| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If someone wants to use a ball by kicking it, or use it with two hands I guess? That's how a ball should work. There's no reason the entry should need a Usage section at all, it is needlessly detailed for such a vague and non-crunchy item, especially as it's just plainly incorrect.Obviously not a big deal, but why do I have to houserule a ball?I don't know, why do you? Honest question.
Player: Ooh, Grand Bazaar has a ball, I'd like to get one to play with my animal companion.
GM: I'll let you know that I had to houserule it so that it works.
Player: Oh, okay. Well, I throw the ball to-
GM: How far?
Player: What? Oh, like... I guess 15 feet away?
GM: Okay, that'll be beyond the 10 ft range increment I have for it. That's an inprovised weapon for you. Go ahead and make a ranged attack with a -4 penalty. You're level 2 right now with a 16 Dex, so...
Player: Forget it, I'll just throw a stick!
GM: What's your weapon proficiency with clubs?
Player: Ugh!
GM: Hey! There are no rules for attacking objects!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like it gets to the point of absurdity.
Can I not hold a wand in two hands? Better houserule that. Waffle iron requires no hands to use, so I could just telekinetically whip up breakfast. Clearly that needs some errata. A poor meal costs 1 cp but fine dining meal costs 1 gold yet they provide the same benefits. I hope whoever playtested that got fired.
EDIT: Please someone help me, I want to set down this candle to see, but every time I do it goes out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If someone wants to use a ball by kicking it, or use it with two hands I guess? That's how a ball should work. There's no reason the entry should need a Usage section at all, it is needlessly detailed for such a vague and non-crunchy item, especially as it's just plainly incorrect.Obviously not a big deal, but why do I have to houserule a ball?I don't know, why do you? Honest question.Player: Ooh, Grand Bazaar has a ball, I'd like to get one to play with my animal companion.
GM: I'll let you know that I had to houserule it so that it works.
Player: Oh, okay. Well, I throw the ball to-
GM: How far?
Player: What? Oh, like... I guess 15 feet away?
GM: Okay, that'll be beyond the 10 ft range increment I have for it. That's an inprovised weapon for you. Go ahead and make a ranged attack with a -4 penalty. You're level 2 right now with a 16 Dex, so...
Player: Forget it, I'll just throw a stick!
GM: What's your weapon proficiency with clubs?
Player: Ugh!
GM: Hey! There are no rules for attacking objects!
I don't think that's a very fair characterisation of my point. Sure, we houserule stuff all the time, but usually it isn't very simple things directly against the usage section of the item. I'm not saying it's a huge issue I'm just saying I'd prefer it not to be there. Like if Stick was an item with "Usage 1 hand" it's not like it'd change anything, it'd just be like... why? You could respond to that criticism with "but of course you can use a stick with two hands! You're taking it too literally!" but my problem is that it's inaccurate and unnecessary, not that it's a pain to ignore (because it isn't). Just because everyone sane would rule it that way doesn't mean it isn't technically a houserule.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that's a very fair characterisation of my point. Sure, we houserule stuff all the time, but usually it isn't very simple things directly against the usage section of the item. I'm not saying it's a huge issue I'm just saying I'd prefer it not to be there. Like if Stick was an item with "Usage 1 hand" it's not like it'd change anything, it'd just be like... why? You could respond to that criticism with "but of course you can use a stick with two hands! You're taking it too literally!" but my problem is that it's inaccurate and unnecessary, not that it's a pain to ignore (because it isn't). Just because everyone sane would rule it that way doesn't mean it isn't technically a houserule.If someone wants to use a ball by kicking it, or use it with two hands I guess? That's how a ball should work. There's no reason the entry should need a Usage section at all, it is needlessly detailed for such a vague and non-crunchy item, especially as it's just plainly incorrect.Obviously not a big deal, but why do I have to houserule a ball?I don't know, why do you? Honest question.Player: Ooh, Grand Bazaar has a ball, I'd like to get one to play with my animal companion.
GM: I'll let you know that I had to houserule it so that it works.
Player: Oh, okay. Well, I throw the ball to-
GM: How far?
