Yes they tend to get like that… ignore the fire they’ll give up eventually
Well I absolutely adored my plaque doctors mask, so I can’t help but get a bit excited at the prospect of more wearable identity
2 Likes
@Talyrion Licks quill and scribbles furiously in notebook…
@Mary_Duffy That’s completely new to me. I’ve never heard it here in the UK (and while I may have lapsed pretty comprehensively in my later years, I was a fresh-faced Anglican choirboy once upon a time 
).
This concerns me deeply. Four or five, you say? Smooching? Will both parties remain clothed while this occurs? I’m not sure I can permit this to go unchallenged. Will I be able to smooch more than one party in the same game? No, no, this doesn’t sit well with me. Where did you say the smooching will occur?
9 Likes
I’ve never seen or heard this before in my life! But I was a good Catholic boy who didn’t fraternize with those strange Anglicans…
Baptists white with foam? What’s that all about?
It is my blessing and my curse.
*set HERESY %+20
7 Likes
My favorite kind of heresy, not that I don’t love all kinds.
4 Likes
I suppose from the totally immersive “dunking” process of baptizing: American Baptists often have a large baptismal font, the size of a child’s outdoor play pool, some even use a play pool, I believe, or in other cases they baptize members in nearby natural bodies of water–even foamy ones!
2 Likes
Ooh, of course. I feel like I should’ve been able to figure that out. For some reason I was hung up on the ‘foam’ referring to the head on a beer, and thought it was a coded way of suggesting the Baptists were all boozing it up (why this would be the case, I have no idea).
4 Likes
They’re dipping babies, that’s got to be an existential crisis waiting to happen.
1 Like
ON the CONTRARY they are not boozing it up. I grew up partially in Alabama where a lot my classmates were Baptists. Many of them were not allowed to attend school dances because dancing is not on.
5 Likes
The first chapter of Hexfinder is currently going through the editorial process, which means I had more time to write some more enigmatic background documents share some extremely real historical sources!
Don’t worry if these seem a bit weird and confusing at the moment, it’ll all make sense in time. Wherever I’ve named somebody in these documents, it’s a character you will be meeting in the game 
15 Likes
Giving this a bump for another mini update. Chapter Two is now in the editorial process, Chapter Three is about halfway written. When Chapter Three is complete and edited (estimating mid-to-late December,) I’ll let you guys at it!
I don’t have a document this time. But I thought I’d mention one of the incredibly helpful books I’ve read as background for this project: Magic in the Middle Ages by Richard Kieckhefer.
It covers a broad time period (from pagan/norse beliefs all the way to the 15th Century,) and actually concludes before the English Civil War period I’m borrowing from - but it sets the stage perfectly for what people in Europe would consider to be ‘magic,’ and the differing contemporary schools of thought on defining it. Lots of great details about debates over what is ‘natural’ (and therefore fine) magic versus demonic or necromantic magic (and absolutely not fine for many people), the overlap of magic, emerging science, and medicine.
I learned fascinating techniques from primary sources, such as “to ensure keen eyesight by night as well as by day one should anoint one’s eyes with bat’s blood” (from a book about household management in Wolfsthurn Castle). And also got an insight into early skepticism - a later reader of the book had added the comment “This would be good - if it were true!”
It’s a relatively short read at 200 pages, and it packs in a LOT. The intended audience is university undergrad, but I didn’t find it too dry or academic. Cool stuff if you like occult history, or happen to be writing a CoG title with such a theme.
21 Likes
I really appreciate your developer diary/blog approach you are taking with your game. Thank you for doing this.
3 Likes
Well. Two things: 1. Thank you for introducing me to this book, I just spent the last 5 hours starting and finishing it. Amazing read, a little dry in parts but overall very interesting and informative. 2. You just obliterated my writing time. 5 hours gone 
Your WIP concept sounds amazing! I can’t wait for it to come out…
3 Likes
Oh nice, glad you found it as interesting as I did! Sorry about the distraction 
1 Like
The Solstice is upon us … what better time for a playable demo?
This section is the first three chapters of the game, and ends at the point where matters conclude in the village of Wheatley (there’s no “proper” coded ending, so it’ll just throw up an error). 65k words in total - one playthrough will be about 18k words, so that should give you an idea of the current time investment.
