This thread was like watching a dude walk into a biker bar and tell the bikers how much he just enjoyed their mothers "company". Then watching the bikers lay the smack down on him with pool cues and an 8 ball in a sock.
8 Ball in a Sock is the name of my new d20 sourcebook / Lynyrd Skynyrd cover band / porn star alias.
On the other hand he may have had a crap DM that did the system a disservice and he is venting his frustration not knowing it was the DM not the system.
He claims to have DMed 4th Edition himself a number of times, so I don't think we can chalk it up to one bad play experience.
You know what it really boils down to (and this is actually kind of sad)?
This guy probably just doesn't want 4th Edition to work. He was probably so eager to have his doubts about the system justified by a play experience that he (consciously or not) sabotaged his own game in order to make sure it ran as badly as he feared 4e runs. I don't see any other explanation for running skill challenges like that.
This thread was like watching a dude walk into a biker bar and tell the bikers how much he just enjoyed their mothers "company". Then watching the bikers lay the smack down on him with pool cues and an 8 ball in a sock.8 Ball in a Sock is the name of my new d20 sourcebook / Lynyrd Skynyrd cover band / porn star alias.
That is the most epic product crossover ever. You might be my new hero.
You know what it really boils down to (and this is actually kind of sad)?
This guy probably just doesn't want 4th Edition to work. He was probably so eager to have his doubts about the system justified by a play experience that he (consciously or not) sabotaged his own game in order to make sure it ran as badly as he feared 4e runs. I don't see any other explanation for running skill challenges like that.
I agree with your assessment, but to play the devil's advocate on the point, that is more or less how skill challenges are described in many printed sources. If you run skill challenges as indicated in the rule books and the modules, you do get a pretty boring experience. I made that mistake the first time I ran one, too - but I also learned from the experience and didn't do it that way anymore.
|
Yay, not locked yet.
Ok can I point open to the OP that they haven't been actually playing Dungeons & Dragons since they stopped playing 1e. All later 'games' are nothing but interpretations of D&D.
3e broke everything that was D&D - loss of level limits, all races of equal importance in the world, etc, 2e at least only bent it.
Discuss :)
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yay, not locked yet.
Why would it be locked? The discourse has been informative and with a generally reasonable tone.
And for the folks who flagged the OP: he has a right to his opinion, and as far as I noted, he expressed it in a way that broke no forum guidelines. (And Paizo allowing this criticism to stand is in no way an "anti-4E" action; we've allowed far more aggressive "Pathfinder Sucks" posts to stand as well.)
Please carry on!
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I come back tonight and by the mercy of the gods this thread remains unlocked, I will consider it open season on the OP. It will not be pleasant.
Actually, this is the most flaggable thing I've spotted in this thread. Scott, I'm glad you opted for a more reasonable response when you had the opportunity.
I agree with your assessment, but to play the devil's advocate on the point, that is more or less how skill challenges are described in many printed sources. If you run skill challenges as indicated in the rule books and the modules, you do get a pretty boring experience. I made that mistake the first time I ran one, too - but I also learned from the experience and didn't do it that way anymore.
Agreed. My first Skill Challenge was horrid and a silly exercise in dice rolling for no other reason than to beat static DCs.
I even let my players know they were in a Skill Challenge and told them how many more good rolls they needed for success.I've learned since then to just incorporate the rolls naturally, as they roleplayed the events and the story unfolded naturally. This was a much better attempt and made it seemless to the fact that they were in a Skill Challenge.
I don't see any other explanation for running skill challenges like that.
Although we're much better at them now, if we're not careful, our skill challenges still degenerate into that sort of thing. I think it's really important that the DM set the tone so that players care about the story of a skill challenge, rather than about the outcome. They're tough to run well, imo.
Having said that, I think the same problem can arise running skill checks in Pathfinder - I'm sure I'm not the only one to have witnessed a player "attempt to convince the king" without proposing any actual argument but rather just by reaching for some dice and looking up their diplomacy bonus.
EDIT: And as usual - Matthew Koelbl says it much better. :)
You just up and decided you would share your wildly inflamed opinion with the internet.
I totally misread the internet.
|
Yep, skill challenges are hard to run well, and make them immersive rather than just abstract dice rolling. I also agree with the poster above who stated the same issue occurs in pathfinder as well.
