Signature Setting

[massey]

Hero needs a great setting, and right now it appears you need pre-packaged adventure books to succeed in the industry.  So the topic has sort of drifted around those subjects.

 

Railroading is a real thing, I've played in plenty of games where the GM was only going to let you move from point A to point B.  I once played in a Golden Age game where our heroes had to get from New York to London during the war.  Despite the fact that most of our characters could fly (and one could long-distance teleport), we were told we had to take a cruise liner.  We were supposed to do it for secrecy (the Nazis wouldn't suspect us coming by boat, apparently).  Except they did expect us, and we got attacked by a German superteam before we even got to London.  There was also a mystery that we were supposed to solve on the boat, but I don't really remember the details very well.  It was pretty obvious that the GM had written the adventure without regard for any abilities the players might have, and he was determined that we were going to spend like 4 sessions just getting to England.  That's how he'd written it, and that's how it was going to be played.

 

I think part of the problem is that some GMs aren't good at improvising, and they also don't have the time to really devote to crafting an adventure specific to their players.  In this instance, I'm sure the GM had seen a movie or something, because he wanted to do some Murder on the Orient Express type adventure, but it didn't make sense for any of the characters we'd made.  He didn't really have the time or inclination to modify it for people who really shouldn't be taking a boat to England.  And he couldn't think on his feet fast enough to give a compelling reason why our characters needed to be there.  The result was that it felt like a video game where you are powerful enough to kill dragons, but you can't get past the town guard who is blocking the treasure room because you don't have the password.

 

A well-written adventure path could solve most of that.  GMs who are short on time could have a lengthy adventure series ready to go, they wouldn't have to prepare beyond just reading the adventure ahead of time.  It doesn't solve the problem of the guy who can't improvise, but with pregen characters a lot of that could be avoided.  If Telepathy would really screw the adventure, then none of the characters have Telepathy.  The book could even have warnings that the following powers will probably unbalance the game, so watch out for them if people want to build their own characters.  And I think a series of these adventure paths could really help establish a signature setting in a way that sourcebooks don't.  Effectively, you could build a continuity for your world in the form of these stories.

[Hugh Neilson]

3 minutes ago, massey said:

It doesn't solve the problem of the guy who can't improvise, but with pregen characters a lot of that could be avoided.  If Telepathy would really screw the adventure, then none of the characters have Telepathy.  The book could even have warnings that the following powers will probably unbalance the game, so watch out for them if people want to build their own characters. 

 

Emphasis added.  This would be part of a guide for players and GMs - certain abilities are simply not permitted in this game.  In your more detailed example, that would include reliable long-distance transportation powers.  Abilities that would be both useful and appropriate should also be detailed.  Absolute requirements, such as taking orders from the War Office ("you need to take the cruise liner because Dr. and Mrs. MacGuffin are taking the cruise liner, and his research is crucial to the war effort, so we can't take any chances something will go wrong on the trip, but Dr. MacGuffin is pigheaded stubborn and will not cooperate with an open security detail.")

[massey]

38 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Emphasis added.  This would be part of a guide for players and GMs - certain abilities are simply not permitted in this game.  In your more detailed example, that would include reliable long-distance transportation powers.  Abilities that would be both useful and appropriate should also be detailed.  Absolute requirements, such as taking orders from the War Office ("you need to take the cruise liner because Dr. and Mrs. MacGuffin are taking the cruise liner, and his research is crucial to the war effort, so we can't take any chances something will go wrong on the trip, but Dr. MacGuffin is pigheaded stubborn and will not cooperate with an open security detail.")

 

Exactly.  And I think a well written adventure can make what railroading does exist a lot more palatable.  Theoretically the author would have had a lot of time to think things through, and figure out good explanations for why your characters are there.  That's one benefit to having secret identities, is that it isn't enough for Captain Strongman to get to England, you've also got to explain how scrawny little Danny Derkins got there as well.  If there was a halfway decent explanation for why the characters have to be on the boat, we could have accepted it.

 

So I think you give a set of pregen characters, and in the canon of the game setting, for future publications and such, this is going to be the way it happened.  But if you want to use your own characters, that's fine too.  But then have something like "it is highly suggested that at least one character have the Deduction skill.  At least one character needs to speak German.  The adventure needs a character who can be very stealthy or invisible.  Without these abilities, the players will find the game much more difficult.  If they have teleportation, or mind reading, or desolidification, then the adventure may be too easy."  The characters from Star Wars needed R2-D2 to be able to talk to the main computer to shut down the garbage compactor.  They don't really have a way out of that trap otherwise.

[zslane]

Nobody said being the GM would be easy. It takes a lot of time, effort, and skill to GM well. You can't buy your way out of GMing properly. A pre-written adventure that is on rails is the worst kind of GM crutch. A Plot Point Campaign provides a wealth of background information along with the major "moments" in the overall storyline, and then provides lots of briefly described "hooks" where actual adventures can be plugged in. You can either hang pre-written adventures on those hooks (not my recommendation, but it seems GMs don't have time to be GMs anymore today), or use your own adventures. There's a lot of flexibility there; plenty of detail at the "big picture" level, but very light on specifics at the level of the adventuring party.

[IndianaJoe3]

I wonder if something like the old, "Choose Your Own Adventure" books would work as a an adventure design, with options for common character choices.

[assault]

31 minutes ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

I wonder if something like the old, "Choose Your Own Adventure" books would work as a an adventure design, with options for common character choices.

 

Various old Hero games have included these as "learning the rules" exercises.

 

Back in the 70s, Flying Buffalo published a lot of these as Tunnels and Trolls solo adventures.

 

They also did The Adventure of the Jade Jaguar, dual statted for Espionage and Mercenaries, Spies and Private Eyes, their own modern adventure system. 

 

So there is history for these kind of things. The "options for common character choices" is trickier, given the sheer range of possibilities in the Hero system.

 

Superheroes is particularly tricky, but the range of options for Fantasy Hero spells makes things difficult too.

 

Restricting the range of character builds might be necessary, although using pre-gens would be better still, at the expense of choice.

 

[Duke Bushido]

A "Fantasy Game," powered by HERO, wouldn't be too terribly difficult.  The biggest hurdle there is deciding how to set up a magic system (or rather, deciding how many magic systems / types of magic, then deciding how each works).

 

Once that's done, it's pretty easy to do a Fuzion (and others)- style "buy a block of this" and "buy a block of that."  Each block adds one block of effect, costs one block's worth of END, etc.

 

Supers would be a serious pain in the teeth, though.  It makes sense that it would: that's how all this got started in the first place!

 

 

[assault]

2 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

A "Fantasy Game," powered by HERO, wouldn't be too terribly difficult.  The biggest hurdle there is deciding how to set up a magic system (or rather, deciding how many magic systems / types of magic, then deciding how each works).

 

Once that's done, it's pretty easy to do a Fuzion (and others)- style "buy a block of this" and "buy a block of that."  Each block adds one block of effect, costs one block's worth of END, etc.

 

Supers would be a serious pain in the teeth, though.  It makes sense that it would: that's how all this got started in the first place!

 

The Champions Character Creation Cards might help.

[Spence]

9 hours ago, massey said:

Hero needs a great setting, and right now it appears you need pre-packaged adventure books to succeed in the industry.  So the topic has sort of drifted around those subjects.

 

Yes, very true.  The idea that adventures do not sell may have been true 15 or 20 years ago.  But in the here and now, the publication of prepared campaigns/adventures is a staple of pretty much all the "successful" games. And by successful I mean they are easily available via multiple distribution sources and actually visible in local FLGS as well as convention venues.

 

9 hours ago, massey said:

Railroading is a real thing, I've played in plenty of games where the GM was only going to let you move from point A to point B. 

 

I didn't say it wasn't a real thing.  But the term has drifted away from actual railroading to mean anything that a bad payer doesn't like.

 

9 hours ago, massey said:

 

I think part of the problem is that some GMs aren't good at improvising, and they also don't have the time to really devote to crafting an adventure specific to their players.  In this instance, I'm sure the GM had seen a movie or something, because he wanted to do some Murder on the Orient Express type adventure, but it didn't make sense for any of the characters we'd made. 

 

Emphasis mine.

 

This rings all sorts of "something is wrong" to me.  On both sides, GM and players.  Do you just show up with random PC's for adventures without any idea of what the adventure will be?  In my limited world, a GM proposes a game to the players and informs you of any character requirements for it.  As a player you either decline the game if it does not interest you, or you agree and build suitable PC's.

