating.
You're not going to convince him. Leave james alone, his moral view is his own.
You're not going to convince him. Leave james alone, his moral view is his own.
That has been the troubling aspect of this debate. For many posters in this thread IT IS a moral issue. Some have been more direct than others in stating it, but the message is clear.
The message has been - "we who do not ever fudge are better than those of you who do fudge, because you are cheaters, and we are not".
The the rules actually say it is OK to fudge, and many of us have tried to establish that different people play with different rules, but it matters not. We are being judged - harshly.
I enjoy a passionate debate, but I don't find it difficult to do so without insulting those whose opinions differ from mine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're not going to convince him. Leave james alone, his moral view is his own.
We can change his mind. All we have to do is make a slight adjustment to the argument and declare ourselves winners.
Fudging isn't cheating though. That's the problem. You see it as such but not all fuding deals with die rolls. Simply adding or subtracting hit points from a creature could be fudging. Adding or subtracting opponents to a battle could be fudging. Changing where the magic items are or even what they are can be fudging. Changing what the opponents or traps are can be fudging.Yes, there can be many ways to cheat.
If a player had their character take 100hps of damage but they only had 98, but claimed to have 1hp left it would be cheating. Likewise for a DM that wants 'the battle to have more suspense' or the like.
When the magic items found are exactly those on the players' wishlists... it lessens the game for me.
The point of the game is to have fun. If the game isn't fun and the GM has control to enhance or increase that fun, then he has an obligation to do so.And if you have fun at winning at solitaire, but dislike loosing, then you can make it so that you always win. All you have to do is move a few of the cards around.
That is cheating at solitaire. It can be your 'house rule' or whatever euphemism you'd like for it.
-James
The solitaire example is a poor one because there is no social contract between players.
I have never suggested always give the players what's on their wishlist. I was thinking of times when I randomly roll up a suit of +5 full plate (2nd edition this happened) for a 5th level party. That's too powerful for the group, so fudging is in order. You can reroll or just change the bonus or whatever but any GM that would allow that armror to fall into the hands of a low level character is asking for a problematic game.
What about the player who hasn't had anything neat for his character pop up in the adventure so you change the random item from something that sucks to something that could be useful? I have seen times when a player feels left out because nothing found is useful for their character for several sessions and they aren't in a position to head back to town to trade for some useful gear.
What about the time when the enemy is at 20 hps and the players are within a single attack of a TPK (let's go with an AOE) and it will bring the game to an end? Is it bad to have the character's attack that dealt 19 points deal that final point? They had their feel of possibly losing. You can continue the game without having to start over with a whole new set of characters.
Saying someone is cheating carries a moral implication. If you aren't trying to make a moral implication, that people making house rules is immoral, than you should stop using the term for this discussion.I'm glad that you object to the term so strongly. You should.
A good number of people on these 'fudging' threads give the following advice: "never let your players know".
Why?
First a sub-group of them say never let your players know that you will 'fudge' dice rolls at all, as they (reasonably) won't trust your results after that. I see that we've abandoned defense of this.
Second another group says that even if you are honest with your players that you will alter dice (or the like) that you don't tell them when you decide to do so as such will spoil the game for the players. This is a little more grey than the first, so its where you need make your stand on it.
Both of these should have the eye catching warning signs that you react to when you see the word 'cheating'.
Imagine if the DM says 'well this was supposed to happen, so it does'. Oh it has to be more subtle than that, so that the players can fool themselves into believing it.... it's the same thing in the end however.
And if that's the game that you want to play 'I take back my move' 'well a miracle happens and you wake up alive' and the like... then you're not playing the same game as I am.
You're cheating at solitaire because you'd rather have an empty 'win' instead of facing even a little challenge. And when you cheat at solitaire you really are cheating yourself.
-James
The reason you don't tell the players isn't so they don't feel cheated. You don't tell them so they don't come to rely on it. I don't think it's cheating at all to fudge.
The game is supposed to be fun for everyone. The stance you are taking is that if I don't play your way, then I am not playing a fun game and that my players have a horrible human being as a GM. You would be wrong on both accounts.
