Difference between the perception of mmorpg rpg systems and reality in litRPG books

Mendel

cameltosis said:

Can someone explain to me what LitRPG books even are?

To me, roleplaying involves interaction, playing the role. But, books are just one way, no interaction. So, the whole concept has me confused.

LitRPG is a newish form of book, mostly what appears to be a form of fan fiction.  Why there needed to be a special name for this, I don't know.

I agree with your assessment of role playing; books are static, role playing is dynamic.

cheyane

Mendel said:

cameltosis said:

Can someone explain to me what LitRPG books even are?

To me, roleplaying involves interaction, playing the role. But, books are just one way, no interaction. So, the whole concept has me confused.

LitRPG is a newish form of book, mostly what appears to be a form of fan fiction.  Why there needed to be a special name for this, I don't know.

I agree with your assessment of role playing; books are static, role playing is dynamic.

I disagree books aren't one way. Your imagination takes flight and I have often imagined myself in a role after reading the book or while reading it in my head. I can see myself doing the things that is happening in the book as I imagine them based on the descriptions the book provides. The quality of the imagination will largely depend on how well the author manages to create his world and what is happening. It can be in vivid detail. Surely I cannot be the only one who interacts with books this way.

The LitRPG books also give us the mobs point of view which can be hilarious and thought provoking.

cameltosis

cheyane said:

Mendel said:

cameltosis said:

Can someone explain to me what LitRPG books even are?

To me, roleplaying involves interaction, playing the role. But, books are just one way, no interaction. So, the whole concept has me confused.

LitRPG is a newish form of book, mostly what appears to be a form of fan fiction.  Why there needed to be a special name for this, I don't know.

I agree with your assessment of role playing; books are static, role playing is dynamic.

I disagree books aren't one way. Your imagination takes flight and I have often imagined myself in a role after reading the book or while reading it in my head. I can see myself doing the things that is happening in the book as I imagine them based on the descriptions the book provides. The quality of the imagination will largely depend on how well the author manages to create his world and what is happening. It can be in vivid detail. Surely I cannot be the only one who interacts with books this way.

The LitRPG books also give us the mobs point of view which can be hilarious and thought provoking.

My imagination definitely goes for a walk whenever I'm reading a book, but thinking / imagining things isn't interacting with the book, so its still a one-way street.

This is a problem I'm having at the moment trying to learn game dev. I'm working my way through a book on Unity development but frequently find myself staring off into space as i imagine new or improved features for the game I would like to build! I imagine that LitRPG will have a very similar effects....though if the LitRPG systems are based around vertical progression, i may not be able to make it to the end of the book... :P

cheyane

cameltosis said:

cheyane said:

Mendel said:

cameltosis said:

Can someone explain to me what LitRPG books even are?

To me, roleplaying involves interaction, playing the role. But, books are just one way, no interaction. So, the whole concept has me confused.

LitRPG is a newish form of book, mostly what appears to be a form of fan fiction.  Why there needed to be a special name for this, I don't know.

I agree with your assessment of role playing; books are static, role playing is dynamic.

I disagree books aren't one way. Your imagination takes flight and I have often imagined myself in a role after reading the book or while reading it in my head. I can see myself doing the things that is happening in the book as I imagine them based on the descriptions the book provides. The quality of the imagination will largely depend on how well the author manages to create his world and what is happening. It can be in vivid detail. Surely I cannot be the only one who interacts with books this way.

The LitRPG books also give us the mobs point of view which can be hilarious and thought provoking.

My imagination definitely goes for a walk whenever I'm reading a book, but thinking / imagining things isn't interacting with the book, so its still a one-way street.

This is a problem I'm having at the moment trying to learn game dev. I'm working my way through a book on Unity development but frequently find myself staring off into space as i imagine new or improved features for the game I would like to build! I imagine that LitRPG will have a very similar effects....though if the LitRPG systems are based around vertical progression, i may not be able to make it to the end of the book... :P

Yes I agree about the book aspect if you mean physically but roleplaying actually starts in the mind and imagination. You can roleplay without any physical aspect to it. You can roleplay in your head. I often do when I am gaming, roleplaying in my head. I don't talk to anyone about it or mostly don't interact with anyone in my roleplay. 

I think you can roleplay strictly speaking using books. I wonder also about manga. Recently I've been reading tonnes of manga and with regards to artwork like manga looking at the pictures and then discussing them on the discussion area of a manga with others is one form of interaction too. 

I think you cannot limit yourself or your imagination with regards to roleplay. 

But I digress LitRPG isn't about roleplaying in that sense. It is about the world in the books that is usually a game world. It talks about the mobs , they have stories too and character. It is about the protagonist levelling and moving through the book like you would a game if you play it. The difference is instead of using a keyboard or mouse or controller to move through the game you listen or read about it. The progression through the book is similar to you progressing through a game but with way more characters and situations you won't encounter playing normally. However it is static and not dependent on other people and does not change. The story is always the same unlike a real game which is dependent on who you meet in the game.

Amaranthar

My opinion is that the rules only apply to the game part. Roleplaying is provided by the players. 
Games that don't allow the player to play their characters as they want to, go where they want to, play on the side they want to, build what they want to, destroy what they want to, (all within the guide of the worldly design), those aren't roleplaying games. They're just games. 

Of course, this can be taken to extremes. 

blamo2000

Po_gg said:

blamo2000 said:

But, Gary also has another quote about rpgs not needing rules, which makes no sense to me at all.  How can something be a game without rules?  

I don't remember on that quote, but maybe he just meant what later was distilled into "story over rules"?

So, not a game without rules as a whole, simply just a game where rules aren't set in stone, and when the fun / the flow needs it rules can be stepped over if the GM sees fit.

I hope so.  This is his quote -

"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."

This is his quote about directing I also referenced in case anyone cares -

"Role-playing isn't storytelling. If the dungeon master is directing it, it's not a game."

blamo2000

remsleep said:

I think the OPs post can be summed up as such

RPGs that have meaningful and impactful choice are fun 

on the other hand

MMOs where 99% of the success is simply determined by time invested and where player choice is next to non existent - are not so much fun

Also in MMOs the path is so clear and spoonfed that pretty much all of player's decision making is unnecessary


At least that's what I got out of it


This is personally true for me - single player RPGs where every choice has positive and negative outcomes, where even gearing up has positives and negatives - it makes players always engaged and thinking.


MMOs on the other hand - the thinking part has been so sanitized that you'd think they were designed for mentally challenged

Yes, but sort of no.  I definitely agree that would make a better mmorpg (as it makes better sp games), but what makes me like a game more than anything else is a decent rpg system with tons of choices for chargen and chardev and lots of complexity to the point of absurdity.   I want enough choice to try really weird builds and the system to have so much complexity no one can have a solid grasp on all of it.  Think DDOs system x100.

For the best of every world combine what I am saying and what you are saying and everyone wins. 

AlBQuirky

cheyane said:

cameltosis said:

cheyane said:

Mendel said:

cameltosis said:

Can someone explain to me what LitRPG books even are?

To me, roleplaying involves interaction, playing the role. But, books are just one way, no interaction. So, the whole concept has me confused.

LitRPG is a newish form of book, mostly what appears to be a form of fan fiction.  Why there needed to be a special name for this, I don't know.

I agree with your assessment of role playing; books are static, role playing is dynamic.

I disagree books aren't one way. Your imagination takes flight and I have often imagined myself in a role after reading the book or while reading it in my head. I can see myself doing the things that is happening in the book as I imagine them based on the descriptions the book provides. The quality of the imagination will largely depend on how well the author manages to create his world and what is happening. It can be in vivid detail. Surely I cannot be the only one who interacts with books this way.

The LitRPG books also give us the mobs point of view which can be hilarious and thought provoking.

My imagination definitely goes for a walk whenever I'm reading a book, but thinking / imagining things isn't interacting with the book, so its still a one-way street.

This is a problem I'm having at the moment trying to learn game dev. I'm working my way through a book on Unity development but frequently find myself staring off into space as i imagine new or improved features for the game I would like to build! I imagine that LitRPG will have a very similar effects....though if the LitRPG systems are based around vertical progression, i may not be able to make it to the end of the book... :P

Yes I agree about the book aspect if you mean physically but roleplaying actually starts in the mind and imagination. You can roleplay without any physical aspect to it. You can roleplay in your head. I often do when I am gaming, roleplaying in my head. I don't talk to anyone about it or mostly don't interact with anyone in my roleplay. 

I think you can roleplay strictly speaking using books. I wonder also about manga. Recently I've been reading tonnes of manga and with regards to artwork like manga looking at the pictures and then discussing them on the discussion area of a manga with others is one form of interaction too. 

I think you cannot limit yourself or your imagination with regards to roleplay. 

But I digress LitRPG isn't about roleplaying in that sense. It is about the world in the books that is usually a game world. It talks about the mobs , they have stories too and character. It is about the protagonist levelling and moving through the book like you would a game if you play it. The difference is instead of using a keyboard or mouse or controller to move through the game you listen or read about it. The progression through the book is similar to you progressing through a game but with way more characters and situations you won't encounter playing normally. However it is static and not dependent on other people and does not change. The story is always the same unlike a real game which is dependent on who you meet in the game.

I think the difference here is, Cheyane, does your imagining interact with book, or do you leave the book to do your imagining? When I read your first post on this, my first thought was, "Do you change the book with your imaginings?"

You are right about roleplay not needing physicalness, but it does need others. Otherwise, people think you have lost your mind

Books certainly spur the imagination, but do you actually interact with the book, or leave it to do your imagining?

Po_gg

blamo2000 said:

I hope so.  This is his quote -

"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."

This is his quote about directing I also referenced in case anyone cares -

"Role-playing isn't storytelling. If the dungeon master is directing it, it's not a game."

Yep, maybe it's just my interpretation but I believe the quote ain't against the rules themselves, but against "bad" GMs. In which he's absolutely right, those two are the sources of some basic GM issues.

The second though is a bit unfortunate in wording, RP indeed is about storytelling, but a shared, mutual one. All the players and the GM together form the story.

He clears it with the directing part next, and yep, when a GM doesn't let any sidesteps from his planned and paved route, it will end up as a bad session.

GM should not force the players into his own story, and should have a lot of ideas at hand in case they want to stray off.

Same with the rules, those should only be used as a framework at most.

Nothing could wreck a game session more than the denial of a story-fitting action or reaction with

"No, you can't do that because of this sub-paragraph on page 234, in relation with the modifier mentioned on page 155 can be interpreted as this ain't an allowed action to this scenario" 

Yikes even to type it... (had a similar, "rules are the law"-type of a GM once. Never again )

lahnmir

Po_gg said:

blamo2000 said:

I hope so.  This is his quote -

"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."

This is his quote about directing I also referenced in case anyone cares -

"Role-playing isn't storytelling. If the dungeon master is directing it, it's not a game."

Yep, maybe it's just my interpretation but I believe the quote ain't against the rules themselves, but against "bad" GMs. In which he's absolutely right, those two are the sources of some basic GM issues.

The second though is a bit unfortunate in wording, RP indeed is about storytelling, but a shared, mutual one. All the players and the GM together form the story.

He clears it with the directing part next, and yep, when a GM doesn't let any sidesteps from his planned and paved route, it will end up as a bad session.

GM should not force the players into his own story, and should have a lot of ideas at hand in case they want to stray off.

Same with the rules, those should only be used as a framework at most.

Nothing could wreck a game session more than the denial of a story-fitting action or reaction with

"No, you can't do that because of this sub-paragraph on page 234, in relation with the modifier mentioned on page 155 can be interpreted as this ain't an allowed action to this scenario" 

Yikes even to type it... (had a similar, "rules are the law"-type of a GM once. Never again )

I once drove a GM up the wall by playing a sorcerer with dementia who had to constantly do saving rolls to “remember” her spells when she wanted to cast something and extra saving rolls every morning to see if she still had all her belongings and recognized them. The GM was one of those types you described so his ‘playing by the rules’ attitude made every session with my sorcerer painfully long. My party loved it because it created many RPing moments. For us that was, the GM was constantly waiting 

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

AlBQuirky

Po_gg said:

blamo2000 said:

I hope so.  This is his quote -

"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."

This is his quote about directing I also referenced in case anyone cares -

"Role-playing isn't storytelling. If the dungeon master is directing it, it's not a game."

Yep, maybe it's just my interpretation but I believe the quote ain't against the rules themselves, but against "bad" GMs. In which he's absolutely right, those two are the sources of some basic GM issues.

The second though is a bit unfortunate in wording, RP indeed is about storytelling, but a shared, mutual one. All the players and the GM together form the story.

He clears it with the directing part next, and yep, when a GM doesn't let any sidesteps from his planned and paved route, it will end up as a bad session.

GM should not force the players into his own story, and should have a lot of ideas at hand in case they want to stray off.

Same with the rules, those should only be used as a framework at most.

Nothing could wreck a game session more than the denial of a story-fitting action or reaction with

"No, you can't do that because of this sub-paragraph on page 234, in relation with the modifier mentioned on page 155 can be interpreted as this ain't an allowed action to this scenario" 

Yikes even to type it... (had a similar, "rules are the law"-type of a GM once. Never again )

The second part I disagree with. Without rules, you have no consistency.

One thing that bugged me when I watched Critical Roll (voice actors playing D&D on Twitch) was the inconsistency in player actions. I understand getting excited and wanting to do everything you can (and more), but why in one round did one player get 3 bonus actions, 1 move action, and 1 attack action while the rest of the players got their allotted 1 bonus action, 1 move action, and 1 attack action?

Critical situations are when rules are needed most, in my opinion. Any deviation and you may take away one player's interaction to give it to another player. Bad feelings can occur.

On the other hand, non-combat situations are quite flexible. A skill roll is a skill and the player that thinks of an idea should get a role, if it's witihin the character concept.

Using Critical Role again, Grog, their illiterate Goliath Barbarian, got to roll an arcana check to read some dwarven runes and rolled a natural 20 (auto-succes by Critical Role's rules). It was great fun watching the DM (Matt Mercer) try to relay the story of this event within the context of the game. One of Matt's favorite sayings is, "You can certainly try.", which I am 100% in agreement with

I guess I'm saying that depending on the given situation, some leeway can certainly be applied to rules

PS: I'm not a "story trumps rules" kind of player

cheyane

AlBQuirky said:

cheyane said:

cameltosis said:

cheyane said:

Mendel said:

cameltosis said:

Can someone explain to me what LitRPG books even are?

To me, roleplaying involves interaction, playing the role. But, books are just one way, no interaction. So, the whole concept has me confused.

LitRPG is a newish form of book, mostly what appears to be a form of fan fiction.  Why there needed to be a special name for this, I don't know.

I agree with your assessment of role playing; books are static, role playing is dynamic.

I disagree books aren't one way. Your imagination takes flight and I have often imagined myself in a role after reading the book or while reading it in my head. I can see myself doing the things that is happening in the book as I imagine them based on the descriptions the book provides. The quality of the imagination will largely depend on how well the author manages to create his world and what is happening. It can be in vivid detail. Surely I cannot be the only one who interacts with books this way.

The LitRPG books also give us the mobs point of view which can be hilarious and thought provoking.

My imagination definitely goes for a walk whenever I'm reading a book, but thinking / imagining things isn't interacting with the book, so its still a one-way street.

This is a problem I'm having at the moment trying to learn game dev. I'm working my way through a book on Unity development but frequently find myself staring off into space as i imagine new or improved features for the game I would like to build! I imagine that LitRPG will have a very similar effects....though if the LitRPG systems are based around vertical progression, i may not be able to make it to the end of the book... :P

Yes I agree about the book aspect if you mean physically but roleplaying actually starts in the mind and imagination. You can roleplay without any physical aspect to it. You can roleplay in your head. I often do when I am gaming, roleplaying in my head. I don't talk to anyone about it or mostly don't interact with anyone in my roleplay. 

I think you can roleplay strictly speaking using books. I wonder also about manga. Recently I've been reading tonnes of manga and with regards to artwork like manga looking at the pictures and then discussing them on the discussion area of a manga with others is one form of interaction too. 

I think you cannot limit yourself or your imagination with regards to roleplay. 

But I digress LitRPG isn't about roleplaying in that sense. It is about the world in the books that is usually a game world. It talks about the mobs , they have stories too and character. It is about the protagonist levelling and moving through the book like you would a game if you play it. The difference is instead of using a keyboard or mouse or controller to move through the game you listen or read about it. The progression through the book is similar to you progressing through a game but with way more characters and situations you won't encounter playing normally. However it is static and not dependent on other people and does not change. The story is always the same unlike a real game which is dependent on who you meet in the game.

I think the difference here is, Cheyane, does your imagining interact with book, or do you leave the book to do your imagining? When I read your first post on this, my first thought was, "Do you change the book with your imaginings?"

You are right about roleplay not needing physicalness, but it does need others. Otherwise, people think you have lost your mind

Books certainly spur the imagination, but do you actually interact with the book, or leave it to do your imagining?

I'd say I do because of fan fiction. I've indulged in it shamelessly.

I picture scenarios in my head long after a book ends. I don't move on even when I'm reading another book images pop up in my head from a previous one. I constantly play out different versions of how I want a confrontation or scene in the book. I did write a few fan fiction that was very badly panned so that ended fast but I still write them but I don't share them though with anyone anymore.

I don't change the printed version the author wrote but I do change the book in my memory. I have often preferred my version. 

Roleplay does not need other people, true, you could look like a loon but that is only if you start talking to yourself in front of others. Do it in private or in the bathroom.

I never leave a book to do my imagining ever, I always augment or change the things I don't like. That does not mean I don't enjoy the book as it was written I just prefer some things to be different.

I spend a substantial amount of time while reading imaging how I would take revenge against a character and sometimes what I imagine is far more satisfying than the whimpy response the writer wrote.

bcbully

Maaaan I thought this was some new choose your on adventure audio book with stats skills and gear...

Sooo I couldn’t find that anywhere.. what I did was get a choose your own adventure app and turned Siri into an audio reader.

Shes certainly not the best voice actor but she’s better than the rest in this he genre I’ve created. I call it -
ACYARPG 

audio choose your own adventure rpg!

blamo2000

Po_gg said:

blamo2000 said:

I hope so.  This is his quote -

"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."

This is his quote about directing I also referenced in case anyone cares -

"Role-playing isn't storytelling. If the dungeon master is directing it, it's not a game."

Yep, maybe it's just my interpretation but I believe the quote ain't against the rules themselves, but against "bad" GMs. In which he's absolutely right, those two are the sources of some basic GM issues.

The second though is a bit unfortunate in wording, RP indeed is about storytelling, but a shared, mutual one. All the players and the GM together form the story.

He clears it with the directing part next, and yep, when a GM doesn't let any sidesteps from his planned and paved route, it will end up as a bad session.

GM should not force the players into his own story, and should have a lot of ideas at hand in case they want to stray off.

Same with the rules, those should only be used as a framework at most.

Nothing could wreck a game session more than the denial of a story-fitting action or reaction with

"No, you can't do that because of this sub-paragraph on page 234, in relation with the modifier mentioned on page 155 can be interpreted as this ain't an allowed action to this scenario" 

Yikes even to type it... (had a similar, "rules are the law"-type of a GM once. Never again )

Its more semantics but RP definitely 100% isn't story telling.  It is story creation.  You passively tell the a story after the events happened.  RP is active and isn't passive telling of events.  Semantics but a huge difference.  Most SP "rpgs" are embracing story telling over story creation, so the more people who want rp and story creation have to get our definitions straight and get on the same page so we can try and shift the market to make games for us that we want.

Gdemami

blamo2000 said:

Its more semantics but RP definitely 100% isn't story telling.  

...many actors playing a character on stage every night would disagree with you.

blamo2000

Gdemami said:

blamo2000 said:

Its more semantics but RP definitely 100% isn't story telling.  

...many actors playing a character on stage every night would disagree with you.

Many actors all playing the same predefined role reading from the same prewritten story.  

If you sat down to play a p&p rpg and the DM gave everyone a prewritten script to read from with all rolls rolled and everything predetermined, they are all engaged in story telling, sure.  If it goes how rpgs were invented to go, it is story creation.

I don't know the etymology of the term "role-play" but I'm guessing actors are called actors and not role-players because role-playing signifies something along the lines of in-depth improv done not on stage or screen.  Either in gaming terms or in work/class room situations for learning and trying to understand other viewpoints, etc.

Gdemami

blamo2000 said:

Many actors all playing the same predefined role reading from the same prewritten story.  

...they are all playing a role - actors on stage or gamers playing a video game.

Whether story is predetermined is a non-factor.

Po_gg

blamo2000 said:

Its more semantics but RP definitely 100% isn't story telling.  It is story creation.  You passively tell the a story after the events happened.  RP is active and isn't passive telling of events.  Semantics but a huge difference.

That explains... I agree and I meant the same, but the issue lies indeed with semantics - and with the fact I ain't native speaker.

(Off-topic detour: story telling means an active, creative process here, and story "creation" is simply called (included into) writing.

Which kinda makes sense if you seek the logic behind it, when you tell a tale it often changes by mood, etc., and even moreso when other participants can affect the course. That's how I meant RP is storytelling, a shared and mutual one... it's creating a new story together. I was simply lost in translation

Fun fact, GM is also called "(story)teller" here (mesélő), for the same reasons. )

blamo2000

Gdemami said:

blamo2000 said:

Many actors all playing the same predefined role reading from the same prewritten story.  

...they are all playing a role - actors on stage or gamers playing a video game.

Whether story is predetermined is a non-factor.

What role are gamers playing when they play tetris, or play a puzzle, etc?

I act very different at work than at at bar with friends than with my kids than with my wife - is that the same as acting in a movie or play?  Or playing a p&p rpg?  Life is always role-playing?  Everything is role-playing so roleplaying should never be used as a term since it is as universal as the word aging?  There is no significant difference from playing the vault dweller or chosen one in FO 1 and 2 than playing Zelda, or Zelda from playing Civilization?

I really don't understand the reason for your post other than you saying words.  

Why don't actors call themselves role-players?  Why didn't Gygax when he invented rpgs call them acting games?  If I say my wife and I are into role-playing is anyone at all ever going to think we mean we are theatre actors?

Context and general understand and use of words help people communicate specific ideas clearly.  If I told you to stop being gay, no one is going to think I mean for you to stop being happy.  If you called Mike Tyson's mother a filthy animal and he got mad and you backpedaled by saying we are all filthy animals, from rats to humans, and meant no insult specifically to his mother, do you think he would just say, "Sure.  I can see what you are saying.  It is so obvious."

You can keep going with disingenuous semantics.  But if you do I really would be interested in knowing why.  If your point is role-play is everything and everything is role-playing.  Okay, technically it can be diluted to be used as such I guess.  How is that helping this conversation?

I think for the vast majority of people think the term "role-playing" involves some ad-hoc improv and definitely does not involve pre-written scripts.  Adult actors and adult films technically includes actors over 18 or films made for a non-child audiences, but everyone thinks porno star and porno film when they use those terms.  All people are technically animals but that doesn't mean it also isn't used as an insult.

Gdemami

blamo2000 said:

What role are gamers playing when they play tetris, or play a puzzle, etc?

...I didn't say any game, I was referring within context of the discussion to RPG video games.

If one using disingenuous semantics, it's you as I pointed out since you are clearly wrong.

Now you go even so far as disingenuously pretend your false reasoning and bias are facts.

Amaranthar

Gdemami said:

blamo2000 said:

What role are gamers playing when they play tetris, or play a puzzle, etc?

...I didn't say any game, I was referring within context of the discussion to RPG video games.

If one using disingenuous semantics, it's you as I pointed out since you are clearly wrong.

Now you go even so far as disingenuously pretend your false reasoning and bias are facts.

Bah! 
Good Sir! 
Ye doth not knoweth what this magical "roleplay" is. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzApFuM2s24  

blamo2000

Gdemami said:

blamo2000 said:

What role are gamers playing when they play tetris, or play a puzzle, etc?

...I didn't say any game, I was referring within context of the discussion to RPG video games.

If one using disingenuous semantics, it's you as I pointed out since you are clearly wrong.

Now you go even so far as disingenuously pretend your false reasoning and bias are facts.

No, kid, you said, "many actors playing a character on stage every night would disagree with you."  You specifically made the point that everything is roleplaying.  How do people like you even figure out how to sign up for a forum when you can't remember the argument you made two minutes ago?  I really have zero desire to talk to people like you who just constantly blather nonsense and shift the goal post.  Just take the L and move on.  Come back in 10 years when your balls drop and you can make coherent points and stick to them.  

Mendel

Really?  Necro on a two year old thread to insult and deride a banned user?  I may have seen everything on MMORPG.com now.