It's All D&D to Me

I'm just gonna go off here a bit. Just a short tidbit of brain spew, sort of an offspring of the post I wrote yesterday regarding what I consider the "flavors" of D&D (including Castles & Crusades, my preferred flavor, and the upcoming 5th edition of D&D). Please let me know if you agree or disagree.

Here goes, according to my brain:

OSRIC is D&D.

Labyrinth Lord is D&D.

Swords & Wizardry is D&D.

Lamentations of the Flame Princess is D&D.

Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG is D&D.

[Insert title of D&D-inspired rule set] is D&D.

Are you seeing a theme here? A common thread?

Bottom line: for me, I don't care what you call it, it's all D&D. Like Shakespeare wrote, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

I don't care that there are small, medium, or large differences between the clones and the rules they emulate. I don't care how crazy the "house rules" found in rule sets like Lamentations of the Flame Princess, Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG, and their ilk may be.

It's no accident that images of the original D&D Red Box grace the front of the three-ring binders I use for my GM's screen during my Castles & Crusades games. C&C is in many ways the successor of D&D. It's is a successor from a mechanics standpoint, as well as the spiritual successor. So when I'm using those rules, if someone asks me what I'm playing, I usually say "A version of D&D" or just "Dungeons and Dragons." If they ask for more detail, I'll get down to the nitty gritty, but otherwise, I see no difference between C&C and the system that gave birth to it/inspired it.

The same goes for all the clones and clones of clones out there. That's the main reason the Edition Wars make no sense to me.

Back to Castles & Crusades: It may have a different name, have some different terms scattered throughout (i.e. Castle Keeper instead of Dungeon Master), and differ in mechanics in some ways. But in the end, it captures the feel of both 1E and 3.X D&D, paying homage to both iterations. Yet, at the same time, it has aspects that make it its own creature, especially the mechanics of the SIEGE Engine.

I know this is all my opinion, and I'm not some sort of missionary that seeks to show others the "true way." This is just MY path to D&D nirvana. Yours no doubt differs.

I am curious to see what 5E will be. Heck, I may even get into the playtesting if I am able. But I already have my version of D&D that I enjoy above all others. And it's called Castles & Crusades.

Does anyone else out there feel the same? I'm sure I am not breaking any new ground here. Does anyone disagree? I know I've probably written the same sentiments on this blog before, but sometimes we need to be reminded of things. Lemme know your thoughts. Or am I just shouting into the void here?

*EDIT: I should mention that I also consider Pathfinder to be D&D by another name (wait, is that a stupid statement?). I would even venture to say the unthinkable: 4E is even D&D to me, though a vastly altered version. I can hear the outrage at that statement! I don't say 4E is D&D because it has the brand name and is currently in print (for a little while longer, at least). I say it because it bears at least some resemblance to the editions of the past. Though I would never play 4E, it still gets grudging acknowledgement from me. Heresy, I know...

System, Style of Play, and Heroes

So, yeah, a LOT of bloggers have written about their thoughts on the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG beta since its release yesterday morning. Akrasia put together a small list of blogs besides his own that commented on DCC, but now the number of bloggers that have “reviewed” the beta rules has exploded! Yes, for good or ill, the DCC RPG has stirred up the blogosphere. Every blog from Grognardia to Your Dungeon is Suck has chimed in on the subject.

I still think that it’s sort of gimmicky, and an attempt to tap into the ever-growing OSR movement. I’m not faulting Goodman Games for the attempt. But I think they really turned on the spin machine. The beta version of the game seems, to me, to be trying too hard to be old school, whatever old school really is. Seriously, the definition of old school (not that I think there should be one) is a moving target. Does old school refer to games from a certain era? Is it a style of play? Is it rules light? Is it a combination of these things? I suppose the real answer is that old school gaming is whatever each gamer wants it to be. So trying to publish a "truly" old school game is like trying to hit a rapidly moving target. What Goodman Games has done is put forth its own version of an old school game. I know that it’s great for people to be passionate about what they do. But I think Goodman went a little too heavy on the hype, and it may be that they’ve sort of created a level of expectation that no game can live up to. Or I could be totally wrong.

Some have taken issue with DCC’s statement that player characters using the system are not heroes. Again, I think the company took hold of what it thought are the foundation stones of old school gaming and ran with those ideas. But they might have run too far. Are they saying that in old school gaming the PCs are not heroic? Does game system determine such a thing as whether or not a player can create/play a heroic character?

I’m a huge Joseph Campbell fan. I loved Hero with a Thousand Faces. After I read that book, I looked at the early versions of D&D as being about playing archetypes. The strict division of classes brings forth very archetypal roles: the warrior, the healer, the trickster, the magician…and also mythological beings such as dwarves, elves, etc. I’m not really sure off the top of my head the genesis behind the classes that Gygax and Arneson created for their original game (maybe someone can enlighten me!), but they do seem to tap into some ancient archetypes.

Sure, those early versions of D&D gave you most of your experience from treasure and killing things. But is that because the creators were still steeped in the more mechanical world of wargaming? Did they not really consider the roleplaying aspect in those early days? I guess what I’m saying is that they probably didn’t purposefully make D&D just about slaying and treasure. The game was a new offshoot of miniature gaming, which probably never really involved a lot of roleplaying.

So for Goodman Games to make it such a badge of honor, and declare characters as not being heroes, just seems a bit, well, short sighted. It seems wrong-headed.

All of this makes me think of some recent posts I read regarding system and style of play. I totally agree that the rules of particular game systems can indeed lend themselves to different styles of play. The early D&D games lend themselves to more hack and slash styles of play, perhaps, as well as a focus on gaining treasure. But as time went on, some gamers sought to add more “depth” to characters and their games. The later versions of the game began to focus on making characters more like individuals, rather than broad archetypes. The characters started to develop whole lives, with backgrounds that could become quite detailed. I think Pathfinder made 3rd Edition more "cinematic," so characters are still individuals but more like those you see in movies (i.e. larger than life). Now, 4E has pushed the characters into the realm of superheroes, who are powerful right from the start.

And this is ok, because change is natural. This is why I’m a believer in the recent “I’m with D&D” pseudo-movement (something of a reaction against Edition Wars). There’s no reason to deride those who play different editions, because different editions facilitate different styles of play.

Now, can you play a long campaign that’s heavy on plots and intrigue and interaction with NPCs using OD&D? Absolutely. Can you use 3.5 Edition to just do dungeon crawls? Sure! Therein lies the power of imagination and the individual tastes of gamers. So it is possible to overcome the influence of system on style of play.

So I believe that gamers just need to pick the system they're most comfortable with and have fun. I think each system has its obvious pros and cons. But they also have their own variation on the theme of heroes. Yes, that’s right, I said heroes. There are many different types of heroes. And they all need not be knights in shining armor. Some can be uncivilized or even self-serving. But does that mean that they cannot be heroes? And speaking of knights, don’t they need to gather up treasure too?

So again, to assume that old school roleplaying is not populated by at least some heroes is sort of strange. It makes Goodman Games seem somewhat out of touch with the real roots and motivations of the OSR.

To take my own admonition to “play and let play” to heart, I won’t fault anyone who falls in love with DCC and makes it their game of choice. I just think it was a poor choice on the part of Goodman Games to make it seem like they sought to create the “perfect” old school game that would tap into some conception of an OSR zeitgeist. Now, I know that the company never stated such a thing. But it sure seemed like they were trying really hard to make all of us think so.

NOTE: The DCC RPG's stance on heroes has sparked something of a "side" controversy, and other people besides me are giving their opinions on the matter. Things are getting more and more meta all the time ;-) Take a look here and here, for example.

Are YOU with D&D?

Hi all. I haven't been able to post over the last few days due to work and family. I am becoming much busier by the day at my new job, so that unfortunately means that my blogging during the day will be slowing down/sporadic. I have to sacrifice something in favor of spending time to actually game/prepare to game. As always, I do what I can when I can. Anyway, enough of all that. On to the real topic of this post:

Has anyone read the "I'm with D&D" post over at The Other Side blog? Take a look if you haven't, and let me know your thoughts. What is your stance on the many editions of D&D? Are you an egalitarian, or a staunch partisan? I for one have a "play and let play" stance on things for the most part. Any kind of D&D is D&D, alright! What's most important to me is that people are actually playing! Now, does that mean I love the 4E incarnation? No. I am not a huge fan of editions 2 through 4 of D&D, actually. And I have just truly started to delve into OD&D, and find some issues with that venerable beast as well. Give me 1E any day! But if people are as passionate about other versions, so be it. Who am I to tell them what should be their game of choice? I could write posts that go on about what I find offensive about a particular edition, but always with the caveat of "this is my opinion." If you love it, play it.

I've been called "mealy" for my opinions. So be it. Mealy I may be, but at least I'm not a "flaming" uber-nerd who's sole purpose is to extend one's ire for a D&D edition to actually attacking those who play said edition. That's a level of meta-dorkness to which I will not descend.

Currently, I am playing using Castles & Crusades, which has been dubbed a 1E/3.5E hybrid. But I am also increasingly interested in Labyrinth Lord, a clone of Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X. I see C&C as a means to do more "story-driven" roleplaying, whereas LL to me would be used at my table for a more "traditional" version of D&D that focuses on the sandbox-y, dungeon crawl "slay and loot" approach. I know some of you are groaning right now at my mention of story in conjunction with D&D. I might need to do a separate post on my thoughts regarding the use of certain editions depending on what style of game you want to run. This post may also include my thoughts on playing strong archetypes versus more "individualized" characters, etc. I may have to rethink my stance on other editions, and accept that each has their merit based on what style of play you seek to foster.

Opinion, Fact, and RPGs: Part 2

You can read the first part of this series here. To continue:

Why am I “concerned” enough about some people’s apparent inability to discern the difference between opinion and fact? So concerned that I felt the urge to write this two-part post? Well, first of all, I think there’s a potential irony here. Meaning, the harsh critics of the RPG realm may actually contribute to the “downfall” of the hobby that they often seem to predict. The critics may not see that they themselves—not some huge impersonal publisher or a bunch of old grognards—are more of a detriment than a force for positive change. Instead of helping to foster efforts to keep the hobby of roleplaying diverse and dynamic, their insistence on merely criticizing may lead to the stagnation they claim to see happening all around them. Put simply: self-fulfilling prophecy.

I’m not saying one can’t feel passionately about one’s hobby. But just be aware of yourself. Does your passion have to manifest itself in negativity? Why can’t it be the impetus behind something more constructive?

I’ve read many “kerfuffles” (I despise that word, BTW) in the gaming blogosphere in the past year and they all made me wonder, “Why don’t people put this energy into actual gaming? Why don’t they turn this energy toward creating “better” gaming materials, for instance? Why can’t they try to be a part of the solution?” We need to stop wasting time trading barbs in an imaginary place (the Internet) about a hobby that is based in the imagination.

Here’s some thoughts for Malcolm Sheppard: Stop simply throwing “controversy bombs” out into the ether in order to attract attention. Using inflammatory language to get a visceral response instantly polarizes your readers. It undermines what you are trying to do: persuade people to consider your ideas. Some who agree will flock to your side, but you run the risk of instantly alienating others. And is that what you really want? If you want to truly be persuasive, then avoid being outrageous…avoid grandstanding. And understand that, no matter how well you research and how well you write, there are those that will never agree with you. And that’s ok!

I think Mr. Sheppard and Leo Grin would do better to make less attacks. They make themselves irrelevant and, worse, unheard due to their vitriol. They need to resist that urge within all human beings to preach to the masses. We seem to tend toward trying to gain footholds in the thoughts of others. Both Sheppard and Grin would be better served by trying harder to come up with solutions, rather than attacking and—as it seems to me—waiting for others to do the hard work of bringing about the creative change that the authors seem to crave.
At one point in his rant, Mr. Sheppard uses the phrase “Do better.” I think he needs to take his own advice.

I’ve read blogs that complained that the mainstream RPG industry, which includes powerful publishers like Wizards of the Coast, is a monstrous and evil entity. Others attack the old school renaissance for its supposed curmudgeonly members who are often seen (mostly erroneously) as resistant to change, victims of “negative” nostalgia.

Then there are the incessant Dungeons & Dragons “edition wars.” Look, is D&D 4th edition like the older versions? No. But does that really mean that it’s “not D&D,” as so many (including this guy, starting at 2:40) have claimed? No. Sorry guys, but it has the official name. Call it the victim of a corporate conspiracy or whatever, but 4th edition is now the “public face” of the game. But that’s just WotC’s vision of the game. Good old OD&D exists wherever gamers are playing it. And no matter what “evil” things WotC has done the D&D brand, the true game will still exist in spirit in the place it should exist: in gamers themselves.

Look, right now I’m playing Swords & Wizardry and Lamentations of the Flame Princess. But when people ask me what I’m playing, I say “Dungeons and Dragons.” I made some home-made DM screens, and on the front I put images of the old iconic Red Box Basic set cover. Because, in spirit, that’s what I’m playing. No game company or ranting blogger can change that.

Maybe we all need to realize that the entire RPG industry could be utterly wiped from the face of the earth by some supernatural force, but people would still, somehow, be able to roleplay! They wouldn’t need all the stuff that’s ever been published to do so. Just the power of imagination!

I would argue that if someone depends on the creativity of others (i.e. game publishers) to give them a roleplaying experience that is unique and original and brand-spanking-new, then that someone needs to get a new hobby. Because part of the genesis of roleplaying stems from collective storytelling. And when you get a group of people together to tell stories, more often than not something unique happens.

I would also argue that there is a majority of players and gamemasters out there that would say “what are you talking about?” or “who cares?” or “no kidding!” if someone came to them saying “dude, the big corporate monster/little self-publisher guy lacks creativity and is putting out rehashed stuff! BEWARE!” Because this majority does not depend on the creative (or non-creative) whims of some distant producer of products. Most gamers are a resourceful lot. They are, if nothing else, some of the most creative people you may ever chance to meet.

And regarding any supposed downward trend in the hobby that many believe exists, I would also argue that roleplayers would make the perfect fertile ground for a “grass roots” effort to keep the game alive where it should be: in the “trenches,” in actual play sessions all over the world.

It’s all about personal preference, people! Look, I don’t know what version of D&D is being referred to when someone says “Moldvay” or “Mentzer.” And I don’t have to know in order to enjoy the game. And I don’t fault the guys or girls who enjoy that level of detail. That’s how they enjoy the game. And I would expect mutual respect.

There are a lot of gamers out there, folks. If we just used the Internet, and specifically the blogosphere, to unite with each other rather than take pot shots at each other, we can ensure the continued life of the hobby. We shouldn’t be hoping and praying for some company to keep it alive.

We gamers, especially the older generation that grew up on the earlier D&D editions, don’t have to be the stereotypical grognards who just complain that the kids these days don’t know “real” D&D. What is real? Reality is subjective, but that’s so easy to forget.

Instead of being an anti-social old gamer, introduce younger gamers to the older editions. Don’t alienate yourself and the older editions by being standoffish, and don’t make the older editions some arcane thing to be hoarded and kept out of sight.

Speaking of new gamers, those just coming to the hobby might benefit from the dreaded “rehashing” of old roleplaying tropes. Maybe they’re the ones to which all the same old stuff is being marketed, since to THEM it’s not “the same old stuff.” It’s new stuff! They might benefit from being exposed to the good old classic dungeon crawl where there’s just a dragon waiting below, crouching greedily over its treasure hoard. That may be boring to RPG veterans, but to someone like the child of a gamer who is being introduced to RPGs by their parent, they’re experiencing that for the first time. And the parent may take some joy in seeing a child experience that wonder at something so simple and classic.

I’d also like to add in a reality check by reminding one and all that WE ARE ALL TALKING ABOUT A HOBBY! A GAME! Arguing over RPGs makes outsiders to the hobby think of us as not just the regular nerds they took us for, but UBER-NERDS! My wife is unfortunately one of those people, because I tried to tell her about this whole “O vs. F” thing, and she wondered out loud why adults were arguing over what she basically considers a game of pretend. But consider that maybe those people who think of us as supergeeks are right in this instance. So please, everyone, let’s all try not to be the Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons! ;-)

It’s okay to have vigorous debate about a game. But when debate crosses over into dogma, well, it’s just not fun anymore. And isn’t that the point of our hobby?

Play and let play!

Thanks for reading, and I look forward to any comments you may have!

Postscript: I think I need to write a standard reply to posts that seem to confuse opinion and fact and/or posts that make me think the author should do something positive for gaming. Then I can use it when I comment on such posts, instead of rewriting my thoughts from scratch all the time.

Opinion, Fact, and RPGs: Part 1

I’ve read a few blog posts in the last couple of weeks that have really brought a certain topic to the fore of my mind again. First there was this post: Why Do RPGs Suck?

To summarize, the author claims that…well, read the title of the post: “Why Do RPGs Suck?” One immediately knows there’s going to be an argument in the making, no?

And then there was this post: Are Joe Abercrombie’s Novels “Poison to Both the Reader’s Mind and Culture?”

In this instance, a man named Leo Grin (who apparently was the mastermind behind the late, great Cimmerian blog, which I loved) wrote a “scathing indictment” of fantasy literature. He even went so far as to directly attack current author Joe Abercrombie, the creator of the First Law trilogy. Now, I know that this is not gaming-related per se, but it will serve to illustrate my point, when I get to it.

Yes, these posts caused me no shortage of frustration. Sure, since I’ve been reading and contributing to the RPG blogosphere (about a year now), I’ve read a lot of posts where people criticize other people, or game systems, or editions of games, etcetera. In the literary world, there are book critics, and it stands to reason that the RPG world would have its own. Criticism is part of human nature, of course, and it’s all too easy to do.

So could my post be a musing on the role of criticism in human civilization? I won’t go that far. But if I did, whatever I wrote would be my OPINION, put forth as something for the reader to consider, i.e. a different perspective to ponder.

Criticism has its uses. It may help change the subject matter being criticized. It can cause a person being criticized to strive to improve themselves. It may even cause some people to adopt the ideas of the author. Thus we have persuasive writing. And I have no problem with any of that. I wholeheartedly support and enjoy vigorous, fair debate. It makes us better thinkers and may even foster respect for others, among other things.

But, as some may agree, criticism all too often slips into a less-than-constructive form. Now, I’m not necessarily saying that the criticism displayed in the two blog posts I mentioned earlier is “destructive” criticism, per se. I think that both authors are intelligent and coherent writers. They structured their posts well, and they may even have been very persuasive.

I take issue with these blog posts for one primary reason: the authors both seem to believe that what they have written is FACT, rather than their OPINIONS. This is something that I cannot understand. These authors, like so many others in our variegated species, apparently cannot—or choose not to—grasp the basic concept of the difference between opinion and fact. To my eyes, as evidenced by word choice, tone, and other factors, they seem to be assuming that anyone else who reads their words will take their arguments as fact. I may be wrong, so I challenge you to read their posts and judge for yourselves.

Just because these authors wrote a lot of words, put a lot of research into their words, and have a lot of experience with their subject matters does not make them the final arbiters of truth on said subjects. I know this sounds supremely obvious, but I wonder if it is obvious to the authors themselves. From what I’ve read, it seems that they may not. But again, that’s my opinion.

So, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I’m not going to assume that these authors are egomaniacs. But I am still disturbed by the positions of “false authority” from which they seem to be writing. False authority is one of the fallacies in the discipline of rhetoric. Also, it could be argued that the “Why Do RPGs Suck?” post by Malcolm Sheppard also uses such fallacies as generalization and ad populum (attempting to prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true).

I of course am just as prone to the inability to determine my opinions from fact. It seems to be a knee-jerk reaction for human beings. But human beings, especially adults, have the ability for self-reflection, self-regulation. And this allows us to think about what we are saying, and realize that most of what we believe on a personal level is our opinion, and the many other people around us have their own beliefs. And beyond that, we should also realize that every individual is allowed to have their own opinion.

Since the mid-1990s, when I was in college and the Internet as we know it today began to take shape, I quickly came to this conclusion:

The Web had the potential to be a whole new medium for the human tendency toward demagogy to flourish in a way it never had in all of history. No longer was a demagogue’s audience limited to those who could hear his/her voice. Now he/she could spread his/her words across the world. And this would, potentially, only fuel his/her rhetoric, creating a vicious cycle.

I know my thoughts on this may sound pedestrian, and that you may think that I’m simply restating common sense. But if opinion versus fact is so basic a concept, why do I seem to come across so many blogs where the authors blatantly ignore the difference between opinion and fact?

I’m going to stop there for now, having created a background for my eventual point (and I do have one!). I didn’t want to cram all of my thoughts into one monstrous post. I’ll wrap things up in my next post on this topic. Thanks for reading! And in the meantime, I'd like to hear any thoughts you might have out there!

Regarding the "Edition Wars"

I didn't really want to get into my thoughts on what is often called the "Edition Wars" across the D&D blogosphere just yet, but a recent post (or rather posts, of which these are but two of many) I read has sort of pushed my feelings to the fore. I felt like I needed to repeat here a longer version of what I have posted on other blogs:

I just don't get all the vitriol being bandied about within the fantasy RPG hobby, specifically with regard to Dungeons & Dragons. There are so many people at each other's virtual throats over what is "pure" D&D and other such nonsense. There's fighting over whether or not 4th edition is truly D&D. There are those who feel like the Old School Renaissance has "improved" upon the works on which they are based. There are staunch supporters for every edition of the game, and many of them are not satisfied with just gaming. No, these individuals, for some reason, have taken it upon themselves to champion their favored edition (or retro-clone of said edition) to the point that they attack other editions and/or the people that play them. And I have to say that I am frankly confused as fuck about the whole business. If you have a favorite version of the game, just play it. Period. What's the point in attacking other versions/gamers for what they choose to play?

The point of this blog is that I've been out of the hobby for a while and have decided to get back into it after a long hiatus. I've spent the better part of this year researching and reading all about Original D&D (which I never really played, having gotten my start with AD&D 1st Edition and moving on to 2nd Edition) and delving into the retro-clones. I spent some time trying to start house-ruling different retro-clones (mostly Swords & Wizardry) with the intention of starting a campaign sometime in the hopefully near future. But I discovered that I didn't have the time to really do such an effort justice, with all the adult responsibilities of my life. I just didn't have the time I would need, like I did when I was in my teens (and even most of my 20s for that matter). It was a tough fact to confront, but then I realized that I could just search through all the great games people have been resurrecting/producing and settle on one that most closely fit what I wanted in a game.

I have settled on Castles & Crusades for the game I think I want to run. I know that it's not really a retro-clone (I think). But I feel like, for what I want to do as a dungeon master/game master/referee/castle keeper/whatever, it's the D&D-esque game that will allow me to do the least amount of house ruling as possible. So I can focus on game prep and actual gaming. I feel like C&C is "rules light" enough (or I can make it so) and yet has some aspects of more recent versions of D&D (3.0-3.5) that makes it unique. Believe me, I was happy to finally settle on a game.

At the same time, I put out a call on the web about my desire to meet up with new gamers, since all my old gaming pals have scattered to the four winds. And I was contacted by a guy who I had spoken to briefly not too long ago with regard to play-by-email gaming. He asked if I was interested in joining one of his Pathfinder games, and I've pretty much agreed to do so. And I am pretty excited about the opportunity. Now, would I ever want to run a Pathfinder game? Probably not. As a GM I know that I want to run something like the older editions of D&D. But damn it, I am itching to get back into the gaming scene, and therefore I have leapt at the chance to get back to the tabletop. Even if it means I will be playing a more recent edition. Which is more than fine by me.

You know why? Because in the end, it's all D&D, no matter what name it goes by!

I hate to repeat myself, but I just don't get all the fighting. It's really making me very depressed. Shouldn't we all just be glad at the fact that Dungeons & Dragons is being played at all, that it's survived (and thrived) this long? And isn't it great that people are playing so many different versions of it, be it from the old TSR books, the new WotC books, or the stuff being produced in the retro-clones? Who cares what you play, as long as you are playing and having fun? Isn't that what it's all about?

I'm about to wax philosophical: why does everything humanity puts its hands to turn into this type of petty bickering? Do I have to bring up the "it's just a game" argument as well? Seriously, everybody shut the fuck up and JUST PLAY! Revel in the wondrous variety that has come from that old Gygax-Arneson Ur-game. We should be unutterably happy for those two late gentlemen, because their creation has given so so many people happiness, and D&D has gone forth and multiplied into so many great games, and has inspired so many. No one is doing it "better" than anyone else, no one version of the game is more "pure" than another. All the shouting voices of the naysayers and haters sound like the braying of the stereotypical nerds that people outside the RPG world believe we are. We need to stop arguing over obscure minutia. Here's a revelation for you: No one cares!

So for the love of the game, give it a rest, already! 'Nuff said.