So, HotDQ opens with a bunch of first-level characters cresting a hill on the way to a town they wish to visit for vaguely-defined reasons, seeing it under attack by a freakin' DRAGON not to mention what is described as an "army" of not-very-nice kobalds and humans. The adventure then assumes the PCs will continue into the town rather than freaking out and running as fast as they can in the opposite direction.
Probability that this will play out as intended without some kind of DM intervention: Zero.
I like the town set-pieces, computer-game feel and all, but getting them to happen in the adventure as written is going to be problematic at many tables. How did, or would, you solve this problem?
The two most obvious ways to resolve this are:
- Give the PCs some kind of personal connection to Greenest - someone they care about in the town, for example. Maybe the duke is one PC's uncle or another's parents live there.
- Have the PCs arrive in town, start to do whatever they came there to do, then have the attack happen.
(These aren't mutually exclusive.)
So, any ideas on how to implement these and/or other ways to improve on the opening of this adventure?
Half our group didn't go in.
The adventure simply relies on the 'starve 'em out' method of railroading.
You stay outside - absolutely nothing happens.
Anyway, another is to simply have the dragon chase the dang cart toward the town. And don't ask the players what they do, just narrate it happening. If you're gunna set a scene, just set it, don't pretend to players they have control of what happens next when they don't.
But what would be interesting is to simply have a timeline of events in greenest, and if the PC's leave, just make up some events that happen (with references to the ongoing events at greenest) and do not 'starve them out', ie having nothing and no fights happening anywhere else.
'But it's the BIG PLOT! Can't just do something else!'
Screw the big plot.
I played my first D&D5 session this week-end with HotDQ as my first adventure (I was the DM).
I had no problem getting the players involved because :
One of them, a human fighter, had served in the town militia for several years before becoming a caravan guard (the party arrived with a caravan from Baldur's Gate). When he saw the town attacked, the ties he had there were stronger than his fear of the dragon. He even suggested sneaking near the river's bank to get to the keep quickly.
Another, a human paladin of Chauntea, was given some magical seeds to deliver to the cleric at the temple in Greenest. He must also swear his Oath in this temple when he is ready . When he saw the attack, even of the dragon's sight was quite impressive, he decided to do his best to help the town's people.
To test the combat mechanics before the adventutre, I arranged a brigand attack on the caravan during one night so that when they arrived in town the first fight was less awkward. This began to create bonds with the characters.
So I think giving characters some ties with Greenest is a good point to get them involved even if the attack has already begun. Players feel more part of the event that way too.
jeff-heikkinen wrote:
One ot the things you must do when you want Dming a campaign or a published adventure from the ground zero (you and your group just started or plan to start playing) is to determine the background and bonds all of them have. You can create the adventures around and based on the background of everyone, or if you have a published adventure, you can e should ask the players to build their character around the premise. If you don't have problems changing the adventure to suit the player's needs, do it, if not, ask the players to help you. If they help, they are good players.
You could place each character at different parts of town. So the Clerics at the Temple, the Fighters at the Guard Post, the Rogue is at the Tavern. Then when the Dragon flies overhead they each are affected by Fear and run to where the first in-city encounter starts! Railroads can be simple and effective.
Hack & Slash has an excellent series of articles for how to spice up this module. I recommend them heartily:
http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/search/label/Hoard%20of%20the%20Dragon%20Queen
When setting up for play, ask the players to establish a strong reason for their character to want to be in Greenest or to protect it in a way that speaks to their particular character. Flesh out what they offer and use it during play.
In fact, do that for every campaign and adventure. Good players find reasons to want to be connected to them.
The module depends on 1st level characters going into a town under attack from an army and a blue dragon. We told the DM pretty much the only reason we were doing it was because that was how the adventure starts (and he agreed). Someone actually roleplaying their character would turn around and head the other direction. The adventure as written relies on the PCs being suicidal idiots.
ArkPanda wrote:
Played in it. I ran into town.
2 reasons. One, I showed up to play. Two, adventurers gonna adventure, son!
