Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I liked the FFX sphere grid system, I wonder if any pen and paper RPG games did a similar thing?

squidhills wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
It sounds like what you are really after is a tactical skirmish miniatures game. Try 4E

No thank you. 4E is a tabletop miniatures skirmish game, and I want an RPG. I just want an RPG where the thing that is an important part of most sessions (combat) isn't entirely up to the GM's whim.

For the other poster who made a comment that 3.5/Pathfinder is bad for having rules for combat maneuvers that are bad, well... yes, they are bad for having bad rules. But at least they have rules. You can argue the merits of whether or not particular mechanics are good or bad (3.5 combat maneuvers are terrible/ Pathfinder's aren't great, but are much better) but saying that the lack of rules is superior to the existence of rules is nonsensical. If you have to houserule common combat maneuvers (everybody in an RPG has tried to trip or grapple someone at some point) your game's rules are incomplete. You've also made it difficult for players to move between tables. If I'm at a table with GM A and he says a trip roll is just an unmodified attack roll that leaves the target prone; fine. What happens when I go to play at GM B's table, and he decides that trip attacks are an unmodified attack roll with disadvantage? If I'm used to GM A's method, I'm not going to enjoy rolling twice and taking the worst result at B's table. Now I go to GM C's table, and he's a big 3.5 grognard, so trip is an unmodified attack roll, followed by an opposed strength test. That's 2 rolls to do what I could do with one at GM A's table. Now I play with GM D, and he's brand new to GMing. He's unsure of himself, so he wants to stick to RAW. He doesn't allow trips at all, because there aren't any rules for them. Now what?

When I sit down at a gaming table with my friends, I want to be surprised by the adventure. I want to be surprised by the GM. I do not want to be surprised by the rules.

Lance845 has the right of it. Cinematic Unisystem is the bee's knees. I played in a Buffy the Vampire Slayer campaign that ran for most of a decade and had a blast. But that is because the game actually has rules for combat beyond "swing weapon" or "cast spell". It is an example of an actual easy-to-learn, rules-light system that works without having to ask the GM's permission to do stuff. But good luck getting anyone to play it. The books are out of print and the Whedonverse shows are long off the air and out of the public conciousness.

This thread is just gonna be people claiming a thing isn't in 5e, I look it up, and the thing is in 5e, isn't it? That's what it's been so far, but I have learned a HELL of a lot about combat in 5e by debunking these claims, so please keep it coming!

OK, I went and looked up the Cinematic Unisystem combat maneuvers table, and let's compare it to 5e.

You've got stuff like Neck Snap, Decapitate, Heart Stake, Groin Shot: 5e definitely does not have these. I kind of question their value in a system that has hit points? If I can just say "My guy decapitates" instead of attacking with my greatsword...I'm gonna decapitate. That's a thing that kills someone instantly, usually.

You have separate maneuvers for gun shot, bow shot, crossbow shot, punch, melee weapon attack...all these are just covered by "attack" in 5e, so we'll ignore those too.

Dodge: Is in 5e, basic combat action.

Grapple: Is in 5e (Grapple is under the Attack action rather than a standard action, as far as I can tell because martial classes get the "make an action to attack twice" thing commonly, which would allow them to Grapple+Attack, Grapple+Shove which we'll get into later, etc)

Aiming: Is not in 5e. If you want to stand still and get advantage on your next ranged attack in 5e, you'd have to call that a Hide action or a Prepared action, depending on the context of what you want to do (i.e., waiting for an enemy to charge out of cover, or just wanting your next attack to be more accurate for some other reason.

Catch Weapon: Looks like this is catch ranged weapon? In 5e, this is a monk only skill. I don't know, this might work as a thing everyone can try to do in a cinematic universe system, but I feel like if you gave me 1,000,000 tries to catch an arrow I would fail 1,000,000 times.

Disarm: Rules for this are in "Additional combat actions" DMG 271-272. And I can see why this would be left more up to the GM's discretion to allow conditionally - there's a big difference between disarming a hobgoblin marauder and disarming a high-level creature like a Death Knight or a Lich whose damage would probably drop considerably if he had to start making unarmed strikes. But there are RAW rules for how to handle it.

