What is *worldbuilding* for? - Page 18
Page 18 of 287 FirstFirst ... 891011121314151617181920212223242526272868118 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 2863
  1. #171
    Member
    Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)



    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    2,872
    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurius View Post
    Which brings me to the crux of the matter. I already alluded to this above, but in addition to GM authority I think the other major difference in the "Pemertonian style" vs. the "traditional style" is the degree to which meta-gaming is part of the experience. In the traditional style, the GM is the creator and storyteller, and the players are actors within the world. The point is to simulate the experience of real life, but in a shared imaginary space. The player "inhabits" the character (or role), and acts as if they are the character within the setting. Thus role-playing.

    Your approach seems more that of characters as game pawns utilized by the players, who in turn are partially responsible--or at least able to--direct some of the unfolding action in a meta-game sense. This meta-game aspect is, I think, what breaks immersion for me...and it is what broke immersion for me in 4E combat. And I do think the meta-game aspect and (diminished) GM authority correlate to some degree.
    This pretty much sums it up.

    Hence worldbuilding done by the DM is very much more desirable for that immersive experience when I'm a player. I want to be able to play in the DM's game/world similar to a virtual reality game. If I'm taking off the virtual headgear every other second to decide on the story content (player injected) then I'm continuously breaking immersion for myself. As a player I want to play ONLY!
    Last edited by Sadras; Tuesday, 23rd January, 2018 at 10:21 AM.
    XP Mercurius gave XP for this post

  2. #172
    Member
    Titan (Lvl 27)



    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    20,738
    Quote Originally Posted by Sadras View Post
    What purpose do you think the worldbuilding of The Village of Hommlet (1979) serves?
    As was discussed upthread (somewhere in the first page or two), I don't know.

    @howandwhy99 suggested it is just another dungeon. I don't know if that's how Gygax used it or intended it.

    It doesn't seem very effective as a living, breathing world, though, because some of those NPCs would deal with the Moathouse pretty handily, wouldn't they?

    Are they meant to offer protection to any PC who kills Lareth the Beautiful?

    The set-up in B2 seems clearer to me - it creates both a rules framework for keeping the PCs in line when they go back to town (eg mid-level fighters who will beat up lawbreakers) and (with the priest in the tavern) establishes some additional social puzzles.

  3. #173
    Member
    Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)



    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    2,872
    Quote Originally Posted by pemerton View Post
    As was discussed upthread (somewhere in the first page or two), I don't know.

    @howandwhy99 suggested it is just another dungeon. I don't know if that's how Gygax used it or intended it.
    Of course you don't know.
    Because having to admit that the worldbuilding of village is part of the overall puzzle, you would have to concede that urban adventures (as I have been saying) can be puzzles in the classical sense despite the wide range of options they offer a PC.
    And you certainly cannot deny its worldbuilding.

    It doesn't seem very effective as a living, breathing world, though, because some of those NPCs would deal with the Moathouse pretty handily, wouldn't they?
    Well I suppose it depends on the DM if he/she roleplays the NPCs in the village as 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional beings.

    Are they meant to offer protection to any PC who kills Lareth the Beautiful?
    Well isn't that up to DM fiat?

    What about B10, which you are more familiar with? It comprises of Wilderness, Urban and Dungeon - what purpose does that worldbuilding serve?

  4. #174
    Member
    Titan (Lvl 27)



    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    20,738
    Quote Originally Posted by Sebastrd View Post
    I consider TTRPGs primarily a mechanism for shared storytelling, because that's the one aspect of a TTRPG that cannot be replicated in a book or videogame. Someone has to develop the shared world in which that storytelling takes place, and it usually falls to the GM to do so.
    I'm not sure about the has to - can't the setting be generated in the course of the telling of the story?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sebastrd View Post
    I will admit, for the sake of argument, that any GM who declares ownership over the campaign is overstepping.
    Well, that's what the poster to whom I was replying did.

    @Mercurius also asserted that the GM is omnipotent in respect of the campaign: "One approach assumes that the GM is omnipotent, and the player's relationship to the world is akin to our own relationship to our world."

    Quote Originally Posted by Sebastrd View Post
    I think it's perfectly reasonable for a GM to declare ownership over the campaign setting. Many of us put a LOT of effort into developing our campaign settings to include NPCs, geography, situations, maps, motivations, etc. Most players put proportionally less work into the game; they roll up their characters, perhaps include a backstory, and show up with some dice. GMing a simulated living, breathing world in which the players can explore and adventure involves a ton of work.
    OK - I didn't think any of this stuff about effort was in dispute. Writing is hard and takes time.

