Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Prose, Terminology, Fluff, & Presentation: Spreadsheets or Haiku?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Morrus" data-source="post: 5901483" data-attributes="member: 1"><p><span style="font-size: 10px">One subject which seems to be raging like wildfire across various threads here on the forums right now is not about the rules of D&D Next, but merely about the way those rules are presented. </span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">It turns out that this is a <em>highly</em> contentious topic. The opinions people hold are widespread and diametric, and very, very strongly held. Unfortunately, while a modular rules system can possibly appeal to different tastes in terms of mechanical complexity, the books themselves can only have one approach to presentation. That makes this a particularly difficult subject for WotC - there is no way they will able to not annoy a whole bunch of people, whatever they choose to do (unless they literally produce three different versions of each book!) </span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="color: red">UPDATE: I feel an edit to this article is in order because something isn't clear. In this article I'm not talking about about the <em>amount of</em> <em>fluff/flavour text</em>, and most respondents have conflated my use of the word "prose" with "fluff/flavour". 4E certainly has fluff text, and this article is not intended to argue otherwise. What I'm discussing is the <em>presentation</em> of rules: either in prose form (paragraphs) or table/data form; it's a layout issue. The two examples I used below illustrate not fluff/flavour text, but the difference between a paragraph and a stat block approach. Any fluff/flavour aspect that might be hinted at in the article is merely in the context of how it - if present - is presented, and whether any fluff present is intermixed with the mechanics or ring-fenced separately, and not in the context of <em>how much</em> fluff/flavour each has.</span></span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Here are just some of the threads which address this topic:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><span style="font-size: 10px"><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/322459-time-bring-back-prose.html" target="_blank">Time to bring back the prose?</a></span> </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><span style="font-size: 10px"><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/322407-write-game-adults.html" target="_blank">Write this game for adults</a></span> </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><span style="font-size: 10px"><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/322665-ease-vernacular.html" target="_blank">Ease the vernacular</a> </span> </li> </ul><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">I've given my own opinion a number of times; some people agree with me, but it's clear that an equal number do not. This really appears to be a divisive issue.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">So, what is the issue? Well, to try and break it down into its simplest terms, it's about the language and layout used when presenting rules material. If I were to engage hyperbolic mode and create a witty and hilarious (no, really!) "scale" depicting the range of opinion, it might look something like this. Or it might not. Maybe a little. Anyway:</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span><p style="text-align: center"><span style="font-size: 10px"><img src="http://www.enworld.org/newsimages/prose_scale.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Now, obviously that's me being a little silly. But I hope it gives you a sense of what I mean when I talk of varied opinions as to how the rules text should be presented.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">For the record, I am personally firmly positioned about 3/4 of the way between 1E (Gygax) and 3E/Pathfinder.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">On a very basic level, those who trend towards the "spreadsheet" end of the scale tend to do so in support of clarity; while those who trend towards the haiku end of the scale tend to do so in support of flavour and immersion. Generally speaking, the former support "fluff" text, but want it kept away from the mechanics with an iron wall, and the latter - with some exceptions - don't generally want a return to Gygax's specific personal writing style, but to a style which is more prose-inclined than table-delineated. I don't think anybody is advocating either of the extremes on my scale.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Let's look at some examples. I'm grabbing these from the above linked threads, so thanks to those who originally posted them.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span><p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px"><strong>Sleep (3rd Edition)</strong></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px"><strong>Level:</strong> Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px"><strong>Components:</strong> V, S, M</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px"><strong>Casting Time:</strong> 1 round</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px"><strong>Range:</strong> Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px"><strong>Area:</strong> One or more living creatures within a 10-ft.