|
|
|
May 10th, 2007
04:31 pm - Immersion Links and Immersive Director Stance
There has been various discussion on the topic of immersion in the past few months. I don't have a big point here, but I thought I'd throw in a smattering of links and thoughts that I've had.
First of all, it is an ambiguous term. Moyra Turkington has some good material on the different behaviors it is applied to. She describes one as "Impassioned Play", while another as "Play as Other". Her posts are here:
Abandoning Immersion (November 2006)
Covering the Bases (November 2006)
Cognitive vs. Impassioned Play (November 2006)
Getting in the Cockpit (November 2006)
There are also some older threads to mention:
"Indie RPGs, BDSM, and Anarchy" started by Plume on RPGnet (January 2006)
"Immersion Thoughts" started by Judd on RPGnet (February 2006)
"Immersion or Attention" started by Kyle Aaron on theRPGsite (September 2006)
The latter was a response to my August roundup of Immersion Links. Stuart also posted a thread on Story Games Immersive Story, RPGs, and Puppetry at around the same time (Aug 2006).
Lastly, there was an intriguing poll on RPGnet, "PC on PC Murder" (September 2006). The question was "Should a GM intervene when a PC on PC murder is about to occur?" -- and two options were given for answers: "The GM should intervene." and "Let them kill each other!" The majority answer (69 to 52) was to let them kill each other. I commented on this last, referring to my post on "Mother May I", Goals, and Meaning. I explained my vote again intervention as follows: For me, the GM is not a policeman who is supposed to tell the players what they can and can't do with their characters. In most games, the GM already controls the whole rest of the world. The players should work this out among themselves. Now, if the group wants to discuss it and agree not to have any PC-vs-PC violence, that's fine.
But I don't think a single player can simply say "I don't like that, that's not fun for me" to get whatever he wants. The players should respect each others' views, but this goes both ways. By default, if it's a game with lethal violence, then the player should be prepared to have his PC be killed. Obviously this is for the most part this issue is split down the middle, and either way of play is acceptable.
On the larp.eu forums, there was a post "Immersion vs Simulation" (by Daniel Bonvoisin, translated from the French by Fabien Vanvarembergh). The two are often conflated, such as in Petter Bøckman's larp adaptation of the Threefold Model where he substituted "immersionism" for "simulationism". In the short essay, though, Daniel emphasizes the difference between the two -- of acting something out within the diagesis (i.e. the fiction or imaginary space) versus talking meta-game to resolve it.
Immersive Director Stance?
One of my comments on the PC murder thread was that immersion is not necessarily contradictory with control of the background (aka Forge director stance). I offered the following example to illustrate, in the context of a tabletop game: Player: "Good plan. I'll head down over to that bakery across the street. You stand over by the mailbox outside and drop in a letter when you're ready."
vs.
Player: "Good plan." (to GM) "What's on the street? Is there any public places that I can go to?"
GM: (consults notes) "Sure, probably. What are you looking for?"
Player: "I'd like to see if there's someplace I could wait for him to give me the signal."
GM: "Let's see. There's a hairdresser's, a bookstore, and a bakery."
Player: "OK. Is there anything outside the bakery, like a wastebasket or sign."
GM: "Sure, there's a mailbox."
Player: "Great." (to other player) "I'll head down over to that bakery across the street. You stand over by the mailbox outside and drop in a letter when you're ready." So the second includes an extensive meta-game Q&A just to get trivial details. For many people, the Q&A is more jarring to immersion than taking the authority to say what is there. If one cares about the stances, it's an interesting question whether this is in-character (i.e. Forge actor) stance, director stance, or both.
|
February 20th, 2007
11:19 am - GM's Role in Internal Drama
I'm having some issues catching up. A few weeks ago there was an RPGnet thread started by Tony Lower-Basch, [Craft] GM's role in internal drama. A response I particular noted was Robert Ahrens' post on page 5, where he identifies three techniques from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Let's say we're playing Buffy and Buffy is going through an internal conflict about whether she trusts Josh enough to go on a date with him after what happened with Angel at the end of Season 2.
As GM, one obvious "bang" I can write is to have Josh come up to Buffy and say, "Okay, it's now or never -- either you go on a date with me or I'm never talking to you again." But that's incredibly boring.
Moreove, it's not typically what happens in an episode of Buffy.