The best thing about a skill challeng I believe, is that it helps stop the idea of "Oh, i'll just dump stat charisma because I know that Simon is going to play a charisma king. He can deal with all the problem solving and social interractions".
The idea that everyone needs to try and contribute in some way to the success of a challenge made all my players consider their character options in far more detail, and it has led to them really thinking outside the square for how to use their characters effectively in these types of situations. As a consequence, I've taken that concept into all my of pathfinder games as well, including the PbP's I run here. Seems to work really well.
As an aside to my previous post about players dropping pathfinder, I should also note that I've had two players refuse to continue with 4th edition as well. One explained that he didn't like the change to how spell casters worked. (He likes vancian system and huge selections of spells to choose from). The other said he couldn't be bothered trying to keep the two systems in his head. I thought both of those were reasonable as well.
@Sunshadow - I agree with your interpretation of how the books don't seem to be overly inspiring. I have struggled for the last few years to really nail down why that is so. I think the idea that there is less art displaying the functioning of the powers may have something to do with it. The books just seem souless to me in a way.
We actually found that the digital character creator made my players more excited about the game than the books. The ability to whip up 3 or 4 character concepts really quickly and see how they worked out was invaluable, and kept some players at my table long enough to work out how good the game really is.
Cheers
If I come back tonight and by the mercy of the gods this thread remains unlocked, I will consider it open season on the OP. It will not be pleasant.Actually, this is the most flaggable thing I've spotted in this thread.
My apologies, that bit was meant metaphorically. The response I ended up writing was pretty much what I intended to write from the get-go.
|
|
Perhaps the gentleman could have a bash with Essentials? I personally think that WotC hit the mark with this line. Then again I've nearly always DM'd and have always specified 'core only'*.
As for skill challenges they work, as stated as a tool, and are NO WORSE than 3.x/PF editions Diplomacy or Search rolls for example. So like nearly every aspect of an RPG it comes down the the GM and the players to make the game work.
S.
*I collect all the 4e products but when playing if I'm running the game I want to know the rules inside-out. In ALL editions I've found I can absorb the big-3 but you start adding on splat book after splat book and I find hunting rules in-game occurs. So it's personal preference - nothing wrong with 4e in general.
|
|
Yay, not locked yet.Why would it be locked? The discourse has been informative and with a generally reasonable tone.
And for the folks who flagged the OP: he has a right to his opinion, and as far as I noted, he expressed it in a way that broke no forum guidelines. (And Paizo allowing this criticism to stand is in no way an "anti-4E" action; we've allowed far more aggressive "Pathfinder Sucks" posts to stand as well.)
Please carry on!
Flagged!
Actually, this isn't really any more informative than the several (conservative estimate) other threads like this.
I see the OP still has not responded. I am flagging also. Drive by posting annoys me.
Anytime someone post a controversial topic and turns invisible I think troll.
Controversial post sure to cause an argument if it was a real post-->It would be like me asking why should anyone play any thing beside casters in pathfinder since all noncasters suck, and then running off. <--This all assumes I have never been seen here before, and may never be seen again.
Edit:This is me flagging the OP, not my own post. I am flagging here to explain why.
Fourth edition has combined saving throws and defenses into one consistent mechanic, but through the choice of race, abilities, feats, and items those may vary based on the character choices. So now you have AC, Fortitude, Reflex and Willpower as defenses. There is also the added functionality of ongoing effects with save ends. This is much easier to learn, and to play, which is the design focus of 4E. As a result it makes character and monster creation simple, and running a game as a DM. These are all plusses in my book. However, there are still traps in regards to good versus bad choices, which will always be a cornerstone of D&D or Pathfinder.
As to skills the biggest item that is missing is crafting, at least a separate and distinct skill set. This was never a selling point for me in regards to role playing. This is similar to online games with an auction house and crafting systems. If I wanted to go through all the drudgery of these mundane tasks, I would stay at work, or do housework, versus escape into a different reality. But I do think you need at least a basic system for item creation, just to keep the players happy that like to twiddle with these types of things. So that is one area 4E can improve at. What is missing is a supplemental book on rituals and item creation. The benefit of 4E is any class can create magic items based on rituals, and it does not have to be the sole province of magic users, for example, a fighter can create something without the aid of a wizard.
