View Profile: Bagpuss - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
No More Results
About Bagpuss

Basic Information

Date of Birth
May 30
About Bagpuss
Introduction:
Enjoy playing and running CoC, but will play anything. Tend to play face to face with friends, or at conventions rather than online.
Location:
The Wirral, UK
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
Over 40
Social Networking

If you can be contacted on social networks, feel free to mention it here.

Google+:
adampdevil@gmail.com
Twitter:
adampdevil
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

Town:
Liverpool
State:
Merseyside
Country:
United Kingdom
Game Details:
We play every Sunday evening, Call of Cthulhu, Pathfinder and D&D are popular, but we have run short campaigns and one shots of other systems.

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
4,786
Posts Per Day
0.76
Last Post
Players choose what their PCs do . . . Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019 10:07 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
9
General Information
Last Activity
Thursday, 18th July, 2019 02:13 PM
Join Date
Monday, 1st April, 2002
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
1

1 Friend

  1. Pelldom Pelldom is offline

    Member

    Pelldom
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1
My Game Details
Town:
Liverpool
State:
Merseyside
Country:
United Kingdom
Game Details:
We play every Sunday evening, Call of Cthulhu, Pathfinder and D&D are popular, but we have run short campaigns and one shots of other systems.

Sunday, 7th July, 2019


Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019


Sunday, 23rd June, 2019


Wednesday, 19th June, 2019

  • 10:14 PM - doctorbadwolf mentioned Bagpuss in post What Would You Want From A Game About Defenders of The Faithful?
    ...rt of game where there are no true heroes, the Church is corrupt, the evil guys arenít really that much worse than the good guys, and no oneís hands are clean, is grimdark. None of the missions you describe require killing innocents, or anything like it. It might involve having to fight possessed innocents in self defense, but thereís no reason that a Romantic Heroic Fantasy game canít include rules for subduing rather than killing. Also, even if the innocent dies in the process of being fought off by Paladins while the Druid of the Tuatha performs a ritual to bind the evil spirits, and the priest of the Light prepares to sanctify the area to drive the bound spirits back into the Void, that is something can can be dealt with without focusing the game on the gritty implication that the Paladins arenít actually good or whatever. The Romantic and/or Heroic Fantasy Hero can atone or otherwise deal with grief without making a grimdark game. Thereís no need to focus the game on that. @Bagpuss I donít care. Find someone else to show off how edgy you are to.

Wednesday, 13th June, 2018

  • 07:14 PM - pming mentioned Bagpuss in post Why Did "Solo" and "Rogue One" Feel Like RPG Sessions?
    Hiya! Bagpuss, well I'd post direct links but I guess that's "illegal" here on the site (posting a link to someone who swears, has/shows more adult subjects, or has a strong opinion to one 'side' or the other...or something like that...I'm still uncertain why, but as they say "Them's the rules" so I'm stickin' to 'em! :) ). Suffice it to say, I give very little credibility to anyone who is a "pro" movie critic nowadays (nowadays being for the last 20 or so years). ^_^ Paul L. Ming

Saturday, 9th June, 2018

  • 01:30 AM - Yaarel mentioned Bagpuss in post Will you make transsexual Elves canon in your games ?
    ...rans-people I've spoken to want to *appear* as trans men or trans women, they would prefer to "pass" and appear as, and be treated as, a man or a woman. Now admittedly their are internet personalities that make a big thing about being trans, but most would rather not have the attention and would happy "pass". I think it is pretty dangerous to apply any of this to real-life trans people, as many have issues with "passing" since their isn't some magical switch. At least the trans persons who I know personally take hormonal injections to develop these secondary sex characteristics. I mentioned one of my friends who I failed to fully recognize because his hormonal injections made him able to grow a beard. By contrast, I have met (but dont know personally), individuals who prefer to be in between, and to be neither/either gender or sex. In a way, that seems natural. Some humans are this way, and there is nothing to fix, and it is worthwhile to appreciate the marvel and the diversity. Bagpuss, maybe you are agreeing? If the special shapechanging abilities among certain Blessed, allows them to acquire secondary sex characteristics as well, then they can Ďpassí as the desired sex − indeed be the epitome of it. So, for those individuals who want to be recognized as a specific sex and gender, can, by means of the sacred miracle.

Monday, 4th June, 2018

  • 07:00 AM - Hussar mentioned Bagpuss in post Comfort withcross gender characters based on your gender
    That's not what I'm saying. Who's "everyone else"? Who has made that argument? In what words? Bagpuss right above you talks about going back to gaming roots and "play them like the Heroquest boardgame, with just tactical aspects, and testing the player not the character. Early dungeons often had tests aimed at the player not the character like riddles and puzzles." There were earlier comments as well. Oh no you DON'T. I described one of my characters, named Dexter, in detail. That character was NOT female, neither by anatomical sex nor by social role. Actively misrepresenting someone else's character, contrary to their explicit statements, is rude. (By my standards of rudeness. By EN World's standards?) Appologies. I misread. I thought that the point of your bringing up the character was that the character was being played cross gendered. My bad. Sorry. AFAIK no one here objects when you hold YOURSELF to that standard. If some player turns to you and says "You're a Rashemi? Really?" then YOU have failed at YOUR goal. If I don't accomplish YOUR goal, and you say...

Friday, 14th October, 2016

  • 01:14 AM - Hussar mentioned Bagpuss in post After 2 years the 5E PHB remains one of the best selling books on Amazon
    Out of Print, eh? :erm: Wow. Pedant much? Look the whole point of my pretty throw away line was that up until very recently DND has not been inclusive. Or at least not very. Not that they deliberately excluded anyone, they just didn't bother showing anyone else very much. Recent DND (however you want to define DND) has been much better at being inclusive and that's a good thing. I'm still rather baffled how this spawned such a ludicrous fitshorm. Bagpuss mentioned way upthread that DND was Mexer exclusionary. That was the point I was countering.

Monday, 2nd December, 2013

  • 06:19 PM - Morrus mentioned Bagpuss in post Strax's Helpful Suggestions
    Put together by Bagpuss. One Sontaran's solutions to any problem you might face in everyday life. http://www.enworld.org/forum/dnd_view_block.php?id=1393 Might I suggest a surprise bombardment with proton owls and this pencil?

Tuesday, 6th August, 2013


Sunday, 23rd June, 2013

  • 04:00 AM - DMMike mentioned Bagpuss in post Does this fairly eliminate Attacks of Opportunity?
    Bagpuss: the point of putting a finite number of actions in combat is to add simplicity and logic to the combat experience. In the 3E system, a character can literally dodge an unlimited number of attacks, provided his rolls are good enough, in the course of a combat round. This combat round then gets more complex with a different type of defense, called Saving Throws, which can also come in basically unlimited numbers. Throw in swift, full round, movement, standard, and free actions, plus opp attacks, and after one combat round, you're lucky if you have an idea of what just happened. So to answer your question, "why wait to attack?" the answer is: a combatant considers defense a worthy endeavor. Now, if an "opportunity" arises which makes attacking look better than defending, why not take it? Meatboy: a valid observation. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. Sometimes it's not. But a three-action system allows that choice to be made, no? nnms: I was actually thinking that u...

Wednesday, 5th June, 2013

  • 02:33 AM - DMMike mentioned Bagpuss in post The Modos RPG Ode to Daggers
    fox, pricing: Characters will, in all likelihood, be able to afford all the larger weapons they want. So yes, that is not likely a deciding factor for choosing to take daggers. Finishing people in full plate: probably a job for grappling rules, since up-close is the best place to get away from sword attacks. Bagpuss, heavier weapons: improving the damage of a waraxe is great, but it's a lot easier to sneak a dagger past the palace guards. Dethklok: "Would your system explain why Kojiro didn't use all his hero points and hit him first?" Well, no better than any system can explain what a PC does. But here's a shot: Kojiro didn't use his hero points on his first attack because he wanted to use them once he was in a favorable attack position, spending them on damage instead of attack. Or, the "Kojiro" character is impressively tough, so his player spends hero points on protection rolls, but in this case, they weren't enough. Red Herring: sorry, but my take on the red herring is that it's a plot device, or an argument technique, intended, as the Dictionary says, "to divert attention." Since weapons and armor don't have a plot, there's not a lot of diverting to be done. Realistic RPGs: Modos is decidedly not bent on realism. Its purpose, from the get-go, was to be very streamlined, yet playable. ...