My games are fun. I am a wonderful human being. My players keep coming back week after week for my games, and I'm not the only game in town. Two of them are in more than one weekly game and have been trying to bring other players to my table. I actually do have a waiting list of people who want to join. Obviously my style of GMing is a good style. I don't think you would enjoy it (many reasons based on other threads) but that doesn't mean that I think your style of gaming is bad. I think you and I come from two different worlds when it comes to gaming.
Come to think of it, both times I fudged to avoid character death in my current game, I made it pretty clear what I was doing.
Of course, one of them went on to get flesh to stoned, then restored, and then killed and rezzed later anyway. He hasn't had the best of lucky, that one.
I've never played in your games but this sounds like a character I had that ran through the Tomb of Horrors.
Poor guy tries to be a casanova, but flubs every social roll he makes, it seems. Maybe it's cause he's the fighter of the group...
As an aside, how do you cheat at solitaire? What's the limit? Cause I'll abandon a game if it looks hopeless enough and start a new one.
Our fighter was the most suave for quite a while. He really focused on it though.
Poor guy tries to be a casanova, but flubs every social roll he makes, it seems. Maybe it's cause he's the fighter of the group...
As an aside, how do you cheat at solitaire? What's the limit? Cause I'll abandon a game if it looks hopeless enough and start a new one.
Generally by placing cards where they don't belong and pretending they do.
Well, the computer doesn't let me do that.
Computers don't cheat. ^-^
First a sub-group of them say never let your players know that you will 'fudge' dice rolls at all, as they (reasonably) won't trust your results after that. I see that we've abandoned defense of this.
This is the group I could never play in. I feel like the GM is saying "I don't care if you want to face possible defeat. I will not give it to you. You will win, and my story will continue."
|
Now for some people evidently this isn't 'cheating' it's 'reordering the deck' or some such garbage. Face it. Own up to it. And if you really think it's so right then that shouldn't be a problem.-James
Huh, never thought to do that the few times I used real cards. Can't really see it as cheating however.
The reason you don't tell the players isn't so they don't feel cheated. You don't tell them so they don't come to rely on it. I don't think it's cheating at all to fudge.
The game is supposed to be fun for everyone. The stance you are taking is that if I don't play your way, then I am not playing a fun game and that my players have a horrible human being as a GM. You would be wrong on...
Good point with the reliance quote. I don't think he is saying you can't have fun fudging. I think he is saying you aren't really playing the game since the game involves chance and fudging takes that away. At that point you are just running a story.
James while I mostly agree with some of your points the book saying a GM can ignore results has not been replied to.
I will take this one for you.
Cheating and Fudging: We all know that cheating is bad. But sometimes, as a GM, you might find yourself in a situation where cheating might improve the game. We prefer to call this “fudging” rather than cheating, and while you should try to avoid it when you can, you are the law in your world, and you shouldn’t feel bound by the
dice. A GM should be impartial and fair, and in theory, that’s what random dice results help support. Some players have trouble putting trust in their GM, but dice offer something that’s irrefutable and truly non-partisan (as long as the dice aren’t doctored or loaded, of course). Still, it’s no good if a single roll of the dice would result in a premature end to your campaign, or a character’s death when they did everything rightEven the books says it is cheating. However book also says it is acceptable in certain situations though. Therefore everyone is right. :)
edit:I did not copy the entire page, but the point of the that page is to do whatever your group needs to have fun.
Even if you don't enjoy it doesn't mean you have to insult other people on the boards. Yes, fudging or not fudging is something that should be agreed upon before the game starts; but that doesn't make it badwrongfun. There are certain performances that are only valid through the deception of the audience such as haunted houses and magic shows. Are you saying that a magician is cheating when he puts on a convincing act? Those types of performances are much more enjoyable when you're thoroughly convinced and much less enjoyable otherwise. In every movie ever, there's a person pretending to be someone else, and terrible acting is just miserable to watch. The performers are not terrible despicable cheats, and the audience relies on the performers to their job because it's a lot less enjoyable for the audience to pretend that the performance was convincing when its not.