    But I'm not sure how that relates to the actual process of play. And the metaphors "exploration" is still in need of cashing out. The way that I "explore" Middle Earth is to read JRRT's books. How does a player explore a GM's world? Not by reading the notes - presumably by delcaring actions for his/her PC which prompt the GM to read or paraphrase elements of his/her notes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sebastrd View Post
    The villains' primary function is to oppose the players but ultimately fail. The entire campaign world should be a challenge for the players to overcome - assuming they play intelligently, work together, and roll well when it counts. Failure should be an option for them, as well, or their victories will feel hollow.
    If the villain doesn't fail, has something gone wrong?

    And in what sense is the campaign world a "challenge" for the players to overcome? I'm not asking this rhetorically, or to deny it.

    To elaborate - I understand how the Caves of Chaos are a challenge for the players to overcome. And in a slightly oblique sense, I can see how this is true for the trader in the Keep (after all, sensible equipment purchasing decisions is an important part of classic D&D). But I'm not clear how (say) the cleric in a contemporary game who sells the PCs potions on the cheap, or heals their wounds, is a challenge to overcome.

    Or the NPC patron who sends them on a mission.

    There are lots of parts of a "living, breathing world" that do not on the surface look like challenges to overcome. (In @Nagol's language from upthread, some of them might be "levers" for the players to use, via their PCs. Some might just be flavour.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Sebastrd View Post
    I'll also admit that most GMs seem way too possessive about their settings and NPCs. It's immensely important to understand that the setting exists primarily as a vehicle for the players to reach their goals - to be heroes.
    OK, this is the crux of it: how do players form goals and then achieve them. I posited an example not far upthread, about a player trying to have his/her PC influence a religious organisation. I know how that would work in some approaches to play - I'm interested in how it works in an approach to play in which the GM is omnipotent in the way that Mercuruis and others have described.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurius View Post
    In the campaign style that I'm discussing--I can only speak for myself, but think it is basically representative of "traditional D&D" (not classic)--a PC has just as much agency as you and I have in this world
    And I'm saying that this is unhelpful metaphor. In the world I can pick up a rock and throw it - the only considerations are (i) the existence of a rock, and (ii) the relveant mechanical forces.

    In a RPG, for my PC to pick up and throw a rock (iii) requires it to be established, in the shared fiction, that a rock exists in the vicinity of my PC, and (iv) requires my action declaration, that my PC picks up and throws a rock, to be successful.

    Those are completely different processes. Just to give two reasons as to why, (i) is frequently independent of human will, where as (iii) neer is; and (ii) does not require establishing any human consensus, but (iv) does.

    Part of my agency, in real life, is that I can throw rocks. But my agency in a RPG is not connected to my ability to throw rocks in any form - as (iii) and (iv) make clear, it's about my capacity to contribute to the establishment of a consensus in relation to some shared fiction.

    If the GM is, in fact, omnipotent - ie never obliged to have regard to others' desires about the content of the shared fiction - then the player has no agency. I suspect no one actually plays RPGs in which the GM's power is so total, but one doesn't expain the limits on the GM's power, or the GM's obligation to have regard to contributions from other participants, by comparing throwing a rock in the real world to collectively generating a fiction in which a rock gets thrown.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurius View Post
    you and I have less agency than a PC in traditional D&D-style game play
    I'm not talking about the imaginary agency of an imaginary person - the PC. I'm talking about the actual agency of an actual person - the player - who is engaged in a social, collaborative endeavour, namely, the generation of a shared fiction by dint of playing a RPG with others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurius View Post
    In the traditional style, the GM is the creator and storyteller, and the players are actors within the world.
    If the GM is telling a story, and the players are acting, who is wrting their script? If the answer is that they're free to write their own script, then in what sense is the GM telling a story?

    If we are going to talk about how RPGing works, and how various approaches work, we need to move beyond seemingly inconsistent generalities to actually analyse the process whereby different participants are empowered, as part of the collective enterprise, to make things "true" in the shared fiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurius View Post
    The point is to simulate the experience of real life, but in a shared imaginary space. The player "inhabits" the character (or role), and acts as if they are the character within the setting. Thus role-playing.

    Your approach seems more that of characters as game pawns utilized by the players
    Well then you have misperceived.

