Elder Players' - Tone of the Game
Based on my observations and the comments made below...we'll be making some changes in some book-keeping procedures. I'll list them out for you with explanations:
1. For each game while we are between 10th and 20th level, all characters will be no less a level than 3 levels beneath the top characters. For instance, if Scott is the highest level character at 15th level, then no player will be less than 12th level. If a player is less than 3 levels beneath the top player, he can bump his experience points up to the minimum amount required to be the minimum level allowed. It is each player's responsibility to check their own levels, and if they need to bump their level up, they MUST SEND ME AN E-MAIL, telling me exactly how many XPs they are adding, and what their new total is. The DM will not be checking your level for you...and the DM won't be looking at the charts and doing the math for you. Between 20th and 30th level, the minimum will be 4 levels beneath the top character. This rule is being instituted to keep the group at a more even-playing field, while still rewarding those players to consistantly show up for the games and participate in Interlude activities.
2. If your character dies, and you must start a new character...then this 3 level minimum applies to you. You will begin the game 3 levels beneath the top character. This rule being instituted to make players brave enough to play brave characters. No point in being an adventurer if you aren't willing to take important risks.
3. If you decide to retire your current primary character, and begin a new character...or switch permanently to your back-up character...you keep your Experience Point totals, but take a one level penalty. You drop to the minimum amount of XPs required to be one level beneath where you were. But from that point forward the 3 level minimum is all your are guaranteed. This rule is to encourage players to let their character leave the playing group, when it would make sense the character would leave. We want people to play their character, even if it means their character would simply walk away. NOTE: Each time you switch characters in this manner, you will suffer the one level penalty.
4. Players will no longer score other players. This seems to have led to more problems and hard-feelings than it was worth. The DM will give all the members of the party their equal XP award, and then reserve the right to give bonuses when they have been earned. I intend to ask each of you through e-mails after each game to tell me some wonderful things you felt you did...and other players did. I also want you to e-mail me with some bad things you did...and other players did. I will e-mail to each player after each game a list of things I felt they did well, and things they did badly. I will use the input of the other players to help me make up my lists. This rule will leave things much less uncertain. I am constantly asked, "Why did I get scored down? What didn't they like about how I played." Well now you'll know what the DM and other players felt you did well...and not so well. The MEP award will no longer be given out, but the DM (based on his observations and player comments) will still award the MVP award when warranted.
Well, that's the changes that affect concrete things we do involving XPs and rating each other. Changes in the tone of the game, and the DM's reactions to player's decisions will hopefully be reflected in our game play! Thanks for your ideas and your comments. I'm still interested in your comments on the changes I have outlined above. Let me know....Mark
(from Chris) Mark, I was going to send this to everyone. But, after thinking about it, decided it wasn't
worth it. Don't take this personally...I think what I'm asking for is very difficult. But, I'm not having as much
fun as I would like. I think it might be time we started new characters. (With Chris' permission, here's the letter
he didn't send everyone....Mark)
Sorry I missed the game. The Latino celebration was oh so entertaining (NOT). The story Scott has put forth
sounds interesting and could be very fun. I have one question:
Will the DM change the outcome or his plan based on player input?
If not, then we should just avoid it altogether. PC's will very rarely guess what they are supposed to do. I'm suggesting the plot adapts to what we decide to do based on 'assumptions' we make. Otherwise, we look like a bunch of idiots running around. Players will never deduct the correct assumptions. At the end of the night, the players will screw up a good story. I'm suggesting the DM adapt the plot to 'help' the players make the DM's story a good one.
When was the last time someone in our party actually deducted correctly what was going on?
I guess I'm tired of losing all the time. If you weren't good at a 'GAME' why would you continue to play? We are playing a fantasy game and the party is a bungling side show. Where are the hero's? Not here! Why are we playing? I thought it was to make a good story. I guess not.
I think we should model the campaign after a genre of movies, from a plot perspective. I am referring to how the plot builds upon itself. Here are some of the type of movies I'm referring to:
Star Wars Movies
Lord of the Rings
In order to 'play' a story, a couple of things need to occur. The 'cast' needs direction, i.e. a director. The DM should be able to direct players to play a certain way. I would think this would happen before the game started. If a player has a peculiar trait, the DM might want a scene that leverages that trait and thickens the plot. Some of these activities must be arranged in advance.
Another aspect to making a good story is that the director needs to listen to the cast. Because this is an 'improvisational' game, the director MUST adapt the storyline to what transpires. He also needs to 'throw them a bone', especially if they aren't 'getting' it.
The reason for these measures is to ensure, at the end of the night, a good story has been told. It is also a two-way street. If the DM directs them to do so, the players must act as a team. Of course, the DM might throw in a saboteur to spice things up.
Basically, the players don't get to do what ever they want. By the same token the DM must realize he has a responsibility for making the story a success. A success might be a dark tragedy, but it would still make for an awesome story. What do you think?
Thanks for listening to my ramblings.
Your Friend, Chris Stevens
(Response from Mark) Fellow Players, I just received an interesting letter from Chris that dove-tails
with some issues that have come up several times within our group. With Chris' permission I will post his letter
to the website later...but here is what I am personally promising as the upcoming DM:
Our November game is planned as being a split game, with Scott running the first half of the night, and me running the second half. The plotline for my half will be directly and completely guided by what the players plan to do about the demon-infestation of the Azure Kingdom. Your e-mailed ideas will become my storyline. The same goes for my December game, as the party moves towards trying to free the Kingdom. The involvement with the Azure Kingdom problem is slated to also occupy January and February's games.
I have no set solution or path you must "divine" or "deduce" in order to reach your goals. I will shape the story from your actions and reactions. Will the game be chaotic or "direction-less?" NO. The game will certainly be unpredictable though. COMPUTER GAMES HAVE SET PATHS YOU MUST FOLLOW...but D&D games, with their human-element, most certainly should not. At times, I have been guilty (as all DMs have been) of expecting too much of players regarding figuring out the "expected" directions they must go. I promise to REACT to your actions in a way that creates an interesting and creative story.
Will you always succeed? No. Will everything your characters do be right? No. Will every character always survive? No. That's not the point of these games. Instead, I propose that I set up a basic plot and some scenarios that you may or may not encounter based on your characters' choices and free-will. Then I will set you loose in my world, and its my job to react and adapt to the choices you make. If the players decide to not even tackle the demon-problem...even that I will adapt to, and we'll go some other direction. I WANT YOU TO FEEL LIKE YOUR CHARACTER COULD GO ANYWHERE OR TRY ANYTHING AT ANY GIVEN TIME IN THE GAME, and that as DM I would neutrally roll-with-the-punches!
I have always said that I like to be surprised. When people try interesting and unexpected actions, I tend to give them a pretty fair chance at success. At least that is how I see myself! For the game to be fun, we need to create storylines that are epic and fantastic, and mirror in atmosphere and tone some of our favorite books and movies. Whether the characters live or die, succeed or fail, one thing should occur. We should all walk away satisfied that we told and interesting and exciting story about our characters.
In return, I expect a few things. No pouting or anger when things get rough. I won't tell you how to play your character, if you resist telling me how to run my world and my NPCs. No guessing "where the DM wants you to go," simply go where YOU WANT TO GO. You get my point...right?
Anyway, that is my goal and my promise. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Now start writing some stuff about your plans for the demons (or whatever else you want to do...) Mark Stinson
(Chris Sent me this...) For returning players that have missed an entire season of play, a different
approach is required. I think we should add-up all of the experience points earned from just playing. Each nights
value should be the lowest awarded for that game. This total value should be the minimum level a player could come
(...to which I replied this:) I'm not sure what this means. Do you mean that we go back to the beginning and add up the minimum awards for each time we have played. And then this value is the minimum amount each player should have at this point? That way, if Brian's character has 56,000 XPs, but the minimum values of all the games added together is 75,000...that he be boosted to 75,000?
I didn't get this e-mail in time to go to lunch with you. That would have been fun! And I was out-south. Let's just set a definite date of next Friday. O.K.?
(...then Chris, again) Mark, I think that being able to bow-out of a scene and bringing another character
into play is a good idea. I like your idea of a one level penalty for the new character.
For returning players that have missed an entire season of play, a different approach is required. I think we should add-up all of the experience points earned from just playing. Each nights value should be the lowest awarded for that game. This total value should be the minimum level a player could come in as.
Thoughts? Call me sometime, or better yet, lunch tomorrow?
Please. We all give up a lot of time for playing...and preparing to play. Let me have your input. Do you want XPs figured differently? Do you want to score your fellow players at the end of the game differently? Or not at all? Do you have an idea that might spruce up the game here or there? If you never share your thoughts...we'll never have a chance to know what you are thinking! So speak up! E-mail me with your ideas and suggestions. We may not use them all...but we'll talk about the ideas as a group, and see what we all think.
(reply from Brian) My ramblings, a reaction to some of Chris' comments. I have always asked players in my world to retire by twentieth level, as it is just too hard to challenge a group of them. Some players in our current group are getting very close. I personally am still having a great time, but some peoples' characters are much more capable of combat than mine. When and if we just need a total change, I have been working on a world in which everyone starts out as a high level evil character with evil lieutenants and minions, instead of a low level good character. Everyone attempts to conquer the world, so you are somewhat playing against each other. The DM would change from time to time, as we used our lieutenants to dungeon/attack each other. This might be something new for those of us who have been playing somewhat the same thing for decades. Anyway, I do believe I will enjoy your dungeon and Mike Cross' Forgotten Realms dungeon any time and any way we play it, as I always have in the past. Brian Boeding
(from Chris) Mark,
EXPERIENCE POINTS...I think a few of us are beginning to hate the rating system. I would prefer a rating by the DM. His rating would require what we did wrong and what we did right. Remember how you used to give EXP's? It was hillarious and fun. We knew when we screwed up and when did something cool. In the current system, you don't know what to do to improve your score.
Here is another thought. We should be working as a team. Therefore, you could give everyone the same EXP award with critique going to the entire party. Keeping the MVP/MEP would allow a reward for individual effort. I think this would encourage teamwork and make your job easier.
CHARACTER LEVEL...As we discussed at lunch and on the phone, I think we should have a way for new characters to come in at a level that lessens the power gap between characters. Whether it is one level below the lowest level person or just the total of all awarded exps for play. Half is a bit too much at anything higher than 8th.
Also, It would be nice to retire a character and bring in a new character within 1 level of the old character. This would encourage people to 'play' their character. For example, their have been a couple of times when Zeek would have gone his own way and not joined the players. But, because of the huge penalty, I didn't. Call me selfish or greedy, but the cost was too high for me to play Zeek totally realistically.
Your thoughts? Thanks, Chris
(from Mike H.) Mark- In continuing the thoughts below..........
EXPERIENCE POINTS: I agree with Chris on the EXP setup. While the current system does work, I think it could be better. Chris has talked about the previous system you use to play, and it sounds pretty good. Things were identified, and a character could see events.
Really though, the only gripe I have about the existing system is that I feel players will not rate player/character play, but rather player to player. For example (lets use Chris because he is always the black sheep), Say Joe-Bob is playing his character, and does something which would cause a negative reaction out of Zeek.. due to alignment/history/religion/etc. Joe-Bob likes his action, and did well playing his character. Zeek also follows his game play and plays the character as he should. When ratings come around, Joe-Bob may have been embarrassed/displeased/took it personal/etc from the event due to Zeeks reaction, and thus rates Chris lower. In reality, that player should have rated Chris high on the "roll playing" category, but again, doesn't.
On the flip side, I still think there Needs to be some player input. I suggest we keep the MEP/MVP.
CHARACTER LEVEL: I highly disagree with the idea of retirement once a specific level has been reached. Many players have experienced this in the past. This seems to be the 'norm' in many other groups. I honestly believe that the idea from retirement reflects very POOR DM skill. But this is not the case here. Our DM's think outside the box (for the most part! ha ha), and could challenge anything. I think it is a very lame excuse to say that characters could not be challenged.
We are not playing within the "norm" like other groups. Ours is much more involved, and please do not let this perception sway anyone into thinking this is the case.
If the group as a whole wishes to try something different, then that's great. But, to simply retire characters due to high level / boredom / no challenge / etc is simply being a BAD player or working with an unmotivated DM. Both play into it.
DEATH: While I like the concept behind the 1/2 level start to encourage players to (in my p-daddy voice) 'Keepin itz REAL', often its a much larger discouragement when the character does actually try within the game.
I believe that the result of a new character should be on average level of the entire living group. To keep
the characters discouraged from just to kill themselves, etc, is have special items not be given immediately to
the new characters. Rather, give more 'exotic' stuff out in the adventures, which will liven things up. It makes
for better game play experiences. Every character is there to boast about themselves in some sort of way.. And
when there is something new for the character to do, it gives them excitement/creativity/etc.
So, when a new character comes along, make it mandatory that they must have regular equipment, and have to earn it through the groups adventure with everyone else.
FLEXIBILITY: Each game we go to, I really appreciate all the effort that the DM's put into making the world turn. It takes a whole lot of effort to plan a common goal, and let any path possible to obtain it, or sometimes even not want to obtain that goal. This here alone separates our groups from many others out there. The story line is presented, and the DM offers NPC encounters etc. But the players dictate how things should flow. If Zeek doesn't want to do something, he shouldn't have to. Would there *POSSIBLY* be consequences? SURE! But again, the players need to dictate how specific encounter occur with encouragement/assistance of the DM.
I believe our DM crew (Mark, Mike, Scott, Chris) has done an excellent job, and just wish to remind anyone that this was once our common goal, and don't stray away. I can't speak for everyone, but is has been a great deal of fun. Thanks! Mike Haun
(from Chris) Mark, Had another thought. Along with what Mike H. was saying about how the players must also be flexible... It's like we're on a James Bond mission. We wouldn't go looking to kill Number 9 from Spectre in the first movie, when we are on the "Die Another Day" mission. So, players, like DM's need to be flexible to make a good 'movie'. Thanks, CS
(from Steve) Mark, I personally enjoy playing mid to high level characters. I look at a game and think
5 to 10 years would be a good life for a character. This means that you are going to have high level characters.
I understand that it can be a challenge to come up with something that challenges everyone. But I believe that
all the DM's have years of experience and they are up to the challenge. I also hate playing low level characters
personally and I despise starting a character then playing that character 5 or 6 times and starting a new character
or a new game. I look at the game as having an end goal of when my character is 60 not 17. I also believe that
as for the hero thing "hero's are not made in a day" that means it can take two to three years before
you are a hero like in the movies. That just means that you have something to work towards otherwise you would
be restarting a character every year or a new game and I definitely do not want to do that. Just some thoughts.
PS: If you don't play you don't earn experience, you start where you start (depending on DM rules) and if you miss a night you earn nothing. Stephen E. Bowden
(from Mark) We've gotten a lot of great comments on the game. Just to make some assurances....
1. I would like to begin DMing more. I took a break of DMing in order to finish my comic book, and in order to "recharge my batteries." I was also not happy with the huge number of players, some of the second-guessing and bickering, and what appeared to be player reactions spawned from boredom. I think that over these past months, many of these problems have been resolved. Our group is smaller...players are not feeling left out...and (with the exception of Scott's last game...sorry Scott), there has been much less second-guessing by players of the DM's decisions. So I am very interested in running some games, and pushing our storylines forward.
2. The campaign is not ending anytime soon. I enjoy these characters, and I enjoy this campaign world. Though they are at a higher level than I prefer to run, and at a higher level than I am used to running...we are going to continue full-steam ahead. I've bought a few gaming resources lately in order to help me adapt to this higher level of play...and it is my goal to keep the game challenging.
3. The way we score each other's play at the end of the game needs to be adjusted. I feel it has served a definite purpose, but it is sometime arbitrary...and sometimes skewed by personal feelings. With the number of players currently playing, I am not going to be able to do individual XP sheets, listing every good and bad action each character took in the game. When there were two players...I was able to do it...with 5, 6, 7 or more players it just can't be done. SOOOOO...all suggestions will be taken. MVP and MEP are cool, and should probably be preserved...but beyond that, there WILL be changes at the next game.
4. We will be doing something to adjust the XP levels of the characters...but, again...I am still deciding what to do. I will NOT just level the playing field, and boost everyone up to the highest level (Scott's) in the group. But at the same time, we need some sort of equalization of XP. I'm not sure what will work here? Do we set a minimum level that is 4 levels lower than the highest level character, and drag everyone along as the highest player "climbs the mountain?" Do we set the minimum level as 2 lower...or 6 levels lower? We need to decide. The one thing I am very happy with in our current system, is that regular attendance...and active interlude participation lead to a reward for the player. Some players should be a higher level than others...but how much higher? That is the question we need to answer.
Keep sharing your thoughts...we'll quickly clean house on these issues before our next game.
(from Scott) I have played the game for 25 years now and playing characters from 1st to 14th level then
starting new ones is getting a little old. The New 3D&D rules has made levels a little less of a jump in power.
What used to be a supper high level at 20th is now more equivalent to 40th and the Monsters and Spells are more
of a challenge and a refreshing change from going up against the same monsters we have fought for years. The DMs
(including myself) need to step up to the challenge to keep the game interesting but we also need the players not
to nit pick (including myself) everything that happens. The new rules give allot of leeway for new spells and abilities
that do not have to be in print or explained at every turn. The DMs must be able to put forth a situation and after
listening to what the characters have to say and considering it be able to move play forward without a long debate.
A DM cannot explain allot of things that happen at a given point without giving up important info to the story
line that keeps it intriguing. I plan on getting the Epic Level Handbook to help challenge the group at Higher
1) Chris mentioned a number of movie and book genres that he would like to see the game be more like and if I remember correctly in every case the heroes screw up, get caught, fail and look to be in a hopeless situation time and again before finally pulling the fat out of the fire. Look at the Odyssey and how when often they went against warnings and the leads of the gods suffering greatly but finding a great reward in the end. All be it there was only one survivor and he had paid a great price.
2) As for Secondary Characters I can see the need for have a second character with maybe 70% of the EP as your primary. But no more than two so as not to water down the role playing . The lowest level primary player should not be less than 70% EP of the highest Level Player. This will still reward those who put forth the extra effort.
3) I will be more open to what the characters want to do but will not change key areas of an encounter just to guarantee the outcome players want. Sometimes suicide is just that and a little common sense goes a long way.
(from Steve) I concur. ....Steve
(from Brian) Scott, to avoid future suicide runs, please try to respond to my attempt to identify the various beans. I know you are busy, just trying to make sure neither of us forgets. Thanks Brian B
(from Chris) From Scott: "3) I will be more open to what the characters want to do but will not
change key areas of an encounter just to guarantee the outcome players want. Sometimes suicide is just that, and
a little common sense goes a long way."
From Me (Chris): If these characters had any common sense, they would go home and farm. You cannot rely on player's common sense.
(from Scott) Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread. - Alexander Pope (1688-1744)
Scott A. Bower
(from Mark) I agree with Scott's first paragraph almost completely (see his comments, up three comments from this one). Its completely on the money. People should spend more time playing their character, and reacting to the game...and less time attempting to run the game for the DM, second guessing the DM, and answering questions that are asked of the DM.
I think everyone knows that I don't enjoy it when players play two characters in a playing session, unless there is some extraordinary reason for it. Almost everyone at some time or another has bitched about the group having too many players, but then when the numbers actually reduce, we allow players to play two characters. THIS DOES THE SAME EXACT THING THAT HAVING TOO MANY PLAYERS DOES. Combat become lengthy. Players with only one character do not get as much playing time. The players with two characters have a difficult time differentiating between the two characters, and actually role-playing. I won't tell another DM what to do on this, but its fair to say I will never allow it when I am DMing, and it honestly makes me not want to be a player in games where this is done.
Sometime people allow a player to have two characters "because the group doesn't have enough fire-power." Well, try tooling the adventure to fit the group, rather than having to tool the group to fit the adventure.
In Scott's #3, I know what he is getting at, for I have thought this same thing a time or two in the past. But I think my mind is changing to a certain degree. There are times when the players AS A WHOLE, make choices or take directions in the game that are not what the DM had in mind. The players probably understand the storyline differently than the DM wanted them too, or in playing their characters they simply want to do something different than the DM intended. I have come to believe that the DM needs to roll with that...think on the fly...and adjust to this during the game. The adventure can't be a rigid structure that is held sacred at the expense of the player's ideas and the fun of the game. The DM, a majority of the time, should adjust to this...and twist the game to make the adventure continue to be epic, exciting, and fun.
Does this mean the whole game should be twisted to fit just one player's mistaken views of what's happening? Probably not. Does this mean the player's should always succeed? Definitetly not. It simply means that is appropriate to sometime change "key areas of an encounter," if it drives the storyline forward and keeps the game on track. More and more, I think the players feel they are being put in impossible situations that have no possible positive outcome, and they do not always have confidence that the DM is there to help them tell a cool exciting story. At the same time, players need to come to terms with the fact that if they they are given extremely clear information, and simply choose to ignore it...or rebel against it...or keep it to themselves, the DM sometimes has no choice but to follow up with serious consequences.
Anyway...just some random thoughts....
(from Scott) I agree about the multi player part of what Mark said. That is the problem with E-Mail is it is not easy to make clear what you mean without going into great detail. I only want to have players play one Character at a time but have a secondary character around to replace or plug in instead of their primary character should the mood or role playing deem it so. If you get board running a certain class or character type you can change but still apply EP to the primary and write back ground material on both to have a good, well developed character to come in should the worste happen.
As for the the part about changeing Key parts of the game sometimes the players need rethink the need to suceed at all cost right then and now. Many times in the past some players wished to surrender or put off attempting to what seemed a almost impossible situation when the option was there but others pushed the envelope saying their characters would risk their lives for the minute chance of success. If we were realy role playing and our charaters were us in real life maybe we would feal our lives were more precious and look at options that may put off the goal we seek while preserveing our lives and increaseing the chance of suuccess. If when Luke Skywalker and Company had found the planes to the Deathstar and went off to blow it up on their own without the federation forces would it have been better to make blowing it up easier make the story better. I made two mistakes on the last game and not letting you go into the fight easily was the worste. I was changeing my plans for the outcome as you were going in but I was not open to that change until it was to late. That will not happen again. In an Epic game there are always alternatives and I should have been more flexible. I will be in the future. ...Scott
(from Mark) I agree with what you are saying. My only clarification would regard character choices. If I have defined my character as an extremely driven, fearless, character with a Chaotic alinment and very little concern for his own life...then that is how I should play the character. Rusty (from Mike's SF campaign) was this way...and that's how I played him...and Damon has some similar personality traits. When you play a character like that...you are willing to see them die in the game...you just want it to be a fair and somewhat exciting, and worthwhile death.
(from Matt) I wanted to get my 2 cent in. I love to dicuss D&D philosophy. I think Mark's new level
rules (see top of this page) are OK.
Why should we be pentalized if the chacter dies? I play fantesy RPG's to do things I can't do in real life. Like take life threating chances on daily (or for Vikos hourly) basis. If all the chacters do is talk and run away, what fun is that? The whole reason to play is to have fun and do things that we can't do in reality. To negotiate with beings that have some leverage over me is what I do every day of my life. Chopping their heads off is what I do in the Azure kingdom.
How many dragons did Alex Pope slay anyway?
I think it is the DM's job, first to have fun, but not at the expense of the players. He needs to let the players have a portion of the control of where the game goes. If the players make a dumb choice they should suffer the concenqunces, but not be punished. He needs to offer the players motivation/reason for going into dangerous places. The creatures met should be defeatable most (95%) of the time, thru wit or warfare or a combination. The players need to find motivation for their chacter even when what the DM provides isn't exactly what they were looking for.
The whole reason to play is to have fun. If it isn't fun why play? Fun to me is dramtic action, battles, some big talk, defeating the undefeatable foe, and risking the characters lives and the DM letting you get away with it,... just barely. The way Mark described Vikos battle with two Pit Fiends (see "Return to the Azure Kingdom") sums it up. I am dying to play that out or story tell it.
I think that was 3 cents but I don't care it was fun....Matt, aka Kerbock, I mean, Ganwraith no, uh ... Vikos, yeah thats it.
(from Mark) Agreed. It should be fun. The DM should roll with the player's decisions. The Players should trust the DM to run the game...and focus on playing their characters to the fullest. Characters should rarely die...but they should have the potential to die. The characters should come out on top...at least most of time! Thanks, Matt
(from Scott, CAPS represent a reply to Scott's reply from Matt) Without some sort of penalty for dieing you remove a esential part of role playing, fear, without fear of death I could play a new high level character every month who goes out in a blaze of glory (THAT SOUNDS FUN!!!) and there is no true heroics in that. A true heroic act is one where you go in to a risky situation not wanting to die but take that chance for a worthy cause (I AGREE!). The penalty can be made up with writeing to help develope your new Character which will only add to your and others enjoyment as your character will develop a personality that much quicker (GOOD IDEA). Scott. (AND MATT)
(from Mark) Well...since its my website to run...I get the last word! Bye!!!