The Return of the Son of Ask Angry: Three Questions About Stuff

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Banner Patreon 800 x 100

It’s been a long time since I answered any of the questions people have been asking me. That’s right, it’s time for another Ask Angry blitz. If you want to Ask Angry, here’s how to do it.

Meanwhile, I’ve been considering how to bring this Ask Angry thing back regularly. And I’m curious whether people have even missed it. So, let me know in the comments what you think of these Ask Angry articles? Do you want to see them as a regular thing or not? Do you like to get three or four questions in one go or would you prefer short answers now and then? Do you hate them? What do you think? Yes, I am actually asking for feedback in the comments. Let me know what you think.

Big Lew asks:

When I am running an adventure, my sense of immersion often breaks when things feel fabricated or scripted. I often see this in [published] adventures. Having such a linear formula makes me feel like I am robbing my player’s agency. I am searching for something that feels less scripted, more alive, something that doesn’t restrict my player’s choices or effectively forces my player’s through plot points. I want something that doesn’t threaten to crack my own fragile suspension of disbelief. The only thing I can think of that would be sufficient is to run a “plate of spaghetti” campaign but that isn’t feasible for me due to inexperience and time constraints. Are there any alternatives?

First, El Lew Grande, let me say this: when you’re running an adventure, your sense of immersion and suspension of disbelief don’t matter one single solitary f$&%. If your players don’t feel pushed along or robbed of their agency, it isn’t a problem. The thing is, because you’re behind the curtain, you can see the rails. What you’re doing is complaining that being a stage magician is no fun because you know how all the tricks are done. Guess what? It sucks to be the Wizard of Oz. If your PLAYERS are feeling like they are trapped on a midnight train to plot point, then you actually have a problem worth dealing with. Otherwise, suck it up. Or take up a different hobby.

Now, here’s the deal, loss of agency doesn’t actually come from a linear plot. I mean, if you break any adventure down enough, it’s going to have to plot points you have to usher through. If there’s a villain, the villain has to be beaten. Everything is about getting to that point. If an adventure has a mystery, the players have to follow the breadcrumb trail of clues. That’s how it is. Even “plate of spaghetti” campaigns have plot points that the players have to reach. They are called goals. And without goals, the players just sit in taverns rolling to see if they are getting drunk and trying to sex the bar wenches and bar bawds.

Players feel like they’ve lost agency when they feel like their choices don’t matter. And that doesn’t have anything to do with picking your path through the plot. It can, sure, but that’s just one form of agency. A more important form of agency is a feeling that past decisions have consequences. The reason why published adventures don’t have much of that sense of agency is because it’s a very reactive type of agency. That is, when the players take some sort of action, the GM has to be willing to change the rest of the adventure to reflect the choice of that action over another action. Take a simple example like choosing to bully someone for information rather than persuade them. In most published adventures, the choice between bullying and persuading only impacts what skills are used to resolve the outcome. But a good, reactive GM might allow persuasive PCs to make a friend. Maybe later, the friendly NPC sends them a warning at a critical moment. Or, the bullied NPC might be resentful and send some thugs to beat up the PCs. Published adventures try not to put too much pressure on GMs by not making them keep track of that sort of crap.

If you don’t have the wherewithal to run your own campaign and write your own adventures – and it IS possible to insert your own adventure into an established campaign without having to run an entire goddamned full-length epic and you totally SHOULD give it a try – if you can’t write your own adventures AND your players – NOT YOU – really do feel railroaded by your adventure choices, start making some changes on the fly. If the players leave someone alive, bring that NPC back later, even if the adventure doesn’t call for it. If the players treat an NPC well, have them return later in the adventure. If the players circumvent a trap without disabling it, maybe later a monster or NPC in that area shows signs of having set off the trap. And if you can’t find any opportunities to change the adventure, add your own encounters. Add an NPC who can become a recurring ally or rival, for example.

Truth is, it really doesn’t take much to make the players believe they have an impact on the game. They are inclined to believe that already. And because they can’t see anything except the one path they take through the game, they generally assume they could have done things differently.

But, again, make sure the problem really isn’t just the fact that you’re standing behind the smoke and mirrors.

Duncan asks:

I’ve always been underwhelmed by conversation in games like D&D, because compared to combat, it feels one sided. In conversation there’s no rules which allow NPCs to manipulate players the way players can manipulate NPCs. Players use conversation skills (Intimidate, Persuade, etc) on NPCs but seemingly never have to worry about NPCs using those same actions against them. Why the fuck not? What are your thoughts about this?