Some people play Pathfinder or D&D like that, and it may be a different game then you play, but every D&D game I've ever played with a different GM has always been a different game. Some people want the magic, some people really don't.
Well, the computer doesn't let me do that.Computers don't cheat. ^-^
... That is so very wrong... Computers are the worse cheaters ever, they see through walls, they know everything, and they usually play by very different rules. They just hide the fact that they cheat by pretending to be incompetent. At least in most cases, but if you've ever played Dokapon Kingdom with computers...
No computers do cheat, they cheat like no other. However, computers do their best to make sure that you don't cheat.
Lies are the grease of social interaction.
"Tact" The act of lying or omitting truth to spare the feelings of another.
Unless that "other" is a sad, cynical, pathetic specimen of humanity for whom the lies often show up like blaring klaxons and who, for whatever bizarre aberrant psychological reason there is for such a curse, is angered by them.
Depressingly, there are people with that affliction. I'm one of them.
---
If I'm in a game and the GM says, "Sorry, man, I just scored a freak crit. That random goblin mook will kill you if I don't reroll it," I'd feel grateful to him for leveling with me. Letting the PC die would depend on how adversely it would affect the group if I did, but I'd be tempted to go along with him if that's what the group seemed to need.
But if the same GM thinks he's oh-so-clever and secretly makes the crit a normal hit, I'll probably catch on -- maybe not instantly, but within a few sessions it'll usually be glaringly obvious. And I'll feel that resentment start curdling, and probably blurt out something incredibly rude like "please don't lie to me and tell me that 20 wasn't a crit -- I'd feel better about things if you'd just admit it."
When I am running a homebrew campaign, I will fudge rolls to avoid character death. The reason being, is when I'm running this type of campaign, several of the adventures are planned out months in advance and involve specific characters. Those adventures are planned out with the players of those characters to an extent, and it would be extremely disappointing for them to not see how they turned out because the character died. I have told my players after the fact that I fudge rolls, but they never know when, so it doesn't break the tension during the game. Now, I am running an AP for the first time, and I am rolling in the open. It is a completely different experience for me. It is a bit liberating, honestly.
So, as I see it, both fudging and not have their merits. It really depends on the style of game you are running.
james maissen,
I agree that the blatant cheating you keep describing would be indeed unfun for me both as a DM and as a player. However, you neglect subtlety as an aspect of fudging - to you, it's merely a form of it, but the way in which one fudges impacts how the fudging takes effect in game. You have to remember that.
The reason you don't tell the players isn't so they don't feel cheated. You don't tell them so they don't come to rely on it. I don't think it's cheating at all to fudge.
Wow.. so they 'don't feel cheated', when they were cheated...
I mean the level of willful denial here is staggering.
You misread what I said or I worded it poorly. The reasoning has nothing to do with cheating or how they feel. It has to do with the players relying on it. There are players who get very attached to their characters or the story. There are players who feel entitled to win at all costs. These players sometimes don't even realize they do this. Then there are the GMs who do the same thing.
You haven't told me why fudging a reincarnate roll so the player can try a new race is detrimental to the game or even trust. You also have not explained what you would have done in the scenario where the night was about to be a bust because everything went wrong for the whole table.
Unless that "other" is a sad, cynical, pathetic specimen of humanity for whom the lies often show up like blaring klaxons and who, for whatever bizarre aberrant psychological reason there is for such a curse, is angered by them.
Depressingly, there are people with that affliction. I'm one of them.
Question do you interact with a people whom you dislike? A coworker, boss, a over zealous third person speaking cartoon fish. Do you announce your distaste for this foul creature or do you remain silent? Silence is an ommission.
Few people can handle the bald unfiltered truth. Mr. Fishy understands your point you prefer the painful truth to the blissful lie.
Mr. Fishy perfers to only hurt in defense. If you ask Mr. Fishy a direct question and he doesn't answer it's likey because you won't like the answer.
Wow. Just wow.