Player: What? Oh, like... I guess 15 feet away?
GM: Okay, that'll be beyond the 10 ft range increment I have for it. That's an inprovised weapon for you. Go ahead and make a ranged attack with a -4 penalty. You're level 2 right now with a 16 Dex, so...
Player: Forget it, I'll just throw a stick!
GM: What's your weapon proficiency with clubs?
Player: Ugh!
GM: Hey! There are no rules for attacking objects!
Have you changed the rules for the candle, merchant's scale, manacles, or any other of the numerous items that also have handed-ness that has numerous edge cases?
Point being, none of this is new. Acting like it is seems to ignore the existence of Core Rulebook items.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dodgeball?You enter into the lich's chamber. It stands before you, an eerie and unwholesome light glowing in its eyesockets. The undead hefts a strange orb, pointing it in your direction. Its jaw crackles with disuse as it opens its mouth and, before lobbing the orb at you asks, "Art thou ready for this?"
"Verily, foul undead thing! I will come on and slam! So be prepared for the jam!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have you changed the rules for the candle, merchant's scale, manacles, or any other of the numerous items that also have handed-ness that has numerous edge cases?
Point being, none of this is new. Acting like it is seems to ignore the existence of Core Rulebook items.
No, but none of those have a common usage the requires less or more than their Usage entry. None of my players have tried to manacle someone using one/no hands yet and I doubt I'd let them without a good argument (or I guess if the target is unconscious? still seems very tricky with old fashioned manacles.) I haven't looked through the handedness of every item but I would say I'd prefer their handedness to correlate to their common usages/flavour if at all possible.
I mean it wouldn't matter in practice if something like Rations had Hands 2 or something, but I feel ever so slightly better about the item accurately depicting what it is. That is to say that you can eat Rations with 1 hand. If it had Hands 2 as an entry I would feel the same way about that as I do about the Ball, which is to say I find it slightly annoying as it doesn't match up with my mental image of ways to use a ball (i.e. kneeing it, kicking it, etc.)
All I'm arguing here is that this item would have been better if it didn't have a Hands/Usage entry, or if it must then have it be 0+ hands to more accurately represent all the different kinds of balls.
Remember kids, hacky sacks don't require a hand to use! Let us hacky sack with our greatswords out Paizo, it's what the people want!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, but none of those have a common usage the requires less or more than their Usage entry.Have you changed the rules for the candle, merchant's scale, manacles, or any other of the numerous items that also have handed-ness that has numerous edge cases?
Point being, none of this is new. Acting like it is seems to ignore the existence of Core Rulebook items.
If I can set down a candle and still use it, how is that different from setting down a ball and kicking it? If I can hold manacles in one hand, how is that different from holding a ball in two? If I can use merchant's scale by setting it on the table and measuring out gold with a single hand, why does a ball not fit the mold of all of these other items?
Rations, 1 hand; Dueling Cape, 1 hand; Blocks, 2 hands (and Usage - held in 2 hands!); A ruler, Usage - held in 1 hand, but no hands required!; Old Mage Deck, 2 hands.
Why is this ball breaking your mind? What part of the game completely stopped for you when you saw this?
If I may offer a completely biased assumption. Bear in mind, this is just an assumption. You saw the thread and went, "Hey yeah, that is weird," and decided to post. Okay, yeah, a few other items have these same caveats and formatting differences. Sure, you haven't read every entry in the books (who has?), but now you're firmly entrenched in this position. I mean, you're the guy who is arguing for ball errata! You can't turn back now! But also, you could take a step back and remember that this is a game of imagination fun time written by not one, two, or even three people, but a whole host of writers from around the world. What makes rational sense to one may not to another. And while they both may follow guidelines, that's not to say that either of them have made a mistake. It's just that we, as human, have differing perspectives on this incredibly open-ended game that attempts to put rules to the ordinary.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the most important thing about the ball is that we now know exactly how much it's going to cost to equip the entire orphanage with enough super bouncy balls in order to cause some delightful mayhem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My guess is because it suggests that soccer was never invented in Golarion. ;3
That would be a...la-crit...also, ouch
whimsy, cunning, GM's that roll with clever ball problem solving all natural like...I call those things good. YRMV
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps also the the why.It's not the what, it's always been about the how.
Usually, the who is most important.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you cast the Awaken Object ritual on a ball you get Wilson.
My guess is because it suggests that soccer was never invented in Golarion. ;3
Or kick ball or stickball or floor hockey or lacrosse pool or tennis or golf or ulama or soft/baseball or sipa or shinty or sepak takraw or polo or Jorkyball or jai alai or fives or croquet or cricket or brännboll or... [there are a LOT of ball games that don't use hands] Or playing fetch with an animal using a ball...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or kick ball or stickball or floor hockey or lacrosse pool or tennis or golf or ulama or soft/baseball or sipa or shinty or sepak takraw or polo or Jorkyball or jai alai or fives or croquet or cricket or brännboll or... [there are a LOT of ball games that don't use hands] Or playing fetch with an animal using a ball...My guess is because it suggests that soccer was never invented in Golarion. ;3
Do you need two hands to kick over someone's blocks? Or one hand to knock over a candle with a stick? You're reading hand usage so literally the the mods are getting confused as to what the deal is.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hand Use is a highly mechanised thing in PF2. The exact argument is that it certain things shouldn't be mechanised, and doing so is mostly wasteful at best. Ball having hands use is just an example of adding mechanic weight to something that didn't need it.
Sure, you can make that complaint, but why now? Why when items like this have existed since the Core Rulebook printing? The original "why do items like this exist?" has since been discussed with people pointing out plenty of reasons for its inclusion. Now we've moved to "angry about hands" which is an argument that was never made before when it's been around since the launch. I find it wildly disingenuous.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hand Use is a highly mechanised thing in PF2. The exact argument is that it certain things shouldn't be mechanised, and doing so is mostly wasteful at best. Ball having hands use is just an example of adding mechanic weight to something that didn't need it.
So would you allow someone to get a ball and throw it without ever taking both of their hands off their greatsword?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hand Use is a highly mechanised thing in PF2. The exact argument is that it certain things shouldn't be mechanised, and doing so is mostly wasteful at best. Ball having hands use is just an example of adding mechanic weight to something that didn't need it.Sure, you can make that complaint, but why now? Why when items like this have existed since the Core Rulebook printing? The original "why do items like this exist?" has since been discussed with people pointing out plenty of reasons for its inclusion. Now we've moved to "angry about hands" which is an argument that was never made before when it's been around since the launch. I find it wildly disingenuous.
Take a look at pre-errata Battle Medicine and tell me again that hand usage being identified isn't important in regards to the practicality of items being used in the game. Plenty of GMs had different rulings across tables, which made such options either overpowered or obsolete/pointless depending on which ruling was done. Imagine using Battle Medicine in Society play before the errata; most people couldn't tell whether they were going to be able to use a primary character feature between tables simply because usage not being identified or flexible enough wasn't a guarantee. It's also true between non-Society tables which ruled differently.
The ultimate point being made is that a GM can refer to "Usage: 1 hand" in the rules and be completely justified in enforcing that because the rules both support that decision and demonstrate that the GM is correct on a rules standpoint, even if the player makes a credible and sensible argument otherwise. And you can't even sit there and say that a GM who enforces that rule is a badwrongfun GM because Society play would have to enforce that rule simply because doing otherwise means the rule is "wrong" and should be fixed, when the point you are making is "It's totally fine that they screwed up because you should be competent enough to run it correctly without them providing rules." In which case, the counterpoint is "If I don't need them to print rules for this thing, then why do I even need a rules entry for this item?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They could kick it or use their sword like a golf club.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hand Use is a highly mechanised thing in PF2. The exact argument is that it certain things shouldn't be mechanised, and doing so is mostly wasteful at best. Ball having hands use is just an example of adding mechanic weight to something that didn't need it.So would you allow someone to get a ball and throw it without ever taking both of their hands off their greatsword?
Again, the point being made is that the rules are overly restrictive when it can be argued that you can kick a ball or might require two hands to throw it. There's no particular reason to have "Usage: 1 hand" when "Usage: 1 Foot", "Usage: 2 Hands" or even "Usage: See Text" could (and probably would) make far more sense.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, please point out the rule that says you can’t hold a ball with 2 hands or kick it.
Well, you can hold a ball with 2 hands, but there's no practicality behind it, because it's the same as holding a Longsword in 2 hands. You aren't getting any benefit out of it.
Kicking can be argued to not be a valid substitute for proper use with the ball, since it has Hand usage, not Foot usage, meaning if you are performing checks with it, using the object in a way it wasn't intended incurs a -2 penalty, in the same way as using a Longsword's pommel to Strike an enemy, and even that is being generous since you can't, for example, effectively kick a Golfball or a Football from the ground (both need Tees or proper positioning from another creature to have some sort of effective way to kick). A GM can rule, based on the type of ball, that a kick can't be any more than 5 or 10 feet, compared to being able to throw 20+ feet with a single hand (with a 2nd hand being either ineffective or even potentially hindering due to the awkwardness of the throw).
Consequently, there are balls that are more effective kicking with (such as Soccerballs) than throwing with, and a Soccerball is often thrown with 2 hands for a shorter distance compared to a Football, which only requires 1 and can be thrown for further distance. And depending on inflation (if applicable) and material construction, and overall relative size, the objects may be thrown further or closer compared to one another.
In short, the entry is too generalized without including specific examples of usage in relation to the real world. I don't expect Golarion to have Soccerballs or Footballs or Golfballs or Rugbyballs specifically, but for mechanics-purposes, using real-world sportsballs as examples would be very helpful for underlying mechanics. No type of ball is the same, nor do they behave the same or have the same hand usage or functionality.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Holding the ball with 2 hands makes you less likely to fumble when tackled.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Getting hung up on toy ball mechanics really seems like an instance of getting lost in the weeds. The writer was tasked with making a toy shop and they included a ball with reasonable mechanics. I doubt very much it was made with the intention of sparking mechanical debate. Its a fluff item..... treat it with that level of seriousness and I think the issue will melt away.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
“Well, you can hold a ball with 2 hands, but there's no practicality behind it, because it's the same as holding a Longsword in 2 hands. You aren't getting any benefit out of it.”
… it’s a ball.
At this point it’s coming across as complaint just to have something to complain about.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Getting hung up on toy ball mechanics really seems like an instance of getting lost in the weeds. The writer was tasked with making a toy shop and they included a ball with reasonable mechanics. I doubt very much it was made with the intention of sparking mechanical debate. Its a fluff item..... treat it with that level of seriousness and I think the issue will melt away.
If it's a fluff item it should have been written like one. But it wasn't, so there's going to be debate and criticism.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Holding the ball with 2 hands makes you less likely to fumble when tackled.
Too bad you don't get a Circumstance Bonus to your Reflex DC on a Disarm check to simulate this. Yes, a GM can certainly implement it, but it's by no means a hard rule compared to, say, the Two-Hand trait on a weapon. Which brings us back to the original handedness debate being listed as a hardcoded rule.
If everything can just be GM FIAT'd away, then why do we even have a rulebook?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like when you're in the realm of "things that are literally toys" everybody understands that you're in the realm of "things that are GM fiat, presumably just 'yes, and'ing the players".
Like the joke is pretty much "treating a toy like a useful item, and giving the mechanics."
You'll note that the description does not make the distinction between super bouncy balls, soccer balls, golf balls, rugby balls, tennis balls, billiards balls, rubber band balls, super happy fun balls, bowling balls, lacrosse balls, or volleyballs when those should all have different mechanics. If the players or the GM want to make the actual kind of ball matter, they can.
This is not "Fantasy Fantasy Sports" after all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Getting hung up on toy ball mechanics really seems like an instance of getting lost in the weeds. The writer was tasked with making a toy shop and they included a ball with reasonable mechanics. I doubt very much it was made with the intention of sparking mechanical debate. Its a fluff item..... treat it with that level of seriousness and I think the issue will melt away.
Define "reasonable" mechanics. Because if "reasonable" is "GM FIAT takes care of half of its practical uses," then sure, you hit the mark. If reasonable is "Most tables can functionally use it in a practical way that the entry doesn't actually state," then I disagree on that notion.
If you wanted an item that was meant to be fluff, then don't include mechanics into its entry. It's very easy to state that a ball can come in all shapes and sizes with different methods of play and handling, whether requiring 1 hand, 2 hands, or even being able to kick with your feet. Boom, done. No stupid hardcoded limitations required.
If hand usage wasn't meant to be a serious limitation, as you suggest, why include it for those tables that might actually take it seriously? It's almost as bad as when Battle Medicine didn't have a handedness rule included. The only reason it's not as bad is because far less tables can get away with a ball that doesn't function properly because it's such a niche item. Plenty of players clamored for non-magical healing to be a viable tactic in combat, and when Paizo dropped the ball (pun intended) on it, table variation sparked and people began to dislike the feat as a result because they didn't know whether Battle Medicine was a viable tactic for a character who uses non-magical healing.
Like the rules don't give anything for that "smear clay on a plane of glass to reduce the noise that breaking it makes" that Ravingdork suggests, but I don't know a GM who wouldn't grant that as a circumstance bonus to a Thievery check.
This is not "Fantasy Fantasy Sports" after all.
Sounds like that could be one of Paizo's April Fools jokes.
"Now releasing 'Fantasy Fantasy Sports' where we include rules for big balls, little balls, hard balls, and soft balls, and games that don't use balls at all!"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like when you're in the realm of "things that are literally toys" everybody understands that you're in the realm of "things that are GM fiat, presumably just 'yes, and'ing the players".
Like the joke is pretty much "treating a toy like a useful item, and giving the mechanics."
You'll note that the description does not make the distinction between super bouncy balls, soccer balls, golf balls, rugby balls, tennis balls, billiards balls, rubber band balls, super happy fun balls, bowling balls, lacrosse balls, or volleyballs when those should all have different mechanics. If the players or the GM want to make the actual kind of ball matter, they can.
This is not "Fantasy Fantasy Sports" after all.
Okay, sure. All that does is reinforce the idea that having the "Usage: 1 hand" mechanic baked into the generalized item is a poor design choice and should just simply be removed so that tables can have more GM FIAT and "Yes, and" mechanics.
If it's a joke, it's not a very effective one. At best you got people laughing at those who are putting stock into mechanics and go "Haha, GM FIAT go brrrrt," which helps no one.
If I make a character who can utilize simple mundane balls as effective tools of fighting Evil (and I can assure you there are mechanics which permit this), I would expect the ball mechanics to matter if the GM is throwing Demons and Lycanthropes at us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the fantasy character that exclusively uses a soccer ball to fight evil (and thus does not use their hands, as that is a foul) is probably not something that is currently supported by the rules. It's a fun concept, but there are a great number of fun concepts not supported by the rules, for which we either need "new rules" or for the GM and player to figure something out.
But like, a dagger requires one hand but that doesn't mean you can't hold it in your teeth when you're climbing a rope.
The real ambiguous part is what constitutes "using a ball" all I read in the item description is "you can buy whatever kind of ball for 3cp, they have light bulk, and you can hold any ball in one hand".
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Getting hung up on toy ball mechanics really seems like an instance of getting lost in the weeds. The writer was tasked with making a toy shop and they included a ball with reasonable mechanics. I doubt very much it was made with the intention of sparking mechanical debate. Its a fluff item..... treat it with that level of seriousness and I think the issue will melt away.If it's a fluff item it should have been written like one. But it wasn't, so there's going to be debate and criticism.
Paizo does as Paizo wishes with Paizo stuff.
And TTRPGers being who they are, there will always be debate and criticism.
And nerdrage too.
This is not "Fantasy Fantasy Sports" after all.Sounds like that could be one of Paizo's April Fools jokes.
"Now releasing 'Fantasy Fantasy Sports' where we include rules for big balls, little balls, hard balls, and soft balls, and games that don't use balls at all!"
It would be very funny if this was an actual product that just contained the rules for various sports. Bonus points if they can make Cricket intelligible to people who know Baseball and vice versa.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, but none of those have a common usage the requires less or more than their Usage entry.Have you changed the rules for the candle, merchant's scale, manacles, or any other of the numerous items that also have handed-ness that has numerous edge cases?
Point being, none of this is new. Acting like it is seems to ignore the existence of Core Rulebook items.
If I can set down a candle and still use it, how is that different from setting down a ball and kicking it? If I can hold manacles in one hand, how is that different from holding a ball in two? If I can use merchant's scale by setting it on the table and measuring out gold with a single hand, why does a ball not fit the mold of all of these other items?
Rations, 1 hand; Dueling Cape, 1 hand; Blocks, 2 hands (and Usage - held in 2 hands!); A ruler, Usage - held in 1 hand, but no hands required!; Old Mage Deck, 2 hands.
Why is this ball breaking your mind? What part of the game completely stopped for you when you saw this?
If I may offer a completely biased assumption. Bear in mind, this is just an assumption. You saw the thread and went, "Hey yeah, that is weird," and decided to post. Okay, yeah, a few other items have these same caveats and formatting differences. Sure, you haven't read every entry in the books (who has?), but now you're firmly entrenched in this position. I mean, you're the guy who is arguing for ball errata! You can't turn back now! But also, you could take a step back and remember that this is a game of imagination fun time written by not one, two, or even three people, but a whole host of writers from around the world. What makes rational sense to one may not to another. And while they both may follow guidelines, that's not to say that either of them have made a mistake. It's just that we, as human, have differing perspectives on this incredibly open-ended game that attempts to put rules to the ordinary.
I don't think it's worth an errata, I just think it would have been a slightly better item if it had released with a more accurate handedness requirement. Some of those other items would be better (to my eye) if they were less gamified in some respects as well.
Also, with your slightly weird psych assessment of my thought process have you considered that you're also in this thread writing essays in defence of the ball item?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the fantasy character that exclusively uses a soccer ball to fight evil (and thus does not use their hands, as that is a foul) is probably not something that is currently supported by the rules. It's a fun concept, but there are a great number of fun concepts not supported by the rules, for which we either need "new rules" or for the GM and player to figure something out.
But like, a dagger requires one hand but that doesn't mean you can't hold it in your teeth when you're climbing a rope.
The real ambiguous part is what constitutes "using a ball" all I read in the item description is "you can buy whatever kind of ball for 3cp, they have light bulk, and you can hold any ball in one hand".
Fighter with the Weapon Improvisor archetype and the Juggle skill feat.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's do this again. Items having handedness and usage is nothing new. You use a hand to move a ball from stowed to held, much as you ise two hands to move something like merchant's acales from stowed to held. I can throw either item, I can kick either item. Rules get blurry when it comes to these thungs because they live in exploration mode, not encounter mode. PF2 has been very clear about where GM's have more to say over the minutae. In an encounter, needing to heft the merchant scales off the table might matter (I don't know your games), just as much as the handedness of a ball might.
Battle Medicine and the ball are two wildly different things. One is a feat written for encounter use and the other is an item written for exploration mode. It would be fair to be on the same page with your GM over a feat your character has, but a little odd to ask the question, "Can my character kick a ball?" It's sort of assumed that you can. If you need hard rules on kicking balls, that's a conversation your GM is likely to have with you. I don't think a writer should constrain their design by creating a separate subsystem for kicking items.
Also, with your slightly weird psych assessment of my thought process have you considered that you're also in this thread writing essays in defence of the ball item?
First off, a psych assessment this ain't. It was a much nicer way of saying "you Kramered into a conversation with zero understanding of the conversation so far and proceeded to shove your foot in your mouth." Secondly, I'm not writing essays (again, a little hyperbolic here) in defense of a ball, but for a writer who gave us something nice and wrote it with her kids in mind. I'm passionate that this is a terrible thought process to have because the "ball detractors" make it harder for writers to create something that they feel is special. It's a ball. In a game of imagination. A game for - and I mean this with no disrespect to all of us here - children to play and create stories.