Technique: Give 'em space.
What's more likely is that there is a scene where Buffy gets to have an inconclusive interaction with Josh. A scene with a lot of ums and ers and Whedonesque dialogue where -- get this -- basically nothing gets resolved.
Now I think this is incredibly importatnt because it's basically the antithesis of the current thinking about Bang-driven play. Right? I mean, a Bang is supposed to have multiple, distinct outcomes which are driven by player decisions. But, IMHO, it's easy as a GM to get sucked into Banging all the life out of a story by depriving it of any quiet moments. If Josh is introduced in one scene and Buffy decides not to go on a date with him in the next scene and resolves her tension ... then it's not much of a story.
In roleplaying, nothing is real until it happens in play, at the table. I think we're all familiar with that phenomenon. But sometimes we forget that, for people playing in Actor/Avatar stances, a good chunk of "what happens" at the table is actually happening inside. And that can be a good thing.
Technique: Get 'em talking.
After Buffy's wishy-washy inconclusive scene with Josh, what's likely to happen next? (Other than an unrelated demon attack for pacing purposes?) Right. It's time to have a chat with Willow.
What's nice about this stage is that it doesn't have to be the GM helping here. If Willow's played by another player at the table then it's totally time for them to get into some dialogue about the situation and Buffy's down-ness. If Willow's player is doing his or her job right, then s/he will link the discussion back to other plot threads which are in play.
"What's up, Buff? I can't help noticing that in that fight you weren't quite as 'Grrr! Arrgh!' as you usually are. What's -- Oh! You're still thinking about Josh, aren't you?"
EDIT: The ideal development of this technique is for Willow to give Buffy some advice for her conflict. Now Willow is suddenly invested in that conflict too, because if her advice leads Buffy to further tragedy (as it inevitably will) then her status and her friendship with Buffy are both on the line. And if the advice is driven by a personal inner conflict of Willows then ... well, then I'd say your group is firing on all cylinders at this point.
Remember, even in a high my-guy character authority game you can still have a lot of input into each other's sub-plots and personal development. You just do it through the medium of playing your character.
Technique: My thesis is mimesis.
This one's very common, and I think it works well. It's also a bit more of a call-to-action than the last two, which are mainly about creating some space in the game rather than rushing to conclusion.
This technique presents the PC with a mirror of their external conflict -- as enacted by a mixture of other PCs and NPCs. The conflict-PC is then called on to act to help resolve the mirror-conflict, from which both we (as audience) and they (as conflictor) learn more about their conflict, and also about the mirror-conflict itself.
Example: In another subplot, that gay-footballer-guy from Season 2 asks Buffy and Xander for advice: He really, really likes this other guy on the team and he thinks he's gay, but he doesn't want to come out to him in case he's wrong and he gets pilloried by the team.
So, Buffy, what do you think? Is it worth the risk? Should I trust this guy?
This struck a chord in me since it is all quite similar to stuff I did in my Buffy games. I have a lot of material on that from the three years it ran, but much of it is still uncoherent notes to myself and my co-GM Bill rather than postings.
Now, with my player set, talking about relationships happened pretty naturally. What I thought was good was that the game was set up such that relationship talk naturally merged in with the rest of the game plot talk. We all made fun of Liz's character Chip for always falling in love with the villain (or at least morally ambiguous figure), but it made for great play. Also, say, the Season Two villain was the ex-boyfriend of Cynthia's character Roberta. (Roberta had previously been fond of saying, "I know an asshole when I sleep with one.")
One point was that we rarely had an obvious plot device centered solely on a personal subplot. (Though there were a few, like Dot's being split into two halves.) Primariliy, though, we tied the personal subplots into the main plots, and gave space and attention to play them out. My general principle is to throw in a lot of material, and something will come out of it. For example, in one episode everyone switched bodies. There wasn't a particularly pointed pattern to the body-switching, but it gave a lot of material for play. At the same time, Dot's parents showed up and (in romantic comedy fashion) they tried to keep up appearances for them as if everyone wasn't body-switched. The point was that there could easily have been many other patterns of body-switching which would have worked just as well, just with very different implications.
For this approach in general, the GM does not take detailed actions as a part of internal drama, but rather fosters general conditions for it to thrive.
|
August 30th, 2006
12:39 am - Immersion Links
So there has been some discussion of immersion lately. I haven't been referencing Kuma's Elsewhere in a while, which is a shame. He has been posting brilliant stuff there.