 

When I build a game, I always put out the intent and stye of game and what it's intent is.  I never get upset when a game is declined, a bit disappointed maybe.  But not upset because not every idea is popular.  But if the players agree to a role, then they should play to the role agreed to.  If it doesn't appeal, bow out.   As an example I was in a D&D game where we were the good guys liberating a Duchy that had been under the control of Evil for 30 years.   We were trying to question peasants in a very small extremely poor and oppressed village.  The inhabitants were clearly terrified of any any Masters, meaning anyone clean, well fed and possessing armor, weapons and mounts.   The guy playing our Lawful Good Paladin wanted to behead a few to scare them into talking.  The DM informed him that it was something a LG PAL wouldn't do.  And kaboom!  the "railroading" farce was off to the races.  If you don't get your way, it is possible it could be railroading, but it is far more likely to be a bad players temper tantrum. 

 

Bottom line.  If I am in a game with true actual railroading, I ask about the logic involved and express my opinion.  If it persists, I simply let the GM know and leave the game. 

 

If you are not enjoying a game, as GM or Player, at best you grind out to the end.  But most likely you will not have any fun and drag down the other players as well.    Just be considerate and leave the game.

 

9 hours ago, massey said:

 

A well-written adventure path could solve most of that.  GMs who are short on time could have a lengthy adventure series ready to go, they wouldn't have to prepare beyond just reading the adventure ahead of time.  It doesn't solve the problem of the guy who can't improvise, but with pregen characters a lot of that could be avoided.  If Telepathy would really screw the adventure, then none of the characters have Telepathy.  The book could even have warnings that the following powers will probably unbalance the game, so watch out for them if people want to build their own characters.  And I think a series of these adventure paths could really help establish a signature setting in a way that sourcebooks don't.  Effectively, you could build a continuity for your world in the form of these stories.

 

Yes, this with one point of contention.  A bad GM is a bad GM.  No module or adventure will help them to be a good GM unless they realize they are bad and want to fix themselves.  Bad GM's are a separate subject from content.

[Spence]

20 minutes ago, assault said:

 

So there is history for these kind of things. The "options for common character choices" is trickier, given the sheer range of possibilities in the Hero system.

 

Superheroes is particularly tricky, but the range of options for Fantasy Hero spells makes things difficult too.

 

Restricting the range of character builds might be necessary, although using pre-gens would be better still, at the expense of choice.

 

 

But you see it isn't. 

 

When making the starter/learning set you simply pick what you need for that intro.  There are no infinite possibilities because by virtue of a canned starter set the choices are limited to facilitate learning the system.  Gamers are NOT stupid.  They can read and understand the concept of an introduction demo set.   

 

Superheros?  Build five pregenerated Supers based on the archetypes.  Done.  Nothing tricky about it.  Tell the players up front.  The Hero system allows you to build virtually any concept.  But it helps to experience how the character builds actually work in an actual game.  Run through these canned scenarios and then you will be armed to create your own concepts.  Done.  Simple.  Not tricky at all.

 

Fantasy Hero Spells?  Sure there are an infinite set of possibilities when building your own stuff.  But here, in this starter set and this adventure we are going to have 10 available spells to use by the magic using archetype.

 

Does Hero have a massive range of options?  Why yes it does. 

But an intro/learning adventure is not about maximum options. It is about a small tiny selection of options to allow a neophyte to learn how the game plays.  Later they can learn how the build rules world. 

 

[TranquiloUno]

On 6/10/2019 at 10:19 AM, zslane said:

Nobody said being the GM would be easy. It takes a lot of time, effort, and skill to GM well.

 

I mean I feel like the point of a linear adventure module with excellent pregens, so as to make it *as easy as possible*, is kinda the point at this point, no?

 

It might still take some time, effort, and skill but at least a module with pregens would make it easier than it is now.

 

Besides trying to sell him players on Hero, and then say, "Ok, I'm running Hero", and then running Hero, how else do new folks get brought in?

 

I think, "Here's an easy module, with a linear plot, and pregenerated stats!", is an easier sell than, "Here's some rules and whatever. GMing is hard so, like, just give up if you don't wanna do the work, noob!".

 

If I'm a theoretical 5e D&D player that thought Stranger Things was cool, bought the PHB, watched some Critical Roll, played a bunch of Adventurers League until I realized the limits of the system and format and want to try something better...how would you sell me on Hero?

 

Honestly, "YOU can build whatever you want (subject to points, GMs, other PCs, what kind of game, genre, magic system, etc, etc...)!", doesn't seem like a draw for most folks.

And, "You  can make the rules system do whatever you want! And it's universal!", doesn't seem like one either.

 

The other thing I think here is that real, actual, experienced GMs don't need to be told they can rewrite those linear "railroad" modules.

They're just gonna do it. Heck you could probably put a Big Old Warning in the front of the module saying, "Don't ever change any of these stats or events!", and I think experienced GMs would still do it.

 

The linear plot, example monsters\villains\treasure, and pregen PCs are all for new folks. Explicitly.

 

Right?

 

To get new folks interested and able to play now\today. Maybe with some cool art, a ready-to-play module, and if it's wrapped up in a cool non-D&D setting...that would probably be something folks might at least look at.

 

I think Char Gen should be moved to the back of the book though.

Lead with pre-gen oriented system mechanics and then later explain how to build stuff.

 

IF the Hero system is cool and worth playing apart from the generic\universal and flexible\point-based parts of char-gen then I think it should lead with that.

[zslane]

1 hour ago, TranquiloUno said:

Besides trying to sell him players on Hero, and then say, "Ok, I'm running Hero", and then running Hero, how else do new folks get brought in?

 

Okay, sure, as an gentle way to ease new players into the system, an "intro" adventure that is on the linear side might be a good way to go.

 

However, in terms of the overall product line strategy, I just wouldn't recommend that as the standard model for adventures (ala D&D 5e). I'd push for something more along the lines of Plot Point Campaigns instead.

[massey]

53 minutes ago, zslane said:

 

Okay, sure, as an gentle way to ease new players into the system, an "intro" adventure that is on the linear side might be a good way to go.

 

However, in terms of the overall product line strategy, I just wouldn't recommend that as the standard model for adventures (ala D&D 5e). I'd push for something more along the lines of Plot Point Campaigns instead.

 

There's no reason why the game can't have both.  Right now it looks like the popular thing is to produce these paint-by-number adventure stories.  I could see people who don't have a lot of free time to plan finding these very helpful.  There's no reason why they shouldn't get to play too.

 

In the last year, I turned 40 and got married.  My game time has virtually disappeared.  I have nothing like the time I had available even 5 years ago, let alone when I was in my 20s.  If I was our regular GM, well we just wouldn't have a game anymore.  I don't have time to produce adventures like that.  But if I had something I could just run from a book, that would work pretty well.  A campaign-in-a-box would be great.

[zslane]

The main reason to avoid linear adventure modules is that they aren't fun for players unless they like being railroaded (which are few and far between in my experience). Any GM worth playing with will acknowledge this and act accordingly.

 

After all, a well-conceived setting-based product line would already be lightening the load on the GM by providing pre-made creatures, vehicles, equipment, organizations, world history, and so forth. Making the assumption that GMs will flesh out the Plot Points so that the adventures better suit the players is not at all unreasonable. A well-written Plot Point "module" doesn't put the entire burden of creating the story on the GM, but it doesn't do all the work for the GM either. After all, there's more to GMing than what happens at the table during the play sessions.

 

As I've expressed elsewhere, I'm not terribly sympathetic to the "But I don't have time anymore," excuse; someone who doesn't have time to GM shouldn't accept the job. Making it easy for GMs to run unsatisfying adventures does little to promote the game to new players (they may try it once, but they won't stick around). This belief (in the obligations of the GM) is the engine that drives many of the recommendations I make towards such a setting-based product line for the Hero System.

[TranquiloUno]

22 minutes ago, massey said:

 

There's no reason why the game can't have both.  Right now it looks like the popular thing is to produce these paint-by-number adventure stories.  I could see people who don't have a lot of free time to plan finding these very helpful.  There's no reason why they shouldn't get to play too.

 

In the last year, I turned 40 and got married.  My game time has virtually disappeared.  I have nothing like the time I had available even 5 years ago, let alone when I was in my 20s.  If I was our regular GM, well we just wouldn't have a game anymore.  I don't have time to produce adventures like that.  But if I had something I could just run from a book, that would work pretty well.  A campaign-in-a-box would be great.

 

I think too that it's a lot easier to adjust what exists than write the whole thing.

 

Pre-gen characters boring? I can tinker with them easily.

No pre-gens at all? Time-consuming. Even if I want to do it it's time consuming. Even if I'm a Hero System super-wizard and can basically do the stats in my head on the fly and just confirm the math later in HD....time consuming.

 

Modules uses Setting X that I hate? I can reskin it to a kingdom in my game world, or move it to another setting pretty easily.

No setting at all? Time-consuming. Even if I want to make my own game world it's time consuming.

 

Module has Elves and Dwarves and I don't have those races? Now they are Draegarans and Serioli.

 

And so on.

 

If it's a Dr. Destroyer module but I run Marvel-based stuff, easy, he's Dr. Doom (or Lex Luthor) now.

 

Dr. D's stats too crazy? Easy to tone down, but making my own master villain is time-consuming.

 

And so on.

 

So I think that the campaign-in-a-box (sounds much nicer that "on rails") format is nice in that is had benefits for newbies (it just runs AND it's a good example of...a working example\sample) AND also can be used by moldy, old, grognards who never touch anything that isn't "homebrew" (though surely a true grognard would never call it that) as well.

 

I think this all probably applies to the grittier bits too.

 

If I start with a module with pre-gen PCs and fully statted (and balanced as such) NPCs then I can tweak that balance from that starting place.

 

But if there's no module then you end up like that guy the other week with a Superman clone who "has" to have a Dex of 36+...because the other guy has a 36 and obvs Supes is faster than him, so...

 

Having A reference, ANY reference, even if the reference is garbage, is nice to have as a starting point.

 

*I* think. Even for us experienced types that can manage to find time to write our own stuff it's nice to have a compatible reference that I can use.

 

Hero Bestiary for instance.

 

[TranquiloUno]

3 minutes ago, zslane said:

The main reason to avoid linear adventure modules is that they aren't fun for players unless they like being railroaded (which are few and far between in my experience). Any GM worth playing with will acknowledge this and act accordingly.

 

After all, a well-conceived setting-based product line would already be lightening the load on the GM by providing pre-made creatures, vehicles, equipment, organizations, world history, and so forth. Making the assumption that GMs will flesh out the Plot Points so that the adventures better suit the players is not at all unreasonable. A well-written Plot Point "module" doesn't put the entire burden of creating the story on the GM, but it doesn't do all the work for the GM either. After all, there's more to GMing than what happens at the table during the play sessions. 

 

As I've expressed elsewhere, I'm not terribly sympathetic to the "But I don't have time anymore," excuse; someone who doesn't have time to GM shouldn't accept the job. Making it easy for GMs to run unsatisfying adventures does little to promote the game to new players (they may try it once, but they won't stick around). This belief (in the obligations of the GM) is the engine that drives many of the recommendations I make towards such a setting-based product line for the Hero System. 

 

 

That seems like some weird gate keeping to me.

 

If a GM doesn't have time to run games (in the way you think they should be run) then we shouldn't help them run anything because it might result in the dreaded "linear" adventure. Which, per you, are *never* fun for players?

 

Better if those types just aren't allowed to ever game at all until they can find the time to really dedicate themselves to the hobby then that'll definitely increase the number of folks playing Hero.

Which is the intent right? Make sure nobody else but us cool guys are even allowed to look at the Hero System books until we commit to actually spending the time to really GM right, right? 

 

I'm mostly kidding here but that does seem like a weird take on things.

 

What if I just want to get together with my bros twice a month and smash some stuff up in a detailed, "crunchy", tactically rich game system?

Am I not allowed to do that because I don't have time to create my own world and my own "non-linear" plots?

 

I'd rather go the opposite route.

Tell them exactly what to do and when and how.

And if they don't like that....THEN *they* can (if they want to, as they want to) change stuff.

 

But to provide a book that doesn't provide an immediately (I mean, they'll have to read it, but...) playable adventure....who is that for?

 

Folks that have time already? They probably don't need or want it.

Folks that are already pressed for time but still wanna get their game on with their peeps? Useful to them. Also still potentially useful to the guy that does have time.

 

 

 

[zslane]

Have you read any of the Plot Point Campaign books for Savage Worlds? The answer to the question of "Who are these for?" would be pretty obvious.

[TranquiloUno]

7 minutes ago, zslane said:

Have you read any of the Plot Point Campaign books for Savage Worlds? The answer to the question of "Who are these for?" would be pretty obvious.

 

No, never. Just read the SW rules once.

 

They sound nice from the way you're talking about them!

[Hugh Neilson]

Maybe zslane is right.  If you don't have time to craft your own game world from scratch, why would we want you in our hobby?  Really, the GM should be expected to write the game rules entirely from whole cloth, and not rely on this crutch of pre-fab game rules published by a third party.  As a player, I hate being railroaded by these arbitrary rule decisions made by some game designerd I have never even met. 

 

Those "linear railroads" are selling big-time.  Hero is not.  Does that have any bearing on this discussion? 

 

Are all the people buying and playing those somehow obligated to keep buying, and playing, games that are completely "no fun"?  If not, why do they keep buying them?

[zslane]

8 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Maybe zslane is right.  If you don't have time to craft your own game world from scratch, why would we want you in our hobby?  Really, the GM should be expected to write the game rules entirely from whole cloth, and not rely on this crutch of pre-fab game rules published by a third party.

 

This gross mis-characterization of my point is beneath you, Hugh.

[Hugh Neilson]

22 minutes ago, zslane said:

 

This gross mis-characterization of my point is beneath you, Hugh.

 

I am simply extrapolating from your comments that

 

As I've expressed elsewhere, I'm not terribly sympathetic to the "But I don't have time anymore," excuse; someone who doesn't have time to GM shouldn't accept the job.

 

Having pre-existing game rules, which you can accept as is or adjust as you see fit, seems quite similar to having a pre-exiting setting, or adventure, which you can similarly use as-is, or adjust as you see fit.

 

Given the success of Pathfinder APs and D&D 5e adventures, I find the suggestion that "no one finds these fun" is tough to support.  Paizo would  not even exist if its APs did not sell - they literally created Pathfinder as a game system to enable their APs to continue when D&D moved to 4e.

[assault]

20 hours ago, Spence said:

Superheros?  Build five pregenerated Supers based on the archetypes.

 

OK, which five archetypes?

 

The basics are: Brick, Blaster, Martial Artist and Mentalist.

 

Which other one?

 

Thinking further: it might be best to skip Mentalist, both for rules complexity reasons and because there aren't a lot of really popular ones in the source material. So that means another archetype takes its place.

 

Funnily enough, 1-3e Champions had Crusader (Martial Artist), Starburst (Energy Blaster) and Ogre (Brick) as example character builds. Replace Ogre with a Heroic type, and there are three pregens right there. (Ignoring the quality of those original characters - Starburst in particular was "quirky" at best.)

[Amorkca]

Power Armour, Magic

[assault]

10 minutes ago, Amorkca said:

Power Armour, Magic

 

Both of these are more special effects than anything else.

 

It might be worth including them on that basis.

 

There's also the option of using Power Armour as an example of how to use Limitations, but there's a risk of teaching people to work the system by abusing them.

[Spence]

1 hour ago, assault said:

 

OK, which five archetypes?

 

The basics are: Brick, Blaster, Martial Artist and Mentalist.

 

 

Simple answer. The archetypes that fit you intro you have designed.

 

If you write one, then use Mental based archetypes.  What ever trips the designers trigger.

 

The purpose is to bypass "THE ULTRA COMPLEX TOME OF ENDLESS DOOM" that is the character creation rules and go straight to an adventure so new players can, gasp, play. 

 

Hero already has plenty of settings, subsettings, creature/NPC books and so on.  Im fact Hero already has everything needed except one singular part.  Adventures. Learn to play intro/demos, adventures or campaigns do not exist.

 

 

 

I really cannot understand the thought process that makes a simple concept (illustrated by of already existing intro/demo kit/adventures) and insist on over complicating things.  It is super simple. 

 

The present course has failed.  Past tense.  We are not pier side in Britain waiting to board the Titanic.  We are on the sloping deck after the impact desperately looking for a lifeboat.

 

This goes right with the "universal law that no one will buy any prebuilt adventures/settings" despite it obviously not being true.

 

But my head hurts and I can't change the ride to the bottom so I think I need to take a break from the boards.