D&D 5th Edition With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base - Page 5


What's on your mind?

  1. #41
    Potassium-Rich Moderator
    A 1e title so awesome it's not in the book (Lvl 21)

    Kamikaze Midget's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    13,500
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Blog Entries
    24

    Ignore Kamikaze Midget
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jester Canuck
    The problem with 4e is the limited play style, the limited range of campaigns
    ...
    4e players are the worst in this respect.
    ...
    because people are selfish and cannot share, because four years of favoring one play style spoiled an audience and they won't let go.
    Let's not color fans of any one edition with a big brush. There's plenty of people who never moved on from 1e or 3e or OD&D or whatever. Calling 4e fans uniquely selfish among D&D fans is no way to have a constructive conversation with anyone who might be a 4e fan.
    -- Jacob J Driscoll, Unsleeping---
    "A one inch mound of flesh with a scar running down it"

    PS5e v. 0.1: Faction Backgrounds
    Tieflings (& other planetouched) | Bariaur | Githzerai | Outcaste Modron
    FINAL FANTASY ZERO
    finalfantasyzero.wikidot.com

 

  • #42
    Registered User
    Waghalter (Lvl 7)



    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    444
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Ignore SKyOdin
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahnehnois View Post
    Using that terminology kind of undermines your point. Whatever grain of truth there may be in that statement is rather drowned out by the anti-D&D sentiment implicit in it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a wizard that can teleport and disintegrate and have his wishes granted, and a fighter who just smashes things really well, even though that clearly is not balanced. There are definitely problems with D&D magic and D&D combat, but this kind of rhetoric did not help in fixing them.
    The problem with quadratic wizard/linear fighter is that I find it so utterly abhorrent that I won't even give a second glance to a game that doesn't at least recognize it as a problem. This isn't a minor issue, or a matter of style variation that I consider acceptable with a game, it is literally one of the most fundamental and significant issues in tabletop game design. I would hazard to say that it is the biggest, most contentious issue driving edition wars in the D&D fandom. To try to brush it aside in such a ludicrous fashion as "anti-D&D sentiment" is outrageous.

    If you call people's problems with the quadratic wizard/linear fighter paradigm "anti-D&D sentiment", then you clearly are uninterested in any sort of uniting of the editions. Since solving that problem is not negotiable from my position. If D&D Next isn't balanced, then I won't play it, and I doubt I will be alone.

    What the heck is "anti-D&D sentiment" anyways? D&D is not my home country or something. I don't pay taxes to D&D. D&D is a game. It isn't even a lifestyle. It is entertainment. To attach any kind of significance or importance to it beyond that is simply ridiculous. As a game that I like that is entering a new edition, I am perfectly free to want it to go in whatever direction I desire. If D&D Next ends up being good, I will buy it. If it ends up being horrible, I will pass on it and play something else.

    I also don't see how the heck someone can think that quadratic wizard/linear fighter is somehow core to D&D's identity. No one ever intended for it to be the case. It was always an unintended consequence of broken game design and a lack of foresight.

  • #43
    Registered User
    Spellbinder (Lvl 16)

    Ahnehnois's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,708
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Ignore Ahnehnois
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by SKyOdin View Post
    I would hazard to say that it is the biggest, most contentious issue driving edition wars in the D&D fandom.
    I wouldn't go that far (I think hit points/healing, the use of miniatures, and probably a few other things are bigger). But it's definitely a contentious issue.

    If you call people's problems with the quadratic wizard/linear fighter paradigm "anti-D&D sentiment", then you clearly are uninterested in any sort of uniting of the editions. Since solving that problem is not negotiable from my position. If D&D Next isn't balanced, then I won't play it, and I doubt I will be alone.
    If uniting all editions equates to creating a game more balanced and less flexible and robust than most of them, then you are correct that I (and probably any writer with an eye on the market) think that is inadvisable. I think that one game is capable of satisfying most people (as 3e did for a while) but not everyone; and if you have such a hard line stance, you're probably better off playing something you like. There's nothing wrong with that:
    As a game that I like that is entering a new edition, I am perfectly free to want it to go in whatever direction I desire. If D&D Next ends up being good, I will buy it. If it ends up being horrible, I will pass on it and play something else.
    Exactly.

    What the heck is "anti-D&D sentiment" anyways? D&D is not my home country or something. I don't pay taxes to D&D. D&D is a game. It isn't even a lifestyle. It is entertainment. To attach any kind of significance or importance to it beyond that is simply ridiculous.
    I'm not saying it's anything more than entertainment. I'm saying that if you think that aliens who are humans with rubber foreheads are cheesy and transporters are unbalanced, you probably shouldn't be watching Star Trek; the analagous it true for D&D. If you don't like the basic assumptions of 5e, there's no reason to play it.


    I also don't see how the heck someone can think that quadratic wizard/linear fighter is somehow core to D&D's identity. No one ever intended for it to be the case. It was always an unintended consequence of broken game design and a lack of foresight.
    The number of spells per day versus base attack or whatever is not core to D&D's identity, but here's what is. In D&D, some characters have spells, and some don't. In D&D, those spells include some that can make you fly, change shape, control people's minds, raise the dead, and grant wishes. In D&D, you can't do these things or anything equivalent without those spells. Thus, in D&D, the characters with spells will never be completely balanced with those without. Frankly, this is true of many fantasy rpgs; magic is supposed to break limits; i.e. it is not supposed to be balanced. If it was, it would lose its identity as magic. If these assumptions don't work for you, 5e is probably not going to, either. This isn't bad game design; it's just a set of fantasy tropes that have captured an audience and been successful for many years. For anyone who doesn't like them (as some don't), there are other options out there.
    "Clear Eyes, Full Hearts, Can't Lose"

  • #44
    Registered User
    Waghalter (Lvl 7)



    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    444
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Ignore SKyOdin
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahnehnois View Post
    I wouldn't go that far (I think hit points/healing, the use of miniatures, and probably a few other things are bigger). But it's definitely a contentious issue.
    No. The hit point/healing issue is a minor thing that only a handful of people get up in arms about. Usually, it is nothing more than a footnote in the linear fighter/quadratic wizard debate. The entire reason people get up in arms about Warlord healing is a subset of the linear fighter/quadratic wizard debate.

    "Use of minatures" is a terrible shorthand for some legitimate playstyle differences in how tactical and detailed people like their combat. It isn't nearly as heated of an issue as the fighter/wizard one. It transcends edition lines as well.

    If uniting all editions equates to creating a game more balanced and less flexible and robust than most of them, then you are correct that I (and probably any writer with an eye on the market) think that is inadvisable. I think that one game is capable of satisfying most people (as 3e did for a while) but not everyone; and if you have such a hard line stance, you're probably better off playing something you like. There's nothing wrong with that:
    A balanced game would be moreflexible and robust than an unbalanced game. By its very nature, an unbalanced game is one that limits people's freedom and forces people to play it in only a very particular manner, lest it collapse like a house of cards. Balance is essential to robustness and flexibility.

    I'm not saying it's anything more than entertainment. I'm saying that if you think that aliens who are humans with rubber foreheads are cheesy and transporters are unbalanced, you probably shouldn't be watching Star Trek; the analagous it true for D&D. If you don't like the basic assumptions of 5e, there's no reason to play it.
    The basic assumption of 5E is supposed to be "an edition that appeals to all D&D fans". Well, a lot of D&D fans, across all editions, have a serious issue with game imbalance. Furthermore, D&D's central appeal is "a game that let's you play what you want to play". That is only possible is a balanced game.