See first his AGE Model Wiki for general AGE Model stuff. I've just belated added this to my RPG Theory page. He's had a few recent posts on immersion:
"The Forces of Immersion" (August 11, 2006)
"Fostering Immersion" (August 18, 2006)
In the former, he references Allen Varney's article for the Escapist, "Immersion Unexplained".
Also, Thomas Robertson has made July 2006 his Immersion topic, see the archive of July on his blog:
July 2006 on "Musings and Mental Meanderings"
Lastly, there's a Story Games thread started this week by Stuart Robertson, titled "Immersive Story, RPGs, and Puppetry". He references my essay, "Immersive Story" -- picking up in particular on the puppetry analogy, and specifically identifying more traditional RPGs like D&D as more immersive and indie narrativist RPGs as less immersive.
This is a common disconnect that I have with people. My experience had been that traditional play -- particularly D&D -- is not at all character-immersive. There's typically a lot of chatter around the table about cheetos, dice, and other topics. There is usually a fairly explicit metagame direction: i.e. there is an obvious "adventure" which is prepared, and the expectation to pick up on that as the task to pursue.
My experience has been that highly immersive play is seen as problematic in most traditional RPGs. Immersively played characters will frequently break the rules: by splitting the party, by questioning other PCs, and by failing to follow the meta-game cues for the direction of the adventure. In the past, I've had multiple fights with the GM because my character went off to do something which broke the assumptions of the adventure. The stereotypical case is when an NPC approaches the PCs with a job offer. A player who suggests refusing the offer is quickly labelled a troublemaker.
This is about what I call "character-immersion" (what James Wallis called "Mask Play"), but Brian makes good points that immersion is a broader concept than that. For example, immersion in video games that Varney talks about is quite different. He suggests the immersion in general refers to the internalization of gamespace.
I don't have a whole lot of analysis at this point -- mostly I'm just pointing to the good stuff by Brian and Thomas.
|
February 9th, 2006
10:11 pm - Why does the Amber crowd like diceless play?
A particular question that I'd like to answer here is ![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) adamdray's question in comments to his post "System Does Matter". He originally wondered, "How cool would the Amber DRPG be if it didn't rely so much on trust? How much fun would the Amber community have if they had a set of rules that supported them better?" After I described my AmberCon NorthWest experiences, he asked: "What do you think it is that the Amber crowd likes about Diceless play?"
Before answering, though, I want a brief roundup of recent talk on immersion, which may be tangentially related. ewilen has his post on "Situations and Stories" suggests that immersive-leaning players take up a combination of "PC proactivity" and "PC magnetism" rather than Forge-style "protagonism". eyebeams has his post on "Food is the first thing. Morals follow on!" looking at immersion versus narrativism in light of Stanislavski and Brecht. Lastly, Jonas Barkå collects together a bunch of RPGnet thread links in "Immersion on RPGnet".
But to answer Adam's question:
I think the key draw of Amber Diceless as a system is that it has a much larger fraction of direct fictional description. That is, most words spoken at the table are descriptive language about what is happening within the game-world. There's still a lot of false starts, take-backs, and meta discussion, but less so than most other tabletop games. There is often a lot of misunderstanding about the idea of "system taking back seat" or being "transparent". The system (in the sense of way of doing things) is still an important influence on play. Usually this means there are not a lot of words spoken about the mechanics at the table.
Why would anyone want that? Well, in principle I think that it makes for a more richly described fiction, which some people prefer aesthetically. I note that the same thing is true of Olle Jonsson's Jeep-style freeforms and Scandanavian larp. In the extreme, there are some games where everything done is 100% in character (though there is a briefing and debriefing). This greatly limits what can happen in the game, but within those confines what happens is very richly described.
Other games often admit more metagame talk at the table, which affects the descriptive bits but does not directly describe anything in the fiction. I was just listening to Matt Snyder's Nine Worlds actual play on the drive home, for example. For a faster read, though, you could also take a look at lordsmerf's sample of Capes over IRC. Note that the product of game-play is the whole text, including both IC and OOC. Since this was over IRC, that is the entire game. Unlike most forms like theater, literature, or film, a lot of what is happening doesn't directly describe fictional events.
On the Forge, play is often described as the process of negotiating statements into the Shared Imagined Space. However, some techniques handle negotiation with a minimum of time, words, and effort. In particular, I think that ownership is a key concept. Ownership streamlines the process of negotiation. If I have ownership of something, that means that I know clearly what I can say and be assured that it will be accepted into the fiction. Ownership doesn't have to be absolute -- there can be exception cases. However, the more often the exception cases, the more time is eaten up.
I've been meaning to get back to my incomplete Game Chef design entry -- Morpho Londinium. One of the key concepts of that game is that abilities are always 100% reliable. If I use my Persuasion, I will always persuade you. However, there is the possibility that I will lose the ability after I use it. I was thinking of this as another way to streamline negotiation.
|
February 3rd, 2006
12:44 am - Clarity of Narration vs Dialogue
OK, so I'm pondering about narration vs dialogue -- after Keith Senkowski's rant against actors, Thor Olavsrud's "Immersion, Accepted Wisdom, and Internal Conflict", and an RPGnet thread on "Story Before Rules - What's your opinion?". Here by dialogue I mean first person: the player speaking what a character says and to some degree describing what the character attempts. By narration I mean third-person describing of events in the game-world. Technically describing what your character is doing is also narration -- but I'm including it here as close to first-person.
In "Cutting up the rpg pie", Emily wrote: Why all this position identification with the character? Why, when there is so much to author out there, do we keep wrapping up our authority into people shaped packages? I want to know is this just habit? Is it coincidence that it's been an end point for two divergent strains of the same form? I think there are reasons built within the form for it. These are much the same reasons that theater tends to feature a lot of first-person action and dialogue; and little narration. Humans can be good narrators, but they're also very good at portraying humans (arguably better than, say, describing car chases).
Now, I've always been in favor of strong, clear rules. I've done acting and I use what I learned in my games, but I'm still relatively introverted and a geek. I prefer a formal, explicit system of playing to the freeform socializing of a party. In the past, my most popular published rules were the Hero System; my strongest voiced dislikes have been Amber Diceless and various White Wolf games. This has been an important reason for my favoring of character ownership. "Player A controls Character X" is a very clear rule. What player A says, Character X says or does.
In contrast, most social conflict systems put this in a sea of subjective decisions. There are typically vague stakes which are negotiated between the players during the game. Then these are rolled at some unclear odds. And then for a period of time after, the play of the influenced character has to be judged against the stakes. They allow a type of power which might not otherwise be available, but the power is fuzzy.
Fuzzy rules have the pitfall that they tend to reward aggressive, dominant play. The player who is most willing to toe the line of the social contract, and argue her point, gets the most power. On the other hand, first-person dialogue also has the potential to allow certain players to dominate the spotlight -- the ones most active and flamboyant. (Matt Machell calls these "alpha players" in comments on Keith's blog.) My usual solution to this is to give the "beta players" strong and clear qualities which put them in the spotlight.
Systematically, this can be done by a niche. For example, in our Buffy game, Cynthia and to some degree Heather are the less alpha-y players as far as dialogue. We decided that Cynthia's PC was to be the CEO of the company that the PCs created, and later was further made the appointed guardian and controller of an interdimensional nexus. Heather's PC is a kick-ass hacker and super-powerful witch (though the magic isn't quite as clear as I would like).
It can also be done systematically through strict turn-taking, as in Polaris and My Life With Master -- two games we played in the Buffy group. Every player has to have a spotlight scene in each round of play.
This can also be done through the game situation. For example, in my Amber game at ACNW, I had one player who made (prior to the convention) a PC who was a mousy girl who wanted to be a palace handmaiden. The other PCs were Random, Prince of Amber; Lorna, captain of the palace guard; and Vialle, secret trump master and future Queen of Amber. Here's clearly a non-alpha player, who I learned later was a teenage girl. So in the situation that I set up, her and her choices were at the center of the adventure. (The macguffin was a "primal stone" that she was unknowingly attuned to.)
Going back to dialogue/first-person and narration/third-person. To avoid spotlight hogging, I think it's important to give players clear, solid power. The key, I think, is to not make it dependent on fuzzy/subjective rules. The power should be absolute and dependable or at least predictable by the player. For example, Drama Points in Buffy in principle allow plot twists, but that isn't a guard against dominance -- because it has a high threshold of aggressiveness to declare a plot twist and put down the point. I think either first-person or third-person power works as long as it follows these principles.
|
February 1st, 2006
06:09 pm - Don't Abandon Dead Characters!