Monday, 27th May, 2013

  • 03:11 AM - Challenger RPG mentioned Bagpuss in post Game Design 110: Combat
    ...: I'm personally in favor of difficulty to hit. I've run into far too many problems and abstractions with rules on armor that reduce damage to the character too much. Basically, if the range of damage becomes too variable, and armor can be upgraded substantially; you end up with situations where people can't do 'any' damage to heavily armored opponents which just seems unreasonable to me. Several successful systems use the armor as damage reduction rules. I think it's possible if implemented correctly--but it's tricky. @DMMike : Sounds pretty awesome! I like 'mostly dead'. Reminds me of Princess Bride. "He's only mostly dead, not all dead." Kudos on the creativity factor in character creation. A few monster 'templates' might be handy for rushed GM's. What you did with ranged combat looks good. Modular combat mechanics is a very cool idea, as well. The hit points sound like they could get a little complicated, but that's just a first impression. Keep up with the new innovations! @Bagpuss : I mostly agree. I like to have a load of pre-created monsters. However, I also love to design my own bad guys. I just like the option to pick and choose where I'll be spending my creative energies. I also like the modular monster abilities combinations from Savage Worlds. @steenan : I think it really depends on the type of game. I think most RPGs fall on the heavy combat side of things. I don't know why this is, exactly. I think it's something about character lives at stake in most games. It's almost like players insist you have detailed and clear combat rules. While Bob might not care if he can drink 7 beers or 8, he'll definitely care if the 8th goblin can take him down or not. I also tend to favor lethal combat. Death spirals are really annoying, and so is permanent death. However, I find my players are more than adept enough at avoiding death without any added help from the rules. In one-shot adventures a high danger ratio is also a great thing to have around. About Hit Point...

Sunday, 26th May, 2013

  • 03:13 AM - DMMike mentioned Bagpuss in post Game Design 110: Combat
    Bagpuss: in my case, it's a very, very simple system. (But you're right, I got really annoyed making monsters (even starting with pre-made monsters) in D&D 3.5.) My players still have character flexibility, but most things aren't in writing, so they'll need imagination and GM approval to create what they want. steenan: "Combat ends in death." This can come from only two places: video games, and Rambo movies. Otherwise, much more common is combat ending in retreat, or not beginning in the first place. (MCS does have a "flee" option. And characters become "mostly dead," not dead-dead.) "Injuries must be abstracted." Necessary? No. But it's a whole lot easier to say someone's dead after 12 hit points, instead of a broken wrist, fractured tibia, slight concussion, nausea, and facial lacerations (or some combination thereof). Dethklok: your question depends heavily on what hit points represent. The D&D standard is basically wounds and stamina, by the book. But that's not how they act ...

Monday, 11th February, 2013

  • 05:59 AM - Challenger RPG mentioned Bagpuss in post 6 Ways to Force Stuff on your Players
    @Bagpuss : I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the article. The idea was from a friend and I don't think I fully did it justice. Because I didn't fully understand it, I ended up making jokes and probably not being very helpful. Your suggestions are excellent. I particularly like the geography idea for its simplicity and effectiveness. @jasper : Ha ha, I've done that a few times myself. I sit down and tell the players, "Here's what we're doing tonight, take it or leave it." Everyone always seems to be cool with that. They seem to object more to getting forced into things without any input from the GM whatsoever. @Hand of Evil : I really like these methods and systems. Particularly Action/Reaction which I've been using in my games for a long time. I really like the define good and evil suggestion. That's something I've never done before, but it seems like a given in retrospect. It's hard to expect people to follow rules when you don't even tell them what those rules are. Thanks for the cool ideas!

No results to display...
Page 1 of 19 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019

  • 11:49 AM - pemerton quoted Bagpuss in post Check Out This Preview Of Chivalry & Sorcery 5th Edition!
    This sounds like it may be something I've been looking for--a good system for running a fairy-tale/medieval legend, "Romanticized Medieval Christendom" campaign.That would be Pendragon.Or Prince Valiant. I know that Pendragon was Greg Stafford's favourite creation, but personally I would recommend Prince Valiant every time!

Wednesday, 19th June, 2019


Friday, 14th June, 2019

  • 09:03 PM - Lanefan quoted Bagpuss in post Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?
    Exactly in the early days avoiding conflict to gain treasure was one of the better ways of getting XP, because of the risk vs reward, was significantly less than getting into a fight. I remember scouting was a very popular strategy in those days. Agreed. Still is. I'm curious as to why you wouldn't use it, what problems do you feel it doesn't address or it creates, in comparison to monster slaying for XP.A number of reasons, mostly revolving around not wanting characters getting rewards they don't deserve. Milestone levelling brings everyone up no matter how much they did (or didn't) contribute, where I much prefer the reward be more commensurate to the individual risk taken. Individual XP seem to be shunned upon in most groups I've played in as it discourages newbies or tends to be unfair or biased. In addition to setting unhealthy risk-reward incentives for players to "go solo". I've used individual x.p. forever and I've yet to see it as discouraging newbies. If anything, the rev...
  • 08:46 PM - Bedrockgames quoted Bagpuss in post Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?
    That's not my recollection of early D&D, there were a lot of "save or die" type creatures about, and there wasn't much guidance in the way of balancing encounters. I suppose it depends on the DM you had. I remember that certainly once you got past a certain level you didn't worry about hordes of goblins and the like, but you had a healthy respect of monsters and undead, particularly those that might paralyse or have level drain. Some of those AD&D monsters were brutal and the only guideline I remember using was monster HD and eyeballing things like damage output. My recollection of AD&D (both 1E and 2E) was it could be quite lethal. 3E could also be a lethal system, but there was a lot of ink spent dealing with things like Encounter Levels and having GMs pace encounter levels. So my experience with 3E involved a lot less character death, though it did still happen. I think it does boil down to the GM and to the playstyle. Also worth mentioning that 2E did have XP guidelines for non-combat...
  • 12:55 PM - Sadras quoted Bagpuss in post Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?
    I suppose it depends on the DM you had. Agree with all you said, but for me it comes down to the above quote.
  • 11:29 AM - Hussar quoted Bagpuss in post Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?
    Exactly in the early days avoiding conflict to gain treasure was one of the better ways of getting XP, because of the risk vs reward, was significantly less than getting into a fight. I remember scouting was a very popular strategy in those days. I'm curious as to why you wouldn't use it, what problems do you feel it doesn't address or it creates, in comparison to monster slaying for XP. See, I've never understood this. Like I said, sure, in the early levels, say 1-3, I get it. You want to be pretty careful about not biting off more than you can chew. But, after that? Why would you avoid a fight? You were almost always guaranteed to win. The odds of losing a fight were pretty darn slight. And, even then, by 9th level, you have access to raise dead, so, big deal, you can bring anyone back other than the cleric. Really, even before that, raising a PC wasn't exactly complicated. The odds of failure were extremely low. Sure, Res survival and all that, I get that. But, i...
  • 10:38 AM - Sadras quoted Bagpuss in post Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?
    I'm curious as to why you wouldn't use it, what problems do you feel it doesn't address or it creates, in comparison to monster slaying for XP. I'm not Lanefan, but the obvious limitation is that it removes XPs as Reward. Milestone seems to negate individual creative/smart efforts by characters, moving from individual level progression to a party-progression paradigm. Milestone certainly has its uses. Personally I would use that style of progression in more linear/railroad-y games which have a strong storyline buy-in.

Thursday, 13th June, 2019

  • 03:40 PM - Iron Sky quoted Bagpuss in post Systems You Left after One Bad Experience
    I highly recommend using the APP that takes over the role of the Imperial player for a more co-op experience, so that you don't feel like a GM being unfair when you shaft the Rebel players, the APP can do that for you and then you can all grown and complain together. We tried the app and found it got repetitive and bland. It felt more like a really slow video game instead and killed the game for my family. Haven't been able to coerce them back to it since. :/
  • 05:41 AM - Umbran quoted Bagpuss in post Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?
    I think kids could also handle consequences to their actions, if they make a questionable choice. There's "questionable choice" and "end up on the wrong side of the moral argument". Splitting the party to chase down goblins in the woods is a questionable choice, and when they did that, they handled the consequences. Becoming villains is what happens when you are on the wrong side of the moral argument. I think, on their first go ever at RPGs, having them hunted down and either executed or imprisoned for murder (a likely consequence for adventurers who have moral weaknesses) would not have had a salutary effect on their impression of RPGs. So, yes, I aimed my presentation to steer clear of certain pitfalls. They are young, and have time to get into those later.

Wednesday, 12th June, 2019

  • 08:08 PM - Elfcrusher quoted Bagpuss in post Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?
    How, are you not roleplaying your character? I present you with the trolley car problem is that not an ethical dilemma for you despite the fact there is no real trolley or real people getting hurt? You have a point: an ethical dilemma is an ethical dilemma even if it is entirely imaginary. But when you discuss the trolley car problem in freshman philosophy you are, I assume, trying to imagine that there are real lives at stake, and that it would be a tragedy for them to be lost. In other words, you are analyzing the problem as if it were real. I don't think you would answer the trolley car problem with, "Can I kill them all, and take their stuff?" Is that right? If so, that seems to conflict with the sentiments you express about RPG violence: that since it is make-believe violence it doesn't really matter. (As an aside, a version of the trolley car problem is now appearing in real life in autonomous car design, in the sense of balancing the life of the occupants of the car versus the ...
  • 05:18 PM - Gradine quoted Bagpuss in post Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?
    Yeah didn't end well for the last GM that tried that... (too soon?). Well I mean, not both at the same time. Or if it is, then make sure it's consensual, at the very least. Safe words are key. (not to dig up a recently closed thread again but while we're talking about misconceptions, rape is about violence and not sex)
  • 03:59 PM - Umbran quoted Bagpuss in post Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?
    I still think you could probably throw the hobgoblin women and children at all of them. Perhaps. But I would likely *position* it differently. See above - I was not going to run a game in which 13-year-olds end up on the wrong side of the moral argument. If I'm going to present the non-combatants as a challenge to kids, I'd position it clearly as a, "Well, nuts, you have to get around this without hurting anyone." Heck, in games for my adults, if the PCs choose the wrong side of the moral argument, they are apt to be treated by the world like the monsters they have become - meaning that they have made it moral and ethical for others to kill the PCs and take their stuff!
  • 03:11 PM - lowkey13 quoted Bagpuss in post Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?
    Why are we okay with violence in RPGs? Because it isn't real. Why are we okay with violence on TV? Because it isn't real. Why are we okay with violence in cinema? Because it isn't real. Why are we okay with violence in books? Because it isn't real. Why are we okay with violence in plays? Because it isn't real. Why are we not okay with violence in reality? Because it is real. I know that is a really simplistic way of looking at it, but it is the core difference. Okay. But that's not necessarily the case, is it? Just because something is depicted in fiction, doesn't mean that it is perfectly acceptable. And we have various tolerances for fictional depictions. If we look back to the late 60s and 70s, we can see that (for example) in movies, things are in flux in America with the lifting of the Code. Profanity, Nudity, and Violence were all ... somewhat ... acceptable in various amounts. Heck, Airplane is a movie from 1980, is rated PG, and has (female) nudity, obvious references to o...
  • 03:11 PM - Umbran quoted Bagpuss in post Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?
    Yes - There is no violence in games that cross the threshold into "not okay" to be included in a game, if handled properly. I see gaming as a safe space, where you can have pretty nasty stuff happen but because it isn't real there is no actual danger to the people round the table.(1) A little while back, I taught my 13-year-old de facto goddaughter how to play D&D. That gave me an entirely new perspective on what "safe" means. There's a little-realized fact that there's no such thing as a no-holds-barred safe space. Safe spaces need boundaries, and the boundaries that are useful and safe for one group may not be for another.
  • 02:21 PM - Elfcrusher quoted Bagpuss in post Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?
    It is there to present a moral dilemma to the players. This seems to contradict your other claims. If it's all just make-believe and it's all ok, then there's no moral dilemma. Now, there may be in-game consequences: if you kill the innocents your god will strip you of your powers, or whatever. And maybe that's what you mean. Make-believe violence, and make-believe moral dilemma. On a somewhat related note, I've never found any attraction to playing evil characters, and I always find it somewhat unsettling when others do. I've tried to play evil characters, and invariably I put on a veneer of evilness (maniacal cackle, etc.) but I still end up doing good. Even in solo video games. I've heard the explanations of exploring other personalities, etc., but I'll admit that in my heart I always think there's something wrong with people who enjoy it. EDIT: On the other hand, I can easily understand how an actor might really enjoy playing an evil character in a movie. I just don't see those ...
  • 01:00 PM - Elfcrusher quoted Bagpuss in post Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?
    Why are we okay with violence in RPGs? Because it isn't real. Why are we okay with violence on TV? Because it isn't real. Why are we okay with violence in cinema? Because it isn't real. Why are we okay with violence in books? Because it isn't real. Why are we okay with violence in plays? Because it isn't real. Why are we not okay with violence in reality? Because it is real. I know that is a really simplistic way of looking at it, but it is the core difference. So is there no violence in games that (for you) crosses the threshold into "not okay", even though it still isn't real? There is for me.
  • 11:23 AM - Bedrockgames quoted Bagpuss in post Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?
    Why are we okay with violence in RPGs? Because it isn't real. Why are we okay with violence on TV? Because it isn't real. Why are we okay with violence in cinema? Because it isn't real. Why are we okay with violence in books? Because it isn't real. Why are we okay with violence in plays? Because it isn't real. Why are we not okay with violence in reality? Because it is real. I know that is a really simplistic way of looking at it, but it is the core difference. This is my view of it. Not a fan of real world violence but I love action and martial arts movies. Combat in RPGs is cathartic. It isn't against real people or creatures.

Friday, 7th June, 2019

  • 03:34 PM - macd21 quoted Bagpuss in post Players 'distressed' by gang-rape role-playing game
    macd21 - I have a little more faith in a convention to actually respond than you, especially when they have this (see below) in their Keeping you Safe section. I also think you are far more likely to expose yourself to harassment by going public on twitter than keeping it with the convention staff.Cons have had policies like that for years, most of which were never enforced properly. That such policies have been improved upon and actually implemented properly is down to the climate youíre complaining about. And itís hardly universal yet - many, if not most, cons today are still pretty shoddy in this regard. Even UKGE, for all that it has that policy, isnít great - Iíve spoken to some of their volunteers who didnít get the webinar and werenít aware of the policy.Again: the reason things are changing for the better is because of the climate you decry. And itíll improve more if people stop blaming victims for daring to raise their voice.
  • 03:26 PM - Umbran quoted Bagpuss in post Players 'distressed' by gang-rape role-playing game
    No they still get called out by the people actually involved in the incident. The person still has to answer to the UKGE, and the players at their table. What you fail to see is that, if it isn't made visible, there is no need to answer to anyone, and behavior does not change. This is proven by history. When these things stayed quiet and private, as they did for decades, they were generally ignored, or swept under the rug. Since it was effectively hidden, the conventions were not being held accountable for their choices, so there was no need to hold bad actors accountable, either. We have the problems now because the culture you seem to want failed to correct behavior! There is no accountability in a culture of silence. Visibility means the public holds the UKGE (and other convention organizations) accountable, so they hold their content providers accountable.
  • 03:13 PM - macd21 quoted Bagpuss in post Players 'distressed' by gang-rape role-playing game
    No they still get called out by the people actually involved in the incident. The person still has to answer to the UKGE, and the players at their table.No, actually, they donít. Because if the people actually involved complain, nothing happens. If they complain, they risk harassment themselves. And most of the time they donít complain, because of the previous two points. A lot of the time they just stop going to cons, and probably stop gaming.That is the Ďclimateí that was replaced by the one we have now. It was a climate that many people found hostile and unwelcoming, because of :):):):) like this, and because any time they tried to advocate for change, theyíd be harassed out of the community by people defending the :):):):):):):)s. And itís exactly what we would go back to if we listened to you and people like you. Youíre so willing to bend over backwards to give :):):):):):):)s the benefit of the doubt that theyíre never so much as questioned, never mind punished.


Page 1 of 19 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Bagpuss's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites