Game Mechanics: Are they important to you?

[The Game Guy]

I am curious to find out if the mechanics of a game (the rules, etc) are important to you.

Or are you of the thought that any rules can handle a setting and it doesnt matter.

[Stormchild]

Of course, you can have a good game with any rules as long as you have a good GM, good players and a good setting. But it is easier with rules that support the setting, especially when your player, GM or setting are lacking something.

[skeloric]

A good GM can prosper despite the poorest of rules, a poor GM can bollix up even the best rules, but for an average GM good rules improve the experience and bad rules will detract from it.
For the the 60% or so out of the middle, the rules become very important.

[imported_Magman]

I think a game success falls mainly on the shoulders of the GM. You get a good one and they will be able to turn the most frightening rule system into a pleasureable experience. Knowing when to bend them and massage them where needed. The players should be able to sit back on the GM's bus ride, enjoy the flow of the storyline and have laughs on the way.

Only if you are a number crunching fanatic who wants books of tables just to walk up and down the street would see rules becoming super important.

But my opinion is slightly skewed as I do not play with hex maps or figurines. My gaming worlds exist in my head.

[skeloric]

I think a game success falls mainly on the shoulders of the GM. You get a good one and they will be able to turn the most frightening rule system into a pleasurable experience. Knowing when to bend them and massage them where needed. The players should be able to sit back on the GM's bus ride, enjoy the flow of the storyline and have laughs on the way.

But a truly good GM is like declaring that you rely heavily upon getting 18s on your 3d6 and you ABSOLUTELY MUST GET AN 18 despite the bell curve displaying how a value 8 to 12 is ten times easier to get.
Most of us couldn't roll an 18 every time, we had to rely on something else.
A "Good GM" is one who gets PAID to run a demo at a convention.
The rest are OK GMs, real middle-of-the-road types.



Only if you are a number crunching fanatic who wants books of tables just to walk up and down the street would see rules becoming super important.

But my opinion is slightly skewed as I do not play with hex maps or figurines. My gaming worlds exist in my head.
Good system has nothing to do with books of tables or game mats or minis.

Classic Unisystem has 1 table for success and one for fear checks.
It also offers rules a form of "card play" utilizing a regular deck of cards Ace (1) to 10 and the ability to CHOOSE which card to use as the "random" element.
The book is cheaper than many and the rules are complete in that 1 book.
A good system is a concise system.

[Whill]

Yes, they are very important to me. I love Star Wars but I refuse to play the d20 game because of the game mechanics. I despise the d20 system because it is so much more complex, and therefore so much less cinimatic. The d20 Star Wars game (and I've owned all 3 versions for reference) is nothing more than "D&D in Space". I'm D6 all the way, baby! :)

[Kalzazz]

I more or less agree with Skeloric, a great DM and players can overcome clunky rules

But, fun rules make for fun play, especially for mere mortals

[skeloric]

Of course relying on finding and being in such an Epically Awesome group is like winning the lottery jackpot.
Most of the rest of us are lucky to even match a single number which represents the finding of ANY game group.

[skeloric]

Just noting the poll again.
Seems that the mechanics do matter.

[Jamfke]

I find that the mechanics are only important if they really work for the game. Some rules seem to be shoehorned into a game sometimes because the designer decided that it was too awesome to leave out. Those I will usually flag as optional for my games and choose not to use.

Personally, for a role playing game, I find that role playing is most important, rules are secondary.

[Crusis]

Personally, for a role playing game, I find that role playing is most important, rules are secondary.

I 100% agree with this. I can have a dice rolling party, or we can role play a storyline. One of my players is a 'minmaxer' and a rules lawyer. He always tries to work the numbers. It irritates the crap out of me. I have another player who will lower a stat because he wanted to play someone who was diseased, for example.

Mechanics do matter, because they are what steers the story. But the story is most important of all.

[skeloric]

If I really wanted "JUST ROLEPLAY" and system did not matter I could revert to the "Cops and Robbers" make believe game that I outgrew when I was 8 years old and was able to read an RPG book.
System and rules are integral as far as conflict resolution is concerned, otherwise just sit down and write a three sentence story start and invite each person at the table to write (in order around the table) an additional three sentences until your game session ends.
Buy the "Once upon a Time..." card set and just tell your story based upon the card play.
There are ways AROUND playing an actual RPG if system does not matter.
But for those to whom it matters -- that is what an RPG is for.
People BUY an RPG system/setting book because it MATTERS.
For those to whom it really does NOT matter, probably aren't buying RPGs anyway.

[imported_Magman]

Your a little harse bashing the opinions of another by knocking it down in content by suggestion they are only 8 years old to believe how they feel. You didn't directly say that, but it is easy to see how you suggested it.


Mechanics do matter, because they are what steers the story. But the story is most important of all.

And I agree with this totally as I have previously stated.


People BUY an RPG system/setting book because it MATTERS.
For those to whom it really does NOT matter, probably aren't buying RPGs anyway.

Perhaps people like myself, buy these role playing games first for the storyline, pre-done characters, and background information and not for the overall game mechanics? Buying a game system that has all the leg work done already and wrapped nicely in a package is a huge buying point for me. The most time consuming thing about RPG's in my opinion is what most of these books provide, the background and storyline.

[skeloric]

Some of my favorite RPGs have zero background and zero storyline.
GURPS -- try finding either in the "Characters" book.
World of Darkness -- its just a central point for the rules so as to avoid reprinting them over and over.
AFMBE -- offers at most 2 pages of "ideas" per each of the 5 to 6 possible stories they offer, the rest is rules.
Even the much vaunted D&D -- which is NOT one of my favorites but supposedly is the favorite of 80% of the RPG buying public -- ( at least this is true of the 3.x books but it sounds as if 4.0 is very much the same) had only the rules in the 3 main books, the settings were separate.

Rulebooks and corebooks and such seem to invariably focus upon RULES.
Setting books are separate and often are much poorer sellers.

[imported_Magman]

When I sit down for a role playing session with a group, I would have to say 75% of that time is given towards role playing with the other characters, getting involved with the NPC's and storyline, while trying to work our way through the campaign.

25% of the time is rolling of dice and looking at the so called tables to resolve the story speed bumps which chooses which direction the characters are going in. If not for combat sequences, that percentage would drastically drop.


Perhaps my GM is totally different from the rest of them out there in the world and actually tells a role playing storyline first. If there are people out there who love spending time chewing over any and all gaming rules for a system to make their game work, I guess that is their style and right. Filling game time this way is their choice, their reason for buying such games then. Doesn't make the other side wrong.

It is obvious people have their own opinions on why and how they play. When trying to have a conversation with a wall, I simply choose to walk away and not waste anymore time trying to move something that can not.

So I will bow out of this thread's conversation and let others enjoy the rants.

[Stormchild]

I hope this discussion is coming back to discussion and not deriving into bashing about what GM style is good GMing (not saying that it reached this point already). If the GMing works with the group it is good GMing. On the last Con I had a group consisting of 3 munchkins and 2 hard core into-characters. The game, as you might expect, was not much fun. While the 2 where chatting in-character, the other 3 where already off looking for an in-game fight and vice versa.

My biggest problem with Torg (the game I love the most btw) was always that in order to get new cards you have to roll dice. I tinkered with some ideas, like that you get cards for good roleplay, but it never worked out. If the GM decides who gets cards rather arbitrary than with rules, it is nearly impossible to keep up the image of objectivity. I had to realise that it is better to have rules that the players know and can use for their own plans even if that means extensive rolling of dice.

[Jamfke]

Ok, gonna slide back in here and reiterate what I said before, hopefully more clearly this time.

Rules are important in a role playing game, as long as they are actually functional. They are important for the instances in a session where chance is involved (battle, accessing security or computer files while under duress, climbing a rain-slicked bluff to reach the radar tower undetected by the sentries, etc.) They are important and are an integral part of almost any/every role playing game. However, you don't really have much of a ROLE playing game if all it consists of is ROLLing all the time.

If you want to play a game that is more deeply concerned with your character moving a maximum of 12" across a terrain and attacking an enemy then you need to be playing a miniatures game. The only one I've ever played was Battletech, it was fun and I really enjoyed it, but not as much as I enjoy playing true role playing games where character interaction between PCs and NPCs takes up the majority of the session. This has been my experience with gaming since I started well over twenty three years ago.

As for a mix of different types of gamers at the table, I had min/maxers and great role players sitting at my table throughout almost all of my games and never really had a problem with any of them. The games always went smoothly. You just have to cater to both styles at the same time.

[Kalzazz]

Magman, no need to bow out of the discussion, after all, the point of discussion is to discuss stuff, and if have divergent opinions, then theres all the more oppurtunity for discussion

As a friendly note, enthusiasm in discussion is good, but dont want to have enthusiasm go all the way to making unfriendly discussion

[skeloric]

One thing in retrospect that has bothered me, when in the heck did the idea of every game system being considered comparable to D&D with what is a very singular need of D&D's to be played on a battlemat with minis and grease pens and the whole "attack of opportunity" concept?

I've played MANY game systems that are not as intense as that.
GURPS is not even as intense as the unhealthy reliance D&D has upon buying (expensive) minis and (expensive) battlemats and anything else (that is also expensive) to drive up even further the already overly high cost of D&D.

White Wolf's Storytelling system offers some good dice mechanics but yet does not rely on minis and battlemats.
Unisystem doesn't use minis and battlemats.
GURPS offers a small optional rule, but it is quite OPTIONAL.

It is NOT all about minis and battlemats vs your favorite overly vague/"artistic" RPG as the lone champion of "roleplaying triumphing over ebil dice".
We've been subjected to a straw man argument in this regard.

[Jamfke]

Well, I wasn't referring to D&D in the first place, didn't even mention it really. In fact, I've never even cracked open a 3.whatever edition of D&D since it first came out. I was talking about games such as Warhammer and such that began strictly as miniature games.

Again, rules are essential in situations within a game that require random determination and as long as they work with the setting you're using. Simple as that.

[Kalzazz]

I find GURPS works quite nicely on a battlemat due to the relatively short movement ranges of folks and the assorted rules for facing and defense, GURPS definitely doesnt need a battlemat (Ive played it many times sans battlemat, more often then not) but I think it boosts the experience

Earthdawn is clunky on battlemat, movement ranges are just to fast. But used ED a lot with one, the main benefit for a battlemat is if you have several players the battlemat can really lessen confusion

In GURPS, one thing I liked to do is represent players and monsters with d20s, and then everyone rolls their die onto the battlemat to determine where they are when the fight starts. Its a fun and simple mechanic that drastically decreases setup time

Also played Star Wars on a battlemat a couple times, but dont recall how it went, beyond the fact that no, my Jedi could not ride a beanie baby into battle

[Crusis]

Never let the rules get in the way of a good story.

You only have to use the rules you want to use. Ignore the ones that slow things down. Instead, let the characters and the action move things along.

Seems WEG sort of agrees with those of us who like to Role Play. If you don't like to Role Play, Star Fleet Battles is an absolutely excellent war game with a 600 page rule book.

There are nights my group doesn't roll a single die as we are currently playing 2nd ed AD&D. It is 100% about the story. In d6, it's a bit harder to go a night without die rolls, but I have a feeling that game night at Skeloric's house sounds like a hailstorm on a plastic roof. To put down one way or another is completely foolish.

Simply do what makes you and your friends happy.

[Grimace]

I think people need to step back and reasses what the original intent of this thread is. This thread isn't about "Roleplay" vs "Rollplay" as some people are inferring.

Game mechanics can be important to a person without said person having to be a gung-ho dice roller. Just because someone likes rolling the dice doesn't mean they also don't like roleplaying. Gross generalizations are only going to anger more people here and lead to a flame-fest.

I chose that game mechanics are important to me. Why? Because I find that I'm less willing to learn the new "system of the month" and I also don't have the money to continue investing in the new "system of the month". Nowadays, if I want a system that's new and being published (which D6 doesn't fall into at the moment) I spend a lot of time researching what I want in a game system. I want a system that allows me to do what I want without getting in the way of having fun. For those purposes, I've found that D20 does NOT fit the bill. So I went searching for a new system and found Epic.

If I want a system I feel most comfortable with, I use D6. In this regard, the game system is VERY important to me. I don't choose either of those systems because I like charts and I like battlemats and I like miniatures. In fact, I generally detest charts. I don't own a battlemats, and I don't have the money to buy miniatures. So I wouldn't consider my "mechanics are VERY important" to me to indicate that I'm a "rollplayer" instead of a "roleplayer". I choose the systems I play because they give me just enough meat on the bones to cover any game use that may be thrown at it, but isn't so heavy on mechanics that I have to spend 100+ hours learning the rules before I play the game.

When I run games I never use miniatures, and (as I mentioned), I don't own a battlemat. I might scribble out something on a sheet of paper if my players need a "point of reference" to help ease any confusion, but for the most part everything I do is based on description, not measurements. So suggesting that I'm a "rollplayer" based on my decision to put importance on the game mechanics is simply wrong. I like fewer rolls. I like game mechanics that don't override what I'm trying to tell in the game. I like game mechanics that aren't clunky and that I don't have to reference chart after chart on. I hardly feel that groups me into a "rollplayer" category.

Now, as a frame of reference, I DO also play Star Fleet Battles. I have played such rule heavy games as SpaceMaster. So I can play those dice heavy games, but I prefer the games where the mechanics let you handle things without barging into the room and announcing "I'm taking over!". Give me D6 or give me death! (Unless I have players who only feel they can play "game in print", in which case I use Epic.)

So please, let's not go slamming people and calling them "rollplayers" (or inferring it) just because they feel the game mechanics are important to them. People put different levels of importance on things. Doesn't mean they're wrong, and doesn't mean that their gaming style is different from yours, it just means that they feel certain things are important for certain reasons.

[skeloric]

I think people need to step back and reasses what the original intent of this thread is. This thread isn't about "Roleplay" vs "Rollplay" as some people are inferring.

Game mechanics can be important to a person without said person having to be a gung-ho dice roller. Just because someone likes rolling the dice doesn't mean they also don't like roleplaying. Gross generalizations are only going to anger more people here and lead to a flame-fest.

I chose that game mechanics are important to me. Why? Because I find that I'm less willing to learn the new "system of the month" and I also don't have the money to continue investing in the new "system of the month". Nowadays, if I want a system that's new and being published (which D6 doesn't fall into at the moment) I spend a lot of time researching what I want in a game system. I want a system that allows me to do what I want without getting in the way of having fun. For those purposes, I've found that D20 does NOT fit the bill. So I went searching for a new system and found Epic.

If I want a system I feel most comfortable with, I use D6. In this regard, the game system is VERY important to me. I don't choose either of those systems because I like charts and I like battlemats and I like miniatures. In fact, I generally detest charts. I don't own a battlemats, and I don't have the money to buy miniatures. So I wouldn't consider my "mechanics are VERY important" to me to indicate that I'm a "rollplayer" instead of a "roleplayer". I choose the systems I play because they give me just enough meat on the bones to cover any game use that may be thrown at it, but isn't so heavy on mechanics that I have to spend 100+ hours learning the rules before I play the game.

When I run games I never use miniatures, and (as I mentioned), I don't own a battlemat. I might scribble out something on a sheet of paper if my players need a "point of reference" to help ease any confusion, but for the most part everything I do is based on description, not measurements. So suggesting that I'm a "rollplayer" based on my decision to put importance on the game mechanics is simply wrong. I like fewer rolls. I like game mechanics that don't override what I'm trying to tell in the game. I like game mechanics that aren't clunky and that I don't have to reference chart after chart on. I hardly feel that groups me into a "rollplayer" category.

Now, as a frame of reference, I DO also play Star Fleet Battles. I have played such rule heavy games as SpaceMaster. So I can play those dice heavy games, but I prefer the games where the mechanics let you handle things without barging into the room and announcing "I'm taking over!". Give me D6 or give me death! (Unless I have players who only feel they can play "game in print", in which case I use Epic.)

So please, let's not go slamming people and calling them "rollplayers" (or inferring it) just because they feel the game mechanics are important to them. People put different levels of importance on things. Doesn't mean they're wrong, and doesn't mean that their gaming style is different from yours, it just means that they feel certain things are important for certain reasons.
Much thanks for that.
It was 110% of why I was getting tetchy on this topic.
System ONLY means that the book offers SOME sort of framework.
While I may prefer one system over another -- some systems these days are really looking lazy in that their only mechanic seems to be "Roll any die you have. Get the lowest value, you failed. Roll lower than somebody else, you failed."
Offering merely the quoted text as their entire "system".
While D&D Palladium and Warhammer and HERO/Champions and ROLEMASTER and especially FATAL are examples of really annoyingly overly complex systems, I generally loathe with equal measure those companies who have overcompensated by offering practically nothing but that example above as a "system".

But that ALL is still "system".

[Kalzazz]

Comfort is definitely good, if its a system I know and am comfortable with, I can concentrate more on my DMing/Playing and less on trying to remember the system. If everyone involved knows the system then much less confusion . . . provided the system is used consistently. Im in an Earthdawn game where while the system is Earthdawn, the rest of it is definitely an odd interpretation of it, so spend a certain part of the time rather unsure about stuff

[skeloric]

If everyone involved knows the system then much less confusion . . . provided the system is used consistently. I'm in an Earthdawn game where while the system is Earthdawn, the rest of it is definitely an odd interpretation of it, so spend a certain part of the time rather unsure about stuff
This is actually a case of where the system and GM are in conflict more than an issue in the system itself.
I think he either has a different interpretation that he neglected to share or there is a vague spot that he rules upon on the fly again and again.

Or maybe he's just trying to be a dick like in the story below:

I've had problems with the old (storyteller version) Aberrant game as the GM was looking to exploit a flaw in the gadgetry rules as we had not created gadget characters.
Then a new player arrived with forewarning of the FULLY UNLIMITED scope of gadgets (which is the result of the written gadget rules not being curtailed by a little common sense) only to find that caveats and limitations actually were going to be applied to him, but not to the NPCs -- which had the overall result of crashing the game and ending the group.
The problem is clearly that the gadgetry rules themselves are a min/max exploit that the GM was willing to use against us but then would rule against us when we tried to use the very same exploit.
These are the times that try gamers' souls.

Moral:
If you play storyteller version Aberrant, play without the gadgetry rules unfortunately, as the rules are truly broken.

[Whill]

Thanks everyone for their contributions to this discussion. But I think I might be able to clarify the issue of what is being asked in this thread.

(1) One way to look at the question is the importance of a specific game mechanics system vs. others. My original answer was answering this question. D6 is defintely the best system for the type of games I like to run. My favorite game is Star Wars, so I was thinking of d6 vs. d20. Specifically which game mechanics system is being used is very important to me.

(2) The other question which some have addressed is the comparison of the importance of game mecanics vs. the importance of role-playing ("roll vs. role"). My original post did not touch this because I didn't read the question that way (role-playing was not mentioned in the original post). Please don't mistake my original answer to mean that role-playing is not important to me.

Role-playing is very important to me. So role-playing and game mechanics are both very important. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

I once played in a Ravenloft campaign in which the DM and I role-played an entire game session while he was driving me in his car on a 2-hour drive! It was a side-mission separate from the group of characters my PC was in, and of course it was mostly interaction with NPCs (gathering information, building trust, etc.). It was well-handled by the DM and it advanced the story for the next time we had a usual table-top session with the whole group.

As for my game, a long session with no dice rolling is not impossible but is unlikely because I like action too much (and most action needs game mechanics and dice rolling to resolve). I enjoy role-playing but like to keep things exciting by putting at least a little action in here and there. IMO, a good game will have a balance of role-playing and roll-playing.

Now I've answered both questions addressed by this thread.

[Crusis]

Role-playing is very important to me. So role-playing and game mechanics are both very important. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

I once played in a Ravenloft campaign in which the DM and I role-played an entire game session while he was driving me in his car on a 2-hour drive! It was a side-mission separate from the group of characters my PC was in, and of course it was mostly interaction with NPCs (gathering information, building trust, etc.). It was well-handled by the DM and it advanced the story for the next time we had a usual table-top session with the whole group.

That is fricking awesome. I wish I had more time to do this type of thing with my friends.

[Kalzazz]

Ive done lots of in car RPGing . . . its usually been semi dice heavy, just the driver doesnt roll

[Stormchild]

I just bought a shots glass with built in electronic D6. This could be used in a car too (without the shots of course) :)

[skeloric]

OK, just so people stop equating dice with system.
I and a friend once created a system on a 3x5 notecard that was just as good diceless and we used it in the car quite a few times.

[The Game Guy]

Ive done lots of in car RPGing . . . its usually been semi dice heavy, just the driver doesnt roll

I have never tried this before. I mean I guess if you had an RV with a table and someone driving that could work well. But in a regular car.. I am having a hard time picturing it.

[Crusis]

I have never tried this before. I mean I guess if you had an RV with a table and someone driving that could work well. But in a regular car.. I am having a hard time picturing it.

I've never done this, but I guess as long as you had someone rolling for the driver, it would work fine. You just need something to roll into I'd think, like a small plastic dish. Just guessing, but it would suck to unbuckle and hunt for the D6s on the floor of a Geo Metro. ;)

[The Game Guy]

I've never done this, but I guess as long as you had someone rolling for the driver, it would work fine. You just need something to roll into I'd think, like a small plastic dish. Just guessing, but it would suck to unbuckle and hunt for the D6s on the floor of a Geo Metro. ;)

I mean, sure you can make it work. Character sheets on the laps, maybe a book or something to roll the dice on.

It would work. Wouldn't be a bad thing to make the time go by quicker. Long drives can be hard.

[Kalzazz]

Also you can use a calculator or some other electronic means of rolling dice

We also used a laptop hooked to the cars sound system to provide mood music, and the DM looked at pdfs on the laptop

[hellsreach]

RPGing in a car wouldn't bee so bad with an electronic die roller. It would be kinda fun on those long roadtrips to GenCon and such.

[The Game Guy]

RPGing in a car wouldn't bee so bad with an electronic die roller. It would be kinda fun on those long roadtrips to GenCon and such.

This brings up a good question that I think deserves its own thread.

But this is a good point.

[skeloric]

Still, despite the whole bit about how "Roleplaying is so much more important than system/mechanics", all of the votes are still FOR mechanics being important...

[The Game Guy]

Still, despite the whole bit about how "Roleplaying is so much more important than system/mechanics", all of the votes are still FOR mechanics being important...

Yep. I know there are people out there who think they aren't but I think they are the minority and not the majority of the gamers out there.

[skeloric]

The Setting/System debate is quite ridiculous I feel in that Settings can be easily altered and even obviated but the system NEEDS to be capable of handling a lot of stuff that might not have been covered by the setting.

People talk of removing the Star Wars from the D6 Star Wars and utilizing the system for OTHER Sci-Fi shows.
Back in the early days of the 90s, there supposedly was a Buck Rodgers (Gil Gerard version) fan RPG using D6 Star Wars as well as what was then the ONLY incarnation of Battlestar Galactica and some other 70s Sci-Fi.
Supposedly, they had made some unofficial rounds at very early Sci-Fi/Comic Book conventions and transitioned to some early BBS sites.
While I doubt any of them still exist -- if they did I'd be VERY INTERESTED in getting my hands on them -- they present the importance of system as it was easier to attach another setting to the system in question than to move the setting itself to another system (as the way anyone who has seen D6 Star Wars in action is less than impressed with "D&D Star Wars").
Setting is the decals and bumper stickers on the car with the car itself being the system.
One can take a very poor performing car and give it a "tricked out" paint job and accessories, but the performance itself is still rather low.
However, one takes a high performance car and even when it looks bad, true automotive aficionados will still marvel at its performance and extol its virtues.
However, one can give a very poor performance vehicle such a visually appealing outer surface that people will buy it based upon its "look" rather than its performance only to discover that their "sports car" has a hard time breaking 90MPH -- this is marketing in action.
This, then, is the way that setting and system work together.
System is the engine and chassis while setting is the body shell built over it and sometimes it isn't even the actual body shell, with even the body shell being part of the system it is just the paint job that is setting.

I think the numbers shown support this interpretation.

[Crusis]

Good argument. I suppose it's all in how you interpret the question.

"How important are game mechanics to you."

"How important are game mechanics to a game system."

Those are entirely two different animals.

I think in the first case, the story is most important but I want a game system that will allow me to tell it with speed and an appropriate amount of randomness so the players don't feel they are just part of a script.

In the second case, it's extremely important because having a set of rules in the mind of the GM allows that GM to move the story along quickly and without a feeling of ambiguity regarding the outcome of any event. With that in mind, any set of rules should be broken at will by the GM for the sake of the story.

[The Game Guy]

For me I want to run the game, using great mechanics that really give me the look and feel of the genre I am gaming in.

With the right mechanics the story can move and flow and an enjoyable time can be had by all.

[Whill]

Which cover should be the new face of Destiny6? (http://www.wegfansite.com/forum/showthread.php?2623-Help-us-choose-which-cover)