@@ElderGoblinGames I can see questions being like "The PCs have decided to travel at a fast pace to reach Hobbiton before sunset. Should you..." and you have to rank 5 x archetypical answers like: "Let them reach the Shire unscathed; I have a great encounter waiting there", "Roll for random encounters. If it's a hostile situation, PCs are surprised" etc. from highest preference to lowest. I'm almost inspired to make a webapp; ~15 questions w/ 5 answers each ... draw a spider at the end ... I should be working XD
I think I tend toward engineering as a GM, and drama as a player. It gets complicated though, because for GMs, how much you want to prep, and how visual you prefer things to be I think are also big factors. This chart is pretty good, though. I feel like I could spend weeks trying to create the perfect chart, and it might only be marginally better than what you've presented - and even that's no guarantee. We GMs just have to keep talking to our players, and taking notes on what they like, while also keeping an eye out for our own joyous moments in the hobby.
Nice breakdown, I definitely fall heavily into engineer and Freeform, though I (like most) touch on pretty much all of these. It’s always a fun thought exercise.
Great food for thought. I think that most GMs probably fall in different 'DOMAINS' depending on current circumstances. For example, I might have procedures that I stick to adamantly when hex crawling, but prefer a more freeform style while the players are in a social setting. And while I think it is cool to be able to share what 'type' you are with the players, I think the more valuable takeaway is the introspective. For me, it spurred some good thoughts on what's important to me, what I am good at, and where I should look for cheap tricks to cover my weaknesses. Really like the vid btw, stay true!
Those are all really solid points and well said. It's true. It's probably ever changing, which means it could be even more useful campaign to campaign.
Thanks. Agreed. And while my video may not be all encompassing, I hope it sparks others to talk about this subject. I think it's important and largely gets overlooked.
I really like your "FIVE GM DOMAINNNNNNS" and feel like could be both domains and archetypes another example of a taxonomy of RPG preferences is on rpgmatch, which has you score your preferences: roleplaying 4, combat 3, exploring 4, optimising 2, social intrigue 3, puzzles 3 and player-driven story 4. they use the same set for both players and gms.
I like your chart! That said you might want to think about the nature of your axes, Simulationist and Storyteller are goals for play while Procedural and Freeform are ways to play. They’re evocative though, I found myself sorting myself into Procedural and Engineer real quick. I’m pretty agnostic when it comes to Storyteller and Simulationist I just don’t like freeform! You might be missing Challenge! Some people play rpgs for the actual challenge of play, the tough decisions, the problem solving, the tactical combat. Just to inflate your chart even more. :)
For sure. I tried to think of the most diverse examples I've come across in my years of playing. Typically those five domains are the sort of ideas that drive a certain style of play. I get what you're saying though. It's not a perfect chart by any means.
Love the channel and this video! In my experience, though I have very strong preferences (35 years of playing and DMing) my current group is into a certain playstyle which I must adhere to. I can sense my deep preferences aren't to their tastes. That's OK though, I can enjoy the current game just fine. My point is, there arent that many groups in my area and my extremely niche preferences probably aren't shared by many in my small area. I don't wanna play online so I'm extremely limited. In short: My actual playstyle must always be whoever happens to be available to play. Which means almost always 5e, story focused, modern sensibilities etc. Phew.
It's a fair point. Especially if we're playing pen and paper at the wooden table. Sometimes we do have to let our preferences die for the sake of the game. But we can also let them be known just in case someone doesn't realize and wants to find ways to implement different elements. Not everyone will, but it never hurts to have a dialog about it.
Definitely pointing out a real problem with ambiguous or missing terminology here. As others have mentioned, "procedural" is confusing, since many rules-light games provide explicit GM procedures for certain modes of play (e.g., Shadowdark, Cairn 2e, Mythic Bastionland). But I hope you'll continue to explore/refine ideas on this topic!