Your comments and feedback are welcomed and encouraged! Early readers helped to shape Mask of the Plague Doctor in some interesting ways, and I’m hoping for more of the same here. I’m looking for … all types of impressions at this stage, really. Played? Had a thought? Share it!
Bug/weird error reports are good too. If it seems like a section got skipped, or the name of your horse is being displayed wrong, or whatever, that’s all great stuff for me to fix. Same for typos.
The stats page is a bit “work in progress” at the moment, so don’t worry too much about that. I’ll most likely be hiding more things at the start (until they become relevant later), and I want to rework the ‘Persons of Import’ page - at the moment it has terrible spacing and I don’t think I’ll end up listing people by location as it is at present.
Anyway, I think that’s it for now! Big thanks to @Mary_Duffy for getting the most recent edits back to me for the Solstice. More chapters coming as and when written…
Have at it, hexfinders 
20 Likes
I like the theme, and I like investigating stuff, so I was quite eager to get into this once I found it. Here’s some general comments:
General Comments
The immersion so far is the strong point for me. The fear and mistrust of the Hexfinders comes across quite well, but at the same time the ugly paranoia, suspicion and disinformation of the period, especially in how the mob tries to lynch Ursula. I like the small hints here and there to the historical reality – the devastation of the war, also things like enclosure, which is a major cause of unrest. There’s clearly been a lot of research and thought given to it, including relatively obscure stuff like the benandanti, and the Digger in the tavern (perhaps “Leveller” would be more appropriate than “Anarchist” as the opposite to Authoritarian?)
The atmosphere the text creates isn’t just descriptive, but very immersive, from the village to Oxford, really establishes the damage done to the country. I think Chapter 1 and the start of Chapter 2 were the strongest here, with the latter half of chapter 2 seeming a bit short. Dialogue also seems good too, not too modern, but the mannerisms and manners of speaking feel antiquated while being understandable and not too over-the-top.
The ritual with Nico was also very intriguing if also rather unexpected. It certainly got me questioning my choices in Chapter 1, which I suppose is a good thing. I also haven’t found any obvious bugs or typos yet either.
While I have a thought for where my PC will go on the Parliamentarian plot thing (due to my familiarity with the English Civil War), I don’t think there’s really much for people who are not familiar with the situation to decide. Both the Royalists and Parliamentarians have been shown in a bad light, but aside from Pym’s pamphlet (which many may avoid because it’s in the stats screen), there’s not much informing a choice between them barring previous knowledge and preconceptions. I guess this’ll come later, but I felt Chapter 2 was a bit of a lost opportunity here.
Right now, based on the game alone, the main motivation to be Royalist is to avoid persecution by Hopequins, and to be Parliamentarian is because of the words of Pym; choose one option to avoid the consequences of the other. Nothing on Divine Right or the Magna Carta (or the equivalents), the actions of the monarch and of Parliament up to the war itself.
I liked Richard, he gave off the earthly, practical, village priest vibe quite well. I wonder how he’ll compare to Laud and the other ostentatious prelates. Hopequins made a rather large impact for his short scene; a sort of manic true believer who draws excitement from his rather insidious work. One who deludes himself that he’s doing the right thing while not being above being bribed. I don’t really see where his notoriety comes from (besides comparisons to the actual Hopkins), but I guess we’ll see.
Anna I like, but there are some things about her which are peculiar. Her introduction was also a bit odd; I had the trial with Grace in the church, and she comes in all curt and brusque, but she opens up significantly and becomes much more familiar and less stiff (without major conversation with the PC) by the time they get to Oxford. I don’t mind that but it did give off the wrong impression from the start. That being said, I do sort of like how she comes in as the stereotype of a witchfinder but turns out to not be like that so much.
What really made her like her is if the PC turns out to be a former Parliamentarian (even if you only have sympathies, and weren’t a member of the New Model Army). Of course time will tell whether the trust will pay off. But I really like that it’s an option from the onset, rather than having the PC convert over time. That being said, the PC does invoke a lot of trust in telling her so early; while I had anticipated the PC’s stance on the Civil War to come up early, I would have expected telling her about being a former Parliamentarian to only come up later.
As an aside, I figure Rupert of the Rhine isn’t in the game in a major way? I thought he’d be an obvious shoe-in as the arch-Cavalier. Unless he happens to be in one of the later implied court scenes.