Anyone who takes a look at danger and says, "Nah, thanks. Not for me," is a sane and sober person. Such folks typically make for unsuitable adventurers, and likewise make terrible heroes.
If that's your thing, more power to you. Play how you want.
Me? I kinda want to slay the dragon.
Worked for us. We went into town without a issue. We didn't and I still don't see it as being a suicidal idiot. But hey we could figure out that maybe you can do something to help without attacking a dragon or trying to fight off a army on your own.
I like the adventure so far. It's feels more open to creative thoughts from the players and is asking for deeper strategies beyond charge in and kill everyone.
Here, here. I took one look at that scene of chaos, decided it was the work of the Cult of the Dragon, established that my character has beef with them, and charged into town. Along with my similarly bold comrades, we rescued around two dozen villagers and got them to the keep, then later went on to evacuate the Temple of Chauntea in a daring raid.
We got two things to do in this game: (1) Have fun and (2) Create memorable stories by playing. Mission accomplished.
iserith wrote:
ArkPanda wrote:
ArkPanda wrote:
bawylie wrote:
I think the easiest change to make to ensure the players don't try any adventure-dodging shenanigans is to let them get to the town without incident, hit the local tavern or market, etc.
But before they get too comfortable: "An ear-splitting roar followed by a crack of lightning shatters the peaceful evening. You look up to see a vast, dark shadow sweep over the town. Sizzling electricity crawls over sapphire scales: a blue dragon has arrived! The town is under attack! What do you do?!"
Then endure the usual dischord and Monty Python jokes ("Run away!!!") until they settle on a course of action.
I was thinking the same thing when I saw the opening.
While it may seem easy enough to get people to go into town 'because that's where the adventure is', I'd also prefer to have an actual reason for the characters to go in. Bravery and the love of adventure is not the motivation for every character that people play.
I also want to note that the adventure does actually give you list of character bonds in apendix A that explaine why you are headed to Greenest that should be good enough to get the characters to head into town.
Thank_Dog wrote:
Noon wrote:
Ken and Robin talk about this kind of scenario in one if their pod pasts.
If a player asks: "why would my character do X" then ask that player right back "yes, why WOULD your character do this, come up with an awesome idea"
unless the player is trying to be deliberately obstructive to the game/DM they are usually the best qualified to come up with an idea about their own character.
MrHotter wrote:
Keendk wrote:
Keendk wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
iserith wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
DM "Hey guys, want to play this new adventure I bought called Hoard of the Dragon Queen?"
Player "yes, sounds awesome!"
DM "you meet a dragon"
Player "we ignore the dragon as we have no reason or ties to the village"
DM "good point, make some awesome ties to the village"
player "waaaaa you are railroading me and breaking a social contract, you horrible mean person who is ruining my fun!"
seriously chakravant? If you've decided to be a player in a preplanned adventure, you should have the common decency to help the DM tie yourself in to the story. Take responsibility for your own fun, and be a little bit flexible if you plan to play in non-sandbox games...like HotDQ, and most other con-games or shop bought adventure.
iserith wrote:
Keendk wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
This is the exact same problem as having players not interesting in working together because they don't see a reason why the paladin and the thief would team up, etc, and insist on doing their own things separately, because of "roleplaying their character."
It's the players job to give the reasons why they are all together, and working together. They need to find their own motivation and not expect the DM to throw it at them.
It's the players job to invent the reasons why they are going to be heroic, and run into the burning building the save the people stuck inside.
Of course, the DM could always throw them some kind of bone to help with the fiction. But if it comes to that, because the players were unwilling or unable to invent their own reasons, then they are choosing to accept whatever reason the DM gives. Or otherwise they don't really want to play.
Surely, a DM with great skill at winging it can let players move about their sandbox and constantly ignore all plot hooks the DM throws out until they finally bite, and start exploring that space. But that's not most DM's, and it certainly would be rude of the players to opt out of the module adventure they know they are at the table to play.
It's best to work these things out at the first session, and let the reality of player's backgrounds and motivations be fluid until the table can come to an agreement on how its all going to work.
iserith wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Hey, I will say I was guilty of "not engaging".