    The number of spells per day versus base attack or whatever is not core to D&D's identity, but here's what is. In D&D, some characters have spells, and some don't. In D&D, those spells include some that can make you fly, change shape, control people's minds, raise the dead, and grant wishes. In D&D, you can't do these things or anything equivalent without those spells. Thus, in D&D, the characters with spells will never be completely balanced with those without. Frankly, this is true of many fantasy rpgs; magic is supposed to break limits; i.e. it is not supposed to be balanced. If it was, it would lose its identity as magic. If these assumptions don't work for you, 5e is probably not going to, either. This isn't bad game design; it's just a set of fantasy tropes that have captured an audience and been successful for many years. For anyone who doesn't like them (as some don't), there are other options out there.
    And there have been people who adamantly hated that paradigm from the days when Gygax and Arneson first created D&D. To say that magic can never be balanced is ludicrous. Of course it can. Most of the people who like D&D, don't like it because of the imbalance, they enjoy it despite the imbalance. People have been wanting to fix that imbalance for as long as I have been playing D&D. The designers of D&D have continuously labored to fix that imbalance throughout 3E and 4E.

    The sentiment that imbalance is a virtue is something I have only seen in the last couple of years. I can't possibly disagree more with the idea that fighter/wizard imbalance is core to D&D's identity. Not when there are any number of ways to solve it without compromising any truly core element of D&D.

  • #45
    Community Supporter COPPER SUBSCRIBER
    Guide (Lvl 11)

    Jester Canuck's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,234
    Reviews
    Read 7 Reviews
    Blog Entries
    2
    RavenloftGygax Memorial FundI Defended The Walls!

    Ignore Jester Canuck
    Quote Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget View Post
    Let's not color fans of any one edition with a big brush. There's plenty of people who never moved on from 1e or 3e or OD&D or whatever. Calling 4e fans uniquely selfish among D&D fans is no way to have a constructive conversation with anyone who might be a 4e fan.
    I apologize for my word choice.

    My point was that 4e was a very focused system. It did heroic high magic fantasy very well and was excellent for dungeon crawls and many of the classic tropes of the game. But the system grew clunkier when other types of game were attempted. It was not a system for intrigue or stealth alternate solutions other than violence. While by no means impossible, it didn't encourage other types of game play.

    Now, fans of the 4e style (heroic fantasy with an action movie flair) were treated. I *really* want to use another word than "spoiled" but synonyms fail. Catered to? I dunno.
    Anyhoo, they got what they wanted and it was good. They got it for four years (and possibly more as many of the late 3e books had a similar feel). It was all them all the time. Like being an only child.

    Now 5e comes along and wants to focus on alternate styles of play, and the core game will not be the same as 4e. The focus has shifted. It's not just the new younger sibling but also the return of the long lost older brother. There's much less attention to go around. Which means fewer books, less content, and options that are unappealing at best.

    It's hard being told "this isn't for you" to have your game company say "you're not that target audience" for a playtest and possibly future products.
    It kinda sucks and some outrage is understandable and expected, and many will just turn their backs on 5e. Comprimise and sharing is too hard.
    My gaming Webcomic 5 Minute Workday at www.5mwd.com

  • #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Jester Canuck View Post
    Comprimise and sharing is too hard.
    The flaw with your (rather insulting) line of thinking and analogy is that there is no reason whatsoever for people to "share". I don't see any advantage in compromising on a ruleset for a game like D&D. It doesn't help me if the game works better for people who like overpowered wizards and poor tactical play (as an example). Yes, it's selfish, but that is exactly what consumers should be. The only party who has a vested interest in having the different groups of fans get along is WotC, not any of those fans.

    The only thing I gain from a unified D&D base the ability to play the game with people I probably wouldn't want to play with anyways. I don't want to play an old school styled game, and I don't want to play with people who think balance is bad, so what possible reason should I have for "sharing"? I'll continue to ask for the game I want, since that's my right as a consumer. I probably won't get what I want, but I'm prepared for that.

    Other RPG companies will create products I'll want if WotC doesn't, and different companies will create products for the other fanbases if WotC gives me the game I do want. This isn't a situation where we are forced to play the same game, so there is no need for compromise. We're adults paying money to buy a product, not children squabbling over toys given to us by a parent.

  • #47
    Registered User
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)

    MichaelSomething's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chester County, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,323
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Blog Entries
    75

    Ignore MichaelSomething
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahnehnois View Post
    The number of spells per day versus base attack or whatever is not core to D&D's identity, but here's what is. In D&D, some characters have spells, and some don't. In D&D, those spells include some that can make you fly, change shape, control people's minds, raise the dead, and grant wishes. In D&D, you can't do these things or anything equivalent without those spells. Thus, in D&D, the characters with spells will never be completely balanced with those without. Frankly, this is true of many fantasy rpgs; magic is supposed to break limits; i.e. it is not supposed to be balanced. If it was, it would lose its identity as magic. If these assumptions don't work for you, 5e is probably not going to, either. This isn't bad game design; it's just a set of fantasy tropes that have captured an audience and been successful for many years. For anyone who doesn't like them (as some don't), there are other options out there.
    Actually, there are many possible ways to balance spells casters.

    You could increase casting time! Want to cast the uber combat spell? Wait three rounds!

    You could make it that spell casters who are hit/distributed during casting lose their spell. It doesn't matter how great their spells are if they can't cast them. In 3.X, the concentration skill and the 5ft step makes it easy to cast even if there are enemies in your face.

    You could attach costs to those spells. Would you be so willing to cast spells if they all did CON damage to you? People rarely cast 4E rituals in part because they all cost money.

    Make spell casters roll dice every time they cast a spell and make rolling a 1 lethal! The Dungeon Crawl Classics game does that. Go ahead, do you feel lucky?

    You could rig the system so that martial characters get the best magic items!
    "At best and at worst, it is a waste of time." A Mormon bishop on Dungeons and Dragons

  • #48
    Registered User
    The Great Druid (Lvl 17)



    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,489
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Cortex+ZEITGEISTWotBSI Defended The Walls!

    Ignore Neonchameleon
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jester Canuck View Post
    I apologize for my word choice.

    My point was that 4e was a very focused system. It did heroic high magic fantasy very well and was excellent for dungeon crawls and many of the classic tropes of the game. But the system grew clunkier when other types of game were attempted. It was not a system for intrigue or stealth alternate solutions other than violence.
    Are we talking about D&D or 4e here. Because 4e is literally the only edition of D&D on my shelves (I can't talk about BECMI or oD&D) that provides me with significant support for solutions other than either violence or magic. It does this in several ways.

    1: 4e has a genuine non-combat scene and plan resolution mechanic in the core rules (Skill Challenges). So it supports non-combat play in a way no other edition does. OK, so they had to errata the thing because some idiot couldn't do probability in the original version.

    2: 4e characters are generally broadly competent. This is a specific flaw of 3.X however - and AD&D (particularly 1e) characters are also broadly competent as they don't have things they can't do defined by a skill system.

    3: We don't have magic as The Solution to most problems - or emergent gamechanging strategies like scry-and-fry. We don't have much in the way of intrigue-wrecking abilities like Detect Thoughts in 4e. And the out of combat gamechanging magic has an actual cost rather than merely uses up a spell slot which a mid level caster has plenty of and everyone refreshes.

    While by no means impossible, it didn't encourage other types of game play.
    Except where it did. Like skill challenges. It provided actual mechanical support in the form of scene and plan framing and resolving mechanics, and abilities that were useful without being "I win" buttons. The 3.X rogue would give his right arm to be as competent outside combat as the 4e rogue - not only are they more skilled in general, they also have utility powers which can give them a level of focus and additional ability the 3.X rogue can never touch (that said, at level 10, the 3.X rogue can take skill mastery and avoid low rolls). Hell, it's entirely possible to design a 4e (human) fighter with enough skills at first level to make a 3.X rogue jealous. And the rogues don't find their abilities getting trumped by the wizard in the same way.

    (For the design: human fighter, background to add perception as class skill, and the Twilight Adept and Sneak of Shadows feats - gives you training in Stealth, Thievery, Perception, Athletics, Intimidate, and Streetwise. In 3.X terms that's Hide, Move Silently, Disable Device, Sleight of Hand, Open Lock, Spot, Listen, Search, Climb, Jump, Swim, Intimidate, Gather Information, Knowledge (Local)).

    So yeah, tell me how 4e doesn't support an intrigue or stealth game - when it does it for skill based characters better than any other edition of D&D there has ever been both from the DM's side (skill challenges) and from the skill based PC's side (only Rogues getting such skills pre-3e). If 4e weren't this flexible it wouldn't be my D&D of choice.

    Now, there are two things 4e doesn't support - grit and overwhelming PC magic. Your characters will be larger than life. And it's hard work to make a mage tricksy enough that you retire him to prevent the DM tearing his hair out (I've done it in 4th but tend to stay away from wizards in previous editions).

    So don't tell me stealth can't be done with 4th when I have run an entire stealth and asymmetric warfare based arc for my party and been supported in it by the rules in a way no other edition of D&D would come close to. No skill challenges, stealth skills locked up tighter, a no-caster party. And don't tell me that intrigue can't be done in 4th when I've done that too - and would again say that 4e is better suited to intrigue than any other edition of D&D I've either run or played.

    And on a sidenote, 4e isn't actually good for dungeon crawls - combat moves too slowly. It's superb for large, meaningful battles - and can do the single-monster-gank as well as anything. But for orc guarding pie fights, don't bother. It just slows the pace to a crawl. That they tried to present dungeoncrawls in the initial modules (such as Keep on the Shadowfell) was a huge mistake (Keep was in general).

    It kinda sucks and some outrage is understandable and expected, and many will just turn their backs on 5e. Comprimise and sharing is too hard.
    If 5e were presenting just about anything I couldn't do in 4e except the ability to eliminate dozens of kobolds with a single spell several times per day for the wizard there might be a point. But the key to any game is in the execution.

    That said, there's still time to improve. 4e wasn't perfect out of the box - and it even took three years before there was a decent illusionist. I just don't see what playstyles it facilitates better than 4e. The hit points in the playtest made D&D Next PCs relatively tougher than 4e PCs - which means you aren't getting away from heroic fantasy in the slightest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahnehnois View Post
    Using that terminology kind of undermines your point.
    That kind of terminology was the literal title of one of the linked posts in the comment I was replying to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Vargas View Post
    There's a target market and a vision, I think. The vision is AD&D 2e, and the target market is people who played it, and earlier versions.

    It makes some sense: the edition war has soured the fans of 3.5/Pathfinder and 4e, so they aren't as good a market anymore; older versions of D&D /were/ the most popular in terms of sheer volume of units sold, so there's a proven demographic out there who did buy a lot of D&D at some point, all you have to do is push the right buttons to get them to do it again, and you can get that lightning to strike twice. Fads of any sort tend to come back when the kids that were into them reach a certain age, and the time to tap that enduring marketing phenomenon with regards to the D&D fad of the 80s is now.
    That ... makes a little sense. Thank you.

  • #49
    Registered User
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)



    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,016
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Ignore pemerton
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jester Canuck View Post
    My point was that 4e was a very focused system. It did heroic high magic fantasy very well and was excellent for dungeon crawls and many of the classic tropes of the game. But the system grew clunkier when other types of game were attempted. It was not a system for intrigue or stealth alternate solutions other than violence. While by no means impossible, it didn't encourage other types of game play.
    I'm not sure what edition of D&D you have in mind as encouraging intrigue or stealth-focused play.

    I've run this in AD&D, but it required all the PCs to be (multi-classed) thieves, and there were no especially robust mechanics for social conflict.

    There is plenty of intrigue in my 4e game (not so much stealth) - the default setting is full of (cosmological) intrigue, and there are the requisite social conflict mechanics (skill challenges).

    Quote Originally Posted by Neonchameleon View Post
    4e is literally the only edition of D&D on my shelves (I can't talk about BECMI or oD&D) that provides me with significant support for solutions other than either violence or magic.

    <snip>

    there are two things 4e doesn't support - grit and overwhelming PC magic.

    <snip>

    4e isn't actually good for dungeon crawls - combat moves too slowly.
    This fits with my experience.