As to skill challenges, you can continue to role play just using straight skill rolls for everything the characters do. I expect most players and DMs use single skill rolls. However, if you don’t spend the time to learn how skill challenges work, you are missing out on a very dynamic part of the game which is loads of fun if they are done right. The downside is the presentation of skill challenges, and that has been stated plenty of times.
You can still be nobility, a bar keep, a black smith, etc. as this is part of your race, background, skill selection, powers and feats. But it will not be as complex as Pathfinder, which I can understand would present a problem to those that want features from 3.5, or if you want more rules to further define your experiences.
As to role playing versus roll playing, that is strictly dependent on the DM and players. Both can be supported with D&D or Pathfinder.
As to dependency on magic items, both systems have a heavy reliance on them, including enough gold to support that character at every level in their career. An example is the monk character in Pathfinder, who is very challenged if they do not keep up with the appropriate magic weapons. But 4E also has an inherent bonus system, if you want to rely less on magic items. So the character can keep pace.
As to powers, it is great every character class has them, but I do believe it is hard to sustain, as shown by the release of Essentials. With so many powers available, it is hard to keep quality in check, but there is nothing wrong with each class having them, as I would want to play a 4E martial character over any that were available in previous editions of D&D or Pathfinder. The only exception would be the 4E Ranger. But on the same topic, casters in previous editions of D&D or Pathfinder have much more versatility and power. You see plenty of discussion on how to shore up martial characters with casters in Pathfinder, and how to make them more distinct in 4E. So both approaches are not perfect.
The problem with healing with both systems, is limited how much can be done based on the 15 minute adventure day. I prefer how GURPS dealt with magic using a fatigue based system, where you regain power each time you rested. With Pathfinder and 4E, once you rest (extended) your healing resources are automatically regained which never made sense to me. You can modify either system to make the regaining of resources more difficult.
I prefer the approach of races in 4E, because they can have multiple sets of stats to support different classes, and there are no negative modifiers for abilities. The biggest difference with 4E races versus previous editions is the long trailer of racial abilities you could gain. Some of these become hard to balance. But if the later doesn’t float your boat, then I can understand how it would be viewed as an unnecessary constraint.
In regards to classes, I prefer the 4E approach where the design is consistent, but I have concerns 4E essentials is moving away from that, in the sense they chose a design principle when 4E was first released and now they are changing it. The problem is understanding how this may affect the game, and new combinations of classes, powers and feats that will be broken as a result. But I expect that is a problem with any game, as I am sure the dynamics changed for Pathfinder with the release of ultimate magic and combat, so they will have to add errata as things are discovered. I really like 4E hybrids, but I rarely play multi classes. The biggest hindrance of the later is the feat investment for each power you want to gain from a different class. I would rather have it as a feat for each tier, and then choose the abilities you like.
And finally, feats are the thing I hate the most in any version of D&D or Pathfinder. There are too many, and 80 percent of them are ignored. But it does help sell books. But I prefer how 4E grants class abilities via powers and is less reliant on feats, especially for martial characters.
I prefer the approach of races in 4E, because they can have multiple sets of stats to support different classes, and there are no negative modifiers for abilities. The biggest difference with 4E races versus previous editions is the long trailer of racial abilities you could gain. Some of these become hard to balance. But if the later doesn’t float your boat, then I can understand how it would be viewed as an unnecessary constraint.
In regards to classes, I prefer the 4E approach where the design is consistent, but I have concerns 4E essentials is moving away from that, in the sense they chose a design principle when 4E was first released and now they are changing it. The problem is understanding how this may affect the game, and new combinations of classes, powers and feats that will be broken as a result. But I expect that is a problem with any game, as I am sure the dynamics changed for Pathfinder with the release of ultimate magic and combat, so they will have to add errata as things are discovered. I really like 4E hybrids, but I rarely play multi classes. The biggest hindrance of the later is the feat investment for each power you want to gain from a different class. I would rather have it as a feat for each tier, and then choose the abilities you like.
These two things, to me, are the biggest differences in the two systems. Other than racial restriction on available classes and levels, and the unification of the xp charts, all of the earlier editions I've played (3.x and 2nd edition) are pretty consistent in the overall approach to races and classes, with most changes being additive more than anything else. Spell lists have been adjusted, and different races and classes included in the core book, but the overall feel remained the same. 4E made important departures in both of these areas. The other changes are significant is the sheer quantity of them, but individually, they really didn't break much new ground, with the exception of how they handled magic throughout the system, which caused as much joy as it did disgust.