Regarding pacing etc, I feel like the transition from confronting the mob to deciding on who to try was a bit abrupt. I had expected to be able to talk to Ursula – I’d only looked at the goat and spoken to Grace – especially after the lynching attempt. Chapter 2 also seemed a bit short, like the purpose was simply to introduce Hopequins and transition to the main plot. There didn’t seem to be much to do bar for the crows and the thief, compared to the extensive investigation of chapter 1 and the talks with Anna in chapter 3.
Sometimes I feel there should be a choice, but there isn’t. For instance, the PC seems inclined to take Nico for an ally without the player’s input if you pass the check. That would seem like an excellent place to have the player decide on their stance towards non-hexfinders, Pontificery (?) etc.
It also seems a bit odd that a lot of people have two names, but the PC only has one and no option for two, but that’s a minor thing.
Player Responses and Personality
I have mixed thoughts on the responses the player gets at times, the ones that change zealotry/skeptic personality types. In Chapter 1, the player character’s demeanour was abrasive basically all the time, even when thanking people. From the start of Chapter 2, there are options to be more merciful in outlook, such as enquiring as to whether the prisoner will be treated well.
My first impression, based on chapter 1, was that the game required you to be a stick-up-the-backside type, ranging from the bitter miser to the the over-the-top “Thou art a wretch’d ſinner, an evil malefacktor that conſorts with Satan, and ſhalt be ſeverelie punish’d” type. It was a surprise then, that somewhat more merciful options were available. That’s not a bad thing, I think they should still be kept – but I think there should be more options for that in chapter 1 so as to not give the false impression that the only way to let someone off is to be greedy.
However, on realising that I kept an eye out for the personality changes in future options…
I think the main cause of the apparent inconsistency in being merciful is that a larger issue at hand: that a lot of the responses are a personality taken to the absolute extreme, and that there is no room for moderation, which is something I felt was also the case in Plague Doctor. While I did enjoy Plague Doctor, at times to me it felt like that you were forced to the extremes of the alignment bars, in that you could either be a bootlicking supporter of the status quo or a would-be revolutionary. I think this is also the case in Hexfinder right now, such that there’s little room for nuance or moderation. You’re either a zealous, frothing-at-the-mouth witchfinder or a bored, uncaring one. No room for a quietly religious PC, or one who does their job properly but isn’t particularly devout.
All of this is particularly notable since Anna says in one choice “now every one of us is a stalwart defender of our monarch…I believe you know why they may hide such sympathies” and herself played both sides. Thus the PC’s exuberance in the response options takes some of the immersion away in addition to there not being a “middle ground”.
For instance, when arriving outside Oxford, the skeptic option is “Faith…magic…the point is moot, none of these things have been proven to be real.” Given that the setting is established as being a very superstitious one and that religious conflict is ongoing, this statement just seems unbelievable, that it’s in to make it clear that it’s the skeptic option, rather than a response from someone in the setting which happens to be skeptical. I don’t think it’s that believable for a person in the setting, a hexfinder no less, to openly be that skeptical, to a hexfinder and a priest, both of whom they don’t know. I think apostasy and paganism is the only thing that would get the various religious factions in the setting to band together and condemn.
Though that’s an example, it’s not the only one. Some avaricious responses seem to be greedy to the point of parody, while some indifferent responses seem like someone who’s extremely lazy and likes being a dick. Instead of choosing options that are closest to my PC, I reject by process of elimination options which aren’t; this can end up with major about-faces in the PC’s character, and can seem to contrast with the “neutral” voice/character the PC uses when the player isn’t in control of their dialogue.
Part of the issue, I think, is that there’s inevitably options for each of the parallel personalities, the nature of the responses as above, an encouragement to double-down towards the extremes of the personality options, and that the options move the bars by the same amount. Character responses are also the only way, it seems, to move personality around and are the majority of choices; there’s few options for role-playing as such.
I admit I don’t know what the solution is, but that this leaves me feeling a bit off at times while making choices. Perhaps having fewer choices where each choice changes a different personality stat, and including choices where one personality stat can be changed by either a large or small amount?
One potential instance would be where Strode implies that the tavern owner bribed Hopequins to not be tried for cursing her rivals. There could be a very zealous response to Anna’s recounting that’s utterly opposed to that and wants heresy to be quashed in all guises, a less-zealous response which points out the hypocrisy, and a genuinely indifferent or appreciative avaricious response.
It’s also a lot of work, but if personality were to affect more of the non-choice text and non-choice PC dialogue, it would also make the personality-shifting options less of a sore thumb. e.g. at the start of Chapter 3, a paranoid or zealous PC wouldn’t say “Bit early?” to Strode, given that the first is paranoid and for second “first to ſloth, thence to damnation, and the corruption of thy immortal ſoul, etc”. Have the personality mesh more and bleed more into the prose overall.
Parliamentary Plot + Endings
I think it’s a bit evident that the PC’s actions will have major impacts on the state of the monarchy and potentially the Church by the end of the game. Given all of the above, I would expect a binary choices. Given the tendency to the extreme for all the personality options so far, I’d expect that a Royalist ending results in an absolute monarchy (given Charles I’s tendencies), and the Parliamentarian one results in the Commonwealth (or a dictatorship under Cromwell).
If it isn’t planned, I’d like to argue for moderate routes in both instances. Neither Anglo-Catholic or Puritan, Absolutist or Republican. Namely, a Constitutional Monarchy (Restoration-style) and a Latitudinarian/Broad Church, whether by compromise between the two sides or by design (e.g. by siding with Fairfax and her supporters instead of Cromwell, Ireton and the like)
I know it’s adding an extra ending and all the writing and coding it entails, but I think enough players would choose such an option, and it would give a reason not to max out every personality trait. And the world isn’t so binary so a compromise makes sense. The country is in crisis, but I think there’d still be enough people in the middle (and plenty of people ambitious enough) to make a middle-of-the-road route possible.
Fairfax is still around, and the IRL Thomas Fairfax refused to have anything to do with the execution of Charles I and his wife, Lady Anne Fairfax, was notoriously vocally against it. A faction of the Covenanters sided with the imprisoned Charles against Parliament. Edward Hyde and Ralph Hopton are presumably around, and though probably sidelined in favour of Laud, were also proponents of a constitutional monarchy, against Anglo-Catholicism and the Covenanters.
It’s not something which is essential by any means, but I’d appreciate it and I think others might too.
I know I’ve been a bit critical and long-winded, but I did quite enjoy the demo and am interested in seeing how the plot develops - especially the potential court intrigue, as well as how the various other historically-influenced characters turn out. Keep up the good work!
13 Likes
I’m so glad to see the demo! I had been incredibly confused when this thread arrived, and I’m thrilled to have my curiosity sated! I’ll write my thoughts as I go.
Chapter 1
- I like how you kick things off straight away. It immediately grabs attention.
- With that said, I wish I could have an option to be more polite, or quiet about certain things I felt forced to be fairly snippy to Leonard and Richard, when I would have liked to pretend I didn’t hear them or something.
- I love Richard. Please don’t hurt him, because that will hurt me.
- It’s probably the fault of me being an idiot, but I was delighted to say that I supported toppling bishops, only to be disappointed when Richard doubted me. I wish it was a little clearer that our position follows bishops.
- I like how we can just tell how much the town distrusts Ursula.
- There’s a typo right here:
- I am sad that there is a cat, and I cannot pet him.
- Oh, how the turn tables… Prior to that, I wish I could have more reason why to accuse Grace over Ursula. I’m not sure if I missed something, but after starting with the goats I automatically went to Ursula, so it was a surprise for me to have the option to accuse Grace when I know nothing besides a single comment Richard had made.
Chapter 2
- Grace’s introduction is a bit underwhelming, if you didn’t meet her before the trial. I would have liked to interact with her beforehand, instead of have that be optional.
- Shall I ever see thee again, Richard?
- You’ve always been good with small moments of humor, and the pamphleteer is a lovely example of it.
Chapter 3
- I always like how you build mystery. It’s really good.
- Nico is really cool!
- I forgot to take a screenshot, but during the meeting with Nico (after Ursula speaks up), the option to tell everyone that you’re simply there to observe has a typo of two periods.
Not sure if this was the end of the demo, but after Anna tells me about the presence of royal guards, I enter into an eternal load, so I’m ending my playthrough there. I really love what you’ve done here!
5 Likes
Woohoo, an early Christmas present! Thank you for posting the demo, it really made my day!
Now, on to some feedback:
First of all, I agree with @Thfphen110 that some more information about the whole Paliamantarian plot thing would be nice. I am one of those readers who aren’t familiar with the situation, and I really felt like I wasn’t in a position to make an informed decision when I picked which side I fought on during the war. I ended up being a Royalist because that’s what felt right for my zealous, overeager MC, but that was more of a gut feeling than anything else…
Richard is my favourite character so far. Anna seems delightfully complex, though I feel like my MC is one step away of accsing her of witchcraft…
My main problem with the demo is the first case the MC investigates. I like how there are multiple ways to bring it to a halfway decent conclusion, but I dislike that there is no way to get it completely right. I chose to investigate Ursula and the magistrate and would have liked both to stand trial, one for hexcrafting, the other for goat murder. I’d like the option to do that, or at least some in-game explanation why I can’t. Instead the game only let me accuse one of them or neither, which felt somewhat unsatisfying.
My favourite scene by far was when my MC managed to scare off a badger with the strength of his convictions. Too bad that didn’t work on Nico’s group at the end, even though my MC tried really hard.
The game encourages me to make dumb choices like that. I love it. ^^
4 Likes
I want to respond to some of this at greater length when I get the chance (especially points about Personality stats and how they are changed/used through play, which I think is a very juicy design discussion!) - but for now, thank you for the thoughtful feedback provided so far. I’m reading it all, and the points raised are pretty much exactly why I’m a fan of these WiP/alpha threads.
~~ Several days pass ~~
Hello, hello. Hope we all managed to have some time off during this festive period and were able to stay healthy and sound of mind. As I look out of my window and see the street outside being swallowed by afternoon fog, now seems like an excellent time to revisit the Hexfinder feedback.
This got pretty huge, so I’ll do the unrolling thing:
Summary
A consistent observation sees to be that the protagonist is forced to be a bit of a prick in Chapter One, before being able to mellow out later, and that change is a bit jarring. Yeah… I think as I felt my way into writing this new one, the main character being 95% brusque became unsustainable. I still quite like that you’re made to be … uh … pretty terse at the start (after all, you don’t know any of these people, nobody is all that pleased to see you, and your job is horrible), but I’ll definitely take a second look at that and see if the transition can be made a bit smoother.
So, both @RedRoses and @KP_Paul noted that you’re always lacking some information in the Chapter One ‘case’. I know it’s always a risk to do the “whoops, not enough time to explore all of the options!” trick, but it is by design that you’re forced into a choice ‘too soon’. I’m trying to emphasize the almost arbitrary nature of your role - you literally can accuse somebody you have never spoken to of Hexcraft, if you like (though this can have repercussions at the trial). Likewise, you can decide to sell out Ursula for money, even if you think she’s basically done nothing all that wrong (or, again, have never properly met her).
In that first chapter, I want to (hopefully) get people thinking about the nature of the crimes they’re investigating, and a sense of the power given to a roving bunch of inquisitors who can pretty much accuse people of anything without any oversight. You can lean into that role (“ooh, I can be extremely evil and prosecute in return for personal gain”), try to do whatever you feel is closest to the ‘right’ thing, or, indeed, try to dispassionately ‘solve’ what happened in Ifley.
I do take @KP_Paul’s point that if you choose to see Ursula and Grace, you potentially have reason to bring both to trial (but can’t). Adding that as an option would be … I think rather hard, given the current structure - and I’ll be honest, no matter how they do it, I want to leave players feeling a little bit of regret that the whole Ifley business resolved okay but not perfectly. So it probably needs a bit of text acknowledging the situation and then an explanation for why only one will go to trial.
@Thfphen110 You wrote a lot! But that’s good, I consider critical and long-winded to be merits
I’ll get to some of the other points in a bit, but I think the Dialogue Choice/Personality comments are the most important. First, I think you’re right, some of the choices push players towards the extremities of each binary personality bar - and you’ve brought up some useful, specific examples. I think I need to tone down the response where you can practically be an apathetic atheist, for the reasons you cite. As an aside, though, one of the most fascinating things I kept coming across in my background reading was how often people within the (usually Catholic) Church or inquisition would receive reports of heretical devil worship, or a witch who definitely killed a child, or whatever, and do almost everything in their power to just ignore it. It was a big influence on my “Indifferent” personality trait - people doing the job, but really not believing (or wanting to get involved with) some of the especially outlandish accusations. Like most people (I suspect), I had this preconceived version of zealous witchfinders committing atrocities every ten minutes (and there were still plenty of those), but I hadn’t accounted for the indifferent bureaucrats who would prefer it, actually, if you just shut up about that lady you think is a witch, because it’s very inconvenient and I’m not sure you even have any proof.
But where were we … right, personality choices. This is, I think, a mechanical conundrum within the way Choice games tend to be structured. There need to be choices quite often. Once you’re past character creation and ‘main stat’ boosts, the bulk of choices in a narrative will either be pretty important stat tests, or dialogue/character/world interactions which change your personality stats in some way. You can’t have a super vital stat check every other page, because that messes with the pacing. Going too long without ANY choice is a mistake. So you do personality-based choices.
The CoG editorial guidelines trend towards making it as clear as possible which choice options affect which stats (and I agree with this - even when you make options quite obvious, you’ll sometimes get comments/reviews saying it wasn’t clear). This, I think, tends to nudge me towards “this is the very merciful option!” and vice versa. And you then have this knock-on effect, where you’re trying to write general text that everybody will read … even though there are ten or twelve different ‘characters’ they could now be. I tried to get around it a bit in Plague Doctor with special bits of text in the more egregious parts (so a ‘ruthless’ player would see one thing, and the ‘kind’ player would see another). That works okay, and I’ll be trying to employ that as much as possible in Hexfinder too … but it obviously has limits.
The problem with your suggestion of having an option that, say, pushes Zealous by 5% instead of 10% is that there is no benefit to having a stat sat at 50-50, unless the author also codes some special stat checks where “not too high, not too low” is the answer (I actually DO have some of those, but they will be for Secondary stats: Laud will like it if you’re Protestant, but not TOO Protestant, for example). You could do this for the personality stats too, but it’s the kind of thing where the whole game would have to be designed around it, I think. As you say, it’s a difficult problem…
All that said, if you have any suggestions for Choice titles where you feel this was handled with particular elegance, let me know! I’d be interested to see how they do it.
Useful points about bringing in more about the Royalists/Parliamentarians at earlier junctures. This is something players will learn more about in upcoming chapters (you meet Queen Charlotte at the start of Chapter Four), but yeah … I mean, you’re not actually committing to anything by saying which side you were on during the war, but I could make that clearer. As for a parliamentary plot … well, you’re not supposed to even know if that’s real or a figment of Hopequins’ deranged imagination at this moment. Or maybe both!
Other things …
@RedRoses You can’t pet the cat yet… And Richard will be returning!
@Thfphen110 Endings. Don’t worry, it definitely will not be a binary choice between Royalist/Parliament. And, ahh, Prince Rupert. History’s real life Lord Flashheart. I can promise he’ll at least get a mention or two, but I think he’ll probably stay busy fighting what’s left of the war up north…
@KP_Paul Glad you enjoyed facing down a badger with sheer willpower. I had fun writing that scene!
Thank you for mentioning which characters you liked - I’m pleased that all the main companions have been name-checked at least once. And thank you again for taking the time to comment!
Speaking of … if you are out there, lurking, and you played the demo, do leave thoughts. Even if it’s just one thing you want to mention - don’t be shy! It’s also totally fine to just stop by and say “played it, liked it,” we writers like hearing that
5 Likes
Thank you for taking the time to respond to us!
I’d be okay with the terseness at the beginning if it was consistent with the characterization we could choose from later. For easing the transition without having to change much of what you already have, maybe just adding an option to the first choice where we have a clearly strained/forced smile/politeness to make it clear to the reader that they’re in a bad mood at the beginning, even if they’re trying to be nice? I don’t want to add too much work to your editing 
I totally understand that, then. I was initially going to respond that a bit more clarification about that point might be needed, but as I thought about it more I realized it would be difficult to fit it in without it feeling forced. With the explanation I like it a lot more, but I think you should be prepared for the potential that more people may bring it up without realizing your intent, like we did.
I think maybe implying that there’s only time to deal with one person at trial might clear it up. Say we’re really busy and really only have time to deal with one? I didn’t mind this part particularly as much since our job is dealing with hexcraft, not rude goat-murderers, but I understand if there are readers who do want to take the time to deal with both.
Is it bad I’m not sure which I’m looking more forward to? And I hope you know I will now be sitting at the edge of my seat waiting for the chance to pet that damn cat.
6 Likes