Oh, boo f$&%ing hoo! Are the players lying circles around your poor NPCs and your precious characters can’t seem to convince them that water is wet or the sky is blue? Welcome to GMing. GMing is about learning to lose the game week after week and cheer for the winners. It’s about getting sacked time after time and saying, “thank you sirs, may I have another.”

Okay, look, I’ve talked about social interaction in role-playing games before. I’ve even proposed an open-ended but still mechanical system for handling it. And even that doesn’t address all of the problems with social interaction in D&D. Social interaction scenes SUCK in D&D. D&D is basically built like s$&% when it comes to social interaction. Pillar of the game my giant, hairy a$& Mearls!

But the problem ISN’T that you and your beloved NPCs don’t get to roll dice to make the players think whatever you want them to think. There’s a damned good reason why you don’t use social interaction skills against PCs. And that’s because the players – not the dice – control their characters’ brains. Which is exactly how it should be. You wouldn’t wrest control from the players during combat and say, “your character isn’t smart enough to figure out that strategy, you just attack with your sword instead, here, I’ll roll it for you.” And if you did, you’d be a major a$&hole.

Social interaction skills aren’t really about social interaction. They are more like social lockpicks. They are ways to overcome obstacles. When the players pick the lock on a door, the door doesn’t try to break the lockpicks. It either resists or it doesn’t. And they either get through the door or they don’t. Social interaction skills determine the likelihood that the players can change the brains of the NPCs in the world. Pure and simple.

When a social interaction encounter starts, there MUST be a reason why the NPC doesn’t want to help the PCs. Otherwise, that’s not an encounter. It’s just a friendly chat where the NPC gives them the information or help or whatever and then offers them tea and crumpets. In order to get what they want, the players have to do two things. First, they have to figure out the right things to say. That’s the role-playing part. Second, they have to overcome the NPCs resistance by rolling successful checks. That part comes after you listen to what they say, decide it might actually work, and then ask them to make the appropriate roll.

Your job in the scene is twofold. First, you design the NPC so that you know what the NPC wants, what it fears, and what it can and can’t offer. That helps you decide whether the PCs are actually saying the right things. It’s like designing a very complicated door. Second, your job is to act as the NPC. You have to formulate responses to the PCs based BOTH on what they choose to say and do AND whether those things are successful or not. And you also have to either provide clues so the PCs can figure out how to interact successfully or lay false trails and red herrings to lead the PCs to useless actions. That’s how you adjust the challenge of the scene and respond to their actions. And the PCs have an Insight skill as a sort of failsafe against some of that crap in much the same way they have a Perception check that they can use to see a trap before it kills them. Third, you have to design when the scene is over and the PCs have failed. This is a job lots of GMs forget. The fact is, the players WILL keep at a failed scene forever if you let them. You have to tell them in no uncertain terms when the scene is failed and narrate them the hell out of the scene.

You might think that that is the perfect place for the NPC to wear down the PC’s social hit points with social skills. But it isn’t. That would suck. Because, unlike a combat, social interactions GENERALLY don’t have consequences or risks and don’t expend resources. So, after the PCs lose all their social HP, they could just come back after they have a drink or meditate or whatever and try it all over again. And that gets boring as f$&%.

Now, D&D could DEFINITELY use a mechanic like “Patience” wherein an NPC eventually gets tired of having social interaction thrown at him to no avail to signal to the GM when to end the scene, but that would be a backend mechanic. Not a player-facing mechanic. And the GM would have to be careful to still assess every social action based on what the players are saying and doing and not boil the scene down into rolling X successes before Y failures. But any attempt at such a mechanic went away with 4th Edition because Wizards of the Coast loves throwing out perfectly serviceable bathtubs with useless babies. Or whatever.

Meanwhile, if you want to manipulate your players socially, you’re going to have to get better at doing it the hard way. No matter how much you want to, you are NOT allowed to tell your players how their characters MUST act and what they MUST believe.

Indigo asks:

Do the Wolf and Kobold challenge ratings ignore Pack Tactics? If so, why? I stumbled upon your monster building courses and found them immensely useful. I decided to reverse engineer some monster challenge ratings to make sure I had the process down before moving ahead and building my own monsters. I did pretty well with most, but when I tried to measure Wolves and then later Kobolds I was confounded.

Yes. Probably. I mean, I didn’t check. But I looked over the paragraphs of math and explanation you HELPFULLY included which I have chosen to spare my readers and you seem to have it right. And, betting between you and the designers at WotC, I’ll pick you any day. And I don’t even know who you are.

There are lots of monsters who CRs are probably off by at least a little bit. I know of a few. In fact, I think I did also personally identify the kobold as one of them once upon a time. But who can keep track of this crap?

Here’s the deal. As much as you and I would LOVE to believe that CR stuff is some sort of scientific process carefully determined by the designers at WotC, the truth is that it’s a big ole pack of lies. What WotC SEEMS to have done with 5E is the same thing they did with 3E. That is, they didn’t design the monster numbers and the PC numbers at the same time. Instead, they figured out what sort of range of numbers PCs should have based on “reasons.” And then, they designed monsters in the proper ballparks. Then, they had a whole bunch of playtesters in one of their big closed beta tests run encounters against all sorts of monsters to pinpoint the CRs. I participated in both the open and closed beta playtests of D&D 5E, so I know some of what went on. I’m guessing at the rest. The reason I compare this to 3rd Edition is because of the genericon story from the 3E design days that I referenced in this article which also answers this question in much more detail.

Later on, the designers of 5E had to develop a system for designing monsters because they needed crap to fill the DMG and didn’t know what to put in there and lots of GMs were asking how to make monsters. Now, at that point, I’m sure WotC had refined the process well enough to have some very strong benchmarks they had distilled from the playtests as well as from seeing the broader results once the game was in the wild. So, those benchmarks provided a starting point. But they also had to figure out how to help GMs assess the impact of special abilities and traits. So, they compiled the special abilities and traits they considered most iconic from the Monster Manual and figured out, roughly, how those should affect the numbers.

So, the Monster Manual CRs were set by rigorous playtesting. The DMG CR rules were set by trying to come up with a set of general rules that followed from that playtesting. And they just aren’t going to align.

Now, it’s funny that you bring up Pack Tactics because it trips over the basic design philosophy of 5E. 5E’s encounter design math harkens back to the 3E encounter design math in that it assumes the baseline encounter is ONE monster per PARTY. It then explains how to adjust CRs if you want to have groups of monsters. But that means the basic CR on a monster is the CR of that monster IN ISOLATION. And Pack Tactics is unique in that it has absolutely ZERO impact if the monster is alone. The monster needs at least one ally to even have a chance at using Pack Tactics. I suspect somewhere along the line, that gummed up the math. How do you set the CR on an ability whose impact drastically increases with the number of allies one has? Because Pack Tactics becomes more impactful the more monsters there are. With just one, it’s useless. With two, it’s only useful if both monsters can focus their attention on one target. With four, there’s more ways to use it. And if the monsters outnumber the party, it’ll impact multiple attacks against multiple party members every round. And, of course, it becomes less impactful as the monsters’ numbers diminish.

Honestly, I think the value they came up with it for monster building – effectively a +1 to attack – is reasonable. But it does push SOME monsters whose attack bonus is already 1 point over the expected attack bonus for their CR into a whole other CR category unfairly. And that’s what would happen with the wolf and kobold if you reverse engineered it.

Banner Patreon 800 x 100

48 thoughts on “The Return of the Son of Ask Angry: Three Questions About Stuff

  1. I can definitely say I’d enjoy seeing more Ask Angrys from now on. I always enjoy them – they’re a great way to see you touch on minor subjects between feature articles and I like the variety you get in each one. I personally prefer them clumped into about three or four questions so there’s enough content for me to sit down and get comfortable with.

  2. I enjoy the ‘Ask Angry’ column, as it provides some quick solutions and short looks at issues that may not fill complete article. That said, I prefer the longer, more in depth articles, and I tend to find the more in depth articles more broadly applicable.

  3. I enjoy ask angry bite sized content. It also allows you to touch on many different topics. If I recall a few ask angrys have also lead to full articles at a later date.

    That said, your patreon discord generated topics occupy a similar space. But as I said, I enjoy the scattered opinion topics and bite sized nature of it (refreshing in contrast to epic angry articles)

  4. I, for one, would welcome the return of Ask Angry articles. It’s useful to see what other DMs are concerned about and you, Angry, explain a lot of things WotC never gets around to figuring out. You’re more useful than the DMG, which is funny because this sort of thing seems to be what it’s for.