I'll copy paste this from another comment / response: "You've kind of accidentally pinpointed one of the points of this video. pro·ce·dur·al /prəˈsējərəl/ adjective relating to an established or official way of doing something. It's the "official" way or the Rules As Written. maybe it's on me for using a term people often use in the hobby to mean something it doesn't (literally) mean. Perhaps I could have chose a different adjective. But people often use "Procedural" to mean... rules-lite? Rulings over rules? Or anything except the literal definition: "Procedural means relating to a specific procedure, or a particular way of doing something, especially one that is usually repeated in the same way each time. It's often used to describe formal, official procedures, such as those used in government and law. For example, you might describe a job's procedural requirements or a violation as procedural." I think we've changed the terminology over time (culturally / TTRPG-ers) into something that has a different definition. Something closer to free form but with familiar frameworks. Rules As Intended. Or what I call in this video, Engineers. And I'm really just using it to highlight a particular approach to gaming I have personally come across a lot. Folks who have a hard time doing anything that isn't written down. Isn't official. Isn't set in stone. Whereas I would call games like Knave or Cairn Rules As Intended, framework, conceptual games. Where there is a scaffolding to build off of, but it takes an Engineer to fill out the blanks. I hope that makes sense. Maybe I should have just picked a different word, but I think my issue is more that these definitions are far too loose and we all keep saying them meaning totally different things."
@ElderGoblinGames understood. Just to clarify, I don't think people use "procedural" to mean rules-light. It's just that explicit step-wise procedures are part of the style of some rules-light games, making the term confusing. To expand on one example, section 4 of the Cairn 2e Players Guide is titled "Procedures" and includes a three-step Dungeon Exploration Cycle and a three-step Wilderness Exploration Cycle. (Tangent: those two superficially similar cycles are so different that they make wilderness exploration a very different and far more procedural-in your sense of the word-mode of play.)
players will have developed a certain "style" of playing. However, player ego should not get in the way of playing any game. The GM/DM/GH is the leader in setting the "style" of the game. Players are there to play your game you are not there to conform to their play "style". If a player comes to the table and tries to force their play style for the entire table, or on the DM/GM/GH, then they should be asked to leave. The table is there to play the game being offered to them. Yes they will have their individual styles of how they play, but no one player should dominate the play by imposing their "style" on everyone else. Having said that as a game host we do try our best to include everyone's game style and try to make sure everyone is happy enough to play. Yes there can def. be a conversation at session zero on how the over all game play can be conducted, lots of role play, more combat, more over land travel...whatever. But inevitably you are offering the game to the players to join YOUR game, and hopefully they will blend and everyone will cooperate and have a ton of fun.
Very true. It's hard to be all things to all people, and if it's the GMs game, they definitely earn a certain amount of say by running / preparing. It never hurts to have feedback either though. It's important to know your players are aligned with your playstyle. It can be disheartening to have players drop out midway through a long campaign because of a mismatch of expectations. They don't have to be perfect matches. Just willing enough to go along with whatever kind of game you want to run.
@@ElderGoblinGames For what it's worth, I'm totally on board with the ideas you present in this video. I've had these conversations, and witnessed other people having them, and so often genre/theme is where the buck stops. And while terms like 'cosmic horror' and 'high fantasy' and 'grimdark' can do an adequate job describing a system or a setting, that aspect is only a fraction of what makes up the actual play experience. I think a lot of this problem stems from how inherently insulating this hobby is so much of the time. A forever DM and their players, who only muck about in one game system, may well have difficulty explaining how their play style or domain is distinct from others, because distinction cannot exist without comparison, and comparison is the enemy of insulation. That said, as you state early in the vid, if they're all having fun, that's really what matters. Until the next, Elder.
Yeah, that's valid. Hard to know what a space opera is when you've only ever watched the news. Insularity breeds... complacency? On the flip side though, I have found it difficult to convince players to try a new system without a clear, concise pitch. Or at the very least, clear expectations.
procedural style ≠ rules-as-written style. Examples below. Rules-lite procedure-heavy games are a thing. Errant, Knave, chunk of osr and nsr scenes are written like that. fkr games are or can be if you want. (osr, nsr and fkr are scenes made of living people, so everything shifts depending on people and parts of scene you're talking to and about.) 1 d6 damage per 5 feet fall is a rule. 2 more damage when falling harder is a ruling. 3 roll d6 to generate what's down there at the bottom of the well using this table is a procedure. example table: 1. your choice 2. something for d4 of d4 non-lethal damage. (make it lethal if your playing in deadlier style) 3. plot hook, clue 4. treasure 5. encounter 6. passage (2 to 6 can lead to other tables, gm prep or prompt you to improv in your style and group vibe) There's more to procedures, but I'm casual about them. Rules, rulings and procedures are meaningfully different by definitions before differentiating further by cultures of play, let's not mix them up. Using word "procedural" to describe rules-heavy aficionados is extremely confusing. Out of 12 GM's I played with the only one who's more improv than me is almost zero prep and almost zero rules guy, who used custom procedures to generate every single outcome that wasn't in Cairn and our homebrew for high effort roll d20 under a stat for a d12 crit once per scene. And I use custom or pre-made procedures when I want to surprise myself, so I generate external world events and some npc stuff during solo play, gm prep and sessions. I let my players choose their difficutly and we write it in my gm notes and their character sheets. Voila! This way characters are treated differently, but consistently and it fits our game. Phil is the only one who's 100 or maybe 1000 times nerdier than I am about procedures, but he doesn't strike me as rules-as-written guy, but I bet he's also into the modular approach. Let's ask him, Phil are you reading this? I'll define my approach as people-first, adventure-second, homebrew, modular, procedural, freeform, nsr and fkr-inspired. Casual with rules, hardcore with fiction. Fairy tale style. I call these pretend games with dice for chance procedures and some rules for the grounding and resistance. Then I proceed to ask non-gamers about their experience with fairy tales, fiction, what and why the love about that. Gamers I just ask about their background and interests, looking for common directions and mismatches. I appreciate you getting into the topic of common language, Jorbin. Site-specific definitions tops myth of common sense every time lol, if you forgive me my bad French accent. I usually talk difficulty, brutality, taboos, wishes, preferences, vibes and styles, calling them that and providing relevant examples when prompted to or excited to talk about. There's value in keeping abstract and losely defined things that way. I can tell you what a roll table is, but I can only hint what parts of osr, nsr and fkr scenes I saw. In some conversations I can and will loosely define them as 1970s-to1990s-dnd-centric, post-dnd+non-dnd and pre-dnd+non-dnd. In other conversations I'd rather talk specific games I'd like to play more without mentioning how I see their place on the scene and historic timelines. -izois
You've kind of accidentally pinpointed one of the points of this video. pro·ce·dur·al /prəˈsējərəl/ adjective relating to an established or official way of doing something. It's the "official" way or the Rules As Written. maybe it's on me for using a term people often use in the hobby to mean something it doesn't (literally) mean. Perhaps I could have chose a different adjective. But people often use "Procedural" to mean... rules-lite? Rulings over rules? Or anything except the literal definition: "Procedural means relating to a specific procedure, or a particular way of doing something, especially one that is usually repeated in the same way each time. It's often used to describe formal, official procedures, such as those used in government and law. For example, you might describe a job's procedural requirements or a violation as procedural." I think we've changed the terminology over time (culturally / TTRPG-ers) into something that has a different definition. Something closer to free form but with familiar frameworks. Rules As Intended. Or what I call in this video, Engineers. And I'm really just using it to highlight a particular approach to gaming I have personally come across a lot. Folks who have a hard time doing anything that isn't written down. Isn't official. Isn't set in stone. Whereas I would call games like Knave or Cairn Rules As Intended, framework, conceptual games. Where there is a scaffolding to build off of, but it takes an Engineer to fill out the blanks. I hope that makes sense. Maybe I should have just picked a different word, but I think my issue is more that these definitions are far too loose and we all keep saying them meaning totally different things.
This is cool, there should be a quiz to share with the players to know what they expect, to get to know their tendencies inside the pentagon
That would be cool. Like a 1-5 Likert Scale test with a few questions?
Strongly disagree - strongly agree.
@@ElderGoblinGames I can see questions being like "The PCs have decided to travel at a fast pace to reach Hobbiton before sunset. Should you..." and you have to rank 5 x archetypical answers like: "Let them reach the Shire unscathed; I have a great encounter waiting there", "Roll for random encounters. If it's a hostile situation, PCs are surprised" etc. from highest preference to lowest.
I'm almost inspired to make a webapp; ~15 questions w/ 5 answers each ... draw a spider at the end ... I should be working XD
@@ItsLee512 Do it! And share it in the reply, would you kindly lmao
This is the kind of content that is innovative and helpful to the gaming space. I'm saving this video and will refer back to it from time to time.
🫶 Thank you!
I love how much of a nerd you are. Your outfit in the woods is superb!
I used to wear those clothes for every video lol. But it gets really hot in the summer.
You are absolutely right. There are not enough eyes on this channel. More people need to see this great content! Thank you for making it.