More on character death here. I do feel a little in the dark here, since character death has rarely appeared in the games I've played in and game-mastered. However, I think it is an important topic. In the last post, ladylakira had a great contribution which I want to expand on. She wrote: Thought to myself: would I find a random death (for which I was marginally prepared knowing something about statistics and the way dice fall) which occurred to my character fun or frustrating?
Response to self: I would find it frustrating if that death had no impact. I think that this is absolutely key to my enjoyment as well. In several of the character deaths that I've seen, people were perfectly willing to play in-character reactions to a PC in trouble -- but as soon as the character died they dropped out of character, and would only address the player with comments. I suspect this is related to Meg's point in "I will not abandon you" does not equal "Nobody gets hurt".
Anyhow, let me try out some actual play here. One of the better "deaths" was the death of Golden Boy, my solar-powered Superman-esque character in a dramatic style Champions campaign (using Storypath cards as a house rule). That death was secretly planned by me and the GM. I was going to take a brief turn at game-mastering the group, and we agreed that Golden Boy should die -- though with no body found in the classic tradition of comics. During the adventure, there was a giant pile of explosives on a boat at a dock in the city. Unable to safely disarm it, Golden Boy piloted the boat out into the middle of the river, and just as he was getting a safe distance away the boat exploded. What made this interesting was that Tori's speedster (whose name I just forgot) was in love with Golden Boy. A few session later I ran an adventure which was about trying to bring him back, and ended with a guest hero sacrificing his life to bring him back.
The important thing here is that follow-through is vital. If you make a point of withdrawing, ignoring the death as soon as it occurs, then that makes for a bad experience.
Final caveat, though, which I commented in "Fair Play"... Overall, I agree that death and violence is overstated in RPGs. Emma Wieslander, in an essay for the Solmukohta book Beyond Role and Play, has an essay called "Positive Power Drama" in the fourth chapter, Openings (a link to the PDF is on the left in the chapter contents). It is essentially a call to have more games that centered on positive emotions rather than negative. i.e. About healing rather than killing; about sex and love rather than rape; about support rather than abuse. Anyhow, this is about death and how to deal with it, but there's a lot of good play that can be done without death at all.
|
January 26th, 2006
04:17 pm - Experiential Roleplay and Stories
So Brand Robins' mentioned me with regards to Simulationism and story in a post on "Naturalism, the Story of the Day, and RPGs". There, he was mostly commenting on Vincent Baker's push for games where the players don't identify and act through a single character. Brand suggests that character role-playing "part of our cultures heritage of oral storytelling, and so being able to do that in the oral storytelling medium of RPGs only makes sense." I'm also thinking of Ron Edwards' comment that traditional role-players have a damaged sense of story.
But first, Brand's comment regarding me was: Simulationism, for example, can make great stories -- but Sim is more often concerned with making great experiences than great stories. It is more important that you get to do the thing and feel the thing in the moment than the construction of the story. That you got to climb the wall and rescue the princess is the point, not what the climbing and rescuing do in narrative structure terms, much less in moral statement terms*.
...
* Though it is worth noting that John Kim, and others, have pointed out that reflection upon experience based play like this can lead to celebration/reflection/meaning in a way not dissimilar to the anthropological understanding of myth-mysteries, so hey.... I'm a little stumped by this one. So Brand uses the term "experiential", which I think is a good one -- I used it for my essay "Story and Narrative Paradigms in RPGs".
However, I find the example problematic. Obviously, the "point" can't to rescue the princess. The princess is fictional. Also obviously, the "point" can't be to "create theme" or "address premise" -- because again, those are qualities of the fiction. (Although some people perhaps might argue that... I'm not sure.) The point in a larger sense has to be about how the fiction affects the actual participants. The point in a smaller sense is stylistic or technique issues -- i.e. how do we go about affecting the participants?
So, to take a narrow example, suppose you want to scare the participants of a horror game. Now, you could approach this using literary structures. So you read some horror stories, analyze their structure, and put together a game which emulates that. Alternatively, another person might talk to people about haunted houses and carnival rides, how they are set up, and create a larp which utilizes some of those techniques. These are different approaches to the same end. The latter is simply more immersive/experiential rather than literary in its techniques.
On a limited forum, Alex Fradera gave his interpretation of Edwards' point on the affect of traditional role-playing games on people: it creates patterns of thinking that are so pervasive that for a single narrow subfield - the creation of story, as widely understood - problems occur. That's my read. I'm not going into the interpretation, but rather the basic point. I had agreed that traditional role-playing set up habits which were bad for playing other games, such as Primetime Adventures. However, I have not observed any larger effect. Outside of the context of playing RPGs, role-players seem fine at stories. If you look at typical fiction by role-players, it's bad -- but typical fiction by any member of population is bad.
For example, I've read various RPG session summaries both for Forge-inspired games and for more traditional games. If there was a marked, pervasive effect of traditional RPGs, then you would presumably be able to distinguish their write-ups. The written stories should be markedly worse because of their hampered grasp on story in general. However, I think Ron actually pegged this when he said that such retold transcripts don't show the difference (an insight from his Narrativism essay).
What this is getting back to is limits of vocabulary and theory. I think that experiential game design is being held back by judging it on the standards of story. There are too many pointers which say roughly "If you don't follow literary narrative structure, then your game will be meaningless, with no point except the fiction itself." I think we need to work more on vocabulary to talk about games as meaningful creative works distinct from stories.
|
November 16th, 2005
11:45 am - On Immersion
There have been a variety of posts on immersion of late, and it is a topic which has been neglected for a while after some good discussion a while ago. The threads I'm thinking of include: Now, in the past year, I've seen some excellent discussion of immersion among larpers -- from my trip to Knutepunkt 2005 in Norway, and my experience with Shifting Forest's Parlor Larps series. I was particularly interested in Olle Jonsson and Tobias Wrigstad's "The Upgrade" -- and they have an interesting theory document at Jeepform, Freeform and Terminology.
The development of system and theory about immersion is lacking, I think, in part because of a lack of central forum. Now, depending on the person and the circumstances, different techniques may help immersion. For example, some people may be pushed away from the character by communicating only in and as the character. For them, having a larger view helps their vision of the character and her environment. I recall in particular discussion with Kevin Hardwick on rgfa. He said that his immersion was often aided by the GM telling him emotional reactions, such as "That makes you really angry". For me (and several others on rgfa), this has always been an immersion-killer.
Elliot gave another example of technique -- GM: "What do you do?" Player: "I see a man." This is Director-stance by Forge terminology, but it is also strictly from the point-of-view of the character. In my experience, a great many people find it an aid to immersion to be able to take such Director-stance action rather than always having to wait for the GM to define all external facts.
However, I certainly don't think that what aids immersion is random or patternless. There are many commonalities, and I think some discussion could easily help this.
On ewilen's blog, Mark Woodhouse commented:
There doesn't seem to be any strong consensus even among self-identified immersives as to exactly what is or isn't a 'transparent' mechanic, though. Beyond some very basic parameters - I am thinking in particular the notion that the mechanical representation of an act should have some easily grasped in-character analogue - it has generally been a problem of catering to individual taste. Further, many immersive-priority players claim that the 'good mechanics' problem has already been solved within reasonable tolerances - honestly, we're not going to get significantly better physics-engine designs without brutal handling-time problems, and we're unlikely to get better transparency of system without consistency-of-world problems.
I'm in total disagreement about this latter point. Traditional RPGs like D&D and Exalted make virtually no effort at physics, nor are they interested in it. It is the rare exception which puts in any coherent thought to physical modelling, and those are usually special-case mechanics like falling. They also are far from transparent, often concentrating very deeply on non-analogous and time-consuming dice processes.
In short, I don't feel that they are designed for immersion or realism at all.
Edited to add: I don't mean to imply a necessary link between immersion and realism here. I'm just mentioning these two because Mark mentioned both.
I think this is a field which is still being approached. Larp systems are still in an early stage, with the first published systems (White Wolf's MET, Cthulhu Live) appearing in mid-nineties. There have been some innovative work of late, such as the Parlor Larps series. Among tabletop games, there are some systems which arguably attempt to promote immersion such as Amber, Everway, or Chad Underkoffler's PDQ system. However, the efforts at tranparency here have a long way to go, in my opinion.
|
|
|
