|
|
Post by tavis on Dec 6, 2009 13:24:01 GMT -6
At Anonycon I've played in two D&D 3.5 games, run a well-attended AD&D game, and am about to play in another one run by joethelawyer. I am now convinced that:
1) Third Edition captured a number of play groups whose roots stretch back to 2E and beyond. These players typically approach the game with the assumptions and styles of older editions.
2) People who are still playing 3E, instead of converting to Pathfider or 4E, are grognards (whether they think of themselves that way or not) who become further removed from the mainstream with each passing day.
3) It took a long time for these players to switch to 3E. The barrier is higher for them to make a similar switch to 4E due to the design differences. It's easier for them to go to Pathfinder, but there's also less likelihood of them doing so IMO.
4) One big reason these groups are likely to stick with 3E is that they've spent a lot of time houseruling 3E to suit their playstyles and ongoing campaigns. I believe that this reresents a link to the history of our hobby that old-schoolders should seek to preserve, and which will tend to be lost in proportion to how much "legacy" players adapt their campaigns to reflect the assumptions of 4E and the dominant playstyles of both 4E and Pathfinder, which to my mind are much more largely shaped by the strictures of organized play and an audience with an attenuated connection to TSR D&D.
5) Joethelawyer switched the other way - he and his longstanding gaming group normally play a 3E campaign "houseruled to throw out everything not in AD&D", but as a result of exposure to the OSR is now running a TARGA-sponsored AD&D/OSRIC game at the con.
I think that conversions like this are awesome and an achievable goal in many cases. But why not also work to preserve and support our newly out-of-print brethren in sticking to their own favorite edition?
In talking to people at the convention about TARGA, I found that:
- Mentioning "old school" elicits a lot of people who believe that their 4E game is old-school because it contains flavor X or ingredient Y. I'm happy to say "Awesome, I'd love to try that because I've tried really hard to do those things in 4E! Maybe you'd get a kick out of playing one of the games on this here flyer to see how we do those things without using skill checks / a battlemat / a pre-planned adventure / whatever." But it seems to me that without a lot of educational outreach, defining what TARGA does as "support old-school gaming" is not going to define it as intended in many people's mind.
- Defining it by theory is difficult for me - I know it when I see it, but it took a lot of reading and playing for me to reach that level of understanding. I don't want to recruit only those people whose eyes don't glaze over as soon as theory comes out. Give me the people who don't care about theory and don't care about rules edition differences because - either by houseruling or simply playing by instinct instead of books - are still using 3E to do the same thing they were doing in 1979.
- "Out of print" games is easily understood and definable without the arguing about "is this early-80s rules-heavy game or later-vintage Gygaxian-heritage game" that, as a member of the choir, I personally enjoy. (And the 4E I played at the con reminded me how much more of that legacy is in 3E).
- A focus on OOP enables the powerful message that OOP games belong to the fans. One reason that 3E players don't want to convert to Pathfinder is that the vision of the publisher doesn't match their own. Highlighting the DIY aspect of the OSR is likely to reach disenfranchised 3Ers. And I think that the DIY element isn't coincidental. People who want to do it their way, not what the newly-official books say, are likely to share our views once they care enough to learn what those are, and likely to be people we might enjoy playing with once they help us build a play network.
|
|
|
|
Post by tavis on Dec 6, 2009 18:49:57 GMT -6
OK, I finally finished compiling and editing this post. Apologies to those who started reading it in an earlier half-finished form!
Also due to technical snafus from posting from a convention by mobile phone, I realized that I failed to put this in Other Editions as I'd intended. Fin, please move it over there. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 6, 2009 21:36:04 GMT -6
It's always interesting to listen to discussions about 3E and 4E (particularly those which are more informational instead of complaining) becasue those editions require a somewhat different playing/GM'ing style that what I am most used to experiencing.
I'm not sure why you say that 3E players aren't likely to switch to Pathfinder. While I don't play it, I've skimmed through it and it seems very 3E-like to me, as well as being actively supported with modules and the like. While the DIY model is great for many, I think there are many others who prefer an "official" version of any rules set used. (Personally, my game group in high school reached this split between OD&D and AD&D, with one being more DIY and the other being more structured. I suspect a similar split still exists among players today, even if the editions have changed numbers.)
I remember reading a post on DF a couple years ago saying (sarcastically) that with the launch of 4E, all of the 3E players would suddenly find themselves OOP and begging to be included in the OS movement. I'm not sure this has come to pass exactly, but it was a funny statement at the time and certainly bears watching.
All in all, an interesting post with lots of good points to ponder. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Dec 6, 2009 22:04:01 GMT -6
With each new edition, D&D changes to be further afield from its origins, which means that previous editions will seem more alike by comparison. 3e, especially 3.0, in its marketing, made particularly strong appeal to its 1e roots, which invited constant comparison between the two. The debates were sometimes heated, but in retrospect we can look back almost with nostalgia. Basically, we were speaking the same language. 4e--I know this is cliche, and I don't mean any offense, but I think it's just a fact--4e takes video games as its point of reference. I don't know, but my impression is that there aren't really any heated edition wars between 4e and 1e, let alone 4e and OD&D, simply because there is a lot less common ground and therefore little crossover of interest or "tug" between them. Just a thought. Regards.
|
|
|
|
Post by tavis on Dec 7, 2009 9:42:37 GMT -6
Thanks for the interest! Some replies: I'm not sure why you say that 3E players aren't likely to switch to Pathfinder. One big reason is "I already have the books and don't need to buy new ones." (The grognardiest of 3E players are the ones who didn't switch to 3.5!) This seems materialistic, but IMO it's closely aligned with the old-school attitude "I don't care about what's the latest official rule, I want to use my imagination and my judgement." While I don't play it, I've skimmed through it and it seems very 3E-like to me, as well as being actively supported with modules and the like. Folks might not find that support to their tastes for a whole host of reasons, including: - although Erik Mona has impeccable old-school credentials IMO and I love him dearly, the Pathfinder art direction is "anime style" and grognards may be turned off by the big ears and swords. - my feeling is that Pathfinder is more tightly linked to its assumed world of Golarion than 3E was to its assumed world of Greyhawk; Golarion is awesome in its pulp old-school roots but that may turn off people who are invested in the world they use 3E to game in. - the active module support involves a subscription model; if you're motivated by not wanting to have to buy new books you're not the customer Paizo is ultimately looking for. - the active convention support involves an organized play model; I love Nick Logue dearly and he's a very insightful (new-school) gamer who has worked to encourage the Pathfinder Society adventures to focus on developing the ongoing meta-plot rather than being abstract loot-grinds that support the solo game of optimizing your build and funding your fantasy-shopping-for-men purchase of level-appropriate magic items. Nevertheless, if you play PFS events at a con you are likely to hear players disparage roleplaying as a distraction from getting the meta-level rewards of the module or complain about whether challenges are too hard for the expected rating, to hear GMs say things like "hurry up we have to get through this" and "you can't go that way because it's not in the module." Such things may be less likely in PFS than in Living Forgotten Realms but they're part of the publisher-supported organized play landscape IME. - the Pathfinder audience, who I love dearly, is a lot more likely to involve people whose only other play experience is with WotC D&D and who are subscribers to Paizo's regular supplement release schedule and to the belief that the best guide to what should be part of your game is whether it's in the book. While the DIY model is great for many, I think there are many others who prefer an "official" version of any rules set used. (Personally, my game group in high school reached this split between OD&D and AD&D, with one being more DIY and the other being more structured. I suspect a similar split still exists among players today, even if the editions have changed numbers.) Yes, the NY Red Box community also has a productive tension between wanting to follow the rules explicitly (more represented by the Moldvay campaign) and wanting to make stuff up (more common in my OD&D one, but even there we like to check out the written descriptions of hold person and go with the rules-as-written precisely because they're not the way we imagined it). However, I think that is saying that the old-school community has room for people who want to do it by-the-book even if that conflicts with some ideas of old-school, just as we include people who want to use old or retro published adventures even if that conflicts with the DIY ideal. What we're excluding by a focus on out-of-print is people who really put a high priority on "official" and define it by "what's in the latest edition of the rulebook", and I think those folks have already moved on to either Pathfinder or 4E and are not likely to be receptive to old-school ideas at this time. |
|
|
|
Post by tavis on Dec 7, 2009 9:45:55 GMT -6
My impression is that there aren't really any heated edition wars between 4e and 1e, let alone 4e and OD&D, simply because there is a lot less common ground and therefore little crossover of interest or "tug" between them. Just a thought. Regards. Lots of people have been saying since the edition change that 3E is more like AD&D, where things are more simulationist and there's more world material in the books, and 4E is more like the Red Box D&D they grew up with where the focus is more on gameplay and there's less gnarly flavor and rules sub-systems in the core rules. I'm interested in but critical of that idea and can post links if you like! |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Dec 7, 2009 13:17:30 GMT -6
Lots of people have been saying since the edition change that 3E is more like AD&D, where things are more simulationist and there's more world material in the books, and 4E is more like the Red Box D&D they grew up with where the focus is more on gameplay and there's less gnarly flavor and rules sub-systems in the core rules. I'm interested in but critical of that idea and can post links if you like! Yeah, I’ve seen that. IIRC, it goes something like this: - 3e: Adventure Path/Overarching Storyline, Shared/Detailed Setting, Rules for Everything (=AD&D)
- 4e: Sandbox/Freeform, Points of Light Setting, Rules for Combat Only (because everything else can just be roleplayed) (=OD&D)
I can see how, from this perspective, 4e appears more OD&Dish than 3e, however, to me the sandboxiness/rules-lightness spectrum would still be something like this: OD&D - AD&D - 4e - 3e That is, AD&D is still a better fit for playing in an OD&D style than any of the modern editions are. However, to me even play style is secondary to things you mentioned that many view as window dressing—the art and the literary genre. I mean, I’m not going to buy a Star Wars RPG if I want to play Star Trek. So 4e doesn’t even remotely interest me—not enough to nitpick it or compare it or mine it for my game—because its world is just too different from the kind of world I can play in in OD&D or AD&D. Regards. |
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Dec 7, 2009 14:09:25 GMT -6
I remember reading a post on DF a couple years ago saying (sarcastically) that with the launch of 4E, all of the 3E players would suddenly find themselves OOP and begging to be included in the OS movement. I'm not sure this has come to pass exactly, but it was a funny statement at the time and certainly bears watching/ Most of the 3e players I've encountered who consider themselves "old school" are pretty contemptuous of the old school movement generally. There are a lot of reasons why they feel this way, but the biggest seems to be a sense that, since 3e is a recent design, their liking of it isn't clouded by "nostalgia," "rose-colored glasses," "revisionism," and all the other watchwords used by naysayers to denigrate those of us who prefer earlier editions. It's a weird phenomenon, to be sure, but it's a real one and I can't say it's made me particularly sympathetic to the plight of the 3e fans now that they're favored edition has been cast aside by WotC. |
|
|
|
Post by tavis on Dec 7, 2009 14:38:32 GMT -6
Most of the 3e players I've encountered who consider themselves "old school" are pretty contemptuous of the old school movement generally. That is interesting and weird! Are those encounters online or in person? Are these recent encounters? When do you think these opinions about old-school formed? My experience with 3E folks I meet at cons or through play groups is that they often have little or no exposure to online gaming discussions. If they say they're old-school, they probably mean they still do things like they used to; for them it means "not like kids today" rather than referencing a movement. 4E players seem more likely to be aware of the OSR. This might be because they're online more often (you could argue that people stick with 3E because they're too out of the loop to be targeted by new-edition marketing, although I won't tend to meet people who are too out of the loop to even go to a con). Or it could be because Mike Mearls' interest in OD&D, or the claims that 4E is more old-school than 3E, have generated awareness of the OSR (however distorted) specifically among those interested in 4E. EDIT: It could also be because many in the NYC gaming communities I'm part of are also interested in story games, and as storygamers currently seem to be paying attention to both 4E and the OSR for their own reasons this may be the hidden covariate that gives the 4E players I meet an awareness of the OSR movement. |
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Dec 7, 2009 14:43:02 GMT -6
I have 3E, and I enjoy it at the first seven or 8 levels or so. Since I own the books, I refused to shell out for 3.5 and also for 4.0
|
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Dec 7, 2009 15:01:26 GMT -6
That is interesting and weird! Are those encounters online or in person? Are these recent encounters? When do you think these opinions about old-school formed? They're all online and comparatively recent. All the local D&D players I know are either playing 4e or retro-clones, interestingly. I expect their opinions formed primarily in response to the online old school forums and blogs they've encountered, which, to be fair, tend to be at least antagonistic toward 3e, if not downright hostile. Judging only from my own blog, I'd say 4e players are much more open to the OSR than the 3e players, even if they often misunderstand what we're talking about or why. |
|
jjarvis
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 278
|
Post by jjarvis on Dec 16, 2009 7:54:20 GMT -6
I hate to admit it sometimes but I liked the 3.0 rules, it wasn't hard to play old school style with pickier rules. The 3.5 revision added a host of changes that I just didn't like and Pathfinder reads like 3.75 to me.
|
|
eris
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 161
|
Post by eris on Dec 23, 2009 19:22:35 GMT -6
I have 3E, and I enjoy it at the first seven or 8 levels or so. Since I own the books, I refused to shell out for 3.5 and also for 4.0 I started with D&D in 1974, played and ran it and house ruled it to my tastes..basically pared down to nothing. PC's got six stats, HP, weapons, armor, class and level and I hated Wizards/Clerics, because I hated spell slots so few PC's were ever spell-slingers. Monsters got HD which gave them HP, weapons and armor sometimes. Everything else was common sense. I looked BD&D, then AD&D 1e in the local game store when they came out, but neither gave me *anything* that really helped me run games. Frankly, the editions kept getting more and more rules heavy and layering on more and more stats, features, *stuff*. To me, if the Character Sheet couldn't fit on an index card there was too much *stuff* and I'd just throw all of that away. I eventually quit running D&D. I never left the hobby, but all my playing/running moved to Fidonet and the Internet. None of the games were D&D type fantasy though. Then I found out about 3E. I looked at the core 3E books. I held my nose and bought them because I *really* did want to run a D&D game. I spent a week reading the core books, and got *two* things from them...the d20 mechanic, and the SRD. Bingo, man! A resolution mechanic that I liked and descriptions of things like spells and equipment that was all I needed. I saw no reason to buy into 3.5, but I had hopes that 4e would be a lot more rules light. It isn't, so I'm not running it either. C&C is interesting, but still more rules than I want. These days, do you know what makes me happy? Microlite20, Microlite74, and Searchers of the Unknown, that's what makes me happy. |
|
|
|
Post by kenmeister on Dec 31, 2009 6:25:15 GMT -6
I remember reading a post on DF a couple years ago saying (sarcastically) that with the launch of 4E, all of the 3E players would suddenly find themselves OOP and begging to be included in the OS movement. I'm not sure this has come to pass exactly, but it was a funny statement at the time and certainly bears watching/ Most of the 3e players I've encountered who consider themselves "old school" are pretty contemptuous of the old school movement generally. There are a lot of reasons why they feel this way, but the biggest seems to be a sense that, since 3e is a recent design, their liking of it isn't clouded by "nostalgia," "rose-colored glasses," "revisionism," and all the other watchwords used by naysayers to denigrate those of us who prefer earlier editions. It's a weird phenomenon, to be sure, but it's a real one and I can't say it's made me particularly sympathetic to the plight of the 3e fans now that they're favored edition has been cast aside by WotC. 3E players, from what I can tell, consider 4E a different game entirely, so they don't consider themselves old school, they think of themselves as still playing the most recent version of D&D (barring Pathfinder, which isn't WOTC-made so doesn't count anyway). I hate to admit it sometimes but I liked the 3.0 rules, it wasn't hard to play old school style with pickier rules. The 3.5 revision added a host of changes that I just didn't like and Pathfinder reads like 3.75 to me. I kinda have a hankering to run 3.0 again myself. Tomb of Abysthor is sitting on the shelf, calling to me... which could then be followed up with Necropolis. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 31, 2009 7:40:52 GMT -6
I have 3E, and I enjoy it at the first seven or 8 levels or so. Since I own the books, I refused to shell out for 3.5 and also for 4.0 1. My favorite 3E is one where I strip away skills and feats to the point where it isn't really 3E any more. I don't mean this in a nasty or bashing way, I'm just describing my own experience. What I like about 3E is the fact that they rebuilt the attack charts into BAB, the ascending AC, and the fact that you can use the same basic rules for many different eras and genres. What I don't like is that monster statblocks are unwieldy and character creation gets so detail-driven. Interestingly enough, the detail-driven character creation is one big thing my players like the most. 2. I'm a rules tinkerer and as such am constantly buying new and different stuff to read and research. I don't really mind buying new books, as I have a whole stack of 4E books and think they did some neat things there as well. It's just not the same game as previous editions, but still carries the D&D name -- that's my biggest gripe. My son has flipped through the books and loves the art and the concept of the new character classes and races, but I'm still hesitant to actually run the thing because it is so text heavy. Basically, for both 3E and 4E I wish someone would trim out about 75% of what's there and create a simple B/X-style game for levels 1-12 or so without all of the heavy details. That would be most interesting to me!  |
|
|
|
Post by jdn2006 on Jan 1, 2010 12:38:58 GMT -6
...Basically, for both 3E and 4E I wish someone would trim out about 75% of what's there and create a simple B/X-style game for levels 1-12 or so without all of the heavy details. That would be most interesting to me! Definitely. I bought the boxed set introduction for 3.5 some years ago (as I remember it was) hoping it was something just like that. |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jan 5, 2010 0:58:42 GMT -6
I once investigated the possibility of a 3.0 game using the Dungeons & Dragons Adventure Game published in 2000 as much as possible in order to keep it simple. Probably not a completely misguided idea, however, when it came right down to it, I would just have been setting myself up for frustration.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Jan 6, 2010 11:15:28 GMT -6
I initially liked 3e but as we got to higher levels the problems really emerged. I found it too complex a game with some really good ideas. I loved teh different hit dice for monsters, ascending AC and the loss of THAC0 in favor of the base attack bonus. The other changes is what really clouded the game up and made it a problem to play.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2010 15:16:45 GMT -6
Some observations (my .02!)-
- I have a hard time envisioning 3E to have as enduring a following as an OOP as say 1E. I think active support in the form of splat books, new player options, monster books, etc, was a large part of the "3E experience", and the success of so many 3rd party publishers would seem to support that. The rules-intensiveness of the system doesn't do much to foster a DIY environment.
With adventures especially, 3E groups are very dependent on published material, and I think this will prove to be the main reason for most of them to eventually migrate over to Pathfinder when their store of 3E adventures runs dry and splats grow stale.
- Conversely, I think one of the main reasons 4E players are more open to OSR gaming, as James mentioned, is because 4E does foster a more DIY approach to gaming (a factor I also "blame" for the poor sales of 3rd party stuff for 4E).
- I suspect a lot of current 3E groups are still playing the edition simply because campaigns were ongoing at the time of 4E's release, and with Pathfinder so close to 3E, there's not much reason to "convert" to Pathfinder until the present campaign ends. Seeing as the most popular gaming model of 3E seemed to be the "Adventure Path", just one of these series can take 18 months on up to 3 years to complete depending on regularity of sessions.
- Eventually, and again because the systems are so similar, there won't be much reason *not* to convert to Pathfinder. 3E gamers happy with the system won't have much problem making such a lateral move, and those unhappy with it will move over to 4E, OSR games (wishful thinking!), or some non-D&D-derived system.
- Will there be a grognardy 3E community 5 years from now? Probably. Will it be as large as, say, the 1E community at Dragonsfoot/Knights&Knaves? I'm dubious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2010 15:41:06 GMT -6
I loved teh different hit dice for monsters Envisioned by Gary, according to him, for 1eAD&D Monster Manual; but lost in the editorial rush to get the book to press. I'll quote him ... Kobolds d4, with +1-+2 for robust warrior types, added HD likewise for leader types. Goblins d6, with +1 for robust warrior types and added HD as kobolds. Orcs d8 and as with goblins otherwise. Hobgoblins d10 and as with goblins otherwise. +1 damage Gnolls 2d10 and as with goblins otherwise, +2 damage. Bugbears 3d10 and as with goblins otherwise, +3 damage. Ogres 4d12, robust specimens 1-6 + d6, and +4 damage. Giants xd12 and as with ogres, added damage based on HD#. This makes humanoids far more fearsome while keeping their relative prowess in line with former ranking. Quoted from Dragonsfoot, Around Sept 2006. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2010 15:51:09 GMT -6
Off topic, but also of possible interest to D&D historians is how he envisioned the D&D humanoids ...
Kobolds: Greenish little humanoids with imp-like faces.
Goblins: Orange-skinned little humanoids with bulbous heads and bodies.
Orcs; Brutish, ape-man-like humanoids with small eyes and snout noses.
Hobgoblins: Larger goblins, reddish of skin, also with skinny limbs.
Gnolls: Hyena-men that smell and sound like hyenas when they cry out.
Bugbears: Big, hairy hobgoblins with large, round heads.
(EGG, 05 Sep 2006, 17:28, Dragonsfoot)
|
|
|
|
Post by tavis on Jan 6, 2010 16:00:47 GMT -6
My experience is in accordance with your own .02 in many ways, theravyn. During the 3E era I used almost entirely SRD material, either because I was just learning & had mostly non-expert-gamer players who were used to AD&D if anything and didn't need extra options or later because I was writing my own stuff for Behemoth3 and wanted to be sure I wasn't using anything non-OGL. In the group that formed to play a Paizo adventure path in the 3.5 era, however, there was a lot more pride in system mastery: as a player I took a crack-like pleasure in having all these books of official goodies I could kit out my PC with, and the group looked forward to new releases to see where the game was going. In the late 3E era there was some dissatisfaction with that direction: people complained about cheesy exploits (perhaps also due to more awareness of online optimization discussions) and power imbalance, and as I started DMing for that group more I found myself wishing for a "reset" that would unburden us of the weight of all the official options. Nevertheless, some of the feeling of betrayal among this group when 4E was announced came from the cutting off of this stream of new goodies: then as we learned more about 4E there was also disappointment at the loss of feeling like the designers understood what we wanted from D&D and shared our affection for all the AD&Disms and Greyhawk nods of 3E. (This despite my affection for Mearls as a fellow D&D fan who made insightful posts at the Forge, admiration for his work on Iron Heroes, etc.) At no point did we feel like the game was ours, not it's publishers, or else the feeling of discontinuation of official support being a loss wouldn't have made sense. When I started my own adventure path campaign with that group I did feel the urge to house-rule things the way I wanted 'em, and felt resistance from the inter-connections of the system and the sense it could easily be "broken" if I made the wrong move: and if I played "3E" again I'd be drawn to FantasyCraft or Trailblazer for that sense of a reset and a set of crunchy tools to customize the mechanics to my liking. I agree, too, that many if not most of the online community for 3E/Pathfinder follows that pattern.
However, that was not at all the guys & girls I met at Anonycon. They were writing and playing their own adventures, in homebrew campaign worlds: they'd adopted 3E non-core player option books to varying degrees, but mostly I got the sense that they were doing pretty much exactly what they'd done in 1E/2E and saw 3E as a useful & maybe better way to do the basics, not a philosophical shift or a consumerist lifestyle (which is indeed how I felt up to 2004 or so). In retrospect I saw these "3E grognards" plenty of times at convention games in the 3E era, but they've always been kind of invisible precisely because they're kind of comfortable outside the game store/internet mainstream. I agree that there may not be a community similar to the Dragonsfoot one; much of my interest in these groups is precisely because they're not a community but a bunch of individual survivals of some under-scrutinized variants of the DIY-focused Old Ways for whom the 3E mechanical approach was a natural-enough fit with their own proclivities.
|
|
bat
Level 4 Theurgist
Mostly Chaotic
Posts: 139
|
Post by bat on Jan 23, 2010 19:22:57 GMT -6
My group plays both oldschool games/retro-clones (most of us have the OD&D books as well as prints of the simulacrums) and Pathfinder. The oldschool games are much more gonzo because it is simply easier to drop something into a game. Pathfinder has to be more structured to a point because it takes more to introduce something to a game without taking time to break the momentum. Both ways of gaming have their advantages and disadvantages.
|
|