    D&Dnext seems so far (ie what has been circulated in the playtest) to be aimed mostly at dungeon-crawl style adventures - even if I put the scenario (Caves of Chaos) to one side, there are no detailed action resolution mechanics for anything other than combat (and stealth as a tactical adjunct to combat). To date, I'm dissapointed that no indication is being given of how the three pillars will actually be mechanically supported.

  • #50
    Registered User
    Spellbinder (Lvl 16)

    Ahnehnois's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,708
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Ignore Ahnehnois
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelSomething View Post
    Actually, there are many possible ways to balance spells casters.

    You could increase casting time! Want to cast the uber combat spell? Wait three rounds!

    You could make it that spell casters who are hit/distributed during casting lose their spell. It doesn't matter how great their spells are if they can't cast them. In 3.X, the concentration skill and the 5ft step makes it easy to cast even if there are enemies in your face.

    You could attach costs to those spells. Would you be so willing to cast spells if they all did CON damage to you? People rarely cast 4E rituals in part because they all cost money.

    Make spell casters roll dice every time they cast a spell and make rolling a 1 lethal! The Dungeon Crawl Classics game does that. Go ahead, do you feel lucky?

    You could rig the system so that martial characters get the best magic items!
    These are all perfectly valid solutions, which help make the game more playable without really changing the fundamental issue (that magic can do powerful things). These are the sorts of things that can work. These are the kinds of things that 3e didn't do enough of. These are not the power system, so I don't know if the 4e crowd buys this, because the underlying imbalance is still there, it just won't manifest in play as much.

    ***

    Quote Originally Posted by SKyOdin
    The hit point/healing issue is a minor thing that only a handful of people get up in arms about. Usually, it is nothing more than a footnote in the linear fighter/quadratic wizard debate. The entire reason people get up in arms about Warlord healing is a subset of the linear fighter/quadratic wizard debate.
    The notion of bringing in actual wounds instead of hit points, the cleric as the "healbot" (the smallest of the issues but still a significant one), healing surges, and nonmagical healing are all part of one big issue, that is not minor. (It also ties into the magic issue, because the current hit point system makes it too hard for nonmagical characters to cause meaningful harm in combat and way too easy for magical characters to heal them).

    "Use of minatures" is a terrible shorthand for some legitimate playstyle differences in how tactical and detailed people like their combat. It isn't nearly as heated of an issue as the fighter/wizard one. It transcends edition lines as well.
    It is not shorthand for everything. The use of physical items like miniaures is an attempt to monetize D&D by connecting it with another hobby that has a shared heritage. A lot of people don't like that. Tactical play is possible (and probably easier) without painted detailed figures, and probably without a grid, and definitely without distance units of "squares", but those things remain a significant element of gaming culture. There's a big issue there.

    A balanced game would be moreflexible and robust than an unbalanced game. By its very nature, an unbalanced game is one that limits people's freedom and forces people to play it in only a very particular manner, lest it collapse like a house of cards. Balance is essential to robustness and flexibility.
    ...
    The sentiment that imbalance is a virtue is something I have only seen in the last couple of years. I can't possibly disagree more with the idea that fighter/wizard imbalance is core to D&D's identity. Not when there are any number of ways to solve it without compromising any truly core element of D&D.
    Enjoy your gaming.
    "Clear Eyes, Full Hearts, Can't Lose"

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 5 of 150 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141555105 ... LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Replies: 575
      Last Post: Monday, 30th July, 2012, 10:26 AM
    2. What happens if 5E fails to unite the base?
      By Bedrockgames in forum D&D 5th Edition
      Replies: 67
      Last Post: Tuesday, 31st January, 2012, 02:52 AM
    3. The Real Reason(s) Behind the PDF Debacle
      By Roman in forum General RPG Discussion
      Replies: 50
      Last Post: Sunday, 12th April, 2009, 09:56 PM
    4. What's the real reason we RP?
      By Velira Evangeline in forum ISRP General Chit Chat
      Replies: 37
      Last Post: Sunday, 9th September, 2007, 03:37 PM
    5. 3.5 is the REAL reason everyone is angry
      By Gargauth in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 201
      Last Post: Saturday, 25th August, 2007, 05:13 AM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •