The spicey die roll - Middel Earth (home brew) Sim
Silmenume:
Hi Dave,
I'm fairly certain we are on the same page with the “should” thing and the “Fact” thing. I did follow your link.
Quote from: David Berg on January 01, 2010, 10:53:14 AM
I was trying to uncover some breakdown of the moments of play by type of resolution*. Like, "I decided this, the GM decided that, we agreed here, rolled dice there, looked up attribute ratings then" etcetera. I thought maybe we could figure out something interesting about how these techniques all work together. That now seems both vague and ambitious, though.
I wish I could offer you the data points you're looking for, but that game session was several years ago. I couldn't even tell you the name of the NPC that my character broke or even the name of the town. I will say that the way system was used that night was typical of how we usually play. Having looked at that illustrations that you linked to, I will say that both our methods of play are quite similar. I do agree, alas, that my description of the session of play I posted was vague but I am curious about your “ambitious” note. All in all this is a topic that I am quite interested in discussing – I've been trying to do so for years!
Quote from: David Berg on January 01, 2010, 10:53:14 AM
Quote from: Silmenume on December 29, 2009, 01:06:47 AM
At the end of that night's play we will have established/negotiated a whole multitude of SIS Facts which can then be chewed on long after the end of the game session where the players deduce and infer a great number of additional (proto?) facts.
Huh. I hadn't thought about that. Are you talking about group rehash, or just individual recollections?
Typically its a group rehash, and in my rough estimation about 30-40% of the game enjoyment. I also think it is a vital part of the long term game process in general. Our game style is what I call episodic where the scenario typically has a big climax and a definite conclusion. When the game ends there is lots of energy that needs to be bled off but also lots of questions that beg answering as well as inferences that want to be drawn out while all the details are still fresh in our minds. We ask each other questions about what each of us was trying to accomplish (this also works to smooth over any Social Contract Level issues) as well as propose ideas as to what we think the motives of the NPC's were. Most importantly, and most interestingly, we try and sort out what the implications of what transpired in the game were. If bad guy A had this information that means someone inside institution X must be rogue. Just recently Maglor was killed by Saruman. A player posted the following -
Quote
As the sky weeps for Maglor a great weight comes off my shoulders. If the sky doth weep for Maglor then "The Lady of Sorrow" hath moved the heart of Manwe. In his death Maglor is forgiven by the King of Valinor. Ambar meta I shall see Maglor again, when we gather at the feet of THE ONE.
The GM had described the weather as thunder and lightning both as mood and to make tracking difficult. The player quoted above took the circumstances married them with back story/Setting material and was able to make the proposal. Do we know that Manwe lifted the ban? No. But the player made a rather poetic case using the existing “facts” to propose another “fact.” The cleverness of stringing together such disparate pieces along with his manner of presentation count for allot in how we play. Granted this particular example was on a bulletin board, but it works the same both in game and in the post game debriefs.
Quote from: David Berg on January 01, 2010, 10:53:14 AM
I also think there's something to be said for a "show, don't tell" dynamic at play, where no stats or rolls are going to win the day without some action narration of convincing quality.
That is exactly how we play. Stats or rolls lend weight to action narration, but it is the action narration that opens the possibility for a roll. One cannot say, “I have persuasion at level 8, so I try and persuade the guard.” Rather the player must act out the persuasion effort in first person voice. Then the GM will either have the NPC react or have the player roll and then give the NPC reaction. If the effort is lack luster the player is going to take penalties while brilliance will earn bonuses in addition to the skills on the sheet. In practice the stat or the skill level is rarely mentioned unless the number is exceptional. Why? Because the stat or skill level is spice to the main player effort. If we are trying to wow the GM throwing numbers at him all the time is not going to be effective. Rather the stat or particularly the skill level is a short hand reminder to the GM that I have done spectacular things with this character using this skill in the past. IOW I am good with this so take that into consideration as well. But all this functions on an emotional level. Would me mentioning my skill level bring more weight to my efforts or will it be read as me using a crutch? All of us at the table want to see each other being clever and playing our characters. Using mechanics instead of thinking is seen as “wimping out.” Not only is it not rewarded frequently it simply does not succeed.