    Here is an excellent summary of the "indie"-style of RPGing, under the heading "The Standard Narrativistic Model":

    1. One of the players is a gamemaster whose job it is to keep track of the backstory, frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments (defined in narrativistic theory as moments of in-character action that carry weight as commentary on the game’s premise) by introducing complications.

    2. The rest of the players each have their own characters to play. They play their characters according to the advocacy role: the important part is that they naturally allow the character’s interests to come through based on what they imagine of the character’s nature and background. Then they let the other players know in certain terms what the character thinks and wants.

    3. The actual procedure of play is very simple: once the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes, the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character (or wherever the premise comes from, depends on the game). The GM describes a situation that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules. Story is an outcome of the process as choices lead to consequences which lead to further choices, until all outstanding issues have been resolved and the story naturally reaches an end.

    4. The player’s task in these games is simple advocacy, which is not difficult once you have a firm character. (Chargen is a key consideration in these games, compare them to see how different approaches work.) The GM might have more difficulty, as he needs to be able to reference the backstory, determine complications to introduce into the game, and figure out consequences. Much of the rules systems in these games address these challenges, and in addition the GM might have methodical tools outside the rules, such as pre-prepared relationship maps (helps with backstory), bangs (helps with provoking thematic choice) and pure experience (helps with determining consequences).

    Character-as-pawn is not part of the model. (It is the default for classic dungeoneering, however.)

    As for immersion - it hardly gets more immersive than returing to your ruined tower after lo!, these past 14 years, then looking for the mace you left behind only to discover that your brother was evil all along!

    If you can only immerse when you the player (ie at the metagame level, not from your PC's perspective) know that whether or not you (as your PC) will find the mace depends in part on what the GM wrote in his/her notes, and that whatever unhappy thing you (as your PC) will learn about your brother depdns upon what the GM wrote in his/her notes, well that's a psychological fact about you.

    Personally, I find it easiest to immerse when I'm engaging the situation as my character would - so when I'm playing my Knight of the Iron Tower, riding through the lands that my order once controlled, I look for signs of any members of my order still being about. The GM sets a difficulty for my Circles check, and I roll it - and then the GM tells me what occurs as a result (either I do find a member of my order, if the check succeeds; or something goes wrong, if the check fails). What is relevant to my immersion is the relationship between the imagined situation and my character, as mediated through the gameplay. So when I put together my dice pool and roll, I feel the same hope that my characer does - is there a fellow knight somewhere here in the wilderness, to give me succor? Or have the gods forsaken it completely? When the dice fall, I get my answer, just as my character knows whether his hopes are realised or dashed. I'm not all up in the metagame headspace of worrying about how this fiction has come to be authored!

  5. #175
    Member
    Titan (Lvl 27)



    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    20,738
    Quote Originally Posted by Sadras View Post
    If I'm taking off the virtual headgear every other second to decide on the story content (player injected) then I'm continuously breaking immersion for myself. As a player I want to play ONLY!
    I don't follow.

    You declare, while your PC is in the study, "I look for the map!" The dice are rolled. On a success, you find the map. How does this affect immersion?
    Last edited by pemerton; Tuesday, 23rd January, 2018 at 11:43 AM.

  6. #176
    Member
    Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)



    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    2,872
    Quote Originally Posted by pemerton View Post
    You declare, while your PC is in the study, "I look for the map!" The dice are rolled. On a success, you find the map. How does this affect immersion?
    How do I know I'm looking for a map?

    EDIT: We are talking about player generated content (shared worldbuilding with the player) - you cannot seemingly skip that stage in the debate when it doesn't suit you.
    Last edited by Sadras; Tuesday, 23rd January, 2018 at 11:28 AM.

  7. #177
    Member
    Titan (Lvl 27)



    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    20,738
    Quote Originally Posted by Sadras View Post
    Of course you don't know.
    Because having to admit that the worldbuilding of village is part of the overall puzzle, you would have to concede that urban adventures (as I have been saying) can be puzzles in the classical sense despite the wide range of options they offer a PC.
    And you certainly cannot deny its worldbuilding.
    I haven't been approaching this thread as a competition. I'm not avoiding admitting things. I have a conjecture - that there is a threshold of fictional scope/verisimilitude beyond which a "living, breathing world" is so much a product of GM judgement and presentation, and so cognitively inaccesible in its totality to the players, that it can no longer be the meaningful object of puzzle-solving.