    As to format, I’d take fewer longer replies or more shorter ones, but you’re a good judge of which questions necessitate which.

  5. Ask Angry is good but not (typically) as good as the other stuff. So do it if you feel like it helps you stay focused, don’t do it if you feel like it takes away from your writing time. imo

  6. I am personally a big fan of the Ask Angry articles. As much as I enjoy the typical deep dives, it is nice to get some slightly smaller ideas from time to time. I also appreciate the practical nature of the responses since you are directing your energies to a specific, real-world concern. They are also a nice opportunity to link back to some of your bigger discussions which may deserve a refresher read.

    Definitely don’t let it get in the way of other, bigger articles, but if you can dash off an Ask Angry every once in a while I will always appreciate them.

  7. I like the “Ask Angry” articles, and would appreciate them regularly. (Say, monthly?) Prefer this format–three or four questions answered short-essay-style–to a format that would have longer answers to fewer questions.

  8. I like the Ask Angry articles, because they often cover topics that do not come up otherwise or show more practical application of some of the principles you talked about in other articles. I also like more questions with brevity rather than 1 question with a long answer (there can be exceptions if the question really deserves a long answer, but as others said, you had done full articles based on questions before). I was actually wondering where they have gone, since you said it is the easiest thing to write. So I’d like it to stay/come back.

  9. I actually like these. I prefer multiple questions and short answers, generally. If the topic is a huge one and inspires you to write a standalone article, that’s great too! But a bunch of questions with short answers, I think, is the best type of Ask Angry.

  10. I like these articles, would love to see them as a regular thing. I like the shorter answers, your regular articles are very long and thought-out – which is f***g awesome – so the shorter Q&As give a nice change of pace.

  11. I find that the my perception of something that updates is roughly correlated to the quality and frequency of said updates. With that in mind I think that you should do some smaller ask angry articles to minimize content droughts via stategicly utilizing said content. Though as you have convinced me to comment, you’re certainly doing something right irregardless.

  12. Angry,

    Here’s the feedback you requested:

    I did miss Ask Angry, and I would like it to be more regular. I like Ask Angry. Here are three reasons why:
    1. They get me thinking about topics I might not have thought about otherwise. I always like to think about how I would have answered the question before I read your answer.
    2. They’re not usually as meaty as your feature articles. It’s a pacing thing. I like the marathon article, but I feel I have to read the whole thing to follow your argument. With Ask Angry, especially when you quickfire a few at a time, I can come in and read one, then come back later for another. It’s nice to have a shorter option.
    3. Sometimes the Ask Angry (or the comments on it) have inspired you to write a feature based on the topic. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. I am amused when you tell gamers what for.

    Basically, this particular Ask Angry is a great example of the format I like. I don’t post much, and I don’t have enough spare cash to support you (sorry!), so my opinion may literally be worth less than others’, but thanks for keeping the blog going anyway. It’s always a fun read.

  13. I personally find Ask Angry is at its best where you can take a short look at different topics and then based on reader feedback make full articles of more popular topics. It serves as a quick response before later doing a deep dive.

  14. I concur with the consensus, more “Ask Angry” please!

    I’d definitely like to see them return to being a regular thing. I like the pacing of 3-4 questions in one go, but if short one shot answers would be more frequent I’d like that; whatever gets the most content from you! Since I am the type of GM that analyzes decisions months after a game these articles give me a chance to answer the question myself, and then compare to yours. The shorter format per question also allows us, your readers, to get your opinion on topics that might not be deserving of a full article on their own.

  15. Honestly I didn’t really miss Ask Angry. It’s just not as meaty as I’ve come to hope for. All of my favorites have been either a full, focused article or part of a series, and even if Ask doesn’t compete directly with articles, it’s just not as interesting.

    Not bothered by Ask in the least though. Seems pretty popular, and I skim through. Just weighing in as asked.

  16. I like ’em. Bite-size, thought-provoking, acerbic. Like an appetizer, if you don’t mind the obviously-wanting-dinner metaphor.

    I’d also agree that if they dissuade you from doing the meatier articles, skip ’em. I prefer steak to starters any day.


  17. The Ask Angry articles are great bite sized content with one caveat: the ones without topic in the title could use an index or list of contents. (IMO)

  18. I greatly enjoy the Ask Angry articles, I find them most helpful. It’s nice to see what other dm’s are having issues with or questions about and get your perspective on it. I like having a couple different questions together, mostly because I want as much advice as you’re willing to give out. As a novice of a dm with no real advice anywhere on how to do this thing I started hunting for know-how. Eventually I ended up at this website. Angry, I greatly appreciate your ability to concisely explain your thought processes in a way that is simple to understand. It has helped me immensely as I learn to run games. Thanks.

    • I agree.

      I tend to take in bits and pieces of information from different places, and try to work them into my thought process, so seeing the different issues people have not only helps me consider how I already handle them, but Angry’s answer gives me a good baseline to judge my own ideas against. If my gut says that my approach is wrong, I can take more influence from Angry’s answer to find a working solution.

  19. I think NoxAeturnus nailed it. “Ask Angry” is best when it feels like a surprise bonus article or when you just can’t get a full length, in depth article done at the moment and “Ask Angry” keeps the content flow going. I personally had a head injury that makes absorbing and processing information without rereading it difficult and attention deficit disorder so I enjoy the way you keep things concise and targeted in “Ask Angry” articles (I reread and write down paraphrased bits
    of your longer articles to help absorb that information because your DM advice is top notch).

  20. Yeah, I do like these articles… just not as much as your regular ones. I mean, I’d take as much of your content as possible, but, realistically, time constraints are a thing. I really wouldn’t want to see this taking place of your regular articles or your Megadungeon. I mean, occasionally is fine, but hopefully not on a regular basis. But, if you have the time and patience to do Ask Angry BESIDES your other content… then I’d be very happy indeed. The more, the angrier, as people say.

  21. Blah blah blah… I want to comment on the most difficult NPC I’ve ever created, and I had no idea it would be this difficult when I created her. She’s a powerful witch (specifically, a wizard) who has the “gift of sight” – she sees the future. Her name is Propheta, which is quite appropriate.

    However, she is cursed – a curse that can’t be removed with a simple Remove Curse or Wish (because I’ve outlawed Wish in my setting. Pthtththt.) Her curse is that she can’t say anything unless it’s in the form of a riddle.

    The characters go to her for advice. She wants to help… Really. The characters are on the path to destroy the source of the curse (she’s not the only victim), and only she knows how to do it. Unfortunately, she has to explain it in the form of a convoluted riddle the players get to figure out.

    Doesn’t sound that hard, until you try to come up with the riddles on the fly. When they ask questions I hadn’t anticipated, or worse, the cleric uses Sending to send her a 25-word message, to which she replies, in a 25-word message, a freakin’ riddle!

    Of course, the way I deal with it is I decide first what she wants to say. Then I figure out how to twist it into the riddle she actually says.

    Try THAT in your campaign!

    • …Y’know, I think I will.

      I’ll probably have her come up with some sort of riddle or two that translates into, “I don’t know how to say that at this moment. Give me a moment…”

      I’d likely make her future sight something that doesn’t work for everything, unlike the Oracle from The Order of the Stick, so that way I don’t have to be nearly as crazy-prepared as she would likely be.

      • Let me know how it goes for you. (You can get to my blog by clicking my name. Find an appropriate blog article and comment, or use the contact-me link) Good luck!

  22. I like Ask Angry, I think its a good place to give out some thoughts on topics that don’t warrant a whole essay with a Long Rambling Intro (TM), or at very least address some things in brief that there may not be time for the whole shebang about.

  23. I need to know how to ask Angry a question. I’m still a new DM and my game is going well but my players wait for me to prompt them to do things, they don’t ask to do things unless in combat, I need to encourage them to think more.

    • Have you ever tried a “Name Your Own Adventure” or one of Tunnels & Trolls many Solitaire Dungeons? For that matter, any computerized RPG game? They are nothing more than a series of prompts. The difference between table-top and the others is that the players aren’t (necessarily) limited to the options you give them. For example:

      DM: You come to a three-way intersection from the West. You can go North, South, or turn back the way you came.

      Players: Our dwarf gets out his pickax and starts digging a hole in the East wall. We continue doing this until we break through into whatever area lies beyond.

      You: As you begin to do this, the noise attracts the attention of the swarm of Bullettes living six levels below, which borrow up and attack your party of 1st and 2nd level characters and turns them all into… Bullette scat.

      Seriously, as GM, most of what you are doing is guiding or directing the party from encounter to encounter. (Encounters DO NOT correlate to combat… Angry has written about this! Go and read the archives.) As Neil Peart so eloquently puts it in the song, Freewill, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.” Standing around doing nothing can still lead to an encounter.

      Before you embarrass yourself asking a question Angry has already covered (probably multiple times), make sure you at least skim everything on this site. If he has the opportunity to cover your name in mud and make you an example for his wrath, he’ll take it. I should know – it’s happened to me! (Then we met at GenCon last summer and he realized that I’m bigger and heavier than he is.)

  24. I get where Big Lew is coming from, I love running sandbox-with-plot games (heck I even wrote a 1-4 adventure to scratch the itch: There’s a lot of fun in having a world as your character to just role-play, running around a villain or six, just reacting to the players. But that’s very much a GM itch.

    It’s helpful contrast to be playing in two games now, one a sprawling 5e West Marches, the other the Starfinder Adventure Path. I…feel like I have choices and agency in both, as a player. So Angry is right about it being no big deal to (most) players.

    But it’s fair to want to run a plate of spaghetti as a GM, too. You’re presumably running the game to have fun…

  25. Good set of questions!

    I do enjoy Ask Angry, and like many here I think it’s at its best when you answer 3-4 short questions. If you went on a longer rant about a single question, I’d rather see that as a BS article or a feature article, with more polish and thought. Maybe put a little note in that says the topic was inspired by an email.

  26. Thank you for answering my question, Angry, and linking to the Attack of the Genericons article — I’m still working my way through the archives, so knowing exactly where to go was very helpful and enlightening, as per usual.

    What you point out regarding how CR applies to one individual creature, and how Pack Tactics only activates when the creature has allies, is a good rationalization of why Pack Tactics would go unaccounted for in the Kobold or Wolf CR. Still, reading about the conception and birth of the CR system, I now know the formulas are more like guidelines rather than rules and will take them as such going forward.

    I’d like to add my voice to the chorus of people who’ve stated they enjoy the Ask Angry articles, especially the ones that address several questions briefly. Like other articles they are helpful, but can be consumed a bit more casually, which is nice to do from time to time.

    Quack! (Again, thanks)

  27. The first question finally made me realize why I really do not enjoy sandboxes all that much, at least ones that are poorly thought out or are in the early stages. Without a structure there’s really nothing for my choices(as a player obviously) to reverberate off of and affect down the road, everything is too localized, thus I really don’t feel the impact of them in any meaningful way throughout the adventure.

  28. I too greatly appreciate the Ask Angry columns, whether with multiple short or a single long answer. I recognize that sometimes a lot of answers, even short ones, is a lot of work, but I tend to find them very fun and useful.

  29. I like the answers, though I prefer the longy bits in this page. I would prefer if questions would be for patrons and voted on by them so you don’t have to scroll through dozens of them to find an interesting onej. And I say that without even being a patron (shame on me).

  30. I’ve read this place for years, and have not only learned loads but actually dared try and get a group together and DM thanks to this blog. First time commenting, but you did ask for feedback: while I would love a more consistent influx of content and being able to come here daily for new posts, I’m well aware you have more important priorities due to health issues, and the fact that posting daily would inevitably result in lower quality isn’t so attractive either. So I’d say you do you. But I’ve yet to read something I hate here.

  31. I’ve always enjoyed reading these sets, maybe one day I’ll actually take the time to ask some of my own.

  32. It’s a good break from the usual articles and it can give ideas too.
    I think you should keep it on low frequency, maybe once every two months and definitely not more that once a month to keep it effective and welcome.

    That’s my take on it.

  33. I like them. A real blitz of several questions with short answers would be good. A longer treatment of a few inter-related questions would be cool (or maybe that’s more Fan Service category).

    They’re nice because they give you a chance to address some small random outside topics rather than the large blocks of gaming theory you normally p00p out (p00p out in a good way, I mean).

  34. I once asked Angry a question, and got an awesome answer. Please keep up the Ask Angry articles, we’d lose a lot if RPG fans couldn’t pick at Angry’s brain.

    On the length of an article, I personally don’t have a preference; I can see three quick questions and answers and/or a deeper, longer question and answer working either way.

  35. +1 vote for keeping “Ask Angry” articles. They’re a nice, light change of pace from the heaviness of most of the main feature articles.

    I love the main course, but sometimes just a little snack is nice too.

  36. Once a month or so and several short question & answers is perfect. Like above, a nice simple format. Thank you for all that you do.

Comments are closed.