My character saw the dragon and kobolds and pretty much advised everyone to get off the road and just watch the town burn until the dragon went away and THEN go ahead and approach and search for survivors... figuring that the dragon had to get bored and go away. The rest of the party was pretty much on board with my plan and probably would have done that had the DM not had a character within our group and had a Kobold group attacking a family pop out of thin air and run and engage them in order to pull the rest of the PCs into battle and then pretty much tell us all that we were all going to be headed towards the keep in the heart of this battle because.... uhhh... somehow this 'keep' could apparently protect people from a dragon and an army?... somehow..? Anyway, he pretty much told us we were heading there whether we liked it or not and to all make stealth checks.
I mean, seriously... isn't this exactly the scenario that certain DM's would offer up as "Well, if the party is going to be stupid enough to approach the Dragon at level 1, then of course I am well within my rights to use a blue dragon against them and kill them all off in one lightning bolt. It is their own fault for being so stupid!!"
to which I generally answer
"If you put a blue dragon anywhere near your level 1 PCs, you are DMing wrong."
Except.. in this case... the adventure specifically proscribes that you wave something massively more powerful and antagonistic in the faces of the players and demands that they go ahead and poke it with a stick.
Seriously... turning around and heading in the other direction or bunkering down in the forest and waiting the dragon out are perfectly correct decisions for this scenario and not considering this shows a real amateurness on the part of the people who designed the module. If it was going to give the PCs the option of approaching the town, they either have to have a NEED to continue to the town that is greater than their NEED not to stir the ire of a blue dragon... but that's just not going to happen. I mean the PCs are pretty helpless to change whether the town is burning or not, so again... no character with a wisdom higher than 6 and an alignment of Lawful Stupid ought to even think of approaching until the dragon has gone away regardless of how much more reason they have for the town to be their destination.
There is the strength to change what you can. There is this patience to accept what you cannot. And there is the wisdom to know the difference. If you have #3, then you know this situation is #2. At least until the dragon flies away. THEN you can go and help people.
So what the module SHOULD have done is have the PCs arrive in the town FIRST, establish a connection to the town SECOND, then in the middle of the night have the Dragon attack occur while the PCs are in the town THIRD. That way the PCs will naturally engage with a few humans or kobolds before either fleeing or escorting NPCs to the sturdiest shelter available in the city at the behest of the town watch trying to do the same thing.
Chakravant wrote:
The game is not the module. The players agreed to play a game. They didn't agree to everything in the module. Unless they read it cover to cover, they really can't provide any form of informed consent.
iserith wrote:
jeff-heikkinen wrote:
jeff-heikkinen wrote:
Ok, it seems that there is some play differences here:
chakravnt and jeff, your DM says: we are playing X game, this is the parameters, make characters that follow x y and z rules and have personalities that would engage in a b and c events
my DM says: make characters as you please, then we will meet up, quickly tie them together and then we decide what game/module to play.
Obviously we cannot at character creation prepare for every single event that could occour in every single module, so we improvise as we go along.
You have your characters interaction with the world prepared before game starts, so you thinks it's cheating from the DMs side to change things up as you go along.
We come from an indie game background and has played a lot of games like dungeon world, so we are used to A LOT of player agency an responsibility for the game world, and that's where Ken and Robins quote is relevant. This style of game is absolutely viable in D&D as well 
Keendk wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
jeff-heikkinen wrote:
jeff-heikkinen wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Keendk wrote:
iserith wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
ArkPanda wrote:
Keendk wrote:
when you are talking modules I don't think I've ever heard it being called railroading to expect the players to actually go on the adventure. It's called railroading if while on the adventure you shut down all their options.
Do do something other than run away and you are pretty good. Yeah there is also the general assumption you are opposed to the dragon cult. Heck hiding and waiting for the army to leave and then going in to help survivors is a valid if low XP option. Railroading is if you force the order of encounters, don't allow them to kill certain people etc. assuming they actually go on the adventure they agreed to isnt.
iserith wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
bawylie wrote:
nice games, haven't tried lace & steel or Toon
I can reccomend the apocalypse world derivatives (like dungeon worlds) for the ultra shared story telling genre. Also the podcast "one shot" by James D'amata is very much a proponent and a good source of inspiration on how to get players more involved in the world.