For the races they did two things that stood out to me as being major changes. First, this is an area where they took away more than than they added; the list of racial abilities, some of which had been present since at least 2nd edition, was removed, and each race ended up with the same number of abilities, no matter what the past lore supported. This ended up benefiting some races and hurting others. The second thing they did that popped out was that they insisted on attaching every single nonhuman race to some kind of specific environment, again regardless of previous lore. The net result to me was that they ended up jettisoning a lot of the past lore in the name of streamlined mechanics. While not bad in and of itself, I don't usually find the results of making something simple for the sake of being able to say it's now simple to be worth the effort, as hidden costs and loss of flavor have a way of showing their ugly heads at the most inopportune time.
This shows itself to be very true in the way they did the classes. The concept of a unified system and balance looks great on paper, but ultimately ends with a lot of unnecessary abilities for the classes that don't really need to be that complicated, the tendency for all classes to feel, or at least look, the same, and every single additional power/class/option has a much higher chance of breaking the game because all the previously existing material is so tweaked, it doesn't take much to throw that delicate balance off. 3.5 could get broken if a DM allowed players to tap more than one or two splat books for a single character or for the party as a whole, but any single splat option was not likely to break the game anymore than the core material already did.
In the end, to me, the chase of making something simple for the sake of it being simple is a futile and pointless endeavor. RPGs are complex beasts, and some areas are just plain complicated. Race and class both fall under this category. Trying to make these seem simple simply pushes the complexity to somewhere else in the system, and often ends up amplifying those complexities when they do come up. 4E's developer's stock response seems to be "Let the DM deal with it," which at times is perfectly appropriate, but at other times, comes across as just being lazy and not wanting to deal with it. Making combat more movement and trick based with DM discretion mattering as much as dice rolls falls under the former category. That genuinely helped the game. The lack of a crafting system or any kind of any kind of advice for DMs on how to put into mechanical terms the rp fluff their characters come up with fall under the latter category. I can agree that it wouldn't have had to be in the core book, but some kind of book would have been appropriate. Have they done magazine articles on those topics? The unified system for races and classes just outright ignores tradition, though if it had just been the races, most people would have learned to deal with it, since every edition has done that to a fair degree. I haven't seen Essentials, but it sounds like something that would actually work well if it had come at the beginning. The underlying structure is still there, and developers have something they can measure costs with, but the classes still feel different from the very start, and developers aren't forced to publish half baked ideas or shelf perfectly good ideas just so every class has the same number of options.
So can we conclude now that this thread was intended for nothing more then 4e bashing?
So can we conclude now that this thread was intended for nothing more then 4e bashing?
You were probably okay to come to that conclusion back on page one, frankly.
no amount of piling on by Cirno, Betts or any other lover of the 4th edition who has their nose out of joint should deter posters like the OP.
I would hope that the fact that he was literally wrong about everything he typed and that his overall post looked like someone made the most generic anti-4e Bingo post they could make, only to the scuttle away never to return because he was trolling, should deter posters like the OP.
The funny thing is, we're not the ones being trolled. You are. You're being made into supporting a fake troll post. He typed out the most generically awful and wrong post he could make about 4e, and you leapt to his defense for no reason other then your own hate for 4e. Nothing he said in his post was true, and yet you're still defending it.
So congrats!
Trolls...all you can eat, but none of the cost. All, please continue, it is a Friday night and I like all you can eat buffets...
He may have intended it to be a troll, but I would say the very civil discourse that has followed has proven that less and less people here are looking for that kind of conversation.
Flagged!
Actually, this isn't really any more informative than the several (conservative estimate) other threads like this.
While the original post and the posts directly responding to it are practically useless to me, I find that the follow up posts have been pretty useful to read through.
I see the OP still has not responded. I am flagging also. Drive by posting annoys me.
Anytime someone post a controversial topic and turns invisible I think troll.
Controversial post sure to cause an argument if it was a real post-->It would be like me asking why should anyone play any thing beside casters in pathfinder since all noncasters suck, and then running off. <--This all assumes I have never been seen here before, and may never be seen again.
