Various XP systems

[Rodney Dangerduck]

We reward good roleplaying, bravery, or good in game ideas with Reputation.  Often we vote on this at the end, with the caveat that you cannot vote for yourself.  (Though some ignore this)  e.g. 

• "Freyar the Ernaldan bravely healed Bronwyn in the battle with the dozen broos, she gets 2 Rep"
• "Andrenik out-negotiated Sora Goodsell, 1 Reputation for that"

As for the standard check system, it makes "logical" sense, and I don't dislike it, but, for some players, it leads to terrible check-grubbing behavior.

Our current GM awards checks for crits and fumbles, and, after an adventure, he rolls dice (typically ~2D6) and we get that many checks.  This system has it's own problems, but it is more "fair".  Players still occasionally try to "check grub", only to notice that it didn't gain them any checks.

[Kränted Powers]

No worries, as you mentioned, this works nicely for our group of RPG veterans from the '80s.

I recall that the box-ticking mechanic resulted in players desperately trying to use every skill during a session.

And if you ROLEplayed well ("created memorable character with recognizable persona"), we did not know how to reward that.
At least, this was a roleplaying game and not a board game, right? 😉 And some players got annoyed because he always came up with the plan while others waited until it was time to roll the Attack dice.  Then…

…we bought WFRP 1st edition and our eyes opened wide. The XP system endorsed different kinds of roleplaying than just …skill checks.

Anyways, RQ III+ is my favorite game engine.

[Shiningbrow]

*IF* you wanted to reward good roleplay in skills, you could allow a (insert number of) +X to a skill improvement roll, or allow an automatic pass on the check.

But... I have been in games with quite different players, and when you get that combination of quite vocal and quite shy, then the GM really needs to handle that vocal player, and encourage the quiet one. 

[Bill the barbarian]

14 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

*IF* you wanted to reward good roleplay in skills, you could allow a (insert number of) +X to a skill improvement roll, or allow an automatic pass on the check.

But... I have been in games with quite different players, and when you get that combination of quite vocal and quite shy, then the GM really needs to handle that vocal player, and encourage the quiet one. 

Agreed, rather that reward the outgoing extrovert, I say punish the GM that does not allow the introvert to shine!

[Kränted Powers]

This discussion is getting interesting turn; "talkative players" vs "silent players".  Punishing somebody? What is this? One of the Game Master's jobs is to give every player their share of attention. 

Many silent players are good roleplayers (talking less, creating a memorable character with few words) or creating great ideas for solving challenges. They will get their XPs for that. So are more talkative players too. Who will define; who is too talkative or too silent?

I think this kind of a problem is somewhere else than the rules or the XP system.

One of the Game Masters' Black Belt techniques is to guide the style of the play by rewarding XPs. 

[Bren]

On 1/23/2022 at 10:12 AM, Kränted Powers said:

And your system?

Box ticking.

Plus the rules for training, seasonal skills, etc. in RQG. I will occasionally give out a check or a skill add for something that occurs but that didn't rise to the level of requiring a skill roll. A character who is a below average rider, but is spending a lot of time riding would get a check or maybe even just add a few points to their skill. I'll probably do this for Location Lore for a character who spends a lot of time in a new Location e.g., a Sartarite PC spends a lot of time in Prax, they get an increase to Prax Lore.* Similarlly if you spend a lot of time interacting with Trolls you might gain a check or an increase to Insight (Trolls).

 

On 1/23/2022 at 3:17 PM, Kränted Powers said:

How do you award players for good roleplaying? or good ideas?

By saying, "I really liked the way you played your character, Emrys Lodanson, interacting with that Earth Priestess. It felt true to character and it was a lot of fun to hear." or "Wow! That was a great idea. It worked really well and its something I never even considered!"

 

On 1/24/2022 at 9:52 AM, Kränted Powers said:

Yes, I understand. 
I think the opposite way – it is not fair to punish the players who actively participate and contribute to the story, only if one of the players happens to be the more passive type of a player.

I don't think what I do punishes those players. Active participation is often its own reward. Plus, compliments!

I'm glad what you are doing works for you and your group. Back in the day when I ran and played a lot of D&D and D&D like systems, I used to be very meticulous about variably awarding and tracking experience. Mostly this was before RQ2 was published, so pre-1980s. Now, tracking experience sounds like too much work for me as the GM.

But I'm glad it works for you and your group. Unless you feel a desire to try a different method, you should probably keep on doing what you are doing despite anything others.

 

* This is a tangent. Maybe it's just me, but I dislike using the term "Homeland Lore." It feels confusing if the party includes PCs from multiple homelands, "No sorry Wawa the Praxian, when I said 'make a roll on Homeland Lore' I meant roll Homeland Esrolia Lore only." It also requires more characters to record multiple locations for characters who spend significant time in multiple locations. I dislike the redundancy of needing to add the word "Homeland" e.g., Homeland Lore (Sartar), Homeland Lore (Esrolia), Homeland Lore (Prax) to what are Area Knowledge skills for different areas.

[Bill the barbarian]

32 minutes ago, Bren said:

A character who is a below average rider, but is spending a lot of time riding would get a check or maybe even just add a few points to their skill.

This has been in a few iterations of the rules that I know of... RQ 2 and 3 and RQG
 

RUNEQUEST 2 Page 52

LEARNING FROM EXPERIENCE IN RIDING

A character may attempt an experience gain roll in Riding ability when:

1. He has successfully lived through a melee in which he at least started on horseback (he may realize why he fell off).

2. He has made a horse do something he never made it do before.

3. He has completed a journey of at least a week through difficult terrain.

 

40 minutes ago, Bren said:

I'll probably do this for Location Lore for a character who spends a lot of time in a new Location e.g., a Sartarite PC spends a lot of time in Prax, they get an increase to Prax Lore.* Similarlly if you spend a lot of time interacting with Trolls you might gain a check or an increase to Insight (Trolls).

 

The Prax Lore thang, I seem to recall doing something similar a couple of decades ago when my crew were beginning GM, shortly after a player pointed out the rule above. I wonder if I got that from Griffin Mountain or the rules or just a good extrapolation?

42 minutes ago, Bren said:

By saying, "I really liked the way you played your character, Emrys Lodanson, interacting with that Earth Priestess. It felt true to character and it was a lot of fun to hear." or "Wow! That was a great idea. It worked really well and its something I never even considered!"

 

This and this also leads to ticks for the person so treated... don’t know why, but soon after being encouraged to play the ticks begin to follow.

4 hours ago, Kränted Powers said:

Punishing somebody? What is this? One of the Game Master's jobs is to give every player their share of attention. 

In one way, do not take me too serious here, in another, I am the GM usually, so, yeah, if this happens it is my fault.

44 minutes ago, Bren said:

I'm glad what you are doing works for you and your group.

This is critical!

45 minutes ago, Bren said:

Unless you feel a desire to try a different method, you should probably keep on doing what you are doing despite anything others.

Yep!

45 minutes ago, Bren said:

* This is a tangent.

* Tangentially speaking, yeah, homeland lore should be (Homeland) Lore

[Kränted Powers]

8 hours ago, Bren said:

Back in the day when I ran and played a lot of D&D and D&D-like systems, I used to be very meticulous about variably awarding and tracking experience. 

After playing DD and RQ in the '80s, WFRP was the game that opened our eyes to award XP for different things.

 

 

[PhilHibbs]

I'm not a fan of rewarding "good roleplaying" because it's so subjective, and some people just aren't very good at it and I feel bad punishing them for being dullards. Feels like "punching down" and elitism.

 

[Bren]

On 1/27/2022 at 1:44 PM, PhilHibbs said:

I'm not a fan of rewarding "good roleplaying" because it's so subjective, and some people just aren't very good at it and I feel bad punishing them for being dullards. Feels like "punching down" and elitism.

 

I've been to a few open games (Cons, organized play events, and the like) where the person who some folks at the table thought was roleplaying the bestest was the person I felt detracted the mostest from the table by hamming it up maximally while hogging all the attention. So it's definitely a subjective thing.

I've also seen it become a competitive thing. And competition in a predominantly cooperative activity can become a problem.

[Stephen L]

On 1/26/2022 at 6:55 PM, Kränted Powers said:

One of the Game Masters' Black Belt techniques is to guide the style of the play by rewarding XPs. 

If I were a good enough GM to have any black belt techniques, the one I would aspire to would be quite the opposite: how do I encourage the players to guide the play, and not how do I guide it.  That, for me, is best for encouraging player involvement. 

For me what works is asking players questions.  Why do you think you failed that roll? What happened?  How do you think Queen Leika will react, now that you’ve killed Asthmatic Bob?

That’s how I get the players involved, because we are all deciding together how the story unfolds, and how we interpret the dice, and the GM is only the conduit by which the players interact with an unknown scenario.

 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Stephen L

[Martin Dick]

I've never really liked the RQ/BRP experience system from the beginning, it works okay in terms of regulating the progression of characters and it is a reasonable system overall, and of course it is far far better than original D&D's level system of experience where only killing and looting helped develop a character and where levels were so generic. But there are some aspects that have always irked me:

1. It's way too random for my taste, weird things happen when you rely only on the dice and that takes agency away from the player. Each character has a story and as a GM and a player, I want the player to be the dominant (but not the only) factor driving the character's story. The RQ experience system doesn't allow the player to determine the growth of their character which impacts on the player's ability to drive their story. Now, of course, a bit of randomness in the process can be good, some people love rolling up their character's stats with the dice and just living with the consequences and that can be fun, but if I really want to play a cunning Machiavellian schemer, it doesn't really work if I roll an INT of 4 and similarly for experience, if I can never make my Intrigue roll even though my character has engaged in Intrigue in many sessions. I think the current system gets the balance on this wrong. Of course, experience is not the only (or even most important) factor in a character's story, but it is a significant factor in my opinion.
2. The whole 'you only learn from success' is just wrong as far as learning goes.
3. All skills being equally easy to learn is also not really correct
4. The rolling over the current skill level, while it makes sense on its own, doesn't make sense in the context of the system (though I know it means we don't have to do a subtraction) - but Jason Durall specifically said that he didn't have high roll win in ties, because he didn't want to add a one-off mechanic where a high roll was good in RQG and where in nearly every other circumstance a high roll is bad, which makes sense, but also indicates that the high roll being good in experience is also not a good design decision (probably kept because of ancient precedent I guess)
5. It can be easily abused with the whole skill ticking mania that afflicts some players (and it can be hard to not fall into this as a player, speaking from personal experience🤪) and while I as a GM can control this by not allowing the tick, it adds a level of unnecessary GM control and/or conflict with the players to the game
6. It also privileges combat skills over most other skills, as they are far easier to get ticks on in most campaigns than the other skills
7. The need to have a separate experience system for characteristics adds complexity that's not really needed as well

I much prefer the DragonQuest system which is equally skill based but can be used by the player to drive the character's story much more easily and solves some of the other problems.

On the other hand, it does have the plus of requiring a lot less book work than nearly any other system and with electronic character sheets, it means you don't end up rubbing a hole in your character sheet for skills that go up often. And of course I like the whole gambling nature of rolling the dice to see if I go up in my skills (at the time). It's always a buzz when you manage to get a 90% plus skill to go up (and a subsequent downer when you roll 1 to take your skill from 90% to 91%).

[Darius West]

On 1/24/2022 at 6:11 AM, soltakss said:

I prefer targeted XP, where I give out a number of XP, normally 1DN+N, (N=3,4,6,8,10) and the Players allocate them to any skills, whether they used them or not.

 

I actually don't like XP systems at all and think box-ticking is a lot better.  This is because XP allotment means that players can consistently and reliably dump their XP straight into the skills they need to make Rune Lord, which means that they can reliably know when they will be eligible.  You want a Greatsword skill of 200%+?  Just keep spending points into it, amirite? 

The charm of the box tick system is that you really have to work for your advancement, and you might wind up with a skill you never intended to be good at advancing far faster than expected.  For example, I have seen a player in RQ2 keep making the advancement rolls to get themselves the much coveted mastery of Defense (the dodge you have when your game has no dodge skill) making him an aikido master who now had the ability to train people in Defense.  Another player wound up with the unlikely home-brew skill of Dwarf Wrapping (base 15%)at 50% (when you have ample bandages, cloth, glue and paper, but no rope, and have taken mostali prisoners again).  I personally have a disturbing knack for rolling crits and ups with crossbows  to the point where I as a GM don't create encounters involving antagonists using xbows out of sheer "superstitious" dread of unintended  TPKs.  I really enjoy how these sort of odd things crop up using only the box-tick system, as it adds to the memorability of the characters.  

[Joerg]

3 hours ago, Martin Dick said:

It's way too random for my taste, weird things happen when you rely only on the dice and that takes agency away from the player. Each character has a story and as a GM and a player, I want the player to be the dominant (but not the only) factor driving the character's story. The RQ experience system doesn't allow the player to determine the growth of their character which impacts on the player's ability to drive their story.

I allow the player to alter their characters' occupational rolls to what they actively do in their backstory. If those skills aren't part of their income rolls, that's a good reflection of where they may have slacked.

[Kränted Powers]

8 hours ago, Stephen L said:

If I were a good enough GM to have any black belt techniques, the one I would aspire to would be quite the opposite: how do I encourage the players to guide the play, and not how do I guide it.  That, for me, is best for encouraging player involvement. 

For me what works is asking players questions.  Why do you think you failed that roll? What happened?  How do you think Queen Leika will react, now that you’ve killed Asthmatic Bob?

That’s how I get the players involved, because we are all deciding together how the story unfolds, and how we interpret the dice, and the GM is only the conduit by which the players interact with an unknown scenario.

 

Very good point of view. I think the GM is the entertainer and guides the show.

 

[Martin Dick]

9 hours ago, Darius West said:

 

The charm of the box tick system is that you really have to work for your advancement, and you might wind up with a skill you never intended to be good at advancing far faster than expected.  ....  I really enjoy how these sort of odd things crop up using only the box-tick system, as it adds to the memorability of the characters.  

And that's great if you like that, I had a proto-Issaries Desert Tracker who ended up with a Swim of 80% as he started with 15% and everyone else started with 10% and who made every swimming experience roll he ever did and nearly always rolled 5 or 6, of course the party made him do the swimming every time we had to. Quirky, yes, sort of fun, yes, but it really didn't advance the character's story. My current character has a Broadsword of 137%  because he has made at least 50% of his experience rolls despite it starting at 90%, yet he has made almost none of his Battle experience rolls, despite it starting at 20%, meaning that I've had to change the character conception/story to align with the facts of his skills. That's fine, still having lots of fun, but I prefer more control over my character's destiny which is why I like XP systems despite their extra effort.

[g33k]

I'd like to pull out and emphasize these two points...

On 1/24/2022 at 7:50 AM, Joerg said:

By giving them the benefit of their action. Good roleplaying? A tick in a passion, possibly in a rune, if appropriate (but probably used by the player anyway). Possibly building up loyalty or reputation.

Good ideas that work are a reward in themselves. They might influence the annual income rolls, or give situational benefits. Not having to fight big bad enemies where they have the advantage is a reward in itself.

 

* Good ideas are a reward in and of themselves.
They lead to solved problems, and often interesting new things.
No GM "extra" reward seems called for in this situation.

* Good ideas can often be rewarded with "non-XP" & entirely non-mechanical rewards.
For example:  I have a Chalana Arroy player who feels her PC is highly disenchanted with "temple hierarchy" and some of the more money-grubbing policies she sees, and preferentially seeks to heal those without the resources to pay.   Pretty much everyone in the JC BwT supplement Dregs of Clearwine (@Diana Probst &Co) would give her PC the shirt off their back:  they, or someone close to them, has benefited.  She's welcome to eat at any hearth, nobody is willing to charge her to sleep there, etc.

*  "Non-skill" rewards -- Reputations, Passions, Runes, etc -- are also very likely.

* In a few cases, I have been known to just gift a flat-out on-the-spot %increase -- "Your Rune/Skill/Whatever goes up 1%, immediately."

* I allow 1 skill-improvement roll for "any" skill on the sheet, no tick or "occupation" needed.

YMMV.

I am considering the House Rule of 1 (one) "guaranteed" increase -- pick one improvement-roll each time everyone does Skill-checks.  You auto-succeed, no roll needed.  I just don't like to see persistent bad luck in this stopping someone from doing a key character-concept thing.

Edited January 30, 2022 by g33k

[Bill the barbarian]

On 1/27/2022 at 11:44 AM, PhilHibbs said:

I'm not a fan of rewarding "good roleplaying" because it's so subjective, and some people just aren't very good at it and I feel bad punishing them for being dullards. Feels like "punching down" and elitism.

 

I am okay with it in very limited doses. I love when the table votes on a great move and will get them to do so at the end of a season’s tick chasing (roleplaying being a good part of the vote) and am willing to give a tick to the player who has entertained his or her fellow players inn a memorable way. The move does not have to be a successful one just one that grabbed the table’s imagination, made them cheer or simply is something they will remember. 

 

On 1/28/2022 at 6:23 PM, Bren said:

I've been to a few open games (Cons, organized play events, and the like) where the person who some folks at the table thought was roleplaying the bestest was the person I felt detracted the mostest from the table by hamming it up maximally while hogging all the attention.

Hopefully handing the vote to the table overcomes this. 

 

15 hours ago, Stephen L said:

If I were a good enough GM to have any black belt techniques, the one I would aspire to would be quite the opposite: how do I encourage the players to guide the play, and not how do I guide it.  That, for me, is best for encouraging player involvement. 

 

Yep!

 

15 hours ago, Stephen L said:

That’s how I get the players involved, because we are all deciding together how the story unfolds, and how we interpret the dice, and the GM is only the conduit by which the players interact with an unknown scenario.

 

Very cool!

 

13 hours ago, Martin Dick said:

It's way too random for my taste, weird things happen when you rely only on the dice and that takes agency away from the player. Each character has a story and as a GM and a player,

I get it, trollkins takes down a rune lord... thrice!

 

13 hours ago, Martin Dick said:

I much prefer the DragonQuest system which is equally skill based but can be used by the player to drive the character's story much more easily and solves some of the other problems.

 

This has come up a couple of times in my comments. Almost got to play it once. I guess, I might never get that chance again. 

 

[Susimetsa]

On 1/29/2022 at 2:37 PM, Martin Dick said:

1. It's way too random for my taste, weird things happen when you rely only on the dice and that takes agency away from the player.
2. The whole 'you only learn from success' is just wrong as far as learning goes.
3. All skills being equally easy to learn is also not really correct
4. The rolling over the current skill level, while it makes sense on its own, doesn't make sense in the context of the system
5. It can be easily abused with the whole skill ticking mania that afflicts some players
6. It also privileges combat skills over most other skills, as they are far easier to get ticks on in most campaigns than the other skills
7. The need to have a separate experience system for characteristics adds complexity that's not really needed as well

Some very good points there, but some of these - not all - are 'easily' fixed with some tweaking of the development system, imho.

1. Let the player choose one/two ticked skill(s) that automatically succeed their development rolls - or allow automatic success if the skill's got two ticks
2. Very good point, indeed. Some of this could be fixed by allowing a tick for critical failures, but this would leave a lot of neutral "failures" unheeded. Perhaps allow a tick if the skill has been used a certain number of times, regardless of its success?
3. How about tying the development to the stat instead of the current skill level? The player needs to roll under the stat (the primary or first stat) tied to the skill to develop the skill (with a D20 or the regular 4D6). This would need some extra thinking to take into account the current skill level (very high skills should improve slower, I think), but it would favour the skill that the character has "aptitude" for.
4. Would be solved by 3, I think
5. Would be solved by allowing a tick for a certain number of skill uses (or announced evening peer learning sessions or some such)
6. Depends on the nature of the campaign, of course, but you are correct when it comes to combat-intensive games
7. I'm working on an idea that would address this - allowing the player to move ticks from an individual skill to the relevant stat (or one of the relevant stats) instead of trying to increase the skill with them. When enough ticks have been moved to the stat, the player can try to roll for advancement

Edited February 12, 2022 by Susimetsa

[Orlanthatemyhamster]

I use the normal system plus an experience point system, not as potent as the WHFR System but as a supplement its great. 

Ironic that I've never read WHFRing.

 

Great minds think alike, fools never etc. 

 

[Orlanthatemyhamster]

On 1/25/2022 at 6:22 AM, Susimetsa said:

Are you rewarding players or characters? A player can easily have a great idea while playing a character to whom such an idea would never occur. Thus, rewarding the character for the player's idea seems off to me as it might also be an example of bad roleplaying, e.g. a math wiz solving a logical puzzle while playing a troll who cannot count to 3. That's an extreme example, but you get the idea. At the same time I would not like to stop smart players from sharing their ideas, so I'd allow them to toss the ideas around, but in the game world the idea would probably be represented as a group effort.

 

I think you are emphasising realism over fun far too much. 

RQ etc isn't the real world, it's a game. And I say this as someone who really values realism. 

[Susimetsa]

13 minutes ago, Orlanthatemyhamster said:

I think you are emphasising realism over fun far too much.

I don't think so. I think my example was about roleplaying, not realism. If a character has an intelligence of 5, is it good roleplaying for the player to play the character as if they shared the same intelligence (assuming the player was smarter)? And as far as it comes to having fun, a player can have tremendous fun playing a character with the intelligence of 5.

If the player wants to play a smart character, that should be taken into account during character creation. One shouldn't just ignore the point of the stats... 😕

Edited January 30, 2022 by Susimetsa

[Orlanthatemyhamster]

37 minutes ago, Susimetsa said:

I don't think so. I think my example was about roleplaying, not realism. If a character has an intelligence of 5, is it good roleplaying for the player to play the character as if they shared the same intelligence (assuming the player was smarter)? And as far as it comes to having fun, a player can have tremendous fun playing a character with the intelligence of 5.  One shouldn't just ignore of the stats... 😕

This wasn't the point I was actually remarking on but I will address it as well. 

Int is a terrible stat for role-playing. Terrible. Vague and nebulous. You could argue strongly that idea generation is only a part of it. And that someone with low int could still generate good ideas, just be bad at all the other aspects of it. 

Do you say to one of your players you can't play someone above int 14 because that's what you are? 

How do you role play someone with high int? Say 20?

Do you give them ideas their char would have thought of? That's not RPing, or do you make them roll for the same, that's not role-playing either, but rollplaying. 

Playing a low int char is difficult, but if you make people play char with int they can RP continuously, then you will never have very high or low chars. Defeating the object of having it as a stat at all. 

The subject I meant was the improvement roll modeling and changes to it. 

Also gaining a tick when you succeed at a skill isn't learning from success, it's a chance to learn from failure, which is what the actual improvement roll is, you fail the skill roll, you improve you skill. 

 

[Susimetsa]

1 hour ago, Orlanthatemyhamster said:

How do you role play someone with high int? Say 20? Do you give them ideas their char would have thought of? That's not RPing, or do you make them roll for the same, that's not role-playing either, but rollplaying.

The subject I meant was the improvement roll modeling and changes to it.

First, I was confused about your point, because you quoted text from a completely different post than the one you apparently intended to quote. 🙂

Second: about both points:

- Yes, roleplaying a high-Int character is not easy and, yes, the GM may sometimes have to help with it (just asking "are you sure?" will often help the player think about the issue one more time) and naturally they can take advantage of any ideas provided by other players at the table. But this is the same with some of the other stats as well - if you wanted to avoid these difficulties, you should have an RPG with physical stats only. I've seen great examples of people being very successful at roleplaying their mental attributes. For example, the character Grog from Critical Role is an excellent example of a low-Int character roleplayed very well and some of the players in that same series show some real ability in playing high-Int characters as well. And, as you say, the stats are multifaceted, so there are many ways to play them "well" - but I stay behind my point that a low-Int character solving a math puzzle would be unexpected.

- The skill and stat advancement points were merely in response to Martin's post and the issues he brought up with the current system. I was not proposing that everyone should think that way or that the game system should be changed accordingly. I just admitted that he had some good points and brainstormed ways in which they could be addressed.

This bit I did not quite understand:

"Also gaining a tick when you succeed at a skill isn't learning from success, it's a chance to learn from failure, which is what the actual improvement roll is, you fail the skill roll, you improve you skill."

Are you saying that the character who succeeds at a task will later (that night, before going to bed) have the opportunity to try it again and fail in order to increase their skill? That doesn't sound logical to me, but I may have misunderstood...

Edited January 30, 2022 by Susimetsa

[Martin Dick]

9 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

This has come up a couple of times in my comments. Almost got to play it once. I guess, I might never get that chance again. 

 

It's still my favourite system, had the right mix of crunch for me and was nicely modular to extend. I ran a campaign for over ten years from the early 80s into the 90s, but it can be hard to keep up when there is very little in the way of support. WoTC/Hasbro owns the IP, so that will never be used again and of course, it's far too small for them to bother about selling it. It did have one of the great sandboxes ever in The Enchanted Forest by Jennell Jaquays.