So at character creation you were told by your DM what your link was to get in to the module, or said differently: at character generation the tracks were laid for the railroad that leads you in to Greenest. This is NOT a condemnation, I don't share your aversion to railroading if it benefits the story experience.
The major difference here is that your DM decided to play the module AT character geneation, where we decide what to play AFTER character generation. That was what I was trying to get across with my post about our differing styles.
Laying the seeds for why your character should act at character generation, or laying them when the problem is encountered.
Decdiding your characters motivation AT character creation, or improvise and decide it through play.
So to try and rephrase my point. You find it unacceptable to change anything about your character in game, as your character is already well defined from the time you start play. So what I suggested was in your eyes cheating/railroading from the DMs side? Have I got it right?
Then see it from my point of view: I have so much control over my character that I can add background elements as we play, and the DM encourages me to do so whenever it would benefit the overall story experience.
No, and I would love to avoid having to say it. In order for that to be the case, we'll have to agree to not go down the road of discussing what the words "game" and "module" mean and how they can be used interchangeably. I'm sure there was sufficient context in their use upthread such that everyone who doesn't want the discussion to descend into dictionary-sniffing knows what was being said.
You are also saying that the position being advocated is one of following a module over player interaction. Which makes no sense at all, and further isn't what is being advocated. There is no tradeoff between deciding to take the adventure hook and the players interacting.
Ahglock wrote:
jeff-heikkinen wrote:
Keendk wrote:
Iserith, the discussion was about a scenario where the players initially balk at doing something and the GM asks them to come up with reasons why their characters would do the thing that it looked like they were inclined to avoid. Even ignoring the obvious problem with that (it ignores the possibility that the characters really, honestly don't have such a reason), at this point play is already underway. That's not "agreement in the metagame" unless you're using that term so broadly that nearly everything is, in which case we're back to my previous objection only now it's "metagame" rather than "voluntary" that's being used so broadly as to lose its meaning.
I am sorry iserith, but I do not acquiesce to demands that I use another person's definitions for words. If someone wants to have a conversation with me, they must accept that I use my definitions for the words I use just as I accept the same happens in reverse. This is after all, the basis for human communication.
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Is it a good adventure or is it just the entry into the adventure that is bad. I have seen many modules over the years that I can tweak to get players started in it.
jeff-heikkinen wrote:
jeff-heikkinen wrote:
Keendk wrote:
It's a fine adventure.
Thing is, it requires adventurers. As a DM, I'm happy to permit any race, class, background combo you can come up with. But I don't permit defective adventurers - that is, no badass loners who need to be cajoled into teamwork, no mercenaries that everyone has to pay to tag along, no cowards or pacifists (unless that's role play color), and no sensible people who turn back from adventure - they can go work an honest job and retire in safety.
If Olaf the snowman go adventuring, your character can too. If Scooby and Shaggy will wander into spooky mysteries, your coward character can too. If wolverine will fight alongside the other X-men, your badass loner can too.
If not, they just don't get to be in this story. That's alright.
Noon wrote:
Keendk wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Noon has it right. It is all about informed consent as opposed to implied consent prior to the first gaming session. Even with prior consent, the actions I am decrying deny the player any kind of informed consent. Saying "There is no informed consent in this game" is not providing enough information to create any kind of informed consent.
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Noon wrote:
Noon wrote:
Buying into a premise or starting condition is not the same as being railroaded. No body has to play the module. Sure you can ignore the fight and just let the bad stuff happen, but then your not really playing the module, you're just using it for a few maps and an interaction with some dying NPCs at best. Why even go after the bad guys after the attack? What even motivates you? Some guys you didn't know got killed by some other guys you didn't know? Track them back to their hideout? Surely not, they still have that dragon, if they caught you you'd be dead. Better to slink off to the town of Safe Haven, where the people are friendly, but not too friendly, where the ale is tasty, but not too strong, where the only threat is a small family of timid level appropriate goblins that are poaching some chickens, and the mayor is willing to pay someone an actual piece of gold to run them off.
But what is being advcated isn't buying into a premise or starting condition. What is being advocated is essentially DM Fiat on roleplaying aspects of the character post-starting condition.
If they are reluctant to help out an innocent village from getting sacked, then I doubt you will get the PC's on board with the rest of the adventure either.
So let the PC's turn their back on the burning town and go off plundering the countryside. Let them see the rise of the cult in the back ground of what they are doing, and give them points where they can choose to get involved. But unresisted the cult will grow stronger much faster and get win after win. Soon the players will not have to worry about the cult because Tiamat will have been brought back and it will start destroying everything they know. They can still choose to sit and twiddle their thumbs if they like, but it will be too late to stop the beating they are about to take.
This is the result of the world just following it's natural course.
bawylie wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
This thread seems to have gone off-topic (as is so often the case), into discussing IF the opening needs rewriting.
How about we start over, re-writing the opening for those people who do not like it for any reason at all (myself included, I think it's pretty weak for a number of reasons - but this isn't the thread for that). If you are already happy with the opening chapters then you can safely ignore this thread.
OK, let's begin.
Of the ideas in the opening post "start already in the city" seems good to me. To reframe the two suggestions we can either:
a) have a bit of an introduction, either some social intractiona dn exploring he town, getting to know it and getting invested in its citizens. Maybe a bit of a red-herring quest with some fore-shadowing. Then when the attack happens it has more weight.
Or, b) we can start with the attack, for the "big opening number" that the module as written is going for. Preceding events are glossed over and the PCs are worken from their sleep by the attack.
The first option has its charm, but requires more writing and the module is pretty long-winded in parts already. Pacing is a consideration. What do we think? Or are there other, stronger options?
jeff-heikkinen wrote:
bawylie wrote:
jeff-heikkinen wrote:
Noon wrote:
The threads on this site are sometimes mind boggling to behold.
DM: Ok group we're going to playing a pre-written adventure with a focused storyline...think original Dragonlance series. (Ideally I agree and hooks to the area are created at this point for good roleplay but really it shouldn't matter).
Players: Ok DM...rolls characters...ready to rumble
DM: As you approach the village of Greenest you seeing it being attacked by a Blue Dragon and an army of kobolds (This is clearly the adventures written intro hook)
Players: Oh wait I have no interest in playing this adventure so off to waterdeep I go to become a cobbler
OR
Players: Me stuuupid max, me attack bloody big lizard with lightning breath and sea of minions head on...yaaarrggghh
OR
Players: Ok this is the opening scene and CLEARLY the adventure lays ahead. Since my DM isn't trying to go home early and get laid (and isn't generally a world class ****) I can assume that attacking the dragon isn't the intent of the flavourful introduction. Lets head in and...adventure but carefully.
This isn't hard and some of the weird philosophising over game styles and DM railroading I keep seeing is just idiotic when its really quite simple. Your playing an adventure that has the situatiion prewritten for you. In such a game your job is to interact with it...not ignore it.
Basically
If it's a sandbox and I'm assuming (probably foolishly) you do discuss these things with your group the players should have a reasonable expecation of doing what they want when they want and that their actions will create alternate outcomes and choices
If it's a prewritten module with a set goal and outcome then running away from the story just means you didn't want to play it in the first place...which you probably should have mentioned before the game starts. Yes the DM can create alternate ways to bring you back into the story but you knew what you were playing from the outset so why make his life harder just because.
Rambling rant over...
Noon wrote:
The opening could be played like a war story. They are all in the tavern enjoying a good meal after successfully escorting a caravan to town.
Suddenly there are massive explosions and sounds of battle outside. Air raid!
Outside is chaos as a massive form swoops overhead blasting the town like an attack bomber. People are scrambling everywhere in panic until someone yells above the din, "Get to shelter! Get to the keep!"
As the townsfolk begin to flood toward the keep, drop the second hamnmer and have the army of kobolds begin flooding into town.
From here you can have your first encounter with the family fighting off kobolds...and be perfectly reasonable in escorting them to the keep.
Once in the keep, you are approached by the mayor/lord and asked to assist.
What if we just got rid of the dragon? Coming to the rescue of a village being attacked by brigands and kobolds is much more reasonable. The dragon doesn't really contribute much to the episode besides atmosphere, and there are plenty of ways to create that.
bawylie wrote:
If you want to further encourage your players to head to the keep, have the dragon destroy the caravan cart near the players. Then have the players notice that the keep is the only building holding up to the powerful attacks of the dragon.
Let them know that they are not safe outside.
This thread is absurd. Ok, assuming you feel that the beginning of this module needs a rewrite because A) the characters being played aren't the heroic type or B) you don't want to railroad players into playing the module, or C) the dragon is just too much for lvl-1 characters,
A) characters are D&D heroes. They should act the part. Standing around doing nothing is not heroic. Ignoring a town being attacked is not heroic. Consider a real world example: We have firefighters. You don't become a firefighter unless you're willing to put yourself at risk to help others. If you're not firefighter material, then you don't become a firefighter or you don't stay one very long. Now let's go back to D&D: we have adventurers. You don't become an adventurer unless you're willing to be a hero. If you're not adventurer material, then you don't become one or you don't stay one very long. Go open a tavern or become an expert blacksmith. Adventuring is not for you.
B) There should be no instance of railroading here because it shouldn't be a requirement of the DM to FORCE the party to help this town. The party, by virtue of being heroic adventurers in D&D who have chosen a life of adventure, should have all the motivation they need, no hook necessary. They don't have to foolishly rush into the town and fight hordes of enemies. They could take a more cautious approach and use the stream to circumvent encounters. The initial hook is to save a family fleeing kobolds, not to save the town from a dragon by slaying it. Once you save the family, they want to get to the keep. This is a sound destination... hiding underground, behind stone walls, and being hidden from view are the benefits of a keep. Running into the woods... in the world of D&D means you could run into a vampire looking for food or a raiding party from the Underdark. So honestly, who is to say which is the "safer" option? Oh yeah... the DM. If the players wanted to play D&D, and made characters to play, and then elect to not participate in heroic deeds, then what was the point? I don't bring scrabble pieces to play battleship.
C) The dragon is a bit much. It is supremely too powerful for a group of lvl 1 characters. But then, it's atmosphere. You have an entire keep attacking it with arrows. Guards die, to illustrate the danger a dragon presents, but adventurers don't have to. The party can literally do nothing but wait it out. There are other objectives that can be completed in the town. The biggest problem I see with the adventure is requiring adventurers to complete every submission. Instead treat it as a sequence of events that each take time to complete. The dragon leaves at morning or after the guards deal damage equal to half its total hp whether the party dealt with it or not. The episode ends as the sun rises and the half-dragon challenges a champion of the keep. It even says in the module that the champion doesn't have to be a PC, so a decent amount of this episode can be avoided by just waiting around doing nothing and waiting for the sun to rise.
Now to the actual point of the thread: You could have the cult attack after the characters arrived to town. You could have the characters create backgrounds that link them to the town. Or you can leave it the way it is. These are completely beside the point. If the characters aren't willing to do heroic acts, defend the weak and helpless, or combat evil when they encounter it, perhaps the players need to reevaluate why their character is an adventurer in the first place. Are the adventurers being cautious or callous? Brave or craven? Or perhaps the players need to reevaluate why they are playing D&D in the first place.
Noon wrote:
jeff-heikkinen wrote:
I am running this adventure after the Lost mines. I am tying it together by having the real reason for the conspiracy at the mines being they were seeking a lost Dragon Mask. At the end of the Lost mines the player should defeat the villain but the Dragon Mask mcguffin has already been discovered and smuggled out to Greenest. The players then see the full fury of the Dragon Cultists as they retrieve the Dragon mask after it has been delayed in Greenest. As the player should be 3rd level there should be more of a chance for heroics in defence of the town.
JonJones wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
jeff-heikkinen wrote: