[TSOY] Questions on combat and dice/pool economy

edited February 2014 in Story Games
Aha. Probably the most prosaic post title ever.

Well, anyway, I am running a really fun TSOY game. It's the first time I've used Near as a setting for more than a one-shot, and we're four sessions in. The game is really singing, and I can see now how the system and the setting work together to create an awesome play experience.

I have a couple of questions, though.

1. How do you handle combats with a lot of NPCs involved? In our first session, one PC wanted to use his longbow (Aim) to kill half a dozen Ammenite caravan guards. My interpretation of the rules is that if he succeeds on his Aim roll (versus whatever ability they're using) he kills all six of them. Is that correct? I'm talking about a regular, conflict resolution roll here--no BDTP yet.

2. Also, how would you handle the six caravan guards in this situation? In BDTP I suppose it would be easier to gestalt them together, but what about before BDTP? Could they cooperate to give each other bonus dice vs. the PC with the longbow? And then if someone chooses to BDTP, how does that work?

The last bit is not so much a question but an observation: I'm noticing that the PCs are not taking much harm and not using many of their pool points (which leads to few key refreshment scenes--lame!). The harm is probably my fault for not setting hard enough consequences and not going after them enough. OTOH, I think they've been trying to play smart and avoid hard conflicts. As for the pool points, they're not using them because they have plenty of gift dice to use instead. We have a total of six players right now, including me, the SG. That means everyone has so many gift dice they never need to spend pool points for bonus dice. Any thoughts?

Thanks,

Chris

Comments

  • edited February 2014

    1. How do you handle combats with a lot of NPCs involved? In our first session, one PC wanted to use his longbow (Aim) to kill half a dozen Ammenite caravan guards. My interpretation of the rules is that if he succeeds on his Aim roll (versus whatever ability they're using) he kills all six of them. Is that correct? I'm talking about a regular, conflict resolution roll here--no BDTP yet.
    This is basically correct, but the modality of your rule is probably wrong - that is, you sound like there would be an absolute rule regarding how to resolve a situation like this, when in fact there is a flexible general rule and a few principles that determine how you apply that general rule. So your solution is a correct solution, but it's not the correct solution, and how correct it is depends on the details of the situation.

    (The following answer is for vanilla 2nd edition TSoY, because that's what you're playing. There are certain nuances that are different in the "third edition" of the Solar System, but nothing major.)

    There are three common and systemic mechanical methods for resolving a situation where a PC wants to kill a bunch of caravan guards with their bow:
    1) The caravan guards have a named leader (possibly created on the spot); the conflict is against their appropriate Ability because they are present and opposing. Use normal conflict procedure. The fact that the leader has helpers might cause circumstance penalties, and it'll enable the leader to use their leadership ability.
    2) The caravan guards don't have a character siding with them, and therefore a simple success suffices to win against them. The attacker might take a circumstance penalty die or even two if the SG determines that the conditions are heavily against success. Success in the roll won't necessarily mean that every guard dies; it merely indicates that the character succeeds in their substantial task, with the player who established the conflict (very likely the SG) establishing the details.
    3) The situation is deemed minor and the flow of events natural, so the SG decides that no roll is needed; the situation resolves either way so obviously that the dice are not needed. This usually comes up when you feel like two circumstance penalty dice are not enough; the next step from that is to not roll at all.

    In none of the above schemes is the situation so cut and dry that you could just declare all the caravan guards dead after a simple roll. Rather, the Story Guide has to make decisions: are any of these guards interesting, does it give pathos to the scene if this PC succeeds in one-sided slaughter, and so on. The player does have a certain degree of systemic protection, but that depends on their character intentionally attempting to kill everybody; if they're just attempting to rob a caravan or something like that, chances are that some of the guards are going to escape. In general players don't get unnatural micro-managing control over the details of how things go in the fiction, so nuances like whether anybody's left alive are usually the purview of the Story Guide, unless the character specifically makes sure about some detail by his own knife-hand.

    2. Also, how would you handle the six caravan guards in this situation? In BDTP I suppose it would be easier to gestalt them together, but what about before BDTP? Could they cooperate to give each other bonus dice vs. the PC with the longbow? And then if someone chooses to BDTP, how does that work?
    In general you never conflict with unimportant NPCs. Who is unimportant, well, generally speaking only characters who have an interesting motivation (read: Key) are important; they also usually have a name, which might be an easier heuristic for recognizing when you're dealing with bit-players.

    As you can see, the choice of how to handle the situation is squarely on the Story Guide: you have to decide on the spot whether you consider this situation interesting and have an inspiration for establishing a significant character among the caravan guards. If you do, then it's a heroic situation worthy of full conflict procedure (and you'll do well to show to the players how interesting your chosen NPC is - perhaps they'll monologue about their motivation at a suitable juncture or something like that). If you decide that there's no interesting characters among the guards, they'll never get to roll dice, and thus you don't need to worry about how they'd support each other mechanically or stuff like that.

    It is notable that there is a potentially surprising bug in the 2nd edition TSoY rules, one that I encountered in an amusing manner myself in 2005 or so: you can't Bring Down the Pain unless there is an opponent to struggle with, which means that when you're making unopposed Ability checks for various reasons, there is no escape clause for when the dice go against you. This is not a problem if you never, ever have anything actually important rely on a simple Ability check, but if you're like me, then you'll sooner or later actually establish important stakes in a situation with no human opposition, and then find to your horror that the PC is fucked because there's no way to Bring Down the Pain.

    (My own experience with this was about a character who attempted to swim over a significant body of water during his adventures; a perfectly natural place to make an Ability check to see how it goes, but what to do when he fails the check and the situation is kind of important...)

    Your caravan guard case is a little bit like this, which is why I'm warning you about the peculiarity of the rules: either establish a NPC that can be conflicted with, or keep the significance of the Ability checks so low that there's no need for BDtP even if the character should happen to fail. (Or, as a third option, decide that you can BDtP without an opponent, which is what I've done; I suggest that the character takes a 1st degree Harm and then succeeds automatically in such a situation. Basically, you can always succeed in any Ability check as long as you're unresisted, have the appropriate Ability and want to pay for it by suffering.)

    The last bit is not so much a question but an observation: I'm noticing that the PCs are not taking much harm and not using many of their pool points (which leads to few key refreshment scenes--lame!). The harm is probably my fault for not setting hard enough consequences and not going after them enough. OTOH, I think they've been trying to play smart and avoid hard conflicts. As for the pool points, they're not using them because they have plenty of gift dice to use instead. We have a total of six players right now, including me, the SG. That means everyone has so many gift dice they never need to spend pool points for bonus dice. Any thoughts?
    Perhaps the single most difficult to remember thing for the Story Guide in TSoY is that you should assign Harm to almost all conflicts. Just throw it in there, at whatever level makes sense for the situation. Heck, the game would probably flow better if you just said that all failed checks always suffer a minimum of 1st degree Harm, unless anything higher has been established.

    Regarding Gift Dice, there are differences of opinion out there, but my suggestion would be to remove them from the game; they're a good idea, but for a different game (and have in fact been central to other excellent games, e.g. Primetime Adventures). Sometimes they're the exactly right thing for some groups, but in my experience they work exactly like you describe for most people: they reduce the mechanical pressures on the PCs. Besides, they're annoying in that while the rest of the game is reasonably robust and playable with a wide range of people, the Gift Dice are the sort of conceit that gets abused too easily.
  • kurisu,
    As far as pool dice and refresh scenes go. That is something I had to kind of nurture in my players. So, whenever a roll was made, I would say things like, "OK, you can do the following: You can accept the roll, Spend Pool to give your self a Bonus Die, Activate a Secret, beg for a Gift Die, Bring Down the Pain or accept it as it stands). Pretty soon, the players start mulling those options on their own. and I don't have to do that anymore.

    Of course, Eero is correct. There is not a single, all-encompassing rule that covers the above situation. However, the way I like to handle it is maybe different, so I thought I would add my thoughts to see if it helps you at all.
    So, as Eero stated, there is a decision point where the SG has to make a decision. After that decision is made, then the risk (if you fail the roll) is communicated to the player. Don't forget in TSOY Revised (aka 2nd edition), you are in a Free and Clear phase until the dice are rolled. So, for instance, if you wanted to present the player with a real risk to trying to take out 6 guards at once, then you can do something like, "OK, but if you fail, you will take lvl 6 harm, do you want to try?" or "Alright, but if you fail you will kill one guard and the rest of the guards will overwhelm you and turn you into the town sheriff." Or whatever you thought was an appropriate level of risk for such a big bold action to be resolved in one roll. At this point (since we are free and clear) the player can ask, "Well, what do I risk if I just shoot one guard?" and play can go back and forth until you we can get the game firing at the right level of action, bravado, risk and reward for both players and SG.

    Does that help any?
    Dave M
  • Thanks Eero and Dave,

    Both your responses are helpful. Eero, I totally grok your point that the way I handled the situation was not the only correct one. It was a solution that was negotiated on the fly at the table. Also, I can see how including a named NPC in the conflict would be helpful. Dave, negotiating stakes before the dice hit the table has also been crucial in our game so far, and we have gotten better at it.

    What actually ended up happening in the scene described above was that the player proposed he would kill one guard per success level on his roll. I didn't think this was necessary per my interpretation of the rules, but it was his idea and it was acceptable to me. He ended up killing 2. Then the rest of them attacked him. In the next conflict, he wanted to hold back the rest of the guards while his ratkin friend unchained a group of Zaru slaves. The consequence I offered for failure was that he would be beaten unconscious, and that is in fact what ended up happening. The player accepted this consequence, however, rather than choosing to BDTP.

    Eero, thank you for your expert advice on harm and gift dice. Adding harm to consequence negotiations is definitely something I can do as SG! Convincing my players to give up gift dice might be a hard sell, but I do think it would improve the game significantly.

    Chris
  • Scaling the level of fictional success with the level of the dice result is unproblematic and a fine addition the toolset (I use it myself on occasion), as long as it's clear that any positive result is in fact a success. (Introducing the idea of "difficulty level" against which a success is compared to find out whether it really was a success is very common in games, but in the case of TSoY it breaks the math.)

    If you're having the Gift Dice as a permanent part of the equation, then it is sort of useful to make them work correctly. You might already be good on this count, but the ideal is that the players express their individual creative compassion with the dice; they're not supposed to be automatic gimmes, and there is supposed to be no social expectation that players scratch each other's back with Gift Dice. It is somewhat difficult to make players change their habits, though, which is why I especially recommend not using Gift Dice with groups that have deep-rooted habits of e.g. mechanical domination play; Gift Dice can be quite annoying if they are routinely used by the players in a conspiratory manner, helping characters "win" without struggle.

    Also, the original Gift Dice equation (each player gets as many dice as there are players) is broken, I think; it gives dice according to the number of players, but that doesn't in fact have anything to do with the actual need for the dice a session, so you might have too many or too few quite arbitrarily. In the Solar System text I recommend distributing 20 Gift Dice between the group (SG included), instead of N^2, but in a situation like yours (where you're observing that there are too many Gift Dice around) it might be a good idea to distribute just 10.

    Even better, were I to use the Gift of Dice today, I would probably just have one Gift Die per player in the middle of the table (different colour from the other dice), and say that anybody can give them to characters, at most one die per player per roll. However, dice so given are left with the player who used them, and only they can re-gift them forward. In this way the Gift Dice move around, or accumulate, all depending on who does exciting things and who forgets to redistribute their dice. I think something like this would probably be better than the standard scheme for a few reasons that are too boring to get into in detail.
  • Kurisu,
    NP, glad to help!
    So, as far as making Gift dice flow, I do two things:
    1) I use them myself and early. I try to give them in situations where the player said or did something cool and then, I make as big a deal as I can about giving it tothem and explaining why I did.
    2) Remind players that they can ask for Gift Dice when the roll they have can be "saved" by a bonus die.

    After you do this a few times, players just get into the habit of doing it themselves.
    Dave M
  • Okay, a couple of things.

    1. In our last session, we reduced Gift Dice to one per player. This worked well (PCs actually spent pool points, thus necessitating refreshment scenes) although we will probably eliminate Gift Dice entirely in the future.

    2. We had a big combat between the PCs on one side, opposed by their nemesis, Sergeant Malvole, and a half dozen mounted men-at-arms on the other. I gestalted the PCs, so their actions were giving bonus dice to whoever the main actor was for each volley. I had Sgt. Malvole's men represented as a weapon (extra harm on a success), and he never even got a chance to use them, because all actions in the BDTP that ensued were perpendicular, and the PCs won every volley because of all the bonus dice. In similar situations in the future, would it be better to a) roll for each mook to see whether he gives the villain any bonus or penalty dice? Or b) give the villain a Secret like the following:

    Secret of the Commander: When you have a group of unnamed but competent followers assisting you in a task, you gain one bonus die for each of them.

    Would that be overpowered?

    The problem is that without bonus dice for his followers, the villain simply could not stand up to the combined force of the PCs in a gestalt conflict. Any suggestions for resolving this problem without making the villain and his followers overpowered?

    Another problem I noticed was that the players who were providing bonus dice in a volley, rather than being the main actors, felt like their actions were less significant. My friend and I both felt that this combat pushed TSOY to its mechanical limits.I almost felt like it would have been more satisfying in another system, like (old school) D&D or Dungeon World.
  • Another, related question: when you're rolling to give bonus dice, either to yourself or someone else (e.g. using your Swamp Lore to help set up an ambush), is your first roll always unopposed, or can it be opposed, too?
  • Your last question first: a roll for bonus dice is no different from any other roll, technically speaking. It can be opposed when that makes sense. Properly speaking a roll only becomes "for bonus dice" when action flows from that roll into another one.

    Secret of the Commander is entirely fair, and not at all overpowered. In general it's difficult to make anything overpowering in TSoY as long as you don't grant e.g. Ability ranks. On the other hand, if you use Gestalt, and use Secrets that are very free with bonus dice, it'd also be useful to use either dice cutters (Secret constructions that throttle the availability of bonus dice) or overflow Secrets (constructions that do something interesting with extra dice beyond the best three after the roll is done). Otherwise extreme amounts of bonus dice make dice rolling too much of a formality.

    I don't usually use the gestalt rules myself for one side unless I'm also using them, or something equivalent (such as your suggested Secret, which is basically the equivalent of a Gestalt-for-mooks), for the other side. In general, while I think that the notion of gestalting is useful and interesting, I don't think that it has been quite fully and satisfactorily explored in the TSoY tradition yet. The big issues are that sharing Harm and freely granting bonus dice tends to throw the mechanical ranges usually involved in the game somewhat off-kilter: the Gestalt can withstand far too much Harm, and its rolls are generally too high.

    (Yes, Gestalts are another rule like the Gift Dice in that I made it more of an optional idea in my edition of the rules. I was unwilling to drop it entirely, as I believe in a flexible toolbox approach to developing Solar System, but I am not yet happy with the way the Gestalt balances simplicity vs. satisfactory outcomes.)

    One detail that you might consider is that the bonus dice system in TSoY really, really doesn't like it if you let bonus dice from multiple support checks to accumulate on a single roll. I don't know if you've been doing this, but the mechanically recommended way is to "chain" multiple support checks into a sequence where roll A provides bonus dice for roll B, which in turn provides bonus dice for roll C, and that one finally provides bonus dice for the final linchpin action in the sequence. This does, of course, make Gestalt action even more useless.

    Then again, many-vs-one situations are inherently very one-sided in TSoY. I manage them myself with careful evaluation of fictional maneuvering in determining whether any given action is parallel or perpendicular, and against whom: thus one against three can triumph if they can device actions that defend against multiple opponents simultaneous, or attack multiple opponents simultaneously, so as to avoid being tied down by one opponent while the other two finish him off unresisted. They could also have Secrets that explicitly give them an edge of some sort when being overpowered. For example:

    Janus Sword
    An elegant yet peculiar fighting technique developed in pre-Skyfire Maldorite arena combat. Gives a character the ability to swordfight against two opponents at once (assigning the action as parallel or perpendicular, for bonus dice or Harm, for each target separately, as the fiction warrants), or even more, although any more than two causes a penalty die to the roll.

    All in all, I'd say that you could improve on the fundamental issue by not using Gestalt, and instead focusing on the idea that individual characters who have to face superior numbers have to have fictional leverage that justifies them matching up to multiple opponents at once. So for the case of a sergeant-at-arms with his armsmen vs. a group of individual heroes, I'd have each character separately declare action in the free and clear, so the sergeant was facing e.g. multiple attacks all at once, but I'd also allow the sergeant to use their "command troops" Ability or whatever against however many of his enemies are currently at the reach of his troops; he could thus basically fight a melee against many opponents at once by having his soldiers fight for him. Of course anybody moving the conflict away from the manpower issue would find it easy to hit the man behind the army, but that's exactly in the spirit of the system. And of course: when somebody does not have leverage that justifies them standing toe to toe against multiple opponents, then they should run - not every situation is winnable.
  • When the fight started, the sergeant was using his Battle ability against the one PC who was specifically targeting him. The stakes we negotiated were: if the PC won, he would fight his way through the soldiers and kill Sergeant Malvole. If the sergeant won, the men-at-arms between the PC and the sergeant would beat the PC unconscious. The PC lost (on a tie, he had initiated) and he requested that the pain be brought down. In the free-and-clear, when everyone started jumping in, it became clear that all the PCs had similar intentions (defeat Sgt. Malvole and his men), which is why I gestalted them.

