|
This is the part that has been causing the most confusion in our game thus far. Again, I know this has been rehashed elsewhere. Some cards are very specific about defining when, where and on whom the card's effects can be used. Some are wide open. This is where consistency in the cards is really important. "Your location" "your check"...those two phrases will clear up 90% of the issues. Aside from that, is the rule now "The only time your character can use a card to help another character is when the card explicitly says so."? It might be good to have a clarification on that if there is a broader rule. Again, this would all be unnecessary if all of the cards were consistent and delineated this for us.3. It's your encounter, and no one else can resolve it for you.
Whenever you encounter a card, or make a check, you – and only you – must resolve it. No other character can evade it, defeat it, acquire it, close it, decide what to do with it, or fail at doing any of those things. If Sajan encounters a monster, Merisiel cannot evade it for him. If Harsk encounters a card, Seoni cannot defeat or acquire it for him, unless it requires two checks to do so, in which case Harsk must attempt at least one of them. If Ezren defeats a henchman at the Sandpoint Cathedral, Seelah cannot discard a blessing to close the location. In other words, if you need to wait your turn, wait your turn.
Mostly answering the bolded question, but keeping the rest of the quote for context.
No, that's not what he's saying. Cards that help with checks can always be used to help others, at any location, unless they explicitly say that they can't. Thus blessings, Strength, Guidance, Aid, etc are all good for helping your allies make checks.
It's the "play this card to evade/defeat/acquire without a check" type of cards that can't be played to overcome someone else's encounter, unless they specifically say they can.
Just wanted to add another "thanks" for all these clarifications AND for making a great game.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mike,
Having spent $50+ on the game, I do feel a little let down that these issues, along with so much on-card and rulebook errata, weren't playtested.
Speaking as one of the play testers, the game did not change much from the end of the playtest. In fact may of our suggestions and many card changes discovered during the playtest were incorporated into the game. The concept of making some monster banes harder as you add adventure decks, removal of earlier cards as you add adventure decks, online character sheets so that you do not have to mark up your cards, and variant character powers as they increase in “level” were all direct results of the play testing. The few "mistakes" that I have seen have been typo, layout or omission type problems.
As this is a different kind of game, the rules seem to be the most difficult for new players to grasp. Unlike most card/board games, the play is not competitive and it is not always linear. You have a variety of options and challenges that could be faced turn to turn and scenario to scenario.
Fundamentally the game is solid and very flexible. As time moves forward and additional material becomes available, I think this will become even more apparent.
Speaking as one of the play testers, the game did not change much from the end of the playtest. In fact may of our suggestions and many card changes discovered during the playtest were incorporated into the game. The concept of making some monster banes harder as you add adventure decks, removal of earlier cards as you add adventure decks, online character sheets so that you do not have to mark up your cards, and variant character powers as they increase in “level” were all direct results of the play testing. The few "mistakes" that I have seen have been typo, layout or omission type problems.Mike,
Having spent $50+ on the game, I do feel a little let down that these issues, along with so much on-card and rulebook errata, weren't playtested.
I also find the comment "this wasn't playtested" to be distressing and wrong. It was playtested a ton, and some things got through. Those things are my fault, not the playtesters.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be blunt...anyone complaining about the errata in this game needs to just calm down. 700 some odd cards in the game and 15 of them need some clarification. Mostly because people are trying to think too far outside the box that they have to be reigned in. There is little to nothing wrong with the rules or the cards. What minor issues that have come up are because of nitpicking of rules and people just trying to break the game [that Hard Shell Crab[sp?] thread couldn't have annoyed me more]. Could have the rules been written a little clearer...maybe. Could there have been more examples....maybe. On the whole through once you get the intent of the game, the rest just makes sense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there any chance of an official wiki being created for this game?
That way each card could have clarifications and errata in one place (that's quick and easy to find on a phone/tablet whilst playing) and people could even have a space to discuss tactics relating to certain cards and share stories of their adventures, like "The time we found a Bunyip in the Apothecary and blew up its tank with a Blast Stone".
It would also give both official and unoofficial sources a place to create and share back-story relating to each card, location and scenario.
Pretty please with chocolate sprinkles on the cherry on the ice cream on top?
Mike,
I just wanted to chime in as yet another in support of your post. Thank you for your outstanding level of commitment to supporting this game and responding to the community's feedback.