Thank you! Always looking to bring fresh ideas to more folks!
I think I tend toward engineering as a GM, and drama as a player. It gets complicated though, because for GMs, how much you want to prep, and how visual you prefer things to be I think are also big factors. This chart is pretty good, though. I feel like I could spend weeks trying to create the perfect chart, and it might only be marginally better than what you've presented - and even that's no guarantee. We GMs just have to keep talking to our players, and taking notes on what they like, while also keeping an eye out for our own joyous moments in the hobby.
Nice breakdown, I definitely fall heavily into engineer and Freeform, though I (like most) touch on pretty much all of these. It’s always a fun thought exercise.
Nice! I'm sure I fluctuate from campaign to campaign, but my strongest domain is always engineer. I like to tinker 😆
i love Elder Goblin Games vids ... ok algorithm appeased ... lol truthfully though yer at the top of my list bud
🤖🙇♂️
The Barbosa reference is peak lawful evil behavior. Cheers me'harty.
This isn't even my final form. 😈
Great food for thought. I think that most GMs probably fall in different 'DOMAINS' depending on current circumstances. For example, I might have procedures that I stick to adamantly when hex crawling, but prefer a more freeform style while the players are in a social setting.
And while I think it is cool to be able to share what 'type' you are with the players, I think the more valuable takeaway is the introspective. For me, it spurred some good thoughts on what's important to me, what I am good at, and where I should look for cheap tricks to cover my weaknesses.
Really like the vid btw, stay true!
Those are all really solid points and well said. It's true. It's probably ever changing, which means it could be even more useful campaign to campaign.
Great video! Playstyle does not get enough attention in the community!
Thanks. Agreed. And while my video may not be all encompassing, I hope it sparks others to talk about this subject. I think it's important and largely gets overlooked.
Sweet! An Elder Goblin Games video. These are my favorites!
💚 keeping the EGG-Web strong 💪
I really like your "FIVE GM DOMAINNNNNNS" and feel like could be both domains and archetypes
another example of a taxonomy of RPG preferences is on rpgmatch, which has you score your preferences: roleplaying 4, combat 3, exploring 4, optimising 2, social intrigue 3, puzzles 3 and player-driven story 4. they use the same set for both players and gms.
Another great video good sir! On another note did I spy a copy of mothership on the shelf behind you?
Oh yeah! Been reading through it. There's some great GM advice in there.
Excellent video!
I'm glad it resonated!
Great stuff, as always, Jorbin! 🤠
Appreciate the support, friend!
Yes
If everyone is having fun that’s what counts
This is the way.
I like your chart! That said you might want to think about the nature of your axes, Simulationist and Storyteller are goals for play while Procedural and Freeform are ways to play.
They’re evocative though, I found myself sorting myself into Procedural and Engineer real quick. I’m pretty agnostic when it comes to Storyteller and Simulationist I just don’t like freeform!
You might be missing Challenge! Some people play rpgs for the actual challenge of play, the tough decisions, the problem solving, the tactical combat. Just to inflate your chart even more. :)
For sure. I tried to think of the most diverse examples I've come across in my years of playing. Typically those five domains are the sort of ideas that drive a certain style of play. I get what you're saying though. It's not a perfect chart by any means.
Love the channel and this video! In my experience, though I have very strong preferences (35 years of playing and DMing) my current group is into a certain playstyle which I must adhere to. I can sense my deep preferences aren't to their tastes. That's OK though, I can enjoy the current game just fine.
My point is, there arent that many groups in my area and my extremely niche preferences probably aren't shared by many in my small area.
I don't wanna play online so I'm extremely limited. In short: My actual playstyle must always be whoever happens to be available to play. Which means almost always 5e, story focused, modern sensibilities etc.
Phew.
It's a fair point. Especially if we're playing pen and paper at the wooden table.
Sometimes we do have to let our preferences die for the sake of the game. But we can also let them be known just in case someone doesn't realize and wants to find ways to implement different elements.
Not everyone will, but it never hurts to have a dialog about it.
@ElderGoblinGames forgot to mention, we're British. So unfortunately we just all politely keep our preferences to ourselves forever 😅
Hahaha @@Cuthbo
Definitely pointing out a real problem with ambiguous or missing terminology here. As others have mentioned, "procedural" is confusing, since many rules-light games provide explicit GM procedures for certain modes of play (e.g., Shadowdark, Cairn 2e, Mythic Bastionland). But I hope you'll continue to explore/refine ideas on this topic!