I personally think that the original post's purpose was to agitate a number of posters here and I do think he definitely succeeded at that by looking at the following posts. Searching through the flagging options though, I don't think his post by itself is insulting, offensive, or anything that nature. On the other hand, I would say that a rare few posts responding to him did cross that line, one for example (that has sense been changed) just called the original poster an a++&&$+.
If someone comes and posts, "It would be like me asking why should anyone play any thing beside casters in pathfinder since all noncasters suck, and then running off," then leaves with no other comment, it doesn't really become a problem unless several people respond to it with a incredible amount of force.
Same with here, I think that the level of response here to this original post was excessive and unnecessary. I think that the level of effort that the posters responding to the original poster vastly outweighs the time the original poster took. I believe there is much more encouragement here for people to troll the 4th edition forums than discourage because even with the majority of posters calling someone a troll, they still will give them plenty of attention.
Most of us here were posting on Paizo boards before 4E and Pathfinder even came out. It was the awesome adventures in Dungeon mag that brought me to these forums and wanting support on running some of them. There is no reason for 4E supporters not to be on these boards. Now I'm not playing 4E or Pathfinder, but still enjoy browsing threads and discussing games systems and adventures.
As for 4E: I miss two skills- perform and ride.
I don't like the magic item system for either Pathfinder or 4E. In my experience players love to treat magic item lists as their personal shopping catalogues to optimize their builds, and for me this sucks all the wonder, mystery and magic out of them. I much prefer it when magic items are rare and each item is unique and exciting. You can try to achieve this in D&D by taking control over players' access to them, but a lot of players get a bit huffy about not being able to buy whatever toys they want for their characters.
I don't mind having a power system in the game for martial characters. However, I have found that there are quite a few powers out there that I find seem really ridiculous ("archer's staircase" and "come and get it", always jump first to mind). Furthermore the sheer amount of powers in the game is very hard for a gm to monitor. I personally think that having something more like the stunt system in Dragon Age would have been a better way to give martial characters lots of interesting tactical choices without the need to create an exhausting of list of combat powers. I found it frustrating running 4E games and having my players not be able to convincingly narrate how a power is functioning in the context of the game world beyond, "well that's how it works according to the rules- so yes, your cunning, evil wizard does have to rush past his bodyguards and attack my fighter again."
I'm also not a fan of how the action point has been used in 4E. Many systems have a mechanic similar to an action point, but 4E probably does it the worst of any I've seen. In my experience it has really only led to players trying to create characters with really impressive "nova combos/builds" that cause the flow/pace of a combat to grind to a halt as soon as they decide to make use of such a combo (especially at paragon tier and higher). I think that action points should be something that don't slow the game down and are mainly reserved for bailing out a character who is in dire straights- not so that power gamers can find ways to build some broken, limelight hogging combination of attacks.
I guess my other big gripe is the Character Builder. I think that it is a great boon to the game, but also a terrible curse.
It is a boon in that it makes it easy to put a character together. I love that it prints out everything you need to know about your character is reasonably well organized format.
The curse of the CB is that it facilitates power gaming mentality. It makes it exceedingly easy for the power gamer to tinker with builds, crunch numbers and in general optimize one's heart out. I noticed that when I was running 4E even my casual more rp oriented players were spending a lot of time tinkering away on the character builder, experimenting with different combos of feats, powers, and magic items to best optimize their builds. Fortunately, the system can handle a significant level of character optimization before it starts to crack (unlike say 3.E/Pathfinder). However, I'm not a particular fan of this play style, and although it's not my place to tell other players how have fun, I find that it detracts from my own fun as a gm when I'm running a game for players who are playing the game with a power gamers mentality, which in turn makes it much less likely that I will continue to run such a game. 4E tended to bring this out in my players, which significantly reduced the fun I was having running the game. In fact, it is primarily because of this single issue that I am no longer running a 4E game.
FYI, I don't think 3E is any better for this. In fact, I think it can be even worse because IMO it is much easier for a power gamer to trounce the balance of system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In truth, 4th ed is okay, but I'm always stunned by the number of apologists and defenders who crawl out of the woodwork on Paizo's own boards. I've played it, I think it's crap, and while I probably wouldn't start a topic about it, no amount of piling on by Cirno, Betts or any other lover of the 4th edition who has their nose out of joint should deter posters like the OP.
Oh dont mistake me for a 4E apologist... I tried the game I didn't like it at all - Other people do like it and they are not bad/wrong/stupid for doing so.
I don't see the need to pop up in a area graciously set aside by Paizo for people who play a rival product and pick a fight with inflammatory posts. Most of the 4E people on these boards use the Paizo APs, modules, and Game Mastery products and are good Paizo customers. So why damage your favourite game company by unnecessarily antagonising a section of the customer base.
I think people forget the overwhelming majority of Pathfinder players have the class to realise its not cool to crap all over something that other people really like and have fun playing.
Now I admit I am both shallow and easily amused, Scott, Cirno and others provide me with a laugh when they go into a tizzy of self righteous martyrdom... I do not judge people who play 4E by Scott or Cirno's behaviour even-though they put themselves forward as advocates and defenders of the game.
I know the majority of 4E people arent as insecure about the game they are having fun playing and 99% of them don't care or know about Pathfinder at worst, or are happy they we are happy at best, so why bait them.
I happen to think the OP got what he deserved and wanted. A well thought out and coherent rebuttal of his argument by the majority of 4E players with a lashing of closed ranks and smug under-doggedness with a cherry on top by those that are less secure about themselves.
I also know that some (or the same) jerk will do the same thing again in the near future and the reactions will be exactly the same as above - I could lay odds on who says what and when. When it happens I will pop into the thread for a chuckle and watch people give them selves an ulcer over something that will be forgotten in a day.
So can we conclude now that this thread was intended for nothing more then 4e bashing?Like there was any doubt?
On the bright side, it's being useful for getting other trolls to...what was the phrase? Pop in out of the woodwork? Wonder if it'll get closed now.
Fourth Edition does not simply suffer from a few minor flaws, or one large one either, its weaknesses are broad including: lack of skills, altering key defenses, a lack of ingame economy due to crafting issues, and giving fighters millions of powers.
Let me stop you right here.
Shorter skill list? No craft, profession or perform? Don't miss 'em. Don't miss skill ranks either.
Altering key defenses? They're the same defenses, just more consistent.
Bad economy? Welcome to D&D. Any and every edition.
Too many choices for Joe Casual Fighter Player to choose from? I don't know how he managed all those fighter feats in 3e, but there's a knock-off fighter class in some Essentials book that he'd like. Of course, he should be playing TSR d&d if he wants a simple fighter.
What I'm saying is, yeah 4e has its problems. But these aren't them; these grievances sound just like a hundred other rants I've read that boil down to "4e is different than 3e, I don't like it!"
Which is fine. You don't have to like my favorite rendition of D&D. But you're not scoring any cool points with your multi-page wall-of-text, and you're not making any friends with your complaints. A better use of your time would be to play your favorite game, rather than ranting about mine.
I don't like the magic item system for either Pathfinder or 4E. In my experience players love to treat magic item lists as their personal shopping catalogues to optimize their builds, and for me this sucks all the wonder, mystery and magic out of them. I much prefer it when magic items are rare and each item is unique and exciting. You can try to achieve this in D&D by taking control over players' access to them, but a lot of players get a bit huffy about not being able to buy whatever toys they want for their characters.
Here I don't know why the 20% sell system with the DMing handing out the really cool goodies does not work for you. I felt this was a really good way to get it so that players do get to do shopping but the DM was the source of all the really exciting over levelled magic.
You mention a penchant for 'Magic Low' campaign worlds. Not relly my thing but it does dawn on me that this hould actually be easy to make in 4E - especially with the new Rare items. Basically use the inherent bonus system. This keeps the characters in line with the math of the system. That means your players really don't need any magic items but you want to hand out a few in your approach. Well the New Rare items are overpowered items meant to only be received one per character per tier. They have a pretty interesting '1E' feel to them in that if you find a Flame Tongue it can toss fire balls (once per encounter) and has a slew of other benefits (and a bit of a weakness as well). I'd think a campaign where the players pretty much just got rares and the inherent bonuses made sure that the numbers worked should fit your bill for a low magic campaign world.
Yeah, I think this can probably be safely closed now.
As for any man-crushes out there, form a queue. I'm pretty sure deinol's already somewhere up near the front.