# Roleplaying



## Creabots (Oct 22, 2007)

Do you suppose roleplaying makes games more enjoyable? Most people when playing electronic games don't seem to role-play. That appears to be more of a tradition in pen-and-paper RPGs. However, I have read about Role-Play Intensive MUDs and role-playing servers on World of Warcraft. What is your opinion on role-playing and RPGs?


----------



## Talysia (Oct 22, 2007)

I don't play pen and paper based roleplay games, so I can't appreciate it from that viewpoint, but for me, computer RPGs are like an interactive novel. I can immerse myself in an often vibrant world with a computer game, something I can't do with a pen and paper one - and the appeal isn't the same.


----------



## Creabots (Oct 22, 2007)

Talysia said:


> I don't play pen and paper based roleplay games, so I can't appreciate it from that viewpoint, but for me, computer RPGs are like an interactive novel. I can immerse myself in an often vibrant world with a computer game, something I can't do with a pen and paper one - and the appeal isn't the same.


 
I like the term you used, "interactive novel." The topic I'm about to bring up may not completely pertain to the matter of this forum, but I still find it to be a point of interest.

Do you suppose video games really are "interactive novels", because novels tell stories, and as I've discussed on another RPG forum, many people don't play RPGs for the stories. I think RPGs are played for the experience. I'm 18 years-old, and I'm trying to decide whether to be a game designer, or a novelist. I used to think that there was some sort of a connection between them, but as of late I haven't been so sure.


----------



## Talysia (Oct 22, 2007)

For me, I like good stories behind the games I play - that's the way I've always been. There's a thread here about that "most important element for you in a video game" that discusses this to an extent, although it's not solely for RPGs. 

I guess it depends from person to person, but if there's a balanced mix - good levelling capabilities, customization, good characters, good graphics/music etc as well as a good story, then you've got something that will pretty much appeal to everyone - and that makes a great gaming experience, in my opinion. There are a lot of aspiring writers here, and I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that there are a few of us who were inspired to write by the games we've played.  Whether designing a game or writing a novel, I would think you'd have to get a strong premise first, and then develop it as best you can.  If you make a gaming world or a novel world as detailed as possible, then you give the reader or player a great experience, too.

As for a connection between games and novels, then I'd say it was possible, yes. There are a lot of games that I'd love to see in novel form (and I don't mean graphic novels or manga - although that wouldn't be too bad either), and a lot of novels that would probably make great games, too. It depends on how they're designed and packaged.


----------



## Creabots (Oct 22, 2007)

I'm with you on the story issue. I think stories make games more dynamic. Games like online games like Everquest don't appeal to me, because there's virtually no story, and it's just a never ending work-out session (at least in my perspective). I don't get much pleasure from obtaining better equipment and raising my characters level. It's fun to complete objectives, however, but I like my objectives to have an important impact on my environment.


----------



## Creabots (Oct 22, 2007)

But anyways, wouldn't you think that roleplaying adds flavor to the story of the game? How can you really be immersed in a game if you're not LIVING in it (while you're playing)?


----------



## Talysia (Oct 23, 2007)

I don't think I can answer that one properly, given that I can get the same experience from being immersed in a book - for me, it's all about suspending reality for a while.  Sorry I can't be of more help.


----------



## Quokka (Oct 23, 2007)

Role Playing can be great fun, especially if there's a general agreement about it between the players. The MUD I used to play was very fantasy based and a few players would role play quite strictly to the online world though most of us were much more casual about it but the longer we played the more people would role play their own characters. So even though we might be talking about real world topics we'd still be throwing out comments and emotions/socials in keeping with our charcters which created a really great atmosphere. 

Most of how I played a character would be based in trying to win/survive but sometimes it would be RP as well. I remember creating a lemming warrior and I was always much more agressive and unpredictable with him then with other characters, atleast partly because it just seemed to fit with who I thought he was.

I've never played a pen and paper RPG and in some ways I've never got into role playing quite as much with other online games, some of that's just me being interested in different things as a gamer but also for all their limitations there was something about text based MUDs where if you got into it and became familiar with playing them it became very easy to start picturing the areas and worlds and as with books you could have your own personal ideas about how people and places looked.


----------



## Fake Vencar (Oct 23, 2007)

I always like to role play in RPGs and like my freedom in games. Pen and paper role playing is a lot different to the role playing in RPGs in my experiences, as you cannot see what you are doing, maybe crudely but more often than not you don't, and that you always need someone else to play with you. Role playing in computer games require some freedom to roam around and, if necessary, a very good story. So far the one that stands out for me is Oblivion, although the choices in that game are rather limited.


----------



## Sirathiel (Oct 23, 2007)

I have the PnP RP experience as well as the video game RP experience. I must say that to really roleplay you need somebody you can interact with, somebody naturally intelligent.
Let me explain: 
1) You can go and play a RPG in single player. If it's a good game it has a great captivating story. But are you really role-playing? Are you "saying" things although there's no other soul there to hear you? - I can't. I just play the game, enjoy the story and try to survive. - If you can, I bow to your skill and dedication.
2) You can go and play a RPG in multiplayer. There you have other naturally intelligent people (or rather their characters) to interact with. You have the chance to shape the story of the game, of the world.
3) PnP is similar to the mulitplayer game in that you have at least one other person to interact with (your DM) and ideally also a few other players.

Since I started playing PnP and multiplayer RPGs, I have discovered that playing single player suddenly is boring like hell. So, for me at least, yes, roleplaying makes RPG games much more enjoyable.


----------



## vampress13 (Nov 1, 2007)

computer rpgs are amazing   and larping..


----------



## Overread (Nov 1, 2007)

Depends, most RPGs do follow a single story line, often with different wordings for good/evil players, but the main flow of the story is the same. However there are some golden RPGs, such as the Baldurs Gate series, where there are whole different archs to the game, depending on what you choose - but these are rarer and since the bioware take over are lilkey to remian rare.

oh and be carful of Vamp - larpers are the hard core group of Role Players (for the uninformed0


----------



## Rahl Windsong (Nov 1, 2007)

I like to see where the story in CRPG's takes me. The better games allow you some degree of choice which, depending on the choices you made, affect the outcome of the game. 

The only real serious RP I have had in a computer RPG was in the online game Ultima Online where I became a Seer. A Seer in that game was a player who was given a special account by the game developers. This account had some special abilities, you could spawn monsters at any location you needed them, setup permanent or semi permanent gates for players to use, and give items special names for use in your stories.

All story lines had to be pre-approved by the developers and once they were approved each Seer was given "spawning points" and once your points were used up you could not spawn any more monsters until they issued you more points. In other words your ability to spawn monsters had to be used to support your storyline, and not to go around ganking other players at random.

Some of the stories we ran lasted up to a year of real time to complete and during that time it was not a case of if I would log in each day, I simply had to log in because my character(s) were a part of a dynamic story and I had to be there to see the next part unfold.

Even though we were implementing the story into the game world, the players could completely change the plot by the actions they took as the story unfolded. I can't tell you how many times I had to completely rewrite stories to support what the players did to my story, and that was the part that I loved the most.

When they finally killed that volunteer program the players held a wake for us Seer's and so many players came that we crashed the server several times that night, and I am not ashamed to say that I had tears streaming down my face...because I knew it was the end of something I loved.


----------



## vampress13 (Nov 2, 2007)

Overread said:


> Depends, most RPGs do follow a single story line, often with different wordings for good/evil players, but the main flow of the story is the same. However there are some golden RPGs, such as the Baldurs Gate series, where there are whole different archs to the game, depending on what you choose - but these are rarer and since the bioware take over are lilkey to remian rare.
> 
> oh and be carful of Vamp - larpers are the hard core group of Role Players (for the uninformed0


 
I larp every very once in a while and im not even close to the ppl that get too into it. i can tell reality from fiction.


----------



## vampress13 (Nov 2, 2007)

sorry, sounds snappy... just having a bad day


----------



## Overread (Nov 2, 2007)

*avoids snappy vampire teeth*


----------



## vampress13 (Nov 2, 2007)

sorry *shrugs, weakly smiles*


----------



## Jamfke (Nov 23, 2007)

Had to dig this one up.  

I am a longtime player of PNP role playing games.  While I enjoy the computer variety, PNP gives me much more freedom with a storyline than any computer program ever could.  A PNP rpg is open ended; its only limit is your imagination.  While you do not have the awesome graphics of the computer, you do have free reign of your character's actions (so long as the GM/DM isn't forcing you along.)  

That said, I love PNP rpgs.


----------



## Kissmequick (Nov 23, 2007)

Hmm well if you're thinking of trying RP on World of Warcraft a word or two of warning:

1 - AVOID GOLDSHIRE - honestly it's the red light district, full of people who think they are roleplaying but aren't or are just there to take the mick out of those that are roleplaying

2 - If you make a female toon you WILL get a lot of whispers along the lines of *wanna cybor?*


If you can find a good guild, then its great. Otherwise *shudders*


----------



## Fake Vencar (Nov 23, 2007)

I'm usually up to date with these computer terms but what is PNP? Thats completely new to me!


----------



## Jamfke (Nov 23, 2007)

Not computer, it stands for Pen N Paper.  Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Fake Vencar (Nov 23, 2007)

Ah, thats it. Thanks for that. I play 'Dominion' from time to time and i agree, PNP gives you so many more options and choices: you can go anywhere...


----------



## Commonmind (Nov 23, 2007)

PnP: Pen and Paper (an acronym used to describe games such as Dungeons and Dragons)

Role playing games in the virtual space are not traditionally role playing, in any way shape or form. The term is a bit of a misnomer in that respect. Even in some MMO environments, where individuals will immerse themselves in the world in which they are playing and the characters they've created, their actions are still defined by a linear path and the choices they make are predestined, meaning they are not so much playing a role as acting out the characters personality - pontificating, if you will.

The true role playing experience is only found in the pen and paper setting, and there's likely never going to be a game developed in the virtual space that will emulate that experience. Neverwinter Nights did a decent job of it, putting the right tools in the hands of people who could create their own modules, but these modules are still heavily scripted and the players actions do not directly affect the outcome of the game. 

This is just my opinion, but a virtual experience that directly mimics the real experience of playing a table-top, pen and paper RPG is a very long way off. The concept of developing an application that changes dynamically with a player's disposition and choices is out of the scope of even the most savvy programmers; it's an idea that borders on the cusp of artificial intelligence, something we'll not see in our lifetimes.


----------



## Jamfke (Nov 23, 2007)

I agree.  However, they do seem to be heading in the right direction with the new title _Mass Effect_.  I caught the tail-end of a little ditty they did on Sci-Fi channel last night about it.  Looks promising.


----------



## Commonmind (Nov 24, 2007)

I'm about 20 hours into the game at the moment, and while it does elaborate on the ideas presented in Knights of the Old Republic - being able to choose your role, good or evil - it's still linear in the sense that there is only so much complexity inherent in the system. Despite the numerous choices presented to you, the outcomes of your actions remain relatively the same and most of the dialog choices remain rather superficial. For instance, I may choose to tell a quest giver to "Please, tell me more," or "Listen, I don't have time for this," and the response the person gives is the same. Or, another example, I may choose to solve an issue diplomatically or simply kill the individual causing the problem; unfortunately, beyond the immediate response of the party and witnesses of the incident there is no huge impact on the world around you - no true consequence, save gaining a few renegade points. 

It's definitely a step ahead, but it's still role-playing on rails.


----------



## vampress13 (Nov 24, 2007)

me and my bf pre-ordered it...and it killed my xbox 360, fried the harddrive, lost a coupl hundred hours of gaming..

i am soooo mad 
i was looking forward to playing it too..


----------



## VionesspXmoone (Nov 27, 2007)

I loved to play pen and paper D&D, I miss it very much.  When I first tried it right after high school I hated it, even though I didn't really give it much of a shot. I loved to look at all the books though, it was interesting. Finally, years later, reading a Forgotten Realms novel made me want to try it again. I no longer know anyone that plays (that I would want to play with), so i was stuck with finding a game I could play myself. I started playing Guild Wars, which I liked, even if not as much, but then my computer decided it hated me and out of nowhere refuses to play it.  My 8 year old was getting into it even. Anyone want a guild and hall? LOL It's of no use to me anymore, sadly.


----------



## JDP (Nov 28, 2007)

_***** JDP strides in wearing the robes of a Level 10 Magi, complete with itchy fake beard made of glued-together cotton wool balls and carrying a staff composed of an outrageous number of toilet roll innards. *****_


Oh, you're _discussing_ roleplaying. Don't mind me.


_***** Saunters out, trying to look casual. Gets his robe caught in the door. Twice. *****_


----------



## ice.monkey (Nov 29, 2007)

Commonmind summed it up pretty well. In a PnP RPG the players really can alter the storyline and the world they're playing in. The interaction amongst players and between the players and the GM and the consequences of this is something that can't be emulated with electronic 'RPGs'.

Now if someone created a site where a GM could build their own virtual world, populate it and create a story that players could join and the game is then run by the GM you'd get an online RPG.

PnP RPGs could use Philips' Entertaible and you'd then get the graphics, etc of e-RPGs with the traditional round-the-table PnP RPG.

I used to play a lot of PnP RPGs but found I just got too annoyed with the randomity of dice. Suddenly when with the rest of the game you've got freedom to choose and decide and do what you want, you suddenly pass that causality over to a cube (or a more multi-faceted lump of plastic) and leave it up to fate as to what happens next.

The original question of whether roleplaying makes game more enjoyable. It definately makes a PnP RPG more enjoyable! And it would definitely make an online/e RPG more enjoyable. But it won't make Monopoly more enjoyable or a plain old shoot-em-up.


----------



## Pravuil (Dec 2, 2007)

For me personally RP'ing is pointless in Mmorpg's such as WoW, but it is an asset in MUD's. Pnp rpg's are more to my liking, and with a proper GM who delivers a sufficient amount of description Pnp's are hands down an undeiniably satisfying experience. Combining this with a mature group of players and balanced part you have a night to remember, however there is a major problem with this. 1)Alot of Gm's do no describe as judiciously as they should. 2) Players tend to care more for where there character ends up and how kewl his items and stats are as oppossed to the role-playing element, which takes the basal principles and meaning out of pnp rpg's, and thus making it an understated experience for that player. 3) Most community's will attempt to correct a newer player once or twice in his actions before giving up on the individual just because that certain person is not fully informed of the rules. People need to be more helpful if they want to see there world expand. And finally, the most infamous concept that evokes bad taste to some when they hear the term "Pnp" 4) Hack and slash groups. If you have no incentive to learn the game and rp a bit then you are wasting your time on Pnp and Mmorpg's akin to WoW are obviously more your style. By playing pnp groups of hack-and-slash players not only waste there own time but also ruin other player's experiences and give Pnp a bad reputation that is not deserved.

It is all based on how creative you are, but online Mmorpg's brimming with graphics can be an intellectual and rewarding experience as well. Every scene and image invokes a myriad of words and suggests a certain feel, donates a certain texture to the depicted image. As a summary it is how much you are willing to donate to a game and what you desire to be merited with from a game.


----------



## Troo (Dec 13, 2007)

I'm not so sure. I've pretty much given up RPing on MMO "RP" servers because they seem wholly populated by "lol ur rping tht is so laem" or "omg what r u talking about?"

My particular favourite is "HAY WHAR IS TEH THING I NEED FOUR TIHS QUEST?"
"Have you tried reading the quest description?"
"WHAT?"

No. Give me pen and paper any day.


----------



## diamondwolf (Jun 10, 2008)

I know this topic is kind of dead but I have to say that I enjoy Role Playing on video games alot.

I am still holding onto Neverwinter Nights One and activly playing on a server there and I get a good role playing experience from it.

I can see where some folks are coming from though because the server I am on does have alot of players who just come on to see how fast they can level up and don't know how to role play.

I agree with what was said on the first couple threads though that role playing on a multiplayer server is like being part of an "interactive novel".

The world I play in set in the Dragonlance setting and I have read a few of the Dragonlance books and when I go into game to play I can see my character becoming the next Tanis Half-Elven or Gilthanus. (those are characters created by the authors of Dragonlance in case any were curious)

When RPG servers have a forum you can put your own character story on it's pretty cool too cause you can write about your character and that just enhances the "interactive novel" point. Now your character really lives in the world that is created by the server and a story is being written about your character.


----------



## Armadillo-002 (Jun 14, 2008)

The difference between an interactive novel and a RPG game is very little, they are pretty much similar, since you are playing the character in the game is a virtual version, and following the charcter as you read in a story, but use your imagination to see the characters.


----------



## JQH (Jul 26, 2008)

I'm definitely a table-top RPG enthusiast. I've played RQ3, D&D, Traveller and Paranoia amongst others.

Definitely prefereable to computer versions as in table-top  the players can influence the outcome - are expected to - but sometimes the GM has to be able to improvise on the fly!


----------



## Dave (Jul 26, 2008)

Commonmind said:


> The true role playing experience is only found in the pen and paper setting, and there's likely never going to be a game developed in the virtual space that will emulate that experience.


I don't agree at all. You are all wrong. I role play at STF- Star Fleet and it is in everyway the same as a pencil and paper game. I realise that this was not the kind of "game" you were thinking of, but that is because you are all playing the wrong kind of games


----------



## Commonmind (Jul 27, 2008)

At its basic level, as you said, it's still a pen and paper experience. I was obviously referring to an actual video game when I made that comment, and it's still a valid point. And unless you've been spying on me (weirdo), you don't know what kind of games I've been playing.


----------



## Dave (Jul 28, 2008)

No, I've not been spying on you, and although I quoted you, everyone here has said the same thing - I just wanted to point out that there is more on the Internet than video games. 

I don't see any reason why _D&D or Runequest or Traveller_ could not be transferred to a virtual game that would give exactly the same experience as on a table top. It's only that no one has tried, or that they don't think there is a market for it. In fact, would have thought it would be better to have all the dice throws and modifiers calculated for you - it would speed combat up. For the same reason, I much prefer the computer version of _Risk_ because you don't need to do all that adding up that you do on a board.

There are several problems with the video games you are discussing:

First, is that everyone needs to be playing live - now unless you can pick the people you are playing with (and maybe you can in some games) you are always going to get a few people who will not play in character, have to leave early, not be quite serious, not follow the rules. In real life those people would never even get to the table to play.

Second, is the restrictive nature of the games that has been mentioned. I've only played some very old DOS RPGs where you had to complete all the tasks in a precise exact order, not like real life would be at all. I've found that things such as _Prince of Persia_ on the Playstation are the same. I'm sure that modern games must be better than that and give more freedom, but it is one of the reasons I've never played more of them. I've played _Runescape_ online with my son, but found it very repetitive after a while. And I've also had table-top GMs/DMs that thought the quest/Sim/scenario should be completed in that very restrictive way too, so it isn't just a problem with video games.


----------



## Overread (Jul 28, 2008)

Dave - I think seeing a real strong RPG game on the computer is something we might not see for a very long time (the current trend in games is certainly not indicative to this) as such a game would require a lot of work building the game world and its workings which most developers are not willing to spend time on.
Neverwinter nights  did try this and I gather that as a multiplayer game with a DM it did work well!

I agree though that online it is a mixed bunch - worst thing is the non-readers when you play in a forum type environment - that really gets tricky when they make a post which is clear that they have not read what is going on and do something really odd that just throws the game into confusion - but then again when someone fails a key roll in a cave and causes a cave-in which kills the whole party in a traditional game - well that can end things too (silly dice gods not liking me!)

There are very few Video games that are really good RPG experiences which are not very restrictive in play - infact only Baldurs Gate and Baldurs Gate 2 (continuation of the firsts story) come to mind - many quests have alternate routs to follow and are optional though the core story driven quests have a defined outcome (essentail to drive a story - unless one is willing to make a very big game)


----------



## Troo (Jul 28, 2008)

Dave said:


> I don't see any reason why _D&D or Runequest or Traveller_ could not be transferred to a virtual game that would give exactly the same experience as on a table top. It's only that no one has tried, or that they don't think there is a market for it.



Vampire: the Masquerade got turned into the rather excellent Vampire: Bloodlines. As I recall it sold pretty well, but they had to drastically alter what Disciplines did to get them working in a gameworld. They put a lot of thought in, though, and even Disciplines such as Auspex turned out very handy in-game - just not in the same way that they are handy in Tabletop.

On the other hand there was the execrable Shadowrun PC game, which was a load of old arse.

Back when I were a wee nipper there was also a brilliant Call of Cthulhu PC game called Prisoner of Ice. San loss for anyone dumb enough to play it at 3am with all the lights off


----------



## Commonmind (Jul 28, 2008)

Dave said:


> No, I've not been spying on you, and although I quoted you, everyone here has said the same thing - I just wanted to point out that there is more on the Internet than video games.
> 
> I don't see any reason why _D&D or Runequest or Traveller_ could not be transferred to a virtual game that would give exactly the same experience as on a table top. It's only that no one has tried, or that they don't think there is a market for it. In fact, would have thought it would be better to have all the dice throws and modifiers calculated for you - it would speed combat up. For the same reason, I much prefer the computer version of _Risk_ because you don't need to do all that adding up that you do on a board.
> 
> ...



You're missing the point. I'm not talking about the type of game you're referring to. I know these types of games exist as I play them myself. What I'm talking about, that I find to be an unlikely reality, is a completely isolated experience that emulates PnP Role Playing. 

You can go on if you'd like, to your heart's content, but the simple fact is we're already in agreement when it comes to the point you're trying to make. I think what you've done here is found a way to present an argument you felt you needed to get off your chest, but unfortunately there's nothing we're saying that is in direct contradiction to what you are.


----------



## Dave (Jul 28, 2008)

No, I don't have anything in particular to get off my chest. 

There have been many other points of view expressed in this thread, and I was responding to those. I only quoted you because I felt it encapsulated the whole, but I don't disagree with anything you have said. I'm just saying that I don't think it is impossible to make a virtual game that would emulate a PnP game. The reason it has not been done is not because it is not possible. More likely, the reason is as Overread said, just too difficult for developers and not worth their while.

I would play one if it existed.


----------



## Commonmind (Jul 28, 2008)

I never said it was impossible; I stated it's unlikely we'll see something that emulates that experience to any degree within our lifetimes. I'm not talking about rudimentary role-playing here, I'm talking about a game that changes dynamically with the player -- an experience that can change in so many ways that its possible outcomes would be infinite and therefore immeasurable. 

Programming is still finite and static. Despite the existence of advanced algorithms which can relegate how AI reacts to you within the game space, changing to conform to decisions which the player makes, the possibility of building a program which can literally react to every perceivable choice an individual can make is a possibility that will not be realized any time soon.

Give 20 people a box with no noticeable seams, no lock and no visible means of entry. Explain to them that inside the box is an item which will change their lives in ways which they've never imagined. Ask them to open the box...

Of those 20 individuals, several may assume the change is negative, others positive, meaning we now have to change the experience to suit those decisions. But then we have to delve deeper. Of those individuals who chose to open the box, we now need to allow them the freedom of choosing how they will do so. Because if you're truly creating an open experience, you cannot give the player constraints.

Let's say for the sake of argument we have a bit of Schrodinger's Cat going on here and 10 of the 20 individuals will open the box, believing it will have positive affects on their lives. Of those 10, one chooses to throw the box very hard into the ground -- the program needs to accommodate that possibility. Let's say another decides he/she will bring the box to a friend who knows how to deal with mystical items, including opening boxes that seem as if they cannot be opened. Another tries to bite it open, another chooses to drill a hole in the box, another uses a magical spell to create an opening from which to extract the item. And maybe our trusty friend Crazy Eddie decides to create a rift in space-time to travel within the box, to view its contents before deciding how best to approach opening it -- and in the end he decides to open another wormhole-like portal, connecting the interior of the box to a location thousands of feet under the ocean, destroying the box, and himself, with the sudden increase in interior pressure. 

The variables are endless. We also must consider the fact that the item must be different for every individual, because each individual's life must be different and therefore will change in relativity to those differences. Not only that, but let's say of the 50% that decided to open the box, 50% of them are evil, and another 50% of them received items which would help them achieve their goal of world domination -- but what is the item, and how will it help them, and how will that affect the world? Will it be nuclear or political? Will it be a weapon, and of what ilk? I'm sure you get my point by now...

Modern games are built on certain definable probabilities. Those probabilities must be near endless -- and thus indefinable -- to accommodate the type of experience I was referring to. I have hopes that we'll see this type of organic programming one day, it's just unfortunate I'll never get to see it in action.


----------



## Dave (Jul 28, 2008)

I see why we are at cross-purposes now. I'm thinking of still having a real live person within the game as the GM/DM. You are thinking of having an AI running the game. I agree, that is never going to happen in our lifetimes, we just don't have anything that can emulate a human to that degree.

What you suggest would be something fantastic though? A little like 'The Matrix'.


----------



## Commonmind (Jul 28, 2008)

That may have been my fault for not being more clear in my original reply.

And it would be 100% awesome.  Here's to hoping we get close before I make out my bucket list.


----------