-radius burst</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px"><strong>Duration:</strong> 1 min./level</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px"><strong>Saving Throw:</strong> Will negates</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px"><strong>Spell Resistance:</strong> Yes</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px">A sleep spell causes a magical slumber to come upon 4 Hit Dice of creatures. Creatures with the fewest HD are affected first. Among creatures with equal HD, those who are closest to the spell’s point of origin are affected first. Hit Dice that are not sufficient to affect a creature are wasted. </span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px">Sleeping creatures are helpless. Slapping or wounding awakens an affected creature, but normal noise does not. Awakening a creature is a standard action (an application of the aid another action).</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px">Sleep does not target unconscious creatures, constructs, or undead creatures.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px">Material Component: A pinch of fine sand, rose petals, or a live cricket. </span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px"><strong>Sleep (4th Edition)</strong></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px"><em>You exert your will against your foes, seeking to overwhelm them</em></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px"><em>with a tide of magical weariness.</em></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px"><strong>Daily ✦ Arcane, Implement, Sleep</strong></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px">Standard Action <strong>Area</strong> burst 2 within 20 squares</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px"><strong>Target:</strong> Each creature in burst</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px"><strong>Attack:</strong> Intelligence vs. Will</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px"><strong>Hit:</strong> The target is slowed (save ends). If the target fails its</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px">first saving throw against this power, the target becomes</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px">unconscious (save ends).</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px"><strong>Miss:</strong> The target is slowed (save ends). </span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">The difference in styles is, I hope, fairly clear. Both are presenting similar information, but in very different ways. To me, they feel very different; neither is filled with paragraphs of torrid fiction or fluff text, but the former - to me - is more evocative than the latter. One interests and engages me, the other does not. One makes me want to cast a <em>sleep </em>spell, the other just lists the mechanical advantages of doing so. One feels to me like fantasy, the other just feels like information. It actually saddens me that our hobby, the hobby I grew up with, has reached the point where people consider a <em>paragraph</em> a turgid barrier of insurmountable difficulty. What happened?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">That's probably not even close to the best example of what I mean. The difference is even more pronounced when it comes to magic items (and if anyone wants to whip up some examples, I'd love to include them here).</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">So, other than briefly mentioning my own preference above, I've avoided arguing my opinion so far in this article in favour of simply summarizing the discussion. To put my opinion shortly: I personally believe that greater gameworld immersion is achieved when the flavour is intermixed and thus harder to ignore (I find that 4E's powers in-game have a tendency to manifest as a non-descript attack roll and effect, though I'm sure your own mileage may well vary), whereas when playing a 3E wizard I "feel" more wizardly as I read the spell description. I recognise that some of you will feel that it's my own fault if I find it harder to immerse with one than the other, and that it's all to do with the player not the game, but you'll remember that I've <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/322528-5e-skills-aka-how-game-system-affects-immersion.html" target="_blank">already argued that game syntax and rules structure are as influential as the people themselves</a> when it comes to how a game manifests itself at the game table, and that the same exact people will play differently when given different RPGs to play. So the presentation does have something to do with it.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">So that's one half of the debate. The other half deals with the concept of <em>readability</em>. Is a D&D rulebook designed to be<em> read</em>, or simply <em>referenced</em>? Again, as you'd expect, opinions are divided.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">When I was younger, I used to spend hours reading and re-reading my DMG and PHB and other books - both 1E and 2E materials. They engaged me; and they still do - I frequently pull them off the shelf and read a few pages. That consequently excited my imagination.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">I did that less with 3E, and I don't do it at <em>all</em> with 4E. With 4E, I just look stuff up, like I'm using a dictionary.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Now you might argue that's not a problem. The books are rulebooks; their function is the same as the instruction manual for a VCR, not a novel. You use them to access information, but you don't buy them to read. That may well be true for many, but it isn't for me - reading those 1E and 2E books was an integral and pleasant - I'd argue vital - part of my D&D experience growing up; a memory I cherish, and one I'd love to experience again. But I can understand the position of those who simply want clarity of information and ease of reference: I don't share their desire, but I understand it.