Feint: This looks like a melee version of "Aim" from earlier. In 5e, "feint" appears in the text of the "help" action, so if you want to do it, you have to do it to help an ally rather than help yourself. Which, to be fair, you cannot do using the cinematic unisystem "feint" action - it appears to be only available to use selfishly.

Headbutt, Punch, Kick, Spin Kick, Jump Kick: These are separate actions in CU and would probably all fall under "Unarmed strike" in 5e, unless you were trying to kick an enemy to move them (over a cliff, into a well, etc) in which case they'd fall under "Shove".

Knock Out: You do this in dnd by reducing a creature's hit points to 0. You can't just say "I knock him out" as an action.

Parry: This is something that not everyone can do in 5e. There are various classes and subclasses that gain some form of defense or defensive reaction with a melee weapon, but no universal action for it.

Slam-Tackle: You have two options here in 5e, depending on what you want your tackle to do. If you want to knock an opponent down, use Shove. If you want to move through an opponent using your strength, use Overrun.

Sweep Kick, Takedown: Again, use Shove. Having 5 separate highly specific sounding rules that amount to "opponent get knocked down" does not make a system better IMO.

Wrestling Hold: Sounds like a Grapple to me. Note that in 5e, using Grapple in conjunction with Shove (which martial classes that can make 2 attacks per round can do in one turn) will reduce a target's speed to 0 thus preventing them from using movement to Stand Up. In that way you've effectively got two levels of Grappling to represent just grabbing on to someone or successfully knocking them down and having them in a hold.

Toss: Does not exist as a default option that everyone can do in 5e unless they're hiding in class/subclass abilities. There are rules for throwing improvised weapons which includes the damage those improvised objects take, so if a large creature were to throw a small character, that would have rules.

Things Dnd5e has rules for that do not appear to exist in CU's combat maneuvers list:

-Climb on to a larger creature

-Cleave through multiple enemies

-Duck out of sight (Hide as an in-combat option)

-Shove or Shove Aside

-Duck/Dodge past an enemy

Honestly, I'm not super impressed with huge lists like this. I've found in most games, having something like this means that the players will either discover that some particular maneuver (say, a Spin Kick or a Groin Kick or something) is super OP and it makes more sense to just do that than to attack normally, and you've got to slog through a campaign of 5 people fething Three Stooging their way through all your combat encounters ("I eye poke!" "I eye poke too!" "I also eye poke!") until you finally tell them no, we're disallowing spin kicks, no more spin kicking. Or, you present this massive, crazy, fething alphabetical list with Kick, Jump Kick, Spin Kick, Sweep Kick and Groin Kick as separate combat actions players have to keep track of, and something utterly basic like "melee weapon attack" wedged in somewhere between Purple Nurple and Indian Burn, and your players just have no fething idea what to do with all of it.

Nah. Half these actions fall into the two categories of "Attack" and "Something you let the player describe when you roll a critical hit or finish an enemy off".

I mean, yeah, it's a pretty long-standing tradition in dnd for either the DM to describe, or ask the player to describe, how one kills the enemy on a critical hit.

squidhills wrote:
without having to ask the GM's permission to do stuff

Again with this. You guys are not playing D&D correctly. Or perhaps it might be more accurate to say you are mis-perceiving it?

Well, I did a quick page through the Cinematic Unisystem, and I do think if I had to play a "crunchy" rpg I'd choose dnd 5e over it.

1) Character creation, definitely way more fluid and many many more choices. Character progression, to me seems less interesting. Having interesting special maneuvers, powers, etc in the class level system gives you something to consider pretty much every time you gain a level, versus just improving your attributes or skills and getting +1 to a roll. I like the fact that certain classes can take multiple actions in their turn, or gain the ability to do things as bonus actions, and I like that the highly flexible subclasses are available fairly shallowly in most class trees - a level 6 character can pretty easily have their pick of 2 subclasses, for example.

2) Complain about having to rely on GM fiat in 5e, and propose this as a better alternative with less of that? I'm sorry? Let's just take a peek at the ol' Combat section here:



So, every round of combat in this system literally begins with a quick round of "mother may I" with the GM, where you say how many attacks or whatnot you'd like to do, and then the GM determines using "common sense" who would get to go first.

um.

And this is the system that relies so much LESS on GM fiat?

3) Calculating numbers of successes

Boy, for complaining that DnD's stat modifier and variable DC system is annoying to calculate, having to do that calculation on every roll seems...way more obnoxious to me. Rolls in CU follow the formula Attribute+Skill+D10 roll result then you compare the result to the "success level table" which starts at 9, and then you get 1 success for every 2 above 9 until 4 successes, then it's every 3. And in combat, it seems like most rolls are contested, so both players will need to figure out which stats are relevant, roll d10, add to the total, and compare to the table.

The reason I prefer DnD for this is that most of the clunkiest math is static, so you can do it on your character sheet, and just always have it in front of you. Sure, Armor Class is a weird calculation, but once you've done it one time, you're fine. And skill checks are your stat bonus+a fixed proficiency bonus that you either have or don't have, so you can just write the number "+5" next to your perception, and every time the DM says "roll perception" you immediately know to roll D20 and add 5, instead of having to

1) look up what skill+attribute combo is required for what you're doing, plus any applicable modifiers
2) Roll d10 and add up those numbers
3) determine using the success table how many successes that is, which is handily not some kind of easy to remember mathmatical formula, so you'd have to have it printed right on your sheet or something.

and then the opponent has to follow the same process to figure out how to roll to defend against you, unless you're doing some unopposed task with a modifier, which, pssst: Is the same as Difficulty Class but with the numbers moved around. The GM deciding you need to roll at -5 to get a 9 is exactly the same as the DM deciding the DC of a task is 15 instead of 5.

4) hyper-specific language and rule names

this is a little pet peeve of mine personally, but if I had my druthers I would always make rules names as general as humanly possible, and lay out rules writing in a manner that very clearly separates descriptions/fluff from rules info. Stuff like this:



God I hate when rules are formatted like that. Just a big jumble of words intermingling descriptions with what the thing actually does. Either describe the thing, in a separate paragraph, and then put all the rules effects at the bottom where it's easily differentiable, or give me a big table with just the rules effects.

Thats not what i am saying. I am saying d20 specifically plays like a video game or table top skirmisher and has a lot of problems that stem from both the core d20 mechanic and the way it handles level/class. Its always been less a role playing game and more a daggerfall murder hobo loot video game.

The fact that a dragon can bathe your character in fire and bring them fromm 100 to 1 hp with no il effect says it all. It says it twice when its as though it never happened after they take a nap.

The majority of point buy or classless game do better at making your character a person in a world and facilitating the role play in the rpg. D20 doesnt. And (back on topic) its combat suffers for that reason. If its boring and uninteresting its because its a diablo boss. Hit it hard and fast so it dies before it can do anything.because if its not dead it might as well be 100% alive. Just like you.

 Lance845 wrote:
Thats not what i am saying. I am saying d20 specifically plays like a video game or table top skirmisher and has a lot of problems that stem from both the core d20 mechanic and the way it handles level/class. Its always been less a role playing game and more a daggerfall murder hobo loot video game.

The fact that a dragon can bathe your character in fire and bring them fromm 100 to 1 hp with no il effect says it all. It says it twice when its as though it never happened after they take a nap.

The majority of point buy or classless game do better at making your character a person in a world and facilitating the role play in the rpg. D20 doesnt. And (back on topic) its combat suffers for that reason. If its boring and uninteresting its because its a diablo boss. Hit it hard and fast so it dies before it can do anything.because if its not dead it might as well be 100% alive. Just like you.

Right, in a good RPG combat system like Cinematic Unisystem, things are different. Instead of having hit points, you have Life Points. Instead of Death Saves, you take Survival Tests when reduced to 0 hit points to see if you die.

But it can be different! You can be poisoned, stunned, grappled, knocked down, and subjected to all kinds of conditions in the CU, unlike in crappy DnD 5e combat, where you can only be poisoned, grappled, stunned, knocked prone, paralyzed, silenced, etc.

I do prefer stuff like the Powered by the Apocalypse system, where there are explicit rules about not just saying the name of the ability you're using and rolling for it, and a lot more conditional successes where you talk about what went wrong with what you're trying to do, and damage is more abstracted and involves more conditions being applied by just damage before you die.

But in this thread, it seems like people are complaining about having to talk to the GM about what happens, and want a system where everything is written out, black and white, exactly what Y happens when X is done - and that is going to result in a game where players will play more like Diablo characters in a skirmish game.

You forget that under unisystem when you got bellow 10 lp you suffer a -2 to all physical actions (human average health is 22) or that bellow 5 its -4. Or that recover takes a lot more than telling the dm its nap time.

Or in free league year zero your str is your health and when you take damage it matters because its a direct impact on your actions.

 Lance845 wrote:
You forget that under unisystem when you got bellow 10 lp you suffer a -2 to all physical actions (human average health is 22) or that bellow 5 its -4. Or that recover takes a lot more than telling the dm its nap time.

Or in free league year zero your str is your health and when you take damage it matters because its a direct impact on your actions.

And you forget that if you want things to work like that in DnD, you very much can using optional systems like "Gritty Realism" - or if you DONT want things to work like that under unisystem, you also can.

It depends on what kind of game you want to be playing. in CU, you can spend a drama point to have an injured character be "back and ready to go for the next episode."

Which makes perfect sense if you're running a cinematic, TV-series style game. Personally, "resting takes 7 days" vs "resting takes 8 hours" makes little difference in my enjoyment of a game, and at the table I sincerely doubt it would make a whole heck of a lot of difference.

 Lance845 wrote:
Thats not what i am saying. I am saying d20 specifically plays like a video game or table top skirmisher

Maybe you could try, you know... playing it differently than the way you describe?

I've been playing DnD since way back when my first group was playing ADnD nearly 25 years ago. The combat system from the very start has always been nothing more than a means to resolve conflicts without having players risk getting in to god-modes and "I can't fail at anything!" attitudes. It's there to assist roleplaying by adding random chance to it, the random chance being modified by your various character features.

I say that to preface the statement that I haven't had any problems at all with actual roleplaying using the dnd system.

 Melissia wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Thats not what i am saying. I am saying d20 specifically plays like a video game or table top skirmisher

Maybe you could try, you know... playing it differently than the way you describe?

I've been playing DnD since way back when my first group was playing ADnD nearly 25 years ago. The combat system from the very start has always been nothing more than a means to resolve conflicts without having players risk getting in to god-modes and "I can't fail at anything!" attitudes. It's there to assist roleplaying by adding random chance to it, the random chance being modified by your various character features.

I say that to preface the statement that I haven't had any problems at all with actual roleplaying using the dnd system.

This isnt a critque based on what good roleplayers and good dms can do with bad mechanics. Good roleplayers and dms need no mechanics. They can just go outside and play pretend 100% free form
Im saying what d20 IS and what its mechanics encourage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What good roleplayers and dms manage to do DESPITE dnd is full on commendable.

 Lance845 wrote:
Good roleplayers and dms need no mechanics.

Well, that would explain why you're sitting here in this thread arguing about which mechanics are best, because apparently you AREN'T, by your own admission, a good roleplayer. Fething come off it and stop with the lazy, smug, self-aggrandizing patronizing of people who have different tastes in roleplaying games than you.

If you don't like having mechanical elements in your roleplaying, just don't use them. Plenty of people, including people that are FAR better roleplayers than you, enjoy them. These roleplaying game mechanics are for many people a good part of the fun of roleplaying something like DnD, Shadowrun, Legend of 5 Rings, Exalted, Vampire, and so on. If they're not what you're looking for... just don't use them. There's nothing wrong with that. But this absurd crusade against them is just silly and childish.

I love the personal attacks about my ability as a roleplayer based on no examples of my roleplaying while im discussing the mechanical implications of a game.

Turn about being fair play. Why dont you stop sucking wizards dick and holding dnd up on its golden pedestal long enough to give it a fair critique of it good and bads?

I never said you were not free to go like whatever it is you like. Even if its bad. Calling out a bad system for being bad is just that. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The irony of accusing me of "sucking WotC's dick" is that the editions I said are the best DnD editions were the ones that came AFTER Hasbro bought the company, kicked Wizards in the balls, and then told them how to make better games-- and this after I mentioned numerous systems that have mechanical elements that I enjoy other than DnD, but you're so blinded by your hate for DnD that you just apparently didn't even see it even though you're responding to my post.

Oh, and quit whining about "personal attacks", you're literally saying to everyone that anyone who wants mechanical elements in their game is a bad roleplayer. "GOOD roleplayers don't NEED that!" and other such crap.

 Lance845 wrote:
I love the personal attacks about my ability as a roleplayer based on no examples of my roleplaying while im discussing the mechanical implications of a game.

Turn about being fair play. Why dont you stop sucking wizards dick and holding dnd up on its golden pedestal long enough to give it a fair critique of it good and bads?

I never said you were not free to go like whatever it is you like. Even if its bad. Calling out a bad system for being bad is just that. Nothing more. Nothing less.

"Hey, why don't you give a fair critique of the good and bad aspects of this system?

....Anyway this system is bad."

I never said DnD didn't have aspects of it that were not good and bad. Personally speaking, one of my biggest complaints about it is exactly what you just brought up - damage is very abstracted to where taking 99/100 of your hit points in damage does not affect your combat abilities, but getting knocked over, stunned, blinded, etc most definitely does.

That is 100% a weakness of DnD.

...What is NOT a weakness of DnD is

1) Claiming it doesn't have gak it does actually have, and you just don't know about it

2) Claiming it always works 1 way, when the core rulebook presents optional alternatives to the very thing you consider a pet peeve

3) Claiming that cumbersome math or clunky rules sytems are uniquely a problem with it, when it takes the smallest of glances at the system you hold up as superior to find equally obnoxious/clunky systems.

1) the core rule book of dnd is the players handbook. Its the only book NEEDED to play. The dmg is what it says on the cover. A guide. Nothing in there is a hard fast rule. Its all alternatives and boils down to "do what you want, but heres some tables if that helps".

2) see 1.

3) i never gave dnd exclusivity. I gave it ownership. Dnd has those things. They are not the ONLY ones who have them.

The PHB is all that's needed to "play", but the DMG is part of the "core" of DnD, intended for the DM-- thus its name. The players have the Player's Handbook, and the dungeon master has the Dungeon Master's Guide.

Thus, traditionally each of the players will have their copy of the PHB, and the DM who has their copy of the DMG. Though usually not everyone actually has a copy of the PHB, and people share, but them's the breaks.

The key words there are hand book and guide. The players get a list of rules. What they can and cannot do and how they do it. The dm guides. It points you in some directions but sets no boundaries.

Again, where are dnds RULES?

The dmg helps. Its a great resource. But its ONLY a resource.

 Lance845 wrote:
Again, where are dnds RULES?

For players, they're in the PHB. For DMs, they're in the DMG.

The rules are split between two books.

Even if you want to argue the MM is a supplement (it's considered a core by the DnD community), the DMG is not by any means a supplement. It contains a lot of necessary content for dungeon-mastering a game.

 Lance845 wrote:
1) the core rule book of dnd is the players handbook. Its the only book NEEDED to play. The dmg is what it says on the cover. A guide. Nothing in there is a hard fast rule. Its all alternatives and boils down to "do what you want, but heres some tables if that helps".

2) see 1.

3) i never gave dnd exclusivity. I gave it ownership. Dnd has those things. They are not the ONLY ones who have them.

Boy, you sure are going to have a dull game of DnD if you don't have the rules for any monster, NPC or item.

....Also, most of the gak you were complaining with is actually in the PHB, like all the rules for executing combat maneuvers other than "attack" that you earlier claimed didn't exist. The "Additional combat actions" section in the DMG is relatively specific stuff.

You dont need a MM to make up monsters and you dont need a dmg to run a game. Experienced enough dms realize that there are only so many variations on stat blocks. Make a note card. Add some stats. Use the phb to get weapon and armor stats and go.

Do you really need the mm to tell you hhohow tto make a higher level spell casting goblin? Or could you just add a level or sorcerer?

Also, you're just wrong. What books are required to play DnD is probably going to be determined by the company that makes it, and they say:

CORE RULEBOOKS

If you want to create a greater variety of characters or populate your adventures with other monsters, check out the fifth edition Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master’s Guide, and Monster Manual. These rulebooks introduce you to the vast multiverse of D&D and invite you to create unique characters and worlds within it.

Player's Handbook: For players of course, with everything needed to build and run a vast variety of characters.

Dungeon Master's Guide: For DMs to run their game, create memorable adventures, and manage entire campaigns.

Monster Manual: A resource to stock the dungeons and wilds of the game with sometimes wondrous, sometimes dangerous, and always fantastic creatures!

These are obviously the three base books required to play the full game of dnd. Starter boxes provide condensed versions of these books, but are exactly as much the full game as the Battle Primer and the in-box rules are the rules required to play 40k.

Ehere do you get the rules for levels and spells?

 Lance845 wrote:
You dont need a MM to make up monsters and you dont need a dmg to run a game. Experienced enough dms realize that there are only so many variations on stat blocks. Make a note card. Add some stats. Use the phb to get weapon and armor stats and go.

Do you really need the mm to tell you hhohow tto make a higher level spell casting goblin? Or could you just add a level or sorcerer?

.........You don't need any more intelligence or effort to make up rules for an Improvised Action to perform a spin-kick or take an opponent's knife or do a crotch shot or whatever other cringy fething gak was in the CU combat maneuvers list, but here we fething are my man. You've created a beautiful premise here: Something must be in the books to be real, or else it's just a game of Ask The GM, but if something is in the books, then it doesn't exist because all books are optional.

You might as well argue that rules for players above level 5 don't exist, because the PHB is optional content - you can play DnD just fine with the starter box!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
Ehere do you get the rules for levels and spells?

It takes literally zero effort to make up a spell. A good roleplayer doesn't need a list telling them what spells or levels are.





See how fething stupid this is getting?

 Lance845 wrote:
Ehere do you get the rules for levels and spells?

In a lot of places, actually. The PHB, the DMG, the MM, Volo's, Xanathar's, Mordenkainen's, SCAG, Ravnica, Acquisitions Incorporated, Eberron, Wildemount, as well as several of the adventure modules.

Are you telling me that you have dmed and never once made up a monster? Or changed a stat block? Or just winged the stats for an npc?

 Lance845 wrote:
Are you telling me that you have dmed and never once made up a monster? Or changed a stat block? Or just winged the stats for an npc?

Non-sequiturs are a bad way to argue.

 Melissia wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Are you telling me that you have dmed and never once made up a monster? Or changed a stat block? Or just winged the stats for an npc?

Non-sequiturs are a bad way to argue.

Let the scotsman know that.

The point is you have. And you can. And the dmg is entirely optional. But the actual rules for levels classes, skills, combat, spells, death.... They arent anywhere but the phb. Yes, MORE spells are other places. But the dmg on its own isnt a game. And the mm on its own isnt a game. But the phb on its own is.

 Lance845 wrote:
the dmg on its own isnt a game. And the mm on its own isnt a game.

Actually, you can play DnD with just the DMG if you so want to. The DMG has enough in it that you can have a perfectly enjoyable roleplaying campaign with it. In fact, I've done that, though it's not entirely to my taste.

 Lance845 wrote:
Are you telling me that you have dmed and never once made up a monster? Or changed a stat block? Or just winged the stats for an npc?

No, I do that all the time, as should every dm. I'm saying that in previous pages, when it suited your little narrative, you were holding that up as a core WEAKNESS of DnD - the fact that there wasn't enough actions codified into the rules, and too much fell under the purview of "improvised action."

Unlike other "great systems" like unisystem, with their nighmarish horribly-formatted paragraphs of cringily written fluff layered on top of rules.

Boy, sure is great that if I want my character to kick someone in the balls, I don't have to make something up on the fly like "athletics test opposed by athletics or acrobatics and if he loses he's stunned for one round" or "I did already say he's wearing plate armor, so you're going to probably take a couple points of damage to your foot if you do that" and instead I can know for sure that it's Dexterity+Kung Fu-5 for 10 Bashing and "Hard on boys" whatever that means.

Either it's good to have systems where you have a large amount of improvisational leniency with rules that serve primarily as examples for the GM to make up their own stuff, or it's bad because then players can only engage in games of Mother May I with the GM.

Pick one, please.