I see there was a flurry of activity in the forums and FAQ concerning new rulings/information in the past week, which I unfortunately missed out on due to personal circumstances. But I'll be sure to continue fussing about the little things and raising questions/concerns whenever I can, because that's one of the things I do best (and usually enjoy doing) :)
(I keep opening up this thread only to realise it's about the Adventure Card Game, not the Advanced Class Guide...)
|
|
One thing I don't really like about Mike's answer is that your free exploration must come before you play any cards that let you explore again. I can understand limiting all exploration to your own explore phase, but there are times when it would be nice to use a card to explore, and then still be able to do your free exploration afterward.When? Just to avoid taking those cards as damage if your exploration goes bad?Yes. It's not something that comes up a lot, but it's worth considering. Those extra explore cards are usually discarded, but there are situations when you can recharge them instead. So obviously it's best to do that before risking having to discard them, especially if you already know there's a tough fight coming.
This becomes much more common if Detect Magic's timing is limited the same way, which is the open question that h4ppy and I were curious about.
Actually, I just thought of another, more common, reason why you might want to use a "discard to explore" before your free explore - Kyra's healing power. Discard to explore, then heal back the card that you had to discard, among others. I've only played Kyra once so far, so that one didn't occur to me immediately.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the part that has been causing the most confusion in our game thus far. Again, I know this has been rehashed elsewhere. Some cards are very specific about defining when, where and on whom the card's effects can be used. Some are wide open. This is where consistency in the cards is really important. "Your location" "your check"...those two phrases will clear up 90% of the issues. Aside from that, is the rule now "The only time your character can use a card to help another character is when the card explicitly says so."? It might be good to have a clarification on that if there is a broader rule. Again, this would all be unnecessary if all of the cards were consistent and delineated this for us.3. It's your encounter, and no one else can resolve it for you.
Whenever you encounter a card, or make a check, you – and only you – must resolve it. No other character can evade it, defeat it, acquire it, close it, decide what to do with it, or fail at doing any of those things. If Sajan encounters a monster, Merisiel cannot evade it for him. If Harsk encounters a card, Seoni cannot defeat or acquire it for him, unless it requires two checks to do so, in which case Harsk must attempt at least one of them. If Ezren defeats a henchman at the Sandpoint Cathedral, Seelah cannot discard a blessing to close the location. In other words, if you need to wait your turn, wait your turn.Mostly answering the bolded question, but keeping the rest of the quote for context.
No, that's not what he's saying. Cards that help with checks can always be used to help others, at any location, unless they explicitly say that they can't. Thus blessings, Strength, Guidance, Aid, etc are all good for helping your allies make checks.
It's the "play this card to evade/defeat/acquire without a check" type of cards that can't be played to overcome someone else's encounter, unless they specifically say they can.
Forgive the long quote, but I want to point out one of the things that is causing confusion for many people.
There is no single default rule for how to play all cards.
Multiple card types have different implicit rules about when they can and cannot be played, and those rules are different.
Fromper points out two product wide assumptions:
All cards of X type can always be be played anytime (except when they say they cannot)"
and
All cards of Y type can only be played in Y situation (except when they say they can)"
This creates two exclusionary rules (implicit and not stated) on the cards, that contradict each other. Players, learning one, may assume it applies to the other, hence the confusion.
I'm not sure this is possible to change at this point in the product design after launch, but something to consider in the future.
Players cannot read the card and apply the rules on the card directly, based on the card alone (which I think is one of the stated goals), due to these conflicting implicit rules.
@NariusV - this is a big one, but I think they've covered it quite well in the current FAQ. If you don't think so let them know and they can try to improve the FAQ for now and the wording in a future Adventure Path.
|
|
I know they've clarified it, but NariusV did hit the nail on the head when it comes to pointing out why there's so much confusion.
The rulebook says cards can be played any time, but then there are whole categories of cards that can't be played any time, despite not specifically saying that on the card. It would be better if the rulebook had a section defining the categories of cards and which could be played at what times. Which goes back to the recommendation of adding a glossary/rules lawyer reference section at the end of the rulebook.
Actually, I just thought of another, more common, reason why you might want to use a "discard to explore" before your free explore - Kyra's healing power.
Kyra's power triggers on the first exploration, explicitly.
As a key playtester for a great game that turned out to me very, very broken (something that players discovered in just a few months which hadn't been found in playtesting which had taken the best part of a year), I know how difficult it is for playtesting to iron out the wrinkles in a game. There are just so many competing objectives, and managing the interplay between a large number of different cards is a nightmare. IN addition, you often spend so much time engaged in what is really development work that by the time you're actually playtesting, you're too familiar with the game to actually encounter the same difficulties that new players discover.
And playtesting is pretty hopeless at ironing out the wrinkles in a rule book, unless it's done in a very particular way (you need fresh players to sit down with the game and rules, learning to play only from the rules, but with someone on hand who knows the rule book well enough to pick up on their difficulties and confusion who can suggest re-writes of that rule book).
|
|
Actually, I just thought of another, more common, reason why you might want to use a "discard to explore" before your free explore - Kyra's healing power.Kyra's power triggers on the first exploration, explicitly.
But does that first exploration have to be the free one? Can she play a "discard to explore" card, and substitute her power for that exploration instead? Probably not, but since we were talking about hypothetical scenarios where it might be better to use a card to explore before using your free explore, I thought I'd mention it.
@h4ppy, @Fromper:
One way to solve the problem is to add clarification in the rulebook about which cards play differently than the default rules (probably to include a card list).
Another way would be to add wording on those cards that deviate from the default rules.
I believe the FAQ and expected updates (to the rules or errated cards) will handle the issues.
I hope understanding the underlying problems and their implications going forward will help prevent some confusion in the future.
EDIT: Different cards types play differently, but those card types are not distinguished except by their card text. Right now it's up to the players to read the text and interpret what to do. Many players end up interpreting them differently. If there was a visual cue (such as an icon, keyword, or different layout) to guide them, the viewpoint from which the player interpreted those cards would be different.
Fromper points out two product wide assumptions:
All cards of X type can always be be played anytime (except when they say they cannot)"
and
All cards of Y type can only be played in Y situation (except when they say they can)"This creates two exclusionary rules (implicit and not stated) on the cards, that contradict each other. Players, learning one, may assume it applies to the other, hence the confusion.
I don't think I understand this comment. All cards of all types can always be played anytime (except when they say they cannot).
Or do you mean that some cards say "For your combat check" and that's the kind that can only be played in certain situation?
Sorry, just not clear what you're saying here. Would like to know.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Mike - I think the problem referred to is mainly the cards that let you defeat/evade/etc something (i.e. the whole 'implicit you' conversation from the Thieves' Tools thread).
These cards say something like "Discard to defeat a barrier". They do not say "Discard to defeat your barrier" but they are actually limited to only being played by the player doing the encountering.
I understand the rationale behind this but it's a common mistake made by new players (and otherwise experienced ones) and in direct contradiction to the rulebook's wording that 'cards can be played any time unless they say otherwise'.
These cards do not explicitly say otherwise unless you understand that the wording actually means "Discard this card to allow you to defeat a barrier (that you are personally facing)".
@Mike - What I'm referring to is this statement here, by Fromper:
The rulebook says cards can be played any time, but then there are whole categories of cards that can't be played any time, despite not specifically saying that on the card.
Some cards players can play on their turn.
Some cards players can play on other players turns.
Some cards can be played to replace a check with a different check.
Some cards can be played to modify or add to a check.
Etc...
It's up to the player to interpret which cards can be played or not, similar to what h4ppy is saying above. There are restrictions for playing cards only in some situations, but those cards do not state such in their text. So some players default to the rule of playing the card anytime like the rules state, by not knowing the implicit (unwritten) rules of those cards.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@h4ppy, @Fromper:
One way to solve the problem is to add clarification in the rulebook about which cards play differently than the default rules (probably to include a card list).
Another way would be to add wording on those cards that deviate from the default rules.
I believe the FAQ and expected updates (to the rules or errated cards) will handle the issues.
I hope understanding the underlying problems and their implications going forward will help prevent some confusion in the future.
EDIT: Different cards types play differently, but those card types are not distinguished except by their card text. Right now it's up to the players to read the text and interpret what to do. Many players end up interpreting them differently. If there was a visual cue (such as an icon, keyword, or different layout) to guide them, the viewpoint from which the player interpreted those cards would be different.
The bolded text in this just gave me a really simple idea for how Paizo can change the cards in future versions of the game to eliminate all of these questions. Unfortunately, it's too late for the current base set and adventure path that are already printed. So it'll have to wait until they put out a new base set and everything next year, or at least a reprint of the current game.
Next to every power that a player can ever play, on every single card, put two little icons. Because they'd be the size of a letter or number, they wouldn't take up much space. The icons would represent the following:
Y (you) - This power can only be played on your turn.
A (any) - This power can be played on any character's turn.
O (other) - This power can only be played on another character's turn.
1. You can only use this power on yourself.
2. You can only use this power on characters at your location.
3. You can use this power on characters at any location.
4. You can only use this power on a character at another location.
So every power would have two icons next to it. For instance, the blessing card powers that let you add dice to a check would be marked A3. The power that lets you discard to explore would be marked Y1. Thieves Tools would be Y1. Merisiel's evasion ability would be a Y1. Valeros and Lem's abilities to aid their allies would both be O2. Weapons and armors would mostly be Y1, except for the ranged weapons with the "discard to help a combat somewhere else" power, which would be O4.
Obviously, I imagine using picture icons instead of numbers and letters, but this is just an example to get the point across. The point is that it would be a very small number of icons for people to remember, with a key prominently featured in the rulebook, and it would only take up 2 characters worth of space next to the power description. And if this had been here from the beginning, it would have easily eliminated half the rules questions we've seen about this game, including some I've asked myself.
Nice idea, @Fromper.
Maybe we can add this to the wiki ;)
P.S. I think Merisiel's evade power is A1, not O1! E.g. if she has to face a summoned card on somebody else's turn.
Actually, thinking about your examples whilst cooking lunch (I had to run upstairs and comment straight away... I hope I turned the stove off!), they're not right...
Blessing is A3
Discard to explore is Y1, but even more so it's "Y, after you've already explored once"
Thieves' Tools is A1 - you can use it any time, but only on your own encounters. If some game effect caused you to make a relevant roll or face a barrier out of turn you could still use Thieves' Tools.
Merisiel's evade is A1 as I noted above
Valeros and Lem's powers are A2 (excluding yourself) - if somebody else faces a check on your turn you can still use these powers.
Similarly, weapons and armor are A1 - you can only use them on yourself, but you can use them any time.
In summary, most of the cards you mentioned are, in fact, playable at any time (+1 for the rulebook!). The crux is that they have to have a 'legal target' in order to be played, and sometimes that target is 'a card you are encountering yourself', which usually happens on your own turn, but not always.
|
|
Nice idea, @Fromper.
Maybe we can add this to the wiki ;)
P.S. I think Merisiel's evade power is A1, not O1! E.g. if she has to face a summoned card on somebody else's turn.
Ok, yeah, I didn't think of that. So instead, the symbols could represent "during an encounter" vs "not during an encounter" timing, rather than whether it's during your turn. I wouldn't want to go into the level of detail of having these represent at what point in your turn they can be used for this - that part should be more obvious from the rules. This is mostly to clear up the "can I use this card to help someone else?" type of questions that are so common.
I know everything has its growing pains but in all reality yours and this game seem almost moot, but i rather enjoy seeing others input constructive and non. I did say almost moot, there has been things I felt needed clairifaction and with talking to my gaming crew and reading these boards I find the biggest problem is with interpertation. Three people can read the same thing and come up with six different takes on it. so again thank you for what your doing, and even if you were not doing this it would still be a great game. please keep up the good fight and gracing us with such great entertainment.
Mike:
I'd like to join the many others in saying "thanks" to you and your team for designing a very fun game.
I also appreciate your openness to feedback and willingness to communicate with your players.
I'd like to provide my feedback on learning and playing the game in the hopes that it is helpful. It echos much of what has been said above. (However, I don't want my comments below to detract from my first comments: this is a very fun game!)
I'm a long-time wargamer, a 25-year Advanced Squad Leader veteran, and the last game I learned was GMT's Here I Stand. I say this to let you know that I am no stranger to complex rules systems, errata, the need for clarifications, etc.
I very much enjoyed the "natural language" style of the PFACG rule book. I think this is an excellent way to ease people into a game.
But I was surprised by the difference between, on the one hand, the fairly simple presentation of the rules and sequence of play and, on the other, the complexity of turns when you actually played them. Not "angry", not "disappointed"; not anything negative...just "surprised".
It was at this point that I found myself most often going back to the rulebook looking for clarity, seeing if there was guidance on how to resolve the emergent complexity.
Because of that experience, I drew the following conclusions.
First, the natural language of the rules means that you can't address all the complexities that will derive from the millions of card, power, and feat combinations. This is ok. It shouldn't try to do this.
However, the rules could more clearly warn people that these complexities will absolutely arise, in almost every turn. It is in the context of this warning that your general, "10,000-ft" clarifications will be most useful to those adjudicating the interactions (e.g. "It's your encounter, and no one else can resolve it for you", or "Cards only work when its appropriate they work", etc)
Setting the expectation that complex situations will arise and then giving some general "almost-always-true" advice on how to adjudicate them would be the best way to balance brevity of rules with the desire of gamers for clarity.
Secondly, I think the sequence of play description and aids (especially on the back of the rule book) should be expanded a bit to better illuminate the complexity of how turns actually play out.
Now, to a certain extent, "Oh, that way madness lies". h4ppy's very helpful "Turn Sequence Breakdown", for instance, is excellent. But it's also 11 pages long (measured against a 24pg rulebook, cover to cover). I don't think that such a comprehensive sequence is necessary for most players. However, I do feel the ones presented are insufficient.
So, that's my feedback. I hope it helps as you move forward with your development efforts. I look forward to the next adventure in this set, and to subsequent sets!
Great points, @ubertripp. I was surprised by the lack of timing clarity which is why I put the timing docs together.
My lack the graphics skills is probably the main contributor to them being 11 pages long! With some proper design they could probably be reduced to a one page diagram for each sequence (i.e. 3 pages in total) which would help new (and experienced) players to play the game intended by the designers.
I think card games of this type almost always need a timing structure, without one it's too easy to go off the rails. Having only played Mage Wars and FFG's LCGs before in this segment they all benefit from their own timing diagrams, even if some of them (yes, Game of Thrones LCG, I'm looking at you) only had them added and clarified in a later FAQ rather than in the original manual.
On a personal note, I just hope that the timing docs can continue to help people learn the game - please leave any feedback or suggestions for improvements here!
Excellent points, h4ppy. I think that you're right that the design deities at Paizo could probably shrink the concepts down on paper. That's why they get paid the medium bucks!
[Oh, and I'm actually using your doc, btw, so please take my feedback in that context. :-)]
I recall the maelstrom around timing in Magic when it first came out. And the steady proliferation of action types in 3.x/Pathfinder systems (swift, immediate, free) was also a response to timing issues.
I believe this shows clearly that FAQs and errata (along with an evolving and expanding sequence of play) have as much to do with gamers always trying to lawyer their way to victory, as it does with the quality of the game design and rules presentation. More people playing the game, and engaged enough that they care about how to win, means more people pushing on the limits of the system and generating FAQs, calls for rulings, corrected components, etc.
Stated another way, games that people don't play (because of lame subject matter, cumbersome core mechanics, length, etc) have less FAQ and errata. But it is nonsense to assume that those crappy games are more perfectly designed and tested. :-)
The balance of "getting what you need in" and "getting all possible outcomes in" is tricky. In collectible card game design, the all-the-things approach is called "floor rules." The Magic: The Gathering comprehensive rules are 198 pages long, and even they say this caveat:
"We at Wizards of the Coast recognize that no matter how detailed the rules, situations will arise in which the interaction of specific cards requires a precise answer."
and then gives you a website to go to for questions.
So, you know, we try to strike the balance. Nobody wants a 198-page rulebook, except those that do.
I love your input. You are thoughtfull and realistic on how you present your answers and points that help steer the game logic.
, thank you for your echo and your input. I too agree with your comments, as for the extensive gaming background I can not echo. I feel as I am still a noob in this world of gaming even thought I have been playing sence 4th edition magic.... anyways Thank You
, i too have been useing your doc and find it helpful yet uncomfortable (does that make sence to everone else?) but thats the joy of creation, smonetime you have to refine it.
This one threw me and there are now about half a dozen card and main rules that are under due consideration according to Mike.
If this was the only game I played it wouldn't be too bad. I am really waiting for this all to be cleared up there is a lot of cross reference with the faq for rules and cards. Its not that I cant manage this I do at work but it breaks the theme and for me is no longer fun.
What is needed is an updated digital rules and cards , followed by POD cards ASAP. Then I will relearn the rules, I hope it happens soon or I may cancel my preorder/subscription. So shelved for now. Please don't criticize me for my choice of how I spend my leisure time. I could create an update my self but as a single dad with a technical job (Engineer + Regulation + Compliance) my free time is limited. The game is less finished then I thought , one or two fundamental rules changes and maybe some general card rules would have been OK. This is now well beyond that so until then I will wait.
What I would like is one thread to RSS that I can monitor to see progress on this , until then for me it is wasting my time checking posts on the forum and q bit disconcerting seeing even more issues adding to the list.
@St@rm@n - I really don't think any of the rules are up in the air at the moment... could you list the rules/areas that you think need to be further clarified before you feel this game is ready for you? Perhaps create a new thread for it and post a single link here?
Edit: I've seen that you've created a thread. I'll take this there and post one query for you...
This one threw me and there are now about half a dozen card and main rules that are under due consideration according to Mike.
Just to cover this, not to change your position:
The cards that are under consideration are currently Detect Magic, Detect Evil, Ilsoari Gandethus, and Shalelu Andosana, for the "can you explore before the free explore" question, and Mirror Image, for the "can it be played if you played a spell earlier" question.
I'm not aware of any main rules that are under consideration. What is under consideration are metarules, which are statements about how to think about the game. ("Cards do what they say," for example.)
We're working to get a new version of the rulebook done and posted online for people to look at as soon as possible.
Mike
Thanks for posting these and thanks for making the game. My friends and I are having a blast playing it.
One thing I wanted to clarify that I didn't think of until I saw you mention it - you say when you're trying to pass a check that you don't have the specific skill for you use a D4.
Does this mean, for example, if you're trying to defeat the Henchmen Barrier Poison Traps in the Poison Pill adventures - they require a Dexterity / Disable check of 5 to defeat - and you don't have the Disable skill, you roll a D4 and not whatever your base Dexterity die is?
Like, if you're the Barbarian and have a D6 dexterity normally, you'd roll a D4 because you don't have the specific Disable skill?
|
Thanks for posting these and thanks for making the game. My friends and I are having a blast playing it.
One thing I wanted to clarify that I didn't think of until I saw you mention it - you say when you're trying to pass a check that you don't have the specific skill for you use a D4.
Does this mean, for example, if you're trying to defeat the Henchmen Barrier Poison Traps in the Poison Pill adventures - they require a Dexterity / Disable check of 5 to defeat - and you don't have the Disable skill, you roll a D4 and not whatever your base Dexterity die is?
Like, if you're the Barbarian and have a D6 dexterity normally, you'd roll a D4 because you don't have the specific Disable skill?
Trying to remember the card - if it says Dexterity or Disable on it, you choose whether you do either a Dexterity check or a Disable check, so in these cases your Barbarian would choose to do a Dexterity check and therefore get the D6.
If it only mentions Disable, then yeah, you don't get to revert to Dexterity instead.
I like many others would have never got to play in the Pathfinder world if not for this game so just for that thank you Mike. I also feel that what we have seen so for is just a glance at what is to come with the expansions. To borrow Sonys slogan I think greatness awaits. I Binged PACG cards and got a small glimpse of a few cards in future packs which got me excited again to be part of this from the beginning. I love the character discussions and group comrodere I get reading all the post and the fact that Mike and Vic are sharing that with us. Maybe this hasn't been done before because it was to tough to do but you guys pulled it off. Thanks
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I Binged PACG cards and got a small glimpse of a few cards in future packs which got me excited again to be part of this from the beginning...
I had to think twice about what "Binged" meant. Then I figured it out. I never thought anybody actually used MS Bing!
Glad you're enjoying the game and we're all waiting (not so patiently) for Skinsaw to drop. Very soon. Hopefully...
I had to Lycos "Bing" before I understood. ;)
I know right Bing sucks I was just playing!
|
Bing has pretty pictures, and for most searches it's on-par with Google. When you look for very obscure things (say, the name of some minor RPG character from an out-of-print RPG like "Spelljammer"), it starts to break down and not turn up any results...but then again, most of the results Google would bring up for that are all spyware-laden spamsites...
Mike,
I just wanted to let you know that your presence and activity in this thread (and the bits of your personality that shine through in your replies) are the thing that pushed me over from "PACG is on my wishlist of games I'd like to maybe try sometime" to "It'll be here on Thursday."
Thanks for...being you, I guess. =)
Thanks. I'll probably continue being me for a while.