I'll copy paste this from another comment / response:
"You've kind of accidentally pinpointed one of the points of this video.
pro·ce·dur·al
/prəˈsējərəl/
adjective
relating to an established or official way of doing something.
It's the "official" way or the Rules As Written.
maybe it's on me for using a term people often use in the hobby to mean something it doesn't (literally) mean. Perhaps I could have chose a different adjective.
But people often use "Procedural" to mean... rules-lite? Rulings over rules? Or anything except the literal definition:
"Procedural means relating to a specific procedure, or a particular way of doing something, especially one that is usually repeated in the same way each time. It's often used to describe formal, official procedures, such as those used in government and law. For example, you might describe a job's procedural requirements or a violation as procedural."
I think we've changed the terminology over time (culturally / TTRPG-ers) into something that has a different definition.
Something closer to free form but with familiar frameworks. Rules As Intended. Or what I call in this video, Engineers.
And I'm really just using it to highlight a particular approach to gaming I have personally come across a lot. Folks who have a hard time doing anything that isn't written down. Isn't official. Isn't set in stone.
Whereas I would call games like Knave or Cairn Rules As Intended, framework, conceptual games. Where there is a scaffolding to build off of, but it takes an Engineer to fill out the blanks.
I hope that makes sense.
Maybe I should have just picked a different word, but I think my issue is more that these definitions are far too loose and we all keep saying them meaning totally different things."
@ElderGoblinGames understood. Just to clarify, I don't think people use "procedural" to mean rules-light. It's just that explicit step-wise procedures are part of the style of some rules-light games, making the term confusing. To expand on one example, section 4 of the Cairn 2e Players Guide is titled "Procedures" and includes a three-step Dungeon Exploration Cycle and a three-step Wilderness Exploration Cycle. (Tangent: those two superficially similar cycles are so different that they make wilderness exploration a very different and far more procedural-in your sense of the word-mode of play.)
players will have developed a certain "style" of playing. However, player ego should not get in the way of playing any game. The GM/DM/GH is the leader in setting the "style" of the game. Players are there to play your game you are not there to conform to their play "style". If a player comes to the table and tries to force their play style for the entire table, or on the DM/GM/GH, then they should be asked to leave. The table is there to play the game being offered to them. Yes they will have their individual styles of how they play, but no one player should dominate the play by imposing their "style" on everyone else. Having said that as a game host we do try our best to include everyone's game style and try to make sure everyone is happy enough to play. Yes there can def. be a conversation at session zero on how the over all game play can be conducted, lots of role play, more combat, more over land travel...whatever. But inevitably you are offering the game to the players to join YOUR game, and hopefully they will blend and everyone will cooperate and have a ton of fun.
Very true. It's hard to be all things to all people, and if it's the GMs game, they definitely earn a certain amount of say by running / preparing.
It never hurts to have feedback either though. It's important to know your players are aligned with your playstyle. It can be disheartening to have players drop out midway through a long campaign because of a mismatch of expectations.
They don't have to be perfect matches. Just willing enough to go along with whatever kind of game you want to run.
Yepp for sure
Another awesome video! I'm a sucker for a graph, so I'm gonna have to make one for myself... 😈
Yeah! My brain loves to categorize stuff like that.
5:19 Alas, poor Yankee Candle
Rip. 🕯️💀
@@ElderGoblinGames For what it's worth, I'm totally on board with the ideas you present in this video. I've had these conversations, and witnessed other people having them, and so often genre/theme is where the buck stops. And while terms like 'cosmic horror' and 'high fantasy' and 'grimdark' can do an adequate job describing a system or a setting, that aspect is only a fraction of what makes up the actual play experience. I think a lot of this problem stems from how inherently insulating this hobby is so much of the time. A forever DM and their players, who only muck about in one game system, may well have difficulty explaining how their play style or domain is distinct from others, because distinction cannot exist without comparison, and comparison is the enemy of insulation. That said, as you state early in the vid, if they're all having fun, that's really what matters. Until the next, Elder.
Yeah, that's valid. Hard to know what a space opera is when you've only ever watched the news. Insularity breeds... complacency?
