Quote from: JimBobOzAlso, I have no theory except Cheetoism, and that's too "anti-intellectual" to be a theory, I was told.

Thanks for the link. Cheetoism is a theory with a practical application I can relate to and use.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardThat definition is a pretty bad one IMHO. When I think of simulation, I am thinking of trying to model something in game in an accurate way; being true to reality or the source material. It has nothing to do with a preoccupation with cause and effect or with "thematic elements" to most people. It is this disconnect with terminology that makes GNS inaccessable to most gamers, among other things. Really, most events of play have in-game causes, but that doesn't mean they simulate anything.

Cool, whether or not it's a good definition is something worthy of discussion. This is certainly refreshing compared to "look, it's nonsense!! Next!"

I'm confused by your statement, though. I read your "trying to model something in game in an accurate way; being true to reality or the source material" as pretty similar if not synonymous with "commitment to in-game causes and thematic elements." At the very least the concepts are compatible and complimentary--commitment to causality is an important tool for modeling something accurately, right? Like, you'd want causes and effects to match up with whatever thing (Middle Earth, Blaxploitation films, Real Life) it is that you want to simulate? And fot the thematic elements to match up? Like in your Star Wars game, if you're trying to perform skin-of-your-teeth derring-do whilst slinging a blaster or lightsaber like the devil-may-care Unlikely Hero you are, you'd want it to "feel" right, as well as producing the right results, or range of results? That's "Thematic Elements" and Causality" right there. I think it'd be a fair criticism that the definition I quoted is vague on the relationship between those methods and the desired goal (Simulation), but right now I'm simply defending the idea that it's not saying nothing.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardThe example you cite is telling, seeing as you equate "sim" with "boring". Not to pick on you here, cuz I think your heart is in the right place, but I have played in some games that were all about the "story" that were pretty dull. Boring games are the enemy, not a particular playstyle.

I absolutely agree. I might have done well to qualify the statement more ("to me", etc.), but them's the breaks. The issue I referred to is in fact with me finding a certain kind of play boring. I appear to be in the minority in my group. The campaign I was alluding to seems to be making most players happy, though a couple of them share my frustration. The GM is rather hard to talked to, kind of closed-mouthed and private, so I'm really not sure what goes through his head or why the game is fun for him. I mostly put up with it because A) fun things Do happen sometimes, just not often, B) I find myself lured by the potential of fun things that could happen, even if they might never materialize, and C) We rotate GMing time between him and 2 other GMs (one of which is me), and I get more out of the other campaigns. Oh, and they're all my friends and I like to hang out with 'em, even if the gaming often misses the mark for me.

This all illustrates what, in my understanding Creative Agenda is all about. it's not so much that you have only Competition or Simulation or Story in a given game; of course all those elements are generally present. CA is about the bottom line priority for a given group, hell, scratch that, for a given group at a given time. In the campaign above, causality, consistency, what "should" happen, what have you, trumps interesting plot developments or exciting challenges. If either of those are at odds with Causality (at least as that GM sees it) then Causality wins out. That kind of clash is a very real one which I've seen all over the place in my gaming history.

Now, I don't subscribe to the position of Ron and others, that these three CAs are absolutely exclusive, or even that the G, N, and S are the categories that exist and that they sufficiently cover the whole range of gaming (actually, Forge Theory doesn't even claim this; the Glossary lists each one as "one of the currently recognized Creative Agendas." But I admit that in practice they're treated as if they're it.). All that I take from the Theory (at least the CA part) is that play goals (CA being only one kind of goal anyway) can clash pretty badly, especially if those goals remain unspoken and assumed to be the same ("What? We're all here to game, right?"), so it's good to identify and analyze different goals. And GNS seem to me at least to cover a fair spectrum of possible goals, though they're not Holy Writ or anything, and certainly not comprehensive or exhaustive.

Fair 'nuff?

Peace,
-Joel

PS Thanks for the respect. It's always nice to feel like I'm in a discussion rather than a battle.

Quote from: JimBobOzNobody does that as the main or sole reason they're gaming. Remember that these three categories are not merely, "a description of stuff that sometimes happens". The idea is that in any "coherent" game, one and only one of Gamism, Narrativism or Simulationism happens. Just one. And to make a gamer happy, figure out if they're G, N or S, and then find a game which is only G, N or S, and then give them just that one in the game session.

So that's saying that there are people - "Gamists" - who are interested in and enjoy only "competition among the participants." Nothing else. "Nope! No story with a point to it! Nope! None of that "feeling the setting" rubbish! Just competition! I'll totally PWN that geek!" I think it's fair to say almost no-one does that after the age of 13.

First, as I noted above to Spacewizard, the deal with CAs isn't that only one exists in a "coherent" game, but that elements of all exist and one is prioritized. So your characterization of Gamist priorities is a strawman from the get-go. (This is not to say that there are no deficiencies in the concept of CAs, but we can't even discuss those until you acknowledge what CAs are)

That said, I have encountered at least one guy, a friend new to gaming that I've started running D&D for, who does pretty much only want competition, against the GM in the form of a video game-like challenge, and has said so clearly and distinctly. he's a nice guy, and smart, but that's what he wants. We've only played one session, but already priorities are clashing as I've tried to satisfy his desires, which he found fun but other players were starting to go "jeez, another fight?"

Another case-study: when I started up a roleplaying blog, I posted an overview of GNS and asked the guys in my main roleplaying group to read and tell me what they think. One guy commented: "from what i have seen, satisfying everyones hunger in an RP session is nigh impossible and only slightly more possible in an entire string of sessions. you know i love to "grind meat" and i see you struggle with the question of "why" alot of the time and depending on the campaign, one of us will go wanting and without." This is a lessx extreme example in a way, because this guy does engage in characterization, motivation, setting interaction, and whatever, but his main goal in all that is "grinding meat," and he knows it.

Quote from: JimBobOzA GM and players who aren't crap. The group should talk to each-other, and find out what they like. And no, GNS doesn't help this, because individuals aren't so easily categorised. Despite the assertions of the theory, nobody sticks to just one style of play forever.

"Not crap" isn't a useful standard at all. If "crap" is easily recognizable, it hardly needs mentioning, and if it's not obvious, then "not crap" provides no meaningful criteria for finding and eliminating "crap."

Therefore, it's useful to analyze what makes something "crap." And in fact, while there are some behaviors, especially toward the "dickish" end of the spectrum, that would be near-universally recognized as undesirable, what qualifies as "crap" generally is individual to the person or group. So we're trying to determine what's crap for you (or me, or whoever). So we need to understand different goals and how they clash and/or mesh (yes, I do think there hasn't been enough talk or examination of how they might mesh).

Also, the theory doesn't assert that everyone "sticks to just one style of play forever."

Quote from: JimBobOzIt doesn't count as "a definition" if even the original writer of its definition doesn't use it that way.

There's the Glossary definition, and there's the definition Ron Edwards uses when talking to people who call themselves "Narrativists" like he does, and the definition Ron Edwards uses when talking to people who say "Simulationism is fun", and the definition Clinton Nixon uses, and the definition we see tossed around at rpg.net, and, and, and... Each of those definitions is vague, sloppy, and not consistent with others.

Um, you're saying that because a whole pile of different people have defined a concept differently, that no definition exists? I don't know how Clinton's differs from Ron's, and I'm entirely ignorant of now anyone on RPGnet defines it, so there's not much I can do to discuss that. I'm pretty skeptical of the idea that Ron defines it differently based on audience, though I can well believe (have in fact, seen) that Ron's views on this and other Theory concepts have evolved. I further believe that he's been notoriously unclear on just how they've evolved, and how this reflects on earlier essays or posts. This is frustrating to no end, I'm sure you'll agree.

But still and all, the man has the right to change his mind (honestly, wouldn't you like him to?), and furthermore, a definition, even if its originator doesn't follow it, is still a definition, which I am free to agree or disagree with on its own terms.

Quote from: JimBobOzBut I have talked about exactly why GNS is bollocks. I already gave you a link to the Socratic dialogue. Fuck, I just about got banned from rpg.net for talking about GNS being crap - in the end, it was something else, but I sure risked it for that.

How long do I have to keep explaining exactly why it's nonsense? Shall I have some lengthy discussions with the creationists and global-warming deniers, too? At what point do I get to say, "okay, that's dealt with. We've established what is not true, let's talk about what we think is true"? I thought this forum was for that. That's in the Game Design & Theory forum's statement of purpose,

If you want to talk about GNS, go to The Forge. No wait, there's no theory discussion there. Surely that has to tell you something? Even the guys who invented the theory don't want to talk about it. ENOUGH.

You didn't even read the Socratic dialogue, you lazy bugger. "But surely we should discuss this thoroughly." "Here's where I discussed it thoroughly." "But I don't want to read where you discussed it thoroughly." Lazy sod. Go read that, otherwise I'm not talking to you about it anymore. GNS is a load of shite. I already did that.

Fuck, man. What do you want from me here? Lazy?? I'm starting to ask myself why I'm even putting the effort into this that I am. Forum activity sometimes represents hours of my day, and the return, intangible as it is, is often hard to judge whether it's worth it.

Fact is, I had your link pulled up to read when I had time. I hadn't read it yet, because I didn't have time on Sunday. I barely had time to respond to what you had posted here. It was important to me to do so, because i wouldn't be on next 'till Monday afternoon and I wanted to try and keep pace with the discussion. There was nothing in your post that said, "you must read this before I will consider talking to you," or "it's not fair to respond to the points I'm making here and now, instead respond to this essay from last year."

So I have read the (misnamed) "Socratic Dialogue." It took me an hour, even if I have read Ron's side of it before. And it still doesn't address the point that set you off--namely that it's not a fair comparison to call Ron's categories equivalent to matching gaming to fish.

So you've been there, done that, where does that leave us? Neither one of us started this thread, and no one asked you to post here if you were tired and bored with the topic. Hell, if you thought it was important enough, you could have just posted, I already covered this, I'm bored with it, here's the Dialogue, bye." Instead you pretended like you wanted to discuss it, and I was foolish enough to oblige you.

So do you want to discuss the dialogue? You're already sick of the topic, so what's to gain for either of us if I drag up the whole thing? In the blog entry itself, Tommi brought up a shitload of points when you asked him to get specific about his criticisms, some of which I thought quite good, and which you didn't address. Which doesn't tell me that my effort will be rewarded.

I can tell you about a couple of broad impressions at least--one, your favorite mantra, that it's about people first and game second, is a very true and useful observation--and utterly irrelevant to criticism of Ron's essay. It's really simple: Ron's talking about Roleplaying Games, so any social interaction that's not about the game is irrelevant to his point. You make a big deal out of how he relegates pure social interaction to a mere parenthesis, and this colors your whole "dialogue". But surely, if he's talking about games and how they work and what we do to have fun gaming, he's not going to talk about problems that are only social. Who's sleeping with who isn't his concern, who's disrupting whose fun in the game, certainly a social problem but a game-related one, is. Do we gather for the friendship and comeraderie first, and the game second? Hell yes, at least i hope most people do. But given that we've gathered in this instance to play a roleplaying game, and not to watch a football game, then a discussion of what makes the game fun or not is warranted. That's Ron's concern here, and he may be doing a botched job of it, but that isn't demonstrated by whining that he isn't talking about some other topic instead.

On your criticism of Ron's use of language--color me unimpressed. Not that there isn't something real to criticise there, and you do hit a couple of good points, but. . .overall it just struck me as overly pedantic hair-splitting. "What? There's more nuance to this term than the one isolated sentence I quoted from you above implies? Make up your mind, fucker!"

Which brings me to a broader criticism of the whole exercise--the whole thing is lifeless and one-sided, because it's not really a discussion--just Ron's essay chopped up with your snarks inserted every sentence or two. Ron doesn't actually get to respond or anything. It's cute, but it has more in comon with Mystery Science Theater than Socratic debate. Of course, you knew that--but you somehow consider it unfair because. . .Ron steers discussions himself? At least they're actual discussions. Have you ever emailed Ron? He's pretty open to talking privately with people who have questions or criticisms, time permitting. Hell, you might still think it's rubbish by the time you were done, but at least you'd have given the man a chance to communicate.

A final observation: I find it pretty disingenuous to claim agnosticism regarding Ron's motives and a belief in directly evaluating what he actually says. Your "dialogue" as well as posts here are littered with statements to the effect that Ron acts from ill motives--he steers dialogue so opponents look stupid. He decided that Narr play was the only good play and constructed the theory around it to make it look good. He evaluates all play he likes as Nar and all he doesn't as Gam or Sim. Come on, read motives or don't, but you can't have it both ways.

Quote from: JimBobOzCome up with something new. I have.

You talking about Cheetoism? I was actually going to ask about that, but you've conveniently provided the link upthread. I started reading "Why Game groups fuck up." Sounds like you could have some good insights in there. And I agree that purely social problems are important to resolve; if your text offers good insights and tools for that then awesome. But I don't think it discredits the Forge perspective at all. I've certainly had a row or three in my game group, and I'd say they've been about half over purely social issues, half over game-related issues. And even some of the pretty much social ones were marginally related to the game (such as a person likes Campaign A over Campaign B, and engages in petty social maneuvering to edge out GM B's game). So you're tackling one area and Ron's tackling another. Great! Ron may be tackling his wrong, but that doesn't make it a worthy pursuit.

Peace,
-Joel

PS I dunno how much farther this needs to go, but I do recognize that it's pretty far afield from the OP--that question was answered ages ago. So, y'know, i'm interested in folks' replies, but sorry if I'm threadjacking.

Luke, dude, facts, you know how much that pains me.

That aside, I find this a slightly puzzling discussion.

Some feel that GNS lacks any credibility at all, me for example.  JimBob also.  I agree with JimBob that even to debate it in terms of its own vocabulary grants it a status I don't feel it sensibly deserves, any more than I would discuss astrology while referring to people by star sign.

The sensible response if one wishes to comment at all is to politely state that you consider it a theory of no meaningful validity, note that you have already discussed the point before on many occasions and so are disinclined to do so further (recognising that this will be frustrating for other posters who do not have that history of engaging in the debate and may wish to explore your objections), and politely bow out.

That's it.  The sensible response to a theory which is not itself sensible is to say that you regard it as sufficiently useless as not to merit further discussion.  If that leaves those somewhat persuaded by the theory thinking they haven't heard a real critique, well they haven't, so be it.  

Anyway, some folk find GNS useful, great and good luck to them.  I think it's nonsense comparable to Freudianism or astrology, but thankfully less influential.  I may of course be wrong, but given that's my view it's hardly rational for me to spend even the length of this post pointing that out.

Other than that, the Forge in practice promotes the kinds of games that Ron is interested in.  I'm not sure that says anything much about GNS at all actually, I regard it as a largely unrelated issue as I think Melinglor argued earlier.  The answer to that IMO is that Ron and his main followers have particular interests and that historically pre-2000 those interests were very poorly served.  The Forge is redressing that balance, and is doing so in part using a theory I regard as fallacious.  The theory though isn't really the point, the games are, and the simple truth is that the Forge exists primarily to support a model of game design that historically has not been well served by the wider industry.

Put another way, what Jared said.

That is a good thing, people who were not previously served by the gaming industry have created their own side industry to better serve them, that's great for them and not so bad for the rest of us as they may have some usefully stealable ideas.  They also have a grand ubertheory which they use in developing their games, fine and dandy but I think one can to a large extent ignore the theory and just see they are creating new types of games for their own tastes and wish them the best of luck with it.

Well put, Max.

Peace,
-Joel

Who has what definition of Gamism, etc, matter because you can't have a taxonomy, a bunch of categories, without rigorous definitions. A label which can mean almost anything actually means almost nothing. His ideas have evolved? Bully for him. Update the essays and glossaries, then.

No, you don't have to read anything I wrote to talk to me. But you cannot say that I haven't studied this thoroughly, or given it due consideration.
Me: "This stuff is bollocks."
You: "I think we should look at it properly before dismissing it."
Me: "I have. Look here -"
You: "I think we should look at it properly before dismissing it. No, I haven't read what you wrote. Why?"
You can see that that'd be frustrating.

You also don't seem to get that this place is supposed to be the one place in rpg discussions online where it's taken for granted there are ideas other than GNS out there. Enough with this bollocks - let's have new bollocks.

No, social issues can't be treated separately to roleplaying issues. That's because roleplaying is a social creative hobby. The social part may be more important to some, and the creative part to others, but it remains a social creative hobby. The creative part affects the social part, and vice versa.

For example, if someone keeps aiming for a certain kind of gaming - let's call it, "Alphaist Play" - even though no-one else is interested in it, then the people in the group will get pissed off with them, and discuss among themselves how this person is annoying. So before they even reach the next session, they're already pissed off with the person. And then in the next session, even if the player abandons Alphaist play, the other players will still be annoyed with them, because they're up there and ready to view the player negatively - whatever that player does, they'll interpret it in a negative way. And they'll have a bad session, because they're focusing on how they're pissed off with an individual, rather than on the game itself; and then they'll view that person more negatively, blaming them for the bad session. So there's an example of the roleplaying affecting the social, and then the social the creative, and so on, in a vicious circle.

Equally, a virtuous circle is possible. So for example one gaming buddy told me how there's a guy he plays with, the guy flips out when he gets bad dice rolls, tosses the dice across the room, but because he's friends with this guy and has known him for years, this dice-throwing actually makes the game session more fun - "good old buddy of mine, flipping out again!" Whereas if someone new to the group did that, they'd think they're crazy and toss them out.

You can't separate the social aspect from roleplaying any more than you could separate physical fitness and agility from football.

It's a social creative hobby.

Quote from: MelinglorI find it pretty disingenuous to claim agnosticism regarding Ron's motives and a belief in directly evaluating what he actually says. Your "dialogue" as well as posts here are littered with statements to the effect that Ron acts from ill motives--he steers dialogue so opponents look stupid.

I don't claim to know his motives, I do claim to be able to observe his online behaviour. Suppose that J.Q.Geek consistently calls everyone a cunt. I can't guess his motives, or say that he must be a bitter person. But it is reasonable to say that he is showing aggression. Whether he has aggression in his heart, whether his father didn't beat him enough and he's sad and frustrated, we can't know. But we can know he's showing aggression.

Likewise, we can know that Ron Edwards avoids difficult questions and debate, and steers conversations to make every kind of gaming he likes sound "Narrativist." He does not actually discuss, he teaches the Word of Ron. This can be seen by the fact that his GNS essay says that if anything's wrong with it, he'll gladly change it. What is it now, four years? Wow, every word must have been perfect. Or... maybe not.

Oh, and your buddy who only wants competition? He's a cocksmock. Tell him to go play a computer game instead. Unless... he's your friend? And there are... social reasons for being creative with him?

But hey, that social thing is only something that determines what sort of experience you have every time you game - why on Earth would anyone want to talk about that?

Quote from: MelinglorWell put, Max.

Peace,
-Joel

No worries, to be honest I don't think this is a useful forum for these kinds of discussions.

I think there is a moderately interesting discussion on why the Forge in practice only seems to promote certain types of games, but I think all the interesting posts on that were made way upthread by Jared and TonyLB and others, and since that was sensibly answered the thread has moved on instead into a sterile GNS discussion.

That's a good indicator here or at rpg.net that all value to the thread has passed and it's time to move on.  Seriously, all the work of value is done by then, once here or at rpg.net people start debating the value of GNS per se it's time to move to a more fruitful thread.  If you're lucky there'll be some good posts (TonyLBs post up above on sim (to use that term) design and its difficulties is golden) before the whole thread goes South.

I think TonyLB's ideas about story games now being the low hanging fruit and "being there" games being difficult stuff is very interesting, but I think it merits its own thread in the theory forum.

Quote from: flyingmiceAnd JimBobOz and Marco and Silverlion and Levi. Unfortunately I won't be much help, as I pay no attention to any theories - they generally just confuse me. It's much easier for me to design without a theory.

-clash

See my sig.
Bill

this would be a great thread...if it was OVER-FUCKING-HERE and not in here.

Quote from: kregmosierthis would be a great thread...if it was OVER-FUCKING-HERE and not in here.

Not if my original question was what we were discussing.

Quote from: kregmosierthis would be a great thread...if it was OVER-FUCKING-HERE and not in here.

I also think it probably should be moved, but I'm not sure I'd sweat it. I figure a mod will move it if they think it ought to be moved at this point and, at 18+ pages, I think they're probably aware of it by now.

Quote from: BalbinusI think there is a moderately interesting discussion on why the Forge in practice only seems to promote certain types of games, but I think all the interesting posts on that were made way upthread by Jared and TonyLB and others, and since that was sensibly answered the thread has moved on instead into a sterile GNS discussion.

I don't think so. Luke, for example, seems to have a good sense of things, and I'm so hubristic to think that my own posts were at least worth reading, even if nobody who thinks of themseves as an expert on the subject bothered to discuss them.

My primary issue with GNS is, and has always been, that it seems like it's almost a theory but it never quite made it. I recall it got exchanged for the Three-Fold Model, but that's not really being discussed here, and the reason Nar got all the love has more or less been resolved with the caveat that the systems that were created for Nar-flowing games are very mechanically driven. I think the most damning aspect of GNS, besides an unclear idea of simulationism, is that their attempts at Nar games were played to 'win', which makes their theory kind of incorrect. Might have made for a decent game, which is what's important, but it disenfranchises the model, doesn't it?

But does anyone really hold to GNS anymore? Really? If there were a large contingent, it'd be one thing, but I think it's defunct. I'm looking for information one way or the other now. I'm looking on the Forge, but I didn't get my answer by the time I finished this post, so maybe someone could just tell me.

EDIT: I dunno. Theory room is closed, with a note about GNS still being big dawg. No mention of three-fold (this might of been GNS) or Big Model, which I remember being talked about at one point. I assume that GNS is still on top, but I still consider it a flawed premise.

Quote from: joewolzWhy is Narrativist play now the main focus of the Forge?  It's not that it's as marginal (on the internet at least) as it once was, so where's the Forgey love for the other two play styles?  Do they not deserve any sort of serious innovation with a solid theoretical basis?

1.  Nar play prior to 2000 had not seen much love from the gaming industry, other styles were far better served.

2.  GNS was created by people who enjoy nar play, it works best when applied to nar play and therefore is most used in creating nar games.

3.  Ron really likes nar games, he doesn't enjoy sim games at all, the Forge is pretty much led by him so what he likes gets more love.

4.  IPR exists to give a platform to games that otherwise might not have one, those games currently are nar games which still are very much a minority interest and which otherwise might struggle for distribution.

5.  Well, that's it really.  The Forge and IPR both exist to promote a certain type of game that historically was not much in evidence, they do that reasonably effectively, they don't exist to promote say a new game about living the life of an Elizabethan swashbuckler because that's not the kind of thing they find fun.

Quote from: Balbinus1.  Nar play prior to 2000 had not seen much love from the gaming industry, other styles were far better served.

2.  GNS was created by people who enjoy nar play, it works best when applied to nar play and therefore is most used in creating nar games.

3.  Ron really likes nar games, he doesn't enjoy sim games at all, the Forge is pretty much led by him so what he likes gets more love.

4.  IPR exists to give a platform to games that otherwise might not have one, those games currently are nar games which still are very much a minority interest and which otherwise might struggle for distribution.

5.  Well, that's it really.  The Forge and IPR both exist to promote a certain type of game that historically was not much in evidence, they do that reasonably effectively, they don't exist to promote say a new game about living the life of an Elizabethan swashbuckler because that's not the kind of thing they find fun.

Those are valid points.  I had never thought much about #2...I thought that the essays came form Internet discussions, not just from Ron.  I was wrong apparently, and it changes my outlook on this.  As I said earlier, it seems to me the Forge has become more of a marketing tool to its own userbase than a place to make independent games.  Am I talking outta my ass on that one?

Quote from: joewolzThose are valid points.  I had never thought much about #2...I thought that the essays came form Internet discussions, not just from Ron.  I was wrong apparently, and it changes my outlook on this.  As I said earlier, it seems to me the Forge has become more of a marketing tool to its own userbase than a place to make independent games.  Am I talking outta my ass on that one?

Yes and no, if you have a new independent game idea and it catches the imagination of the forum, you could still I think get a lot of help.

The Forge like many places is many things, it's a marketing tool, it's a self-help forum, it's a place to get advice on your game (though not as good for that as it once was IMO due to excessive poster volume last time I checked), it's a place to get advice on how to publish.

I do think quite possibly if you went to the publishing forum asking concrete questions on how to publish your game Ron et al would probably help, even if they thought your game a waste of space.  But I could be wrong on that, I haven't tried.

Edit:  The publishing bit is important, the Forge is just as much, maybe more, about how to publish your game once designed as it is about how to design it in the first place.

QuoteI do think quite possibly if you went to the publishing forum asking concrete questions on how to publish your game Ron et al would probably help, even if they thought your game a waste of space. But I could be wrong on that, I haven't tried.

This is true, and they go to quite some lengths to help you.