Monte Cook IS working on 5th edition...

[Username17]

Dude... solid fog and web ARE save-or-dies. You get them stuck and then you kill them at your leisure.

Fine, nomenclature fail on my part. I meant genuine "the combat is over on round 2" tactics rather than "the combat ended on round one but we'll mechanically play it out for 6 more rounds so we can pretend the guy with the 4 round recharge mechanic was actually contributing to this victory instead of just they guy who cast the spell in the first place."

Dude. When you web a group of dudes on round 1, combat ends. You don't roll dice anymore. You say "We stab him repeatedly until he dies". Combats over.

Only if you have ranged weapons and they don't. Otherwise you're just at a substantial advantage and the battle drags on much longer.

As for Leper's rant that casting a save or die and winning on turn 1 would be better than laying down a solid fog and area nuking the place while your abilities continually recharged - that's retarded. The first part of save or die is "save or" as in there is a very real chance that a SoD does nothing when you cast it. A regenerating kite effect would basically make you win every time against enemies that lacked area counters.

-Username17

[shadzar]

will D&D survive to a 5th edition even if it is completed by Monte?

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/21288.html

Sales of “Puzzles and Games” for Hasbro declined by 6% to $364.7 million, but in a conference call with industry analysts, CEO Brian Goldner mentioned Magic the Gathering in particular when singling out Hasbro brands that were doing well: “Taking a closer look at our overall third quarter results, we had several Hasbro brands perform well and contribute to our overall growth. Baby Alive, My Little Pony, Magic the Gathering, and Transformers, including the new KRE-O-branded products, all continued their growth trends in the quarter.”

D&D not even mentioned, but HASBRO movies is making ALL the profits, while D&D seems like it might be in the red considering those titles listed...

christmas lay-offs again? will Monte survive them to complete 5th edition? will ANYONE survive them to make 5th edition?

[Desdan_Mervolam]

You know, I don't think I'd mind if it didn't.

Let me clarify, I don't believe, for even an instant, that D&D will cease to be a thing and go away. But D&D was only ever a niche product. I can really easily see Hasbro deciding that there doesn't need to be a 5th edition, shutter their RPG department for a couple years, and just start returning old edition books to print. (Caveat: It may be entirely in e-book format. I'm okay with this too).

But at this point in time, really, how many new books do they /really/ need to publish?

[Leper]

If you give everyone a way of getting around every situation than that's just going to lead to the guy who really understands the system solving every scenario without even having to bother talking to anyone else much like how sufficiently high level wizards do in D&D.

That depends entirely on how it's done. You seem to be assuming a system where cooperation is not necessary, (like earlier iterations of D&D) where you had genuine "rock, paper, scissors" mechanics. "I cast rock." "Paper challenge is defeated." Instead of a system using binary "pass/fail" for every situation, you'd use a more granular system of success.

There's still certainly room for "pass/fail" on very simple things, (esp. in instances where the whole of the group is not/does not want to be involved, to get back to group play quickly.) but any situation that is a genuine challenge to the whole of the group, a granular system of success allows contribution of more than one individual.

Meanwhile if team avatar needs to build a dam then the earth and water benders have obvious things to offer the project and it'd be dumb to not include them even if it was the Fire Bender who came up with the idea. It's not a perfect solution, but it does give options to work as a team while still giving people the ability to point at their sheet and say "I have things I bring to the table that nobody else does."

Again, I don't have much to contribute within the cannon of this analogy, because I'm not really familiar with it. From sake's description the canon seems to be based on a certain inequity that I'd be trying to avoid.

Anyhow, assuming we were willing to bend the inequitable rules of cannon to create a more equitably playable game, why wouldn't our little airmonkey be using wind to uproot trees for supports or our firemonkey be cooking off water before it gets there, baking the ground or even melting stone for a more structurally sound base? No, these answers are not as immediately obvious as "I use my magic water power to hold back water" or "I use my magic earth power to just make a whole fucking dam immediately and make everyone else of no real use." On the other hand, they seem to be valid contributions to me, and when you encourage such stipulations as "your magic earth power will not create a dam [of a size that is a pretty big task for individuals of your character advancement] immediately" you encourage cooperation through necessity. Permissiveness likewise encourages creativity in use.

Why build a system without really long combats just so Senior doesn't feel like a burden?

I didn't say that you should build a system that prohibits long combats. I said that I don't see a point in creating a system in which the only time one player will be of any substantive use is in long combats, and then be forced to include them so that individual can be of use.

You can (admittedly, not nearly as easily) build a system in which there is something approaching equitable contribution, whatever the length of combat may be. If you choose to have short combats because your group doesn't like spending a lot of time in combat, then you don't have to. If you choose longer combats because you like them or because they are narratively appropriate, you can do so at your whim without having to artificially even them out in order to avoid keeping one player out in the cold: In short, the choice for "length of combat" becomes based entirely on the question "how long do we like combat to be" rather than "how long does combat need to be so that we are not excluding players."

You really don't get it, do you?

Assumptions of ignorance or stupidity on the part of your audience because of a lack of communication on your on part is a sure sign of failure in that endeavor.

Still, I think I understand very clearly what you are trying to say. You're working under a different set of assumptions than I am, and I'm trying to explain that those assumptions are not only unnecessary, but harmful to the end product. You seem to essentially be saying "it's okay, because the MC can adjust how the game is run to fix it." I'm asking you why it should be something that the MC has to fix in the first place.

Everybody contributes something in each scenario, it's just that you arrange the scenarios so that, on average, all the players get approximately the same amount of, 'time to shine'.

Agreed, but there are stark differences in between being the guy contributing what can be accomplished by "an NPC class" and being the guy contributing in a way that is unique within the party. The more you move away from binary success, the greater the possibilities for "party contribution" become.

To harp on older D&D for a minute, you had two tracks for victory in combat. One was hitpoint damage, the other was usually the save/no save track. At high levels you had casters with the ability to choose tracks and the rest of the party stuck on hitpoints. Casters generally went for the save track, so, in essence, the casters were actually playing a different game for victory. That gave us situations where the caster walks in, does their thing, and victory is achieved with little (or minimal) need for the remainder of the party. You had granular success and binary success, and granular success was the "chump game."

If you can introduce multiple instances of granular success that all contribute towards victory, then you have all individuals playing the same game and contributing in different ways. Consider something similar to Shadowrun's damage tracks. (it's been a good long while since I had a chance to look at old SR sadly, so forgive me if I'm a bit off on some of the details--it's the abstract concept that's important here anyhow.)

You had two damage tracks of the same length, and (for the most part) an unconscious individual is no more of a threat than a dead one--pursuing either track was generally just as effective, assuming equal defenses on each. I don't recall if dice pool penalties from each stacked, but let's assume they do for a moment: any track a player works against contributes to victory. Any track a player works against also eases the burden of the rest of the party as the effectiveness of the enemy decreases, making their cumulative success and victory easier. (this mechanic also creates a death-spiral, where initiative becomes increasingly important, but we'll skip that for now.)

Maybe my RPS metaphor was bad. Maybe imagining it like Pokemon is better.

I am terrified of where this is going on general principle.

If the Characters are Charizard and Venusaur, but Venusaur is feeling like a third wheel, then you can throw out enemies that are either faster than Charizard or slower than Venusaur to mitigate Charizard's speed advantage over Venusaur.

I'm again not really familiar with the source, but I think I get the gist.

In an initiative system where you're also tracking time between actions(?) you can introduce opponents that either move faster than player one or slower than player 2 to highlight the differences. Player 2 might feel better about being slower than player 1 because either Player 1 is now also slower than the enemy or he can say to himself "well at least I'm faster than the enemy" depending on choice of opponent.

I agree that in an instance such as this, this would be one of many ways to make Player 2 feel better about being slow, whether they are actually an equal contributor to victory or not. And the experience and perception of the player is a very important part of creating a satisfying game, but my point is this: if they're not actually an equal contributor, they're going to notice eventually. Contrast with a system where speed is less of a factor, and the MC is free to use enemies of whatever speed they wish, as is appropriate to their story, or satisfies the wants of the players.

If you put the burden of making them an equal contributor on our MC, rather than on yourself as a designer, then you've created a reason for our MC not to buy your product in the first place--he's having to devote additional time to actual game design considerations rather than setting up his part of the game--story, hooks, narrative, handouts or whatever. You may have a million other reasons for the MC to buy your game, and they may very much outweigh that one reason not to. But why have that reason there in the first place if you can avoid it?

daily/encounter powers are pretty much miniature wargames constructs and have no sense being in something that doesnt intend to be used that way.

Yeah, it's a good thing 3e totally bypassed any idea of any powers based on a daily allowance or else it would have totally sucked too. So glad it had absolutely zero instances of powers linked to any sort of daily tracking. So. Very. Glad.

Also, I'm not really sure how something linked specifically to a "once per scene" use is at all a "miniature wargame" construct, but I'll take your word for it, since you clearly seem to know what you're talking about.

As for Leper's rant that casting a save or die and winning on turn 1 would be better than laying down a solid fog and area nuking the place while your abilities continually recharged - that's retarded. The first part of save or die is "save or" as in there is a very real chance that a SoD does nothing when you cast it. A regenerating kite effect would basically make you win every time against enemies that lacked area counters.

Sure, if you assume that regenerating effects are also automatically successful--which I do not recall mentioning.

In short, I was discussing the difference between "save or instant win" vs. "save(defend) or work a little bit towards some measure of overall success." One is quite clearly better, and obviates the need for other players.

christmas lay-offs again? will Monte survive them to complete 5th edition? will ANYONE survive them to make 5th edition?

Holy crap, we're back on topic.

(sorry folks)

Another round of layoffs wouldn't really surprise me, but I don't think they're necessarily a certainty. Monte will most certainly still be there as long as Mearls is. And I'd say the only reason 5th won't make it out would be if Hasbro decides to shelf the whole IP for a few years to wait for some sort of renaissance in interest to re-release it. Given that you've got a pretty big anniversary coming up soon, I would say that's unlikely.

On the other hand, I don't expect 5th edition to be a genuine step forward in gaming, either.

[Krusk]

Only if you have ranged weapons and they don't. Otherwise you're just at a substantial advantage and the battle drags on much longer.

FWIW I thought about putting in a thing about bows for web specifically, but figured I would use the term "web" to encompass "Level 1 save or dies in general" and "stab it" to mean "kill it eventually". I could have indicated that better I guess.

[shadzar]

daily/encounter powers are pretty much miniature wargames constructs and have no sense being in something that doesnt intend to be used that way.

Yeah, it's a good thing 3e totally bypassed any idea of any powers based on a daily allowance or else it would have totally sucked too. So glad it had absolutely zero instances of powers linked to any sort of daily tracking. So. Very. Glad.

Also, I'm not really sure how something linked specifically to a "once per scene" use is at all a "miniature wargame" construct, but I'll take your word for it, since you clearly seem to know what you're talking about.

good for 3rd then i guess?

[Username17]

As for Leper's rant that casting a save or die and winning on turn 1 would be better than laying down a solid fog and area nuking the place while your abilities continually recharged - that's retarded. The first part of save or die is "save or" as in there is a very real chance that a SoD does nothing when you cast it. A regenerating kite effect would basically make you win every time against enemies that lacked area counters.

Sure, if you assume that regenerating effects are also automatically successful--which I do not recall mentioning.

In short, I was discussing the difference between "save or instant win" vs. "save(defend) or work a little bit towards some measure of overall success." One is quite clearly better, and obviates the need for other players.

Really? Because I thought we were fucking talking about Web and Solid Fog in the context of 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragons. On account of you specifically said that regenerating uses in 4 rounds would be pointless in 3.5 D&D, and I countered that Web and Solid Fog were things that existed in that game system.

What they do is create difficult terrain that takes a very long time to crawl out of. In short: they allow the caster to make any battle take a substantially larger number of turns. So seriously: eat your fucking crow and move on.

-Username17

[Prak]

I think it's pretty retarded to have a move you can do once a day--like barbarian rage in 3e.

Clearly you've never gotten angry so much in a given day that after it subsided you were just apathetic about everything until you got a good night's sleep.


...alright, who broke the page?

[Leper]

Really? Because I thought we were fucking talking about Web and Solid Fog in the context of 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragons. On account of you specifically said that regenerating uses in 4 rounds would be pointless in 3.5 D&D, and I countered that Web and Solid Fog were things that existed in that game system.

No, you brought up those specific effects within that system. I was speaking in general, although I'm willing to work within the analogy of 3rd edition combat for the sake of discussing the principles in effect, until that analogy breaks down.

In short, you're getting hung up on the specifics of the example, rather than what we were using that example as an illustration for. I'll be happy to admit that I got a bit caught up in the specifics myself, which was not entirely helpful.

What they do is create difficult terrain that takes a very long time to crawl out of. In short: they allow the caster to make any battle take a substantially larger number of turns.

No, web automatically creates difficult terrain that also hampers further sorts of actions (spellcasting) at worst. At best it creates difficult terrain, cover and still hampers spellcasting.

Solid fog creates very difficult terrain, grants concealment, prevents ranged attacks (other than--surprise, surprise--more magic) and is generally fucking awesome and then some.

Again, these two spells and their effects on a 3e game are not entirely germane to my point, which was: (for clarity)

Varying individual contribution by round is only going to work in a case when you have rounds wind up as a common denominator. The guy who does something great every 2 rounds vs. the guy who does something cool every 4 rounds is only going to work out equitably when you have combat that lasts 5, 9, or 13 rounds. Short of (somehow) making all combat last only these amount of rounds, contribution is not going to be equitable, and your players will always be better off picking the guy who does something really neat every 2 rounds. (or every round)

Your example of web and solid fog in 3e is an example of how a player can choose to control the length of combat (although there have been varying responses to this--from "combat is over, call it good and don't bother continuing" to "play it out (so the guy who's not casting the spells can show how useful he is(n't))."

Yes, those spells can be used in a way that is tactical and does not immediately effectively make continuing combat a foregone conclusion. they seldom are, simply because using them in a way that immediately ends combat is the obviously superior tactical choice. This is also not entirely germane to my point, but I mention it because you're conflating player control over how long combat lasts with MC control over how long combat lasts, and positing that the fact that one player can feel useful at the whim of another is a good way to balance player contribution. I do not feel that this is so.

So seriously: eat your fucking crow and move on.

I'm not sure what you're wanting me to admit. If it helps, here's a couple things off the top of my head that may make you feel better:

You most probably know D&D 3e (and its derivatives) better than I do. Solid fog and web can end a combat but do not have to for a number of reasons. I totally fucked up the rock/paper example a few posts back, as Stubbazubba points out. You're smart and handsome and I am not. Also I touch myself inappropriately when I am nervous.

Can we get back to the actual discussion now?

[Leper]

I think it's pretty retarded to have a move you can do once a day--like barbarian rage in 3e.

Clearly you've never gotten angry so much in a given day that after it subsided you were just apathetic about everything until you got a good night's sleep.

Sarcasm, used to note an apparent (unclearly justified) disparity in expectations from one system to another. I should have noted it more clearly, apparently.

I'm well aware of the effects of anger--as I've said to more than a few people, "if you don't think some asshole screaming at you can convince you to get up off the ground and go hit someone in the face with a large, blunt object, try reading any number of various internet fora."

[hogarth]

I can really easily see Hasbro deciding that there doesn't need to be a 5th edition, shutter their RPG department for a couple years, and just start returning old edition books to print. (Caveat: It may be entirely in e-book format. I'm okay with this too).

I think this is extremely unlikely. I think they'd be more likely to stop publishing altogether rather than to keep selling old books.

But at this point in time, really, how many new books do they /really/ need to publish?

Enough to make it profitable for Hasbro to continue the product line.

[Leper]

But at this point in time, really, how many new books do they /really/ need to publish?

Enough to make it profitable for Hasbro to continue the product line.

To be a slight pedant, it's important to note that "profitable" may not be profitable enough. Because of the size of the company and the expectation of shareholders, etc. there are minimum thresholds of profit the brand has to maintain.

[Prak]

I think it's pretty retarded to have a move you can do once a day--like barbarian rage in 3e.

Clearly you've never gotten angry so much in a given day that after it subsided you were just apathetic about everything until you got a good night's sleep.

Sarcasm, used to note an apparent (unclearly justified) disparity in expectations from one system to another. I should have noted it more clearly, apparently.

I'm well aware of the effects of anger--as I've said to more than a few people, "if you don't think some asshole screaming at you can convince you to get up off the ground and go hit someone in the face with a large, blunt object, try reading any number of various internet fora."

no sarcasm, really, I was just presenting a justification for daily uses of rage.

[Leper]

no sarcasm, really, I was just presenting a justification for daily uses of rage.

And I fail at communication again.

I was pointing out that I was being sarcastic (somewhat) in my initial post.

I do dislike "daily" abilities as a metagame concept based on the fact that time is almost always an abstract, and it introduces an element of highly variable usefulness. If you're in a situation where it can only be used once or twice a day, it's pretty awesome. For things like combat abilities in a "dungeon crawl" scenario, they're far less effective on whole, because you're in situations where it could be used many times a day, but cannot. Unless everyone has the exact same amount of daily abilities and they are all approximately as effective, then it's very difficult to make characters equitably useful. If they are all handed out in the same amount with the same usefulness, then it's on the MC to carefully watch how he creates the situations in the game to avoid creating situations that are either unreasonably tough (because players have run out of resources) or astoundingly easy (because of an abundance of them.) Again, most "encounters" or challenges are going to be built in the system around an assumed number of encounters per day when you have "daily" resources, and either exceeding or failing to meet that number is going to have some notable effects on the game. Not all of these effects are bad, but they all have alternate ways to be generated by an MC looking to do so.

Still, I'm totally down with the rage/crash scenario, and really only highlighted the 3e instance of it as a counterpoint to the "any fighter type having a daily ability is stupid and breaks my immersion which is why 4e is bad (and 3e is okay)."

[Quantumboost]

The distinctive quality of sarcasm is present in the spoken word and manifested chiefly by vocal inflection

May want to record in audio if you want to use sarcasm, Leper.

[Leper]

May want to record in audio if you want to use sarcasm, Leper.

I could always switch to sardonicism. That is apparently more suited to writing and comments, and it still beats the hell out of pedantry.

[hogarth]

But at this point in time, really, how many new books do they /really/ need to publish?

Enough to make it profitable for Hasbro to continue the product line.

To be a slight pedant, it's important to note that "profitable" may not be profitable enough. Because of the size of the company and the expectation of shareholders, etc. there are minimum thresholds of profit the brand has to maintain.

I work for an investment bank. Believe me, I know all about hurdle rates and so forth.

[Stubbazubba]

You seem to be assuming a system where cooperation is not necessary, (like earlier iterations of D&D) where you had genuine "rock, paper, scissors" mechanics. "I cast rock." "Paper challenge is defeated."

Note: Rock does not beat paper.

Carry on.

[Leper]

I work for an investment bank. Believe me, I know all about hurdle rates and so forth.

Sure, but not all readers do.

...I think.

And goddamit about rock<paper. ::edits::

[CapnTthePirateG]

Hey guys, not sure if this belongs in the Mike Mearls thread anymore, now that Monte's taken over. But here's the new article.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20111018

Things of note:

-This article could be summed up in three words: Yay old monsters. Having said that, I don't know what meets the criteria for revival and how we fix the armies of FU old monster guys out there.

-We could point out that "respect the game's roots" would be an indictment of 4e, but again I notice he uses no examples of exciting 4e monsters. I have some hope for 5e.

-There's nothing in the article about actual mechanics, its more about "don
't piss on people's old games". Which I must reiterate, is a hilarious slam on 4e and the fanboi's "It's a whole new game! You can't compare it to previous editions" rhetoric.

-You know that website about the most retarded D&D monsters? We can expect another of those.

[Leper]

Monte cook indicts a version of D&D he didn't have a direct hand in creating and intentionally turns its back on his self-described "ivory tower game design." Shocking.

Considering his first article talked about how great it would be to add in a mechanic that was actually already in the game under the exact same name he proposed, he obviously also has a keen grasp on how the game actually works and is surely criticizing it from a position of reasoned knowledge and informed consideration.

[shadzar]

Monte cook indicts a version of D&D he didn't have a direct hand in creating and intentionally turns its back on his self-described "ivory tower game design." Shocking.

in light of sales of D&D vs sales of Pathfinder, and discussion had with people; it seems he is just echoing the voices of the crowd.

how many people say: "4th isnt D&D just a new game with D&D slapped on the cover?"

someone finally having the balls to say...if we keep moving away from everything D&D was, we will not be making D&D anymore, it will just be something with D&D name on it.

in light of that 40 years, and the games anniversary that would be something very dumb to do.

does this mean some of those "sacred cows" were actually pillars holding the ceiling up and it has now begun to fall? does it mean D&D shouldnt try to be EVERYONE'S game, but stick to the area it worked best in?

spells we can easily see why going back makes sense, nobody can fly in 4th unless they are in combat. that is the way it looks at first and MANY other glances with its silly "powers system". a game system should not remove SoD before you even play it.

i mean the power system looks like it is right off of and out of the DDM game. and a miniature game is not what people came to want. after 1979 when AD&D and BD&D came out, the miniature game was left behind by the players and an RPG was born.

looking at 4th, its predecessors, and DDM, and 4th resembles DDM more than any of the RPGs that bare its name.

and you have to admit.. HASBRO needed someone that wasnt a part of 4th to take it apart. look at the intro to 4th at the people that were making 3rd bashing it. it didnt seem right. now you have someone that didnt make 4th disavowing it in a way, so Monte seems like just another voice in the crowd...one of the 99% if you will. though more like 70% of D&D players/users that dont like 4th.

also "sticking to the roots" means less people needed since it takes more work to create something new, than to adapt something old.

it just seems like a way to get past edition players, "grognards" of pre-4th, back on board and excited about what may come.

[Yep]

I think that nerds speculating on business are the absolute funniest nerds.

"Well you see I took Macro Ec 101 15 years ago so obviously what they are going to do is [insert idiotic business decision here]."

D&D will exist because it makes a profit; even if it's a relatively thin profit. People claiming that Hasbro gives a shit about D&D are worse than stupid; they're stupid and ignorant of WotC as a whole. DDI, by conservative estimates, makes more than Paizo will ever hope to make. The hardcopy books themselves may make less, though that's hugely debatable because neither company releases any real numbers.

Also anyone who thinks that Hasbro gives a damn about D&D when the entire reason WotC was bought was because of M:tG is just over-valuing their hobby because it's their hobby. It's like saying EA is gonna force Bioware to change everything ever because Dragon Age 2 didn't do as well.


Also, thinking that 5E will be different from 4E is preeeetty hilarious; outside of a few vocal internet nerds 4E is doing wonderfully and is introducing far, far more people to the hobby, by itself, than any other edition or even Pathfinder. Pathfinder has PFS, which is hugely insular. D&D has Encounters and, now, Lair Assault, both of which give free stuff to DMs who volunteer for them. I just hope WotC improves their business acumen and keeps on trying to reach outside of the introverted communities that 3E tends to create.



Also, Shadzar, you're really stupid. Like, "holy shit are you posting from a mental institution," stupid. If people don't want a tactical combat simulator they won't choose D&D at all unless that is the only choice, because the only thing D&D, in any form, has done well is tactical combat. If you want better non-combat interactions there are many systems that work far better than D&D of any edition. If you want better mass-combat interactions you could basically choose any system and it'd be better than D&D. But you seem to hold AD&D 2E as the absolute pinnacle of design because that's what you emotionally latched onto, which is funny because AD&D 2E is horribly designed by any standard. You can't admit that, though, because that might imply that your personal choice isn't the best possible choice ever. And nerds really, really seem to want their personal favorite to be some kind of objectively good thing; that's why 3E got so, so many of the same flamewars now directed at 4E. I'd be willing to bet the same thing happens 4E->5E, too, because nerds. Nerds never change.

[shadzar]

If people don't want a tactical combat simulator they won't choose D&D at all unless that is the only choice, because the only thing D&D, in any form, has done well is tactical combat.

and yet you are wrong. thus the reason Games Workshop does NOT view D&D as any competition because it doesnt try to compete for entertainment, gaming or RPG dollars. it compete in its field, of which it IS the 800 lb gorilla, the miniature wargame field.

people that want a miniature wargame are GWs customers, so D&D isnt even on their radar because D&D ISNT (wasnt) a miniature wargame for many years after Chainmail and BEFORE 4th edition.

you are jsut another of those retards that dont understand the game, because you see "teh game" as what the book holds the most rules for.

go back under your rock, or back to smoking it.

[fectin]

ATP

Are you being serious? I can't tell.

If you are, you left out a lot of factors, mischaracterized the sysytem, and ignored the important parts. Essentially, you said that it takes 3 minutes to refill your gas tank, therefor after you've driven to the sto', you need to wait at least three minutes before heading home.