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">When I say I don't share their desire for clarity, I guess I should be clear myself - I'm certainly not advocating an opaque, incomprehensible wall of text. I'm advocating clearly written, engaging, <em>well-indexed</em> rules. I like clarity as much as the next guy; just not at the expense of readability.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">I'd also like to add that I'm not talking about pages of "story fluff" or filling the books with sidebars of torrid fiction. Hints at a default setting are fine, but I don't want to be swamped with one; fiction I get from good fiction novelists, and settings I get from setting books or my own imagination. I want the text to prod my imagination so that I come up with my own stufff, not tell me a story. I'm talking about the presentation of the <em>rules,</em> not fluff text. </span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">As I said, it's a contentious issue, and there really does not seem to be a consensus on it. In fact, it seems to get people quite angry in places!</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">As a final note before I sign off - I'd just like to mention that <span style="font-size: 10px">I hope not to open</span> the 5E PHB and see a sentence along the lines of:</span><p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 10px">Play a dragonborn if:</span></p> <ul style="margin-left: 20px"> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><span style="font-size: 10px">You want to be scaly. </span> </li> </ul><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Thoughts are welcome. I know this one is gonna be divisive, so please make sure you stay civil to each other.</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Morrus, post: 5901483, member: 1"] [SIZE=2]One subject which seems to be raging like wildfire across various threads here on the forums right now is not about the rules of D&D Next, but merely about the way those rules are presented. It turns out that this is a [I]highly[/I] contentious topic. The opinions people hold are widespread and diametric, and very, very strongly held. Unfortunately, while a modular rules system can possibly appeal to different tastes in terms of mechanical complexity, the books themselves can only have one approach to presentation. That makes this a particularly difficult subject for WotC - there is no way they will able to not annoy a whole bunch of people, whatever they choose to do (unless they literally produce three different versions of each book!) [COLOR=red]UPDATE: I feel an edit to this article is in order because something isn't clear. In this article I'm not talking about about the [I]amount of[/I] [I]fluff/flavour text[/I], and most respondents have conflated my use of the word "prose" with "fluff/flavour". 4E certainly has fluff text, and this article is not intended to argue otherwise. What I'm discussing is the [I]presentation[/I] of rules: either in prose form (paragraphs) or table/data form; it's a layout issue. The two examples I used below illustrate not fluff/flavour text, but the difference between a paragraph and a stat block approach. Any fluff/flavour aspect that might be hinted at in the article is merely in the context of how it - if present - is presented, and whether any fluff present is intermixed with the mechanics or ring-fenced separately, and not in the context of [I]how much[/I] fluff/flavour each has.[/COLOR] Here are just some of the threads which address this topic: [/SIZE] [LIST] [*][SIZE=2][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/322459-time-bring-back-prose.html"]Time to bring back the prose?[/URL][/SIZE] [*][SIZE=2][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/322407-write-game-adults.html"]Write this game for adults[/URL][/SIZE] [*][SIZE=2][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/322665-ease-vernacular.html"]Ease the vernacular[/URL] [/SIZE] [/LIST] [SIZE=2] I've given my own opinion a number of times; some people agree with me, but it's clear that an equal number do not. This really appears to be a divisive issue. So, what is the issue? Well, to try and break it down into its simplest terms, it's about the language and layout used when presenting rules material. If I were to engage hyperbolic mode and create a witty and hilarious (no, really!) "scale" depicting the range of opinion, it might look something like this. Or it might not. Maybe a little. Anyway: [/SIZE][CENTER][SIZE=2][IMG]http://www.enworld.org/newsimages/prose_scale.jpg[/IMG][/SIZE][/CENTER] [SIZE=2] Now, obviously that's me being a little silly. But I hope it gives you a sense of what I mean when I talk of varied opinions as to how the rules text should be presented. For the record, I am personally firmly positioned about 3/4 of the way between 1E (Gygax) and 3E/Pathfinder. On a very basic level, those who trend towards the "spreadsheet" end of the scale tend to do so in support of clarity; while those who trend towards the haiku end of the scale tend to do so in support of flavour and immersion. Generally speaking, the former support "fluff" text, but want it kept away from the mechanics with an iron wall, and the latter - with some exceptions - don't generally want a return to Gygax's specific personal writing style, but to a style which is more prose-inclined than table-delineated. I don't think anybody is advocating either of the extremes on my scale. Let's look at some examples. I'm grabbing these from the above linked threads, so thanks to those who originally posted them. [/SIZE][INDENT][SIZE=2][B]Sleep (3rd Edition)[/B] [B]Level:[/B] Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1 [B]Components:[/B] V, S, M [B]Casting Time:[/B] 1 round [B]Range:[/B] Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) [B]Area:[/B] One or more living creatures within a 10-ft.-radius burst [B]Duration:[/B] 1 min./level [B]Saving Throw:[/B] Will negates [B]Spell Resistance:[/B] Yes A sleep spell causes a magical slumber to come upon 4 Hit Dice of creatures. Creatures with the fewest HD are affected first. Among creatures with equal HD, those who are closest to the spell’s point of origin are affected first. Hit Dice that are not sufficient to affect a creature are wasted. Sleeping creatures are helpless. Slapping or wounding awakens an affected creature, but normal noise does not. Awakening a creature is a standard action (an application of the aid another action). Sleep does not target unconscious creatures, constructs, or undead creatures. Material Component: A pinch of fine sand, rose petals, or a live cricket. [B]Sleep (4th Edition)[/B] [I]You exert your will against your foes, seeking to overwhelm them[/I] [I]with a tide of magical weariness.[/I] [B]Daily ✦ Arcane, Implement, Sleep[/B] Standard Action [B]Area[/B] burst 2 within 20 squares [B]Target:[/B] Each creature in burst [B]Attack:[/B] Intelligence vs. Will [B]Hit:[/B] The target is slowed (save ends). If the target fails its first saving throw against this power, the target becomes unconscious (save ends). [B]Miss:[/B] The target is slowed (save ends). [/SIZE][/INDENT] [SIZE=2] The difference in styles is, I hope, fairly clear. Both are presenting similar information, but in very different ways. To me, they feel very different; neither is filled with paragraphs of torrid fiction or fluff text, but the former - to me - is more evocative than the latter. One interests and engages me, the other does not. One makes me want to cast a [I]sleep [/I]spell, the other just lists the mechanical advantages of doing so. One feels to me like fantasy, the other just feels like information. It actually saddens me that our hobby, the hobby I grew up with, has reached the point where people consider a [I]paragraph[/I] a turgid barrier of insurmountable difficulty. What happened? That's probably not even close to the best example of what I mean. The difference is even more pronounced when it comes to magic items (and if anyone wants to whip up some examples, I'd love to include them here). So, other than briefly mentioning my own preference above, I've avoided arguing my opinion so far in this article in favour of simply summarizing the discussion. To put my opinion shortly: I personally believe that greater gameworld immersion is achieved when the flavour is intermixed and thus harder to ignore (I find that 4E's powers in-game have a tendency to manifest as a non-descript attack roll and effect, though I'm sure your own mileage may well vary), whereas when playing a 3E wizard I "feel" more wizardly as I read the spell description. I recognise that some of you will feel that it's my own fault if I find it harder to immerse with one than the other, and that it's all to do with the player not the game, but you'll remember that I've [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/322528-5e-skills-aka-how-game-system-affects-immersion.html"]already argued that game syntax and rules structure are as influential as the people themselves[/URL] when it comes to how a game manifests itself at the game table, and that the same exact people will play differently when given different RPGs to play. So the presentation does have something to do with it. So that's one half of the debate. The other half deals with the concept of [I]readability[/I]. Is a D&D rulebook designed to be[I] read[/I], or simply [I]referenced[/I]? Again, as you'd expect, opinions are divided. When I was younger, I used to spend hours reading and re-reading my DMG and PHB and other books - both 1E and 2E materials. They engaged me; and they still do - I frequently pull them off the shelf and read a few pages. That consequently excited my imagination. I did that less with 3E, and I don't do it at [I]all[/I] with 4E. With 4E, I just look stuff up, like I'm using a dictionary. Now you might argue that's not a problem. The books are rulebooks; their function is the same as the instruction manual for a VCR, not a novel. You use them to access information, but you don't buy them to read. That may well be true for many, but it isn't for me - reading those 1E and 2E books was an integral and pleasant - I'd argue vital - part of my D&D experience growing up; a memory I cherish, and one I'd love to experience again. But I can understand the position of those who simply want clarity of information and ease of reference: I don't share their desire, but I understand it. When I say I don't share their desire for clarity, I guess I should be clear myself - I'm certainly not advocating an opaque, incomprehensible wall of text. I'm advocating clearly written, engaging, [I]well-indexed[/I] rules. I like clarity as much as the next guy; just not at the expense of readability. I'd also like to add that I'm not talking about pages of "story fluff" or filling the books with sidebars of torrid fiction. Hints at a default setting are fine, but I don't want to be swamped with one; fiction I get from good fiction novelists, and settings I get from setting books or my own imagination. I want the text to prod my imagination so that I come up with my own stufff, not tell me a story. I'm talking about the presentation of the [I]rules,[/I] not fluff text. As I said, it's a contentious issue, and there really does not seem to be a consensus on it. In fact, it seems to get people quite angry in places! As a final note before I sign off - I'd just like to mention that [SIZE=2]I hope not to open[/SIZE] the 5E PHB and see a sentence along the lines of:[/SIZE][INDENT][SIZE=2] Play a dragonborn if:[/SIZE] [LIST] [*][SIZE=2]You want to be scaly. [/SIZE] [/LIST] [/INDENT] [SIZE=2] Thoughts are welcome. I know this one is gonna be divisive, so please make sure you stay civil to each other.[/SIZE] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Prose, Terminology, Fluff, & Presentation: Spreadsheets or Haiku?
Top