3.5 agreed with something I said way back. If you want to only rollplay and say "Attack, hit, damage" that is up to you. If you play your game like it's Final Fantasy and describe (I dunno?) sparklers and rainbows coming from your sword that is up to you.
But when people give realistic, graphic, and VIOLENT descriptions about blades slicing through people and gasping for breath and other things in describing the violent slaying of other people/creatures...to intentionally avoid mentioning blood or "gore" seems incredibly silly and inconsistent. No one is telling anyone how they must play..only that it doesn't seem like a consistent viewpoint.
But can't you hear what you're saying?
"I'm not telling you how to play, I'm just telling you that your play style seems inconsistent."
"I'm not telling you how to play, I'm just telling you that you're doing it wrong."
It might not be your intent, but it's what a lot of people are going to infer from your statement, especially if you keep belaboring how silly and childish it is to play differently.
If you just were to say "My preference is to play with X amount of gore" most folks will simply think either "Yes, that is good" or "No, not how I would do it".
But when you say "My preference is to play with X amount of gore because when you don't it's inconsistent", it can be a bit offputting.
It's wrong to point out what people are doing is possibly inconsistent to make them reconsider their viewpoint?
I guess people should always stick to exactly what they believe under the dogma of "my fun" and never consider how logical or reasonable something is.
You are going all over the place in your argument and it is becoming muddled. What is the iconsistency involved in someone's preference regarding the description of violence in a roleplaying game?
In regards to your freedom discussion. This has nothing to do with what is being discussed except in a very broad context. When you are with a group of people, individual freedoms are always going to run into conflict with the social norms of a group. This is a seperate issue and most likely out of the scope of this topic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's wrong to point out what people are doing is possibly inconsistent to make them reconsider their viewpoint?
I guess people should always stick to exactly what they believe under the dogma of "my fun" and never consider how logical or reasonable something is.
I think it's wrong to badger people about it.
Is your biggest concern how logical or reasonable the game is? If so, you've got bigger fish to fry than how graphic a DM or player gets with his or her discriptions.
Do you honestly think you're doing people a favor by belittling their play style? People here have probably played a game or two in their lives. I know what I consider fun for me a whole heck of a lot better than you, a person who's never even met me, ever could. I appreciate the intent behind what you're trying to do, but after I've told you that I'm happy to play the way I want to, you should probably take the hint that I've considered your viewpoint and rejected it. The third or fourth time you come to me with the argument that I'm being inconsistent or childish or immature or squeamish because I don't play the way you play really isn't going to help convince me you've got my best interest in mind.
First paragraph I've already gone over in previous posts. The freedom post was a separate point relating specifically to the posts between 3.5 and Jessica Price.It's wrong to point out what people are doing is possibly inconsistent to make them reconsider their viewpoint?
I guess people should always stick to exactly what they believe under the dogma of "my fun" and never consider how logical or reasonable something is.
You are going all over the place in your argument and it is becoming muddled. What is the iconsistency involved in someone's preference regarding the description of violence in a roleplaying game?
In regards to your freedom discussion. This has nothing to do with what is being discussed except in a very broad context. When you are with a group of people, individual freedoms are always going to run into conflict with the social norms of a group. This is a seperate issue and most likely out of the scope of this topic.
Ahhhh, so in your opinion the only reasonable place to go with description is detailing the anatomical damage done in graphic detail and any other description is illogical?
That seems to be quite......limiting, but whatever floats your boat, you are free to handicap your creativity all you want.
This is the internet. We are on a forum discussing a topic where people go back and forth making their point about something. To continue discussing it isn't "badgering". Its a conversation and a debate.
From my point of view, I've felt like it's more about some folks telling me the way I play my game can never be as good as they play theirs, because it's different. Despite multiple declarations on my part that I don't want to play the game the way they do.
If I could only realize how much more I would like fries if I put ketchup on them, when I don't like ketchup.
It feels less like a discussion and more like badgering.
It's not "belittling" to point something out.
It depends on your voice when you're "pointing something out". To say that holding back on gore is akin to describing the action like "sparklers and rainbows coming from your sword" is condescending, at the very least.
This thread isn't specifically just for you and for me to convince just you, so the fact you aren't convinced a 3rd or 4th time is irrelevant. The word squeamish was used by 3.5, not me.
Sorry, that was more of a universal "you", rather than specifically, well, YOU.
And I realize that there are more participants in this than myself and the YOU you.
But thus far, none of the participants seem happy with the arguments telling them why their play style is wrong. And nobody seems particularly impressed with the efforts people have been making to save them from themselves and the silly way they're playing.
Not even remotely close.
Not every description needs to be bloody and horrific...but to always intentionally avoid the mention of blood or gore while including other violent descriptors seems odd and I'd like to hear a good, logical, explanation of this besides "my fun says so"
Well two things.
To address your question. Sometimes what is unsaid has more power than what is said, as it allows the person's mind to go in directions and in paths that they desire and most likely in methods that resonate with them more than any words you can chose. It is a common narrative technique and one used quite frequently. Your descriptions and narrative are their to frame and evoke, but you let the listner go down the rabbit hole.
Your argument/inquiry/what-have-you here is well, illogical and also, for lack of a better word, pointless. This is an activity that is primarily done as a form of entertainment or, "for fun." Why do this activity if it ceases to be so? It would seem that a logical answer to why do you want or not want gory descriptions in your game is going to be an answer with basically at the heart of it "because it is fun."
It is like asking people why they like and dislike certain food dishes, but implying that "because I enjoy the taste" is a subpar answer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Realism", as the thing 3.5 Loyalist seems to want to achieve in his game, is just a style (of writing, filming, or in this case orally describing).
It's just a style because nobody can agree about what reality is. My point of view about reality is not the same point of view as 3.5 Loyalist. Every poster in this thread has his/her own, and peculiar, point of view on reality, imnsho.
Calling "cartoonish" the way other people have of describing their in-game reality just implies that the point of view of 3.5 Loyalist is better than the point of view of others - and it is... for his table and his friends !
Fiction is fiction. Reality is reality.
Furthermore, 3.5 Loyalist, let me ask you an honest question: have you ever been in a real combat situation where people tried to kill each other with swords and clubs, and hammers, etc ? Have you ever been part of a lethal encounter - not during the course of narrative fiction, but in real life ?
Of course, you haven't been. And when you're describing to your players what happens to their characters during a combat you're using your imagination - half-remembering descriptions in novels, images in movies and perhaps courses in anatomy - as we all do.
In RPGs, as in any fiction, we're all using our imagination. Most of us aren't medieval combat veterans, after all :-).
An even if we were, it would be silly to call other people's uses of their imagination "cartoonish" (unless they were playing Toons, I suppose).
Realism is just a style, another way of "lying" to ourselves, another way of telling stories that move us. And to be moved by stories, is why, personnaly, I play/master RPGs. For "realism," I have my everyday life, and that's a whole other story :-).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When 3.5 Loyalist calls cartoony is what I call good literary technique.
In terms of media, the more left implied is better. It further involves the reader/watcher/player, as opposed to telling them what happens.
Show, don't tell. First rule of writing, and thus GMing.
To address your question. Sometimes what is unsaid has more power than what is said, as it allows the person's mind to go in directions and in paths that they desire and most likely in methods that resonate with them more than any words you can chose. It is a common narrative technique and one used quite frequently. Your descriptions and narrative are their to frame and evoke, but you let the listner go down the rabbit hole.
Your argument/inquiry/what-have-you here is well, illogical and also, for lack of a better word, pointless. This is an activity that is primarily done as a form of entertainment or, "for fun." Why do this activity if it ceases to be so? It would seem that a logical answer to why do you want or not want gory descriptions in your game is going to be an answer with basically at the heart of it "because it is fun."
It is like asking people why they like and dislike certain food dishes, but implying that "because I enjoy the taste" is a subpar answer.
Your first paragraph is talking about the artistic choice to be more subtle and leave more to the imagination. Great. But doesn't touch my point that when people give violent descriptions they intentionally avoid blood. And even personal tastes and choices have some kind of explanation to them. I don't like Nickleback because I think they're generic crap with terrible riffs and awful grumbling singing (and stupid lyrics). I don't like olives because I find them overly bitter with no other balancing notes like sweet or savory.
I like football and can give a hundred reasons of why I think its more fun than sport Y. I don't simply substantiate everything I like with "cuz it r fun"
My first point does address your point directly. I am sorry you disagree, but read Hemmingway or any other authors of his ilk and you will get a writing style that directly answers your question (I can't believe I told someone to read Hemmingway as he makes my teeth hurt).
I will also say that people have answered your question as to why they do not like gore and I think you are stuck in your thinking paradigm at this point. I will advise you what you did for me in an earlier post and maybe you should step away for a bit and re-read the thread as, at this point, I am unsure if I have the time or inclination to get into a discussion in which your opinion of a situation is better than another's; that your preference is more logical than another's.
Regarging football, yes, you can give me hundreds of reasons, all hundred of those reasons are centered around because it is fun (or in this case more fun than another activity). All of it boils down to that point. It is not being simple, it is being succinct. (I can also say that there are many pathes to fun, you are just not accepting other people's at this point.)
Hey now, the Hello Kitty RPG can get pretty legit.
...and I'm obviously not going to change people's fundamental feeling about olives or something else through a post, but I see nothing wrong with challenging the way people think about things to make them, for instance, reconsider how they view blood or don't i.e. "I don't like blood in the game" "Well why not?" "uhhh I dunno? hmm"
It's not to say I'm crusading for more blood as the ultimate truth..just questioning why they do it that way to try to get a reasonable explanation for this.
Because focusing on the gore and the blood changes the focus of the game, for me. If I were to be involved in a "real" sword fight, if I survived, I would probably throw up all over the battle field, at the least, if not become a pyschological wreck because of some form of PSTD or other trauma.
I understand that the acts that I am gaming out are sometimes in and of themselves violent. But, because this is a game, I can choose to remove myself from that particular aspect of it, and focus on the fact that I'm a skilled warrior, or wise mage who uses their power for the good of others, who defends the weak, who uses my erudition or physical prowess to better, and sometimes save, the world I inhabit.
I'm not some wandering murder hobo who only cares about the destruction of my enemies. If I could, I WOULD deal with all my foes mercifully. Unfortunately, that's not the way the game is played.
That being what it is, I choose to focus on things other the carnage and horror that is an inevitable part of combat because I CAN. If someone wants to try and drag that part of it, the horrific tearing of flesh, the smashing of bone, the gouting of blood, into my game, it changes all that for me.
Is that a reasonable enough explanation for you? Have I validated my position, or am I still being illogical?
...and I'm obviously not going to change people's fundamental feeling about olives or something else through a post, but I see nothing wrong with challenging the way people think about things to make them, for instance, reconsider how they view blood or don't i.e. "I don't like blood in the game" "Well why not?" "uhhh I dunno? hmm"
It's not to say I'm crusading for more blood as the ultimate truth..just questioning why they do it that way to try to get a reasonable explanation for this.
I can't speak for others, but personally, if there was an overemphasis of bloody descriptions in my Pathfinder RPG experience, it could have 2 different (and opposed) consequences:
possible consequence #1: it would bore me. This has already been adressed by several posters. If every blow in combat leads to an avalanche of visceras and bloody details, the game would slow down to a crawl and would be mind-numbingly repetitive. Repetitive meticulous description is a rather poor storytelling device.
possible consequence #2: it would dishearten me, morally speaking. Instead of playing the part of the hero, I would be a butcher in an endless bloodbath rampage. I like to play LotR characters, or characters in the Belgariad, or any sort of character, really, but the psychopathic character mowing down endless hordes of monsters or villains, and looting their corpses afterwards without any second thoughts would not appeal to me.
I have already played psychopathic or plain insane characters ; there are great games for that out there, like Vampire or Kult. But when I play Pathfinder, I want to be the hero, or the anti-hero, but not a disensitized monster.
To sum it up: too much blood = boring for me, or = my God, I hate my obviously sick character !
I understand perfectly that for some people, bloodbath = more in-game realism, or = I'm playing a GoT badass !
Different tastes, different audience, different ways of telling a good story.
I already explained why your point does not. You talked about giving more subtle descriptions which is different than people giving non-subtle violent descriptions and then omitting blood. I'm hardly "stuck" in anything and while I missed a number of posts (like 60 new ones popped up between visits), maybe someone could direct me to a post where someone gives a good explanation of how adding blood differentiates between a "normal" violent description.My first point does address your point directly. I am sorry you disagree, but read Hemmingway or any other authors of his ilk and you will get a writing style that directly answers your question (I can't believe I told someone to read Hemmingway as he makes my teeth hurt).
I will also say that people have answered your question as to why they do not like gore and I think you are stuck in your thinking paradigm at this point. I will advise you what you did for me in an earlier post and maybe you should step away for a bit and re-read the thread as, at this point, I am unsure if I have the time or inclination to get into a discussion in which your opinion of a situation is better than another's; that your preference is more logical than another's.
Regarging football, yes, you can give me hundreds of reasons, all hundred of those reasons are centered around because it is fun (or in this case more fun than another activity). All of it boils down to that point. It is not being simple, it is being succinct. (I can also say that there are many pathes to fun, you are just not accepting other people's at this point.)
And your explanation is wrong, on the face of it. People can choose to stop at the gore descriptions when describing violent acts for the reason I stated. It is more evocative to let the imagination go than where I can describe it, because I will be unable to pick words that will resonate with each person who listens as the individual listeners will be able to do in their own mind.
I am not even the first person to provide that example in this thread.
Also, as an effort to refute your explanation I pointed a fairly accomplished and proficient writer who would describe violence without needing gore and his writing is thought to be pretty evocative and profound by some. There are a whole ilk from his time period who wrote who used a similar style.
As to that, I am not going to do your work for you by reading posts your are disinclined to read, which again speaks to your paradigm of thinking on this issue. It feels that you are more interested in..."winning" or getting a sense of "being right" than in actually discussing this issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*stabs himself with a knife*
AAAARGGGHHHH BUT THE BOOK SAYS IT'S JUST 1D4 + MY GIMPED STR BONUS OHMYGOD WHY SO MUCH BLOOOD SEAAAARRRGHHHHHHHHHHH....
Hilarious :-D !!
De gustibus non est disputandum
Exactly.
...and I'm obviously not going to change people's fundamental feeling about olives or something else through a post, but I see nothing wrong with challenging the way people think about things to make them, for instance, reconsider how they view blood or don't i.e. "I don't like blood in the game" "Well why not?" "uhhh I dunno? hmm"
It's not to say I'm crusading for more blood as the ultimate truth..just questioning why they do it that way to try to get a reasonable explanation for this.
I don't use explicit descriptions of violence because my players would enjoy the game less if I did. What else matters in deciding how to run a game?
I don't mind a differing viewpoint as long as people have a reasonable explanation of how they reached it.
And let's say the DM doesn't use blood in his descriptions.
If Player A said, "I finish the goblin by slicing through his neck and watching his head roll across the floor and wipe the blood from my axe."
The other players may prefer not to do their descriptions with blood, but is he wrong by describing it that way because he finds it fun?
No, but if he starts complaining that others aren't graphically describing their actions and claims they aren't playing the game right, then there is a problem.
|
Ok, here is a graphic description of a barbarian flying into a rage and attacking a bunch of 1st level soldiers because they were deliberately goading him. He killed several of them in 3 rounds and then the rest ran. This is from my E-mail game i play with a few dudes.
Warning: Pretty gory.
You spin around taking the upper half of the third soldiers head clean off his brain matter spraying the man next to him who stands, his mouth agape in complete horror. Not for long. Your blade enters his stomach and exits through his back sending chainmail links flying everywhere. His face makes that big 'O' and you can see life leave his eyes as they become glassy and empty. Taking the sword out of him almost cuts him in half and his nearly severed body collapses on the ground spilling organs and viscera everywhere.
One of the soldiers tries to defend himself, but you cut through his shield, his arm and his torso in one strong swing. Kicking him off the blade you turn towards the rest of the soldiers, covered in blood, bits of bone and brain matter. Then you lick some of the blood of the blade and smile a vicious smile. They drop their weapons and run. Urine trailing from many a leg.
I don't mind a differing viewpoint as long as people have a reasonable explanation of how they reached it.
And let's say the DM doesn't use blood in his descriptions.
If Player A said, "I finish the goblin by slicing through his neck and watching his head roll across the floor and wipe the blood from my axe."
The other players may prefer not to do their descriptions with blood, but is he wrong by describing it that way because he finds it fun?
Not inherently, but that would change at our table if it obviously upset the other players.
We generally err on the side of consideration (in all areas - a player's long winded, flowery speech will be cut short if they think the other players are bored). So we prefer not upsetting one another. There are no references to sexual violence in our games under any circumstances, just in case. I really like stories about corrupt churches (for example) but my group are reasonably fundamental Christians who find such stories uncomfortable. So I no longer include those in my games as DM, nor in my backstories as a player.
Whilst there's nothing wrong with someone inadvertently impinging on another's fun. If they're not prepared to err on the side of caution once they become aware of the dissonance, they probably wouldn't fit in with our group.
Ok, here is a graphic description of a barbarian flying into a rage and attacking a bunch of 1st level soldiers because they were deliberately goading him. He killed several of them in 3 rounds and then the rest ran. This is from my E-mail game i play with a few dudes.
Warning: Pretty gory.
** spoiler omitted **
Heh, too much for me. :)
One related, but separate objection I'd raise is the description of the players actions. (Foot in the back, licking the blood, etcetera). Back in my MUDing days, that was a poor habit some people had - "you feel sick at the sight of...", "...you swallow nervously...", etcetera. My view was always that my reactions should remain within my purview - tell me what happens to me and I'll tell you how I respond.
As I said, just a tangential comment. The DM-player dynamic is obviously different from two players on a MUD but still, that would jar for me.
3.5 agreed with something I said way back. If you want to only rollplay and say "Attack, hit, damage" that is up to you. If you play your game like it's Final Fantasy and describe (I dunno?) sparklers and rainbows coming from your sword that is up to you.
But when people give realistic, graphic, and VIOLENT descriptions about blades slicing through people and gasping for breath and other things in describing the violent slaying of other people/creatures...to intentionally avoid mentioning blood or "gore" seems incredibly silly and inconsistent. No one is telling anyone how they must play..only that it doesn't seem like a consistent viewpoint.
The quest for the magical flail, that gives free massages with each hit. Supposedly, crafted by the mightiest gnoll that has ever raided across the world, who was extremely cuddly, and a nice guy that did nothing terrible, ever. Except that one time [CENSORED].
It's wrong to point out what people are doing is possibly inconsistent to make them reconsider their viewpoint?
I guess people should always stick to exactly what they believe under the dogma of "my fun" and never consider how logical or reasonable something is.
Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with pointing out inconsistencies either, and indicating where the game could be made better, alongside being made a lot more realistic.
Is having an opinion bad? I don't think so.
The quest for the magical flail, that gives free massages with each hit. Supposedly, crafted by the mightiest gnoll that has ever raided across the world, who was extremely cuddly, and a nice guy that did nothing terrible, ever. Except that one time [CENSORED].
You must be deliberately missing the point.
It's been explained to you many times that nobody is claiming weapons don't cause bloodshed - we're making the choice about what to describe, just as you not mentioning the tailoring of the NPCs doesn't imply that nobody wears pants in your world. (Oh! The lack of verisimilitude! Put some trousers on, for god's sake!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's wrong to point out what people are doing is possibly inconsistent to make them reconsider their viewpoint?
I guess people should always stick to exactly what they believe under the dogma of "my fun" and never consider how logical or reasonable something is.
Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with pointing out inconsistencies either, and indicating where the game could be made better, alongside being made a lot more realistic.
Is having an opinion bad? I don't think so.
Your claim that my game will be better if I use explicit gore is having an opinion about what I like (and claiming that I'm mistaken to believe otherwise). That is bad, yes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks :D
Oh, i don't describe every combat like that. That would be tiring and take too long. Just pretty impressive attacks and critical hits. Man i should dig out some touch spell crits that i described, now those send ice down the spine. But i prefer to imply and let player's minds fill out the rest. That said, i still imply horrible horrible things.
Heh, too much for me. :)
One related, but separate objection I'd raise is the description of the players actions. (Foot in the back, licking the blood, etcetera). Back in my MUDing days, that was a poor habit some people had - "you feel sick at the sight of...", "...you swallow nervously...", etcetera. My view was always that my reactions should remain within my purview - tell me what happens to me and I'll tell you how I respond.
As I said, just a tangential comment. The DM-player dynamic is obviously different from two players on a MUD but still, that would jar for me.
It's an e-mail game. It would take long for them to describe their actions. Plus they like my style.
"Realism", as the thing 3.5 Loyalist seems to want to achieve in his game, is just a style (of writing, filming, or in this case orally describing).
It's just a style because nobody can agree about what reality is. My point of view about reality is not the same point of view as 3.5 Loyalist. Every poster in this thread has his/her own, and peculiar, point of view on reality, imnsho.
Calling "cartoonish" the way other people have of describing their in-game reality just implies that the point of view of 3.5 Loyalist is better than the point of view of others - and it is... for his table and his friends !
Fiction is fiction. Reality is reality.
Furthermore, 3.5 Loyalist, let me ask you an honest question: have you ever been in a real combat situation where people tried to kill each other with swords and clubs, and hammers, etc ? Have you ever been part of a lethal encounter - not during the course of narrative fiction, but in real life ?
Of course, you haven't been. And when you're describing to your players what happens to their characters during a combat you're using your imagination - half-remembering descriptions in novels, images in movies and perhaps courses in anatomy - as we all do.
In RPGs, as in any fiction, we're all using our imagination. Most of us aren't medieval combat veterans, after all :-).
An even if we were, it would be silly to call other people's uses of their imagination "cartoonish" (unless they were playing Toons, I suppose).
Realism is just a style, another way of "lying" to ourselves, another way of telling stories that move us. And to be moved by stories, is why, personnaly, I play/master RPGs. For "realism," I have my everyday life, and that's a whole other story :-).
Yes. In answer to the first part of your question. I am from the N.T.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-13/police-struggling-to-cope-with-nt-vio lence/4007950
Your claim that my game will be better if I use explicit gore is having an opinion about what I like (and claiming that I'm mistaken to believe otherwise). That is bad, yes.It's wrong to point out what people are doing is possibly inconsistent to make them reconsider their viewpoint?
I guess people should always stick to exactly what they believe under the dogma of "my fun" and never consider how logical or reasonable something is.
Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with pointing out inconsistencies either, and indicating where the game could be made better, alongside being made a lot more realistic.
Is having an opinion bad? I don't think so.
No, it is not.
Try not to get too offended, this is the internet. I will be your guide.
The quest for the magical flail, that gives free massages with each hit. Supposedly, crafted by the mightiest gnoll that has ever raided across the world, who was extremely cuddly, and a nice guy that did nothing terrible, ever. Except that one time [CENSORED].You must be deliberately missing the point.
It's been explained to you many times that nobody is claiming weapons don't cause bloodshed - we're making the choice about what to describe, just as you not mentioning the tailoring of the NPCs doesn't imply that nobody wears pants in your world. (Oh! The lack of verisimilitude! Put some trousers on, for god's sake!)
Then if you acknowledge they cause bloodshed, then there is nothing wrong with describing it at all.
Then if you acknowledge they cause bloodshed, then there is nothing wrong with describing it at all.
The quest for the magical flail, that gives free massages with each hit. Supposedly, crafted by the mightiest gnoll that has ever raided across the world, who was extremely cuddly, and a nice guy that did nothing terrible, ever. Except that one time [CENSORED].You must be deliberately missing the point.
It's been explained to you many times that nobody is claiming weapons don't cause bloodshed - we're making the choice about what to describe, just as you not mentioning the tailoring of the NPCs doesn't imply that nobody wears pants in your world. (Oh! The lack of verisimilitude! Put some trousers on, for god's sake!)
If my players don't enjoy it, there is something wrong with that.
Your claim that my game will be better if I use explicit gore is having an opinion about what I like (and claiming that I'm mistaken to believe otherwise). That is bad, yes.It's wrong to point out what people are doing is possibly inconsistent to make them reconsider their viewpoint?
I guess people should always stick to exactly what they believe under the dogma of "my fun" and never consider how logical or reasonable something is.
Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with pointing out inconsistencies either, and indicating where the game could be made better, alongside being made a lot more realistic.
Is having an opinion bad? I don't think so.
No, it is not.
Try not to get too offended, this is the internet. I will be your guide.
I'm not offended, I'm pointing out your error.
You don't know how to make my game better. You're using the wrong metric.
It is not metrics or in error. You are leaving a lot out. You could use this. Captivate and entertain with it.