On the flip side though, I have found it difficult to convince players to try a new system without a clear, concise pitch. Or at the very least, clear expectations.
procedural style ≠ rules-as-written style. Examples below.
Rules-lite procedure-heavy games are a thing. Errant, Knave, chunk of osr and nsr scenes are written like that. fkr games are or can be if you want. (osr, nsr and fkr are scenes made of living people, so everything shifts depending on people and parts of scene you're talking to and about.)
1
d6 damage per 5 feet fall is a rule.
2
more damage when falling harder is a ruling.
3
roll d6 to generate what's down there at the bottom of the well using this table is a procedure.
example table:
1. your choice
2. something for d4 of d4 non-lethal damage. (make it lethal if your playing in deadlier style)
3. plot hook, clue
4. treasure
5. encounter
6. passage
(2 to 6 can lead to other tables, gm prep or prompt you to improv in your style and group vibe)
There's more to procedures, but I'm casual about them.
Rules, rulings and procedures are meaningfully different by definitions before differentiating further by cultures of play, let's not mix them up. Using word "procedural" to describe rules-heavy aficionados is extremely confusing.
Out of 12 GM's I played with the only one who's more improv than me is almost zero prep and almost zero rules guy, who used custom procedures to generate every single outcome that wasn't in Cairn and our homebrew for high effort roll d20 under a stat for a d12 crit once per scene.
And I use custom or pre-made procedures when I want to surprise myself, so I generate external world events and some npc stuff during solo play, gm prep and sessions.
I let my players choose their difficutly and we write it in my gm notes and their character sheets. Voila! This way characters are treated differently, but consistently and it fits our game.
Phil is the only one who's 100 or maybe 1000 times nerdier than I am about procedures, but he doesn't strike me as rules-as-written guy, but I bet he's also into the modular approach. Let's ask him, Phil are you reading this?
I'll define my approach as people-first, adventure-second, homebrew, modular, procedural, freeform, nsr and fkr-inspired. Casual with rules, hardcore with fiction. Fairy tale style.
I call these pretend games with dice for chance procedures and some rules for the grounding and resistance. Then I proceed to ask non-gamers about their experience with fairy tales, fiction, what and why the love about that.
Gamers I just ask about their background and interests, looking for common directions and mismatches.
I appreciate you getting into the topic of common language, Jorbin.
Site-specific definitions tops myth of common sense every time lol, if you forgive me my bad French accent.
I usually talk difficulty, brutality, taboos, wishes, preferences, vibes and styles, calling them that and providing relevant examples when prompted to or excited to talk about.
There's value in keeping abstract and losely defined things that way. I can tell you what a roll table is, but I can only hint what parts of osr, nsr and fkr scenes I saw. In some conversations I can and will loosely define them as 1970s-to1990s-dnd-centric, post-dnd+non-dnd and pre-dnd+non-dnd.
In other conversations I'd rather talk specific games I'd like to play more without mentioning how I see their place on the scene and historic timelines.
-izois
You've kind of accidentally pinpointed one of the points of this video.
pro·ce·dur·al
/prəˈsējərəl/
adjective
relating to an established or official way of doing something.
It's the "official" way or the Rules As Written.
maybe it's on me for using a term people often use in the hobby to mean something it doesn't (literally) mean. Perhaps I could have chose a different adjective.
But people often use "Procedural" to mean... rules-lite? Rulings over rules? Or anything except the literal definition:
"Procedural means relating to a specific procedure, or a particular way of doing something, especially one that is usually repeated in the same way each time. It's often used to describe formal, official procedures, such as those used in government and law. For example, you might describe a job's procedural requirements or a violation as procedural."
I think we've changed the terminology over time (culturally / TTRPG-ers) into something that has a different definition.
Something closer to free form but with familiar frameworks. Rules As Intended. Or what I call in this video, Engineers.
And I'm really just using it to highlight a particular approach to gaming I have personally come across a lot. Folks who have a hard time doing anything that isn't written down. Isn't official. Isn't set in stone.
Whereas I would call games like Knave or Cairn Rules As Intended, framework, conceptual games. Where there is a scaffolding to build off of, but it takes an Engineer to fill out the blanks.
I hope that makes sense.
Maybe I should have just picked a different word, but I think my issue is more that these definitions are far too loose and we all keep saying them meaning totally different things.
👏👏👏🎼🎼🎼🎲🎲🎲
💚🧌🎲