Quote from: David Berg on January 01, 2010, 10:53:14 AM
More concretely, you said one thing that have me some "non-optimal?" thoughts:
Quote from: Silmenume on December 29, 2009, 01:06:47 AM
I was irked that the GM wasn't responding to all these Charisma efforts of mine that are gift and birthrights of the Dunedain
As someone who wasn't there, I didn't know whether this was a case of:
"The GM's cheating!" or "The GM's ignoring my contribution, so I'm not empowered to play!"
or
"Wow, I thought that woud have impressed most incensed villagers. I guess these ones have some reason they're particularly pissed off." (or some other sound in-fiction logic)
Based on the rest of your account, I can guess that the latter was more the case, largely because of your group's shared priorities about stuff like sound in-fiction logic being really important. What do you think?
The question that was going through my mind at that time was why wasn't actions having any effect. I didn't expect the people to just fold, but it seemed that my efforts weren't influencing events at all. Which was strange because rarely in our game does something have full or conversely null effect. Part of this was I was frantic. I'm guessing, now, that the GM was playing out the moment for greater emotional impact. Remember the part about where what should happen does not always happen. If you note that my initial efforts were somewhat based on mechanics and less on actual first person action statements. I said, “I throw my presence out; I unveil myself.” That can be read as code for, “Hey I have a CHR of 22 and I'm using it to try and sway the people.” I said I spoke in Quenya, but I as the player did not actually articulate what I was attempting to say in Quenya. I didn't have to speak Quenya as a player, but I did need to communicate the ideas in first person which I did only in the third person and even then only the gist. It was not until I spoke in the first person, “Kneel, before a king” that things started happening.
I don't know if I was strung along for greater emotional impact, to keep me sweating as it were. I don't know if the GM was unimpressed with my efforts until that moment. Did the GM just plain forget to address the crowd would react as he was focused in so tightly on the rebel NPC and what decision the GM might make regarding killing a Dunedain? Like I said it troubled me at the time, but the flip side was when I “won” the elation and relief was all the greater because the emotional distance I traveled was greater. I went from despair to utter elation. If I was starting to weaken the crowd's resolve then I would not have been in the state of despair and fear from which I then emerged in jubilation. So who knows the answer on that one?
Gosh, I'm tired. I hope the latter part of this post makes some sense.
Happy New Year!
Best
Jay
David Berg:
Hi Jay,
I'm still mulling where to go with this... there are fun options aplenty, but I'm trying to see if I can focus in on a design issue here. Basically, I want to be able to tell other play groups how to find success of the type that your group and mine have enjoyed. The cartoons are an ongoing attempt at that. What are the keys, and how can they be communicated from text to players and then players to players?
So, before I continue in that direction, I just want to ask if that's cool with you.
Meanwhile, a few questions:
Do setting facts get firmly established during your postgame debriefs, or simply proposed as possible interpretations? I mean, if Maglor's dead and we're never going to see him again, one player suggesting that he's been allowed into heaven is kind of a special case. The GM can just go, "Might be true, might be false, who knows?" and it doesn't matter because it's still a cool way to look at things. It's more or less a player saying "An NPC can be perceived as doing this!" That's very different than the player saying, "An NPC does this!" and the GM agreeing either explicitly or implicitly (by not speaking up to the contrary). So, just for context, I'm curious about which you guys do.
As for the GM stringing you along for emotional impact: this is one of those tricky judgment calls, where the GM's role as impartial arbiter is so open that he has to fill in the gaps with something, and that's often borrowed from other fiction. In this case, the indeterminate nature of "how a whole bunch of angry peasants respond to a commanding guy of noble blood" allows ample leeway for pacing and tension of the suspense/action movie/novel variety. How necessary is it that the GM do this? How much of a tall order is it? I have some general thoughts on the matter, but I'm wondering if you have any thoughts based on this particular game.
Ps,
-David
Silmenume:
Hi David,
I apologize for the delay...
Quote from: David Berg on January 04, 2010, 10:19:57 AM
Do setting facts get firmly established during your postgame debriefs, or simply proposed as possible interpretations? I mean, if Maglor's dead and we're never going to see him again, one player suggesting that he's been allowed into heaven is kind of a special case. The GM can just go, "Might be true, might be false, who knows?" and it doesn't matter because it's still a cool way to look at things. It's more or less a player saying "An NPC can be perceived as doing this!" That's very different than the player saying, "An NPC does this!" and the GM agreeing either explicitly or implicitly (by not speaking up to the contrary). So, just for context, I'm curious about which you guys do.
Most of the time Setting facts are proposed as possible interpretations. Like you said, “'Might be true, might be false, who knows?' and it doesn't matter because it's still a cool way to look at things.” However, sometimes an idea that pops up in the debrief is given the imprint of “fact” and the world will hence forth reflect that fact. Occasionally the idea will show up sometime later during a play session without it having been given status as “fact” during the post game debrief. It's all very fluid about how this “out of game” talk ultimately effects the cannon. When the discussion starts closing in on specifics of a given scenario or character the GM will say something along the lines, “If we continue down this line this will count [in the game world].” IOW he's saying that we are actually entering into official role-playing (Exploring - using Forge parlance. Using Chris Lehrich's articles one would say that the GM is saying we are officially starting or entering into the ritual of role-play).
I should mention that we probably spend more time talking about the game than actually playing it. This is not meant to say that we don't play often or enough, but rather that soooooo much goes on during a game that sorting out what happened and more importantly what it means can go on endlessly. Mixed in with this is discussions about the source material and articles about the source material – of which there is much given that it is Tolkien. For example I read an article on Melkor relating to his psychology/character break down and shared it with the GM. Now the GM, if he likes it (which he did), has a deeper understanding of how Melkor thought (motivations and goals) as well as a richer insight into how he influenced the very fabric of Ea (Middle Earth). With this understanding the GM was then able to extend this new found knowledge into, say, how dark magics work and why (amongst many other venues of expression in and out of play).
I suppose this is obvious, but I'll say it anyway, our knowledge of Middle Earth is incomplete and we are always striving to learn and create more of said knowledge – both in and “out of play.”
Quote from: David Berg on January 04, 2010, 10:19:57 AM
As for the GM stringing you along for emotional impact: this is one of those tricky judgment calls, where the GM's role as impartial arbiter is so open that he has to fill in the gaps with something, and that's often borrowed from other fiction. In this case, the indeterminate nature of "how a whole bunch of angry peasants respond to a commanding guy of noble blood" allows ample leeway for pacing and tension of the suspense/action movie/novel variety. How necessary is it that the GM do this? How much of a tall order is it? I have some general thoughts on the matter, but I'm wondering if you have any thoughts based on this particular game.
I am rather at a loss by your question of, “How necessary is it that the GM do this?” I will offer some thoughts here, but I do not know if I am answering the question you are asking for I am not truly certain what exactly you are looking to illicit from me. So, after reading my response please feel free to guide me in the direction you wish me to explore with you if I have indeed missed the mark. As I read your question the core issue as I interpret it seems to me your interest as expressed by the word “necessary.” Is it “necessary” for the GM to make the game play experience interesting? Absolutely! To answer this question adequately, in this formulation, requires us to inquire about the very foundation of why we role-play at all. All three CA's presume that “an enjoyable time be had by one and all” as foundational. The expression of the three CA's pursue that end each in their own way using the Elements of Exploration to support their methodologies.
There appears to me, and I may be wrong so please let me know if I am indeed off the mark here, a presumption that the GM is an “impartial arbiter.” Why? The only CA where that might be argued is in Gamist play. That is certainly not the case in Narrativist play where the GM (even when the roles typically associated with the GM are distributed among the various players) is to aid in the digging out and posing of those difficult Premise questions. This cannot be done in an objective manner. One must be intimately involved with the play and the players to accomplish this. IOW one cannot stand out or above play but must rather be as deeply involved as the “non-GM” players are. Well, even more so the case in Simulationist play. If we go back to the old idea of role-play as jazz, then in Sim the GM is contributing as much to the developing and evolving melodies as any of the players. To extend this jazz analogy a bit (and I understand that analogies have their short comings) Nar play might be thought of as the process of the creation of a piece of composed music while Sim is the creative process of playing of jazz in the immediate present of the here and now. This is not to say Nar is not fun in the present of play but there is the goal of Story Now. Sim is in the moment of playing and creating in the immediacy of right here right now. In this ,the GM could be thought of as the first musician.
As an aside this is where people frequently miss the difference between Sim play and Exploration. Using the jazz analogy, Exploration would mean people are making noises using instruments. Sim means that players are using the structuralism of music theory to make music using said instruments. It is not random tootling, but the mindful process of using and experimenting with music theory as applied to a base melody using a shared group aesthetic.
Going back to your question of, “is this necessary?” I would ask the question, “how could it not be?” The art of it, as it were, is being able to balance so many needs at once without stopping play. How much of a tall order is it? A very tall order. It takes great skill to manage such a thing successfully and not all efforts are as successful as others.
I don't know I answered your questions in a reasonable fashion. Please let me know. I look forward to your reply.
Jay
David Berg:
Hi Jay,
I'll assume from your response that you're happy to ponder design implications with me.
I think you understood my questions perfectly, and your responses give me a lot to work with.
Quote from: Silmenume on January 31, 2010, 03:11:48 AM
When the discussion starts closing in on specifics of a given scenario or character the GM will say something along the lines, “If we continue down this line this will count [in the game world].”
Excellent. That sounds like an important procedure. If I were given a rulebook on how to play this game the way you guys play it, I'd want that to be in there.
Quote from: Silmenume on January 31, 2010, 03:11:48 AM
I should mention that we probably spend more time talking about the game than actually playing it. This is not meant to say that we don't play often or enough, but rather that soooooo much goes on during a game that sorting out what happened and more importantly what it means can go on endlessly. Mixed in with this is discussions about the source material
This also strikes me as vital to your style of fun. Having done a fair bit of this myself, let me see if I can sum it up:
During play itself, attention is kept largely on the immediate action. Sights, sounds, actions, etc. There are few pauses for explanation of the people, places, events and stories that are glimpsed only partially. When play finally ends, the players do what fans of any mysterious TV series do: they question, theorize, interpret and predict. "Why did that happen? Did it mean X? I bet Y is up to Z! Maybe when we go to A, we'll discover B!"
I've found that the energy to do this is particularly high when play-mode narrows perceptions even further (immersed in my character, I know only what he perceives), when the gameworld beyond play holds independent interest for the players (we're Tolkein fans!), and when play is a continuous campaign across many episodes (duh).
When these are all true, I find there's often an extra level of anticipation and eagerness to continue Exploring, and this winds up adding a lot to play.
So, again, a rulebook might be wise to work this in somehow. Or would it? How much can or should designers try to prompt formerly emergent behaviors? I can see two approaches:
1) Provide play rules that foster character POV. Present an inspiring Setting (maps, histories, fiction, web links, etc.). Provide a campaign-friendly play structure. Then, mention somewhere that talking about the game tends to add to the fun -- but don't fight for attention with this, leave it in the class of lower-priority game instruction. (There's only so many procedures and rules gamers will learn and remember, right?)
2) List in a prominent place in the instructions of how to play that "pre-game talk" and "post-game talk" are essential parts of the process. Make that impossible to ignore. Flesh it out with details on how to get the most out of such talks.
I really have no idea which would be more effective for what game. Help!
Quote from: Silmenume on January 31, 2010, 03:11:48 AM
Quote from: David Berg on January 04, 2010, 10:19:57 AM
As for the GM stringing you along for emotional impact: this is one of those tricky judgment calls, where the GM's role as impartial arbiter is so open that he has to fill in the gaps with something, and that's often borrowed from other fiction. In this case, the indeterminate nature of "how a whole bunch of angry peasants respond to a commanding guy of noble blood" allows ample leeway for pacing and tension of the suspense/action movie/novel variety. How necessary is it that the GM do this? How much of a tall order is it? I have some general thoughts on the matter, but I'm wondering if you have any thoughts based on this particular game.
. . . Is it “necessary” for the GM to make the game play experience interesting? Absolutely!
Well, let's just assume that the basic situation (will the peasants listen, or kill your friend?) is going to be at least somewhat fun and interesting, even if the GM adds little flourish. Is that a reasonable assumption? (See this post's P.S.!)
If so, my question is about the extra fun that the GM adds. Inspired by how tense scenes in thriller films play out, the GM strings you along! He watches you and sees your nervous energy build! Finally, he senses the time for resolution arrives! Do it now!
So that's the "extra" fun. How necessary is that?
My first thought is that:
1) Sometimes the GM does it just right. The more of that, the better.
2) Sometimes the GM doesn't bother. With strong fictional situations, that's okay.
3) Sometimes the GM tries, but doesn't do a very good job. That tends to be about as fun as #2.
Quote from: Silmenume on January 31, 2010, 03:11:48 AM
The art of it, as it were, is being able to balance so many needs at once without stopping play. How much of a tall order is it? A very tall order. It takes great skill to manage such a thing successfully and not all efforts are as successful as others.
So, this here is a major design problem, in my eyes.
Ron's made some points here (some to me in my Rat Island thread, some elsewhere) about how many games rely on such "secret, highly refined" GM skills to work at all. I completely agree that that's not desirable. I want GMs to be able to run my "realistic" Sim masterpiece without having PhDs in Responsive Dramatic Multi-Tasking Improv. Or, y'know, I want to give them those PhDs myself in short order.
I've played plenty of functional RPGs that have dodged this problem by changing the play experience, but none that have tackled it, keeping the play experience the same but providing tools for "extra" fun.
I've been tinkering with such tools. I have lots of minor helpers, but no brilliant workhorses. I wonder if anyone else has made progress along these lines?
Quote from: Silmenume on January 31, 2010, 03:11:48 AM
There appears to me, and I may be wrong so please let me know if I am indeed off the mark here, a presumption that the GM is an “impartial arbiter.” Why?
I didn't mean to say that that was the GM's only or primary role. I only mean to refer to what we agreed on this earlier in the thread: that the GM must appear to be impartially applying "what would happen" when called upon to arbitrate an outcome.
Beyond that, it's just a question of the required minimum amount of GM drama-infusion. Again, see the P.S.
Thanks,
-David
P.S. Most of my GMs have been pretty drama-sensitive. An excpetion is my friend Al. Coming from a significantly Gamist background, Al does his best to function as a computer when GMing. He determines "what would happen" as purely logically as he can, and then describes that outcome as accurately as he can. He never consciously does anything else. Yet, when logic won't fill in all the blanks, even he defaults to "keeping encounters at the edge of what the PCs can handle" and other basics of what makes for engaging fiction.
Maybe the world is full of GMs who botch drama badly enough to ruin "will the peasants listen, or kill your friend?" situations. But I've never seen one. (Though I have seen plenty who ruin it for other reasons!)
Silmenume:
Hi Dave,
I'm sorry that I did not directly respond to your question about pondering design implication, but you have deduced correctly. I am open to discussing such things. That being said we must bear in mind that the role of mechanics in Sim has not yet been teased out. Acknowledging this will help us from falling into the trap of treating resolution mechanics in Sim as Task Resolution mechanics – which they are most certainly NOT! I wish I could offer more direction as to their ultimate role, yet perhaps we may make some progress as we work through some thoughts.
Quote from: David Berg on February 01, 2010, 01:15:13 PM
During play itself, attention is kept largely on the immediate action. Sights, sounds, actions, etc. There are few pauses for explanation of the people, places, events and stories that are glimpsed only partially. When play finally ends, the players do what fans of any mysterious TV series do: they question, theorize, interpret and predict. "Why did that happen? Did it mean X? I bet Y is up to Z! Maybe when we go to A, we'll discover B!"
Indeed it is much like you describe, but you miss by half! This process goes on during our play as well – in fact it is the central engine. The key is that it all happens not from an objective stand point but rather from a restricted/limited/subjective point of view. IOW these questions and thought processes are restricted to that of our individual character's perspective.
I agree with your about your list of the three pre-conditions being vital the aforementioned process.
Quote from: David Berg on February 01, 2010, 01:15:13 PM
So, again, a rulebook might be wise to work this in somehow. Or would it? How much can or should designers try to prompt formerly emergent behaviors? I can see two approaches:
1) Provide play rules that foster character POV. Present an inspiring Setting (maps, histories, fiction, web links, etc.). Provide a campaign-friendly play structure. Then, mention somewhere that talking about the game tends to add to the fun -- but don't fight for attention with this, leave it in the class of lower-priority game instruction. (There's only so many procedures and rules gamers will learn and remember, right?)
2) List in a prominent place in the instructions of how to play that "pre-game talk" and "post-game talk" are essential parts of the process. Make that impossible to ignore. Flesh it out with details on how to get the most out of such talks.
I really have no idea which would be more effective for what game. Help!
Help, indeed! This is the crux of it!
I think both approaches are necessary. That being said ---
Rules that foster character POV might include requiring players to speak in first person as much as reasonably possible. Reward players for not acting on information that their character would not know. Reward players for making choices that both reflect and buttress a growing world view. Have events move forward based not on resolution mechanics but strongly grounded in player input.
Source material is everything! Players want to live the Dream! Give them access to that dream world in as rich a manner as possible. The Dream, remember the Dream! That means you're hooking the players on the world, not the mechanics. The world --- IS! History! Maps! Relationships! Social institutions and mores ...and of course juicy conflict. The more pieces there are the easier it is to build a scenario and later a campaign that is not generic.
Critically important - avoid offering absolutes as much as one reasonably can. Let the players draw their own conclusions as much as possible. Present information such that it can be open to interpretation. Taylor information given to each character from their perspective and don't be afraid to shade it accordingly. If someone has a guilty conscience then play interactions with authority figures such that they can be easily interpreted as threatening. If a player is facing an NPC who is hiding something then role-play that NPC as furtive, as someone who doesn't make eye contact [literally – don't just say the NPC doesn't make eye contact (an absolute statement) but as the GM really avoid making eye contact with the player]. Its up to the player to make a determination on what's going on (draw their own conclusion).
Getting players to engage in “post-game talk” shouldn't be that difficult if one has run an engaging session. Like in your example above, the hunger to fill in the blanks should be there after an exciting game. That being said, as the GM, you can start the process by asking probing questions of the players about the night's game. Ask the players if they have an questions. I don't know how transferable this technique is, but we play our games as episodes such that nearly all games end with a big climatic ending (the easiest being a battle) but then end the game before all the lose ends are tied up. Its the old show biz adage of, “always leave 'em wanting more.” You don't want a session to end at a dead halt. Its a terrible energy killer. Momentum is your friend. Use it. Exploit it ruthlessly! Remember what I said about absolutes? A sharp conclusive ending is a type of absolute.
“Pre-game talk” is a little tougher, because you need games to have been played to have something to talk about. As the GM the easiest way to get this talk going is again to ask players probing questions about their characters. However, ask the questions in such a manner that the player is required to consider the answer from his character's perspective. Have what they say matter. This should not be idle chatter, but focus on matters that are important to the player via his character. Also allow these conversations to bridge into the game world – even if isn't specific to a scenario. FREX – I had a character who was a Ranger of Ithilien who had never spent any time in Ithilien fighting nonhuman nasties but had spent all his time patrolling civilized areas. He was corrupt. At the time of the generation of this character all the Rangers were outfitted for deadly combat, but I thought that didn't make sense given that we also essentially Marshall's. Before the game while we were discussing the character (he was a new one I was getting that day) I noted this to the GM and said I felt my character should have some nonlethal weapon to deal with people so he could escalate and have a place to go without having to go all the way to deadly force. I felt it logical and reasonable that I would have some sort of truncheon/baton or the like. He loved the idea and voila, every Ranger from that point on was equipped with a baton. Pretty cool in my book!
There is a saying that I am going to mangle, but it goes something like this, “The media is the message.” Don't have a system that claims that it is all about living/experiencing the Dream and then have 200 pages of mechanics with only a paragraph on how you want the players to play the game.
I'm going to cut my reply here and address the remainder of your questions in a follow up post. Feel free to comment on this in the mean time if you wish. (You did raise some fine questions that warrant responding to, but like your earlier questions some underlying points need to be considered before a response is possible. FREX the GM, by capitalizing on the events had shifted the stakes from geo-political to filial which has a much higher emotional punch. He was actively capitalized on the unfolding events of the scenario to get to the point you called the “basic situation.” Was it written in the dice that my brother would be caught by the town and in fear for his life? No. The player rolled poorly but that did not mean he was rolling specifically to avoid capture. The player rolled poorly and the GM interpreted that as the player's character getting caught (and that the town was roused, out numbering us badly, wanting blood, etc.) That was the GM taking the events and working them into a higher emotional moment. The potential for something bad to happen if die rolls went south was latent in the situation, but in what form that crystallized into was the GM's creative choice. So you seen that even before the GM “strung me along” he was already adding to the situation making it more intense. He was already adding his “flourishes”, as it were. It's not as if the GM suddenly starting mucking with the scenario to make it more intense, he was actively working it all night!
Jay
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page