    So instead of doing that, I could have let them all declare individual actions, and if they decided to attack Malvole, he could defend against each of them using his Battle ability, as long as he had fictional positioning to do so (e.g. a soldier in between himself and the PC attacking him).

    Thank you, I think I'll try that next time we have a big conflict like that. Your experience is very much appreciated. TSOY/Solar is a tight little system, and we really are enjoying it. There are just certain circumstances that are not fully fleshed out in the (Rev. ed.) book.

    By the way Eero, if you ever run a session of TSOY online, I want in! I feel like it would be helpful for me to see how an experienced SG runs the game.
  • In that situation (Malvole declaring perpendicular actions to multiple PCs), would you use one roll or multiple rolls?
  • In that situation (Malvole declaring perpendicular actions to multiple PCs), would you use one roll or multiple rolls?
    Me, you mean? I always use a single roll per character per round of conflict; that's one of those economic backbones of the system that it'd be foolhardy to mess with without careful consideration. The biggest issue would be that it would allow a single character to do more than others get to do, per beat of narrative.

    What this means is that you don't get to declare perpendicular actions against multiple PCs so much as you get to declare one action that applies to multiple PCs. For example, the sergeant could declare that he'll have his men assault the bunch of trouble-makers, in which case every one of them who hasn't been specifically established as being somehow situated aside (hidden in a tree, lurking unknown in the bushes, whatever) is a target of this attack. The effect of the action (Harm to his enemies) is essentially multiplied by the fictional leverage he has in the form of a troop of soldiers: instead of causing one Harm to one opponent, he causes one Harm to however many people end up run over by his military machine.

    Furthermore, I run with the principle that although fictional positioning is judged pretty stridently when it comes to ordinary Abilities (that is, you don't have any subjective guarantee that you could always use the specific Abilities that you desire, if the fictional positioning has clearly been established to not support that desired action), the defensive action made with Passive Ability sort of gets a free pass easier than other Abilities, when it comes to positioning and whether the Ability has leverage: I will almost always have a defensive action apply against every incoming attack of the moment, with the only exception being when the attacks are clearly in different domains of action (which is somewhat rare, as it is difficult to e.g. rhetorically force somebody to question their parentage while simultaneously they are fighting to the knife with somebody else). So characters who are getting thoroughly ganged upon may generally speaking get full reprieve by declaring a defensive action (and rolling well), in addition to getting to redefine goals, improve fictional positioning, and whatnot.

    The most ideal fictional positioning you could get in extended conflict is one where a part or all of your opposition are left unable to act directly against you for one or more rounds; in my conception of the one-vs-many conflict you're always trying to manage this crowd control, as otherwise the action economy will inevitably take you down. (I mean, it's pretty obvious: you act perpendicular to one opponent, and the others just get free hits on you. Can't take that for more than a single round, in practice.) This doesn't come up in more even conflicts, but if a character lacks e.g. troops or magic or something that'd enable them to deal with multiple opponents at once, then the only sensible thing for them to do is to back down, retreat, and attempt to engage the enemy one at a time. (I use the terminology of physical conflict here, but it should be clear that these principles go for all kinds of conflicts where appropriate maneuvers may be considered.) For example, a character might declare temporary retreat, get enough ground between himself and his enemies to hide, and then e.g. set up some traps or ambush one of his enemies without the knowledge of the others, so as to get at least one or two rounds of conflict without the entire crew being at him all at once. (This would all happen round-by-round in extended conflict, as long as the actual stakes are not being agreed upon by the conflict sides.) The opposition in turn can combat this tendency for conflict-avoidance by attempting to keep the pressure on; as long as they succeed in overcoming any attempts to break off and increase distance, it's unlikely that their victim will manage to break their group cohesion, and thus they'll be able to utilize their full strength every round; they'll go down to exhaustion if nothing else, sooner or later.
  • A simple example of what I mean above occurs: the first time I used the above principles was in a 2006 TSoY one-shot scenario, where a couple characters harassed a single one in a town square. This was quite early in my play experience with TSoY, and I was still in a relatively formalistic mode in how I ran BDtP; for instance, I assumed that all characters have subjective right to action against their chosen opponent each round. (Not an insensible assumption, as that's how it works in many Forge games, and the original TSoY text is pretty non-committal about this.) However, then the single character fighting the other two handily pushed one of his foes into a well. I was faced with a dilemma: on the one hand this was totally legit in terms of expected fiction, so if a system would prevent this from occurring, it would be a serious systemic problem. However, on the other hand, a character in a well is pretty clearly out of a sword-fight for at least a beat of time, so isn't this like knocking your enemy out of the fight altogether, and thus only possible when you force them out with Harm? As you can see from my recommendations, my suggested solution is to embrace fictional positioning over formal subjective rights: if a character gets positioned in a way that takes them out of the current action, too bad. However, to retain maximum protagonism rights, I determined on the spot that getting out of e.g. a well could always be accomplished "in one round"; just make that climbing roll or whatever on your next turn, and you'll be back in the struggle. This compromise between formal dramatic rights and clever fictional positioning has since served me well with TSoY.

    Finally, I also allow characters to create and utilize Effects in extended conflict as a sort of a force multiplier. (Effects are this new-ish rule in my Solar System version, doesn't directly apply to 2nd edition TSoY.) For example, a character with an Effect like "Armor of plate and mail" could have their Effect "resist" incoming physical blows, while they themselves focus on e.g. attacking. This doesn't work for too many rounds (Effects are extremely frail against active opposition in extended conflict), but presumably you're a bad-ass if you're going to try something like this, anyway, so perhaps you'll knock an opponent or two out of the fight before the others blow your armor to smithereens.

    A simple and practical example of how to use that Effects thing in a sword-fight, possibly almost by the rules in a given campaign's praxis: declare defensive action on your first turn, and describe how you retreat to a defensible position, or constantly give ground to prevent your opponents from surrounding you, enabling you to resist every attacker with that single defensive action. (Probably no more than 2-3 attackers can attack you anyway right on the first round, assuming that you're rapidly giving ground, or find some doorway or such to defend.) Then create an Effect out of your check result (paying a point of Pool to do so), called e.g. "Defensible position". On your next turn, declare that you're relying on your position, and focus on taking down one of your opponents; the rest may attack you, but they'll have to get through your Effect value first, so hopefully they won't hurt you too badly. (This approach to handling matters is not strictly by the book as per the 2009 SS text, at least not without some Secret or other that'd allow you to double-dip by creating an Effect out of a check as well as using it immediately. However, I've since come to lean towards the notion that double-dipping for the sake of Effect creation is probably not a serious danger for game balance in the Solar System; I'll probably drop that limitation altogether the next time I'm doing serious SS, to see what happens. If the only thing it does is to make creating short-term Effects in extended conflict more viable, then that's more of a strength than weakness; I have yet to come to a point where encouraging players to expend Pool would have been a problem for the game.)

    If I was running a campaign where the players consistently have their characters form an adventuring troupe that acts together against joint threats, I would probably further fine-tune this stuff; the Solar System is traditionally rather finicky about what it does in one-against-many situations, as can be seen in my musings on the matter. When I last had such a campaign - a Naruto ninja-fantasy campaign in 2007 or so, where PC teenage ninjas obviously worked tightly together against super-powerful adult super-ninjas - I handled the in-built unevenness of the situation with all sorts of Secrets, ninja techniques that enabled a single ninja to defend or attack against multiple opponents at once. In that particular case this let's say customized solution worked quite fine, as it was very much according to setting logic. Nowadays I would probably be less strict about allowing characters to utilize what they have creatively, without necessarily requiring a "can target multiple opponents" Secret of some sort for every single case. (I would still maintain my rich tradition of such Secrets to a degree, of course; I'd just reduce the most boring and mundane stuff that does nothing except enable you to do what you should be able to do most of the time anyway.)
Sign In or Register to comment.