    What's the nature of the puzzle you see in T1? I've told you what I think the puzzle is in B2. What is the puzzle in T1?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sadras View Post
    Well I suppose it depends on the DM if he/she roleplays the NPCs in the village as 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional beings.
    Doesn't that tend to reinforce my point, though? That the content of the puzzle isn't leanrable by the players in the right way - after all, we don't think that beating a dungeon depends upon the GM roleplaying the walls, pits or otyughs as 3-dimensional beings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sadras View Post
    What about B10, which you are more familiar with? It comprises of Wilderness, Urban and Dungeon - what purpose does that worldbuilding serve?
    As written, it's mostly a puzzle (to beat the goblins and find the Hutakaans). I've not run it as such, but I suspect that if it is run as such it would fall over fairly easily, because some of the clues depend heavily on the PCs interacting in particular ways with particular people/places in ways that depend heavily upon sticking to a particular course of action.

    It does try to confine the action in various ways - but what happens if the players decide to try and raid Kelven or Threshold instead of sticking to the intended plot line? Or even just decide to become mercenaries in those towns, leaving the Hutakaans for someone else to investiage?

    In the dungeoneering context, those issues don't really arise.

  8. #178
    Member
    Titan (Lvl 27)



    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    20,738
    Quote Originally Posted by Sadras View Post
    We are talking about player generated content (shared worldbuilding with the player) - you cannot seemingly skip that stage in the debate when it doesn't suit you.
    Well I know what I'm talking about, seeing as I wrote the OP.

    I'm asking what GM pre-authored worldbuilding is for. You and @Mercurius say that it one thing it does is support immersion, by sparing the player from having to generate content.

    I'm making the point that there are many, many RPGs in which the player doesn't have to generate content in the way you and Mercurius don't like, and yet which don't depend upon the GM pre-authoring content. The reason that I know this is because I play such RPGs. (The only RPG I'm personally familiar with that has the feature you and Mercurius object to is OGL Conan, and I've never played it.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Sadras View Post
    How do I know I'm looking for a map?
    You declare as your action, for your PC, "I search the study for the map", or something similar.

    The GM sets an approriate difficulty, the dice are rolled, they tell us whether or not hopes are realised or dashed. In my experience it's quite immersive, and it doesn't require the player to generate any content beyond his/her PC's desires, and the actions that those desires move him/her to undertake.

    EDIT: the basic concept is no different from a wandering monster roll, or a reaction roll.

    The PCs walk through dungeon corridors. How do we work out whether or not they meet anything in those corridors? Wandering monster roll. That doesn't depend on pre-authorship. (Except of a wandering monster table.)

    The PCs meet a NPC or monster. Is it angry or friendly? Does it attack them or offer them some food? Roll a reaction check! That doesn't depend on pre-authorship. (Except of a reaction table.)

    The PCs look for a map in the study? Is there one there? Roll a perceptions/search/etc check! That doesn't depend on pre-authorship either. (Except of a difficulty-of-various-perceptoin-checks table.)
    Last edited by pemerton; Tuesday, 23rd January, 2018 at 11:44 AM.

  9. #179
    Member
    Time Agent (Lvl 24)



    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    10,412
    Quote Originally Posted by pemerton View Post
    As I posted not very far upthread, between the PHB and the DMG you can already see a tension between pressures of gameplay (which require an artificial dungeon environment) and presssures of verisimilitude (which push towards a "living, breathing worlld"). But modules published c 1978 were not "living, breathing worlds" in the modern sense. They didn't have NPCs whose friendships, connections, fields of action etc were remotely realistic. They have NPCs who living in holes in the ground, with no visible economic means of support, and whose response to dungeon raiders depends primarily on a reaction roll. (Consider the hobgoblins in the example of play in Moldvay Basic.)

    Without this artificiality, that style of play can't work, as the players can't scout, collect information and then plan and execute raids.
    Balderdash. They can do all of these things - they just have to realize that the information they're working from was only valid at the time it was obtained and things may well have changed since.

    Just like the real world, for all that.

    But as the "story" part of the game looms larger among the player-base, and the PC increasingly is seen not just as a playing piece whereby the player gets to insert him-/herself into the fiction, but an imagined person comparable to a fictional protagonist, those issues of verisimilitude etc loom larger.
    Here we agree, although issues of verismiwhatever are better solved by richer, deeper, and more detailed worldbuilding rather than less, or none.

    Yes, these are exactly the sorts of things I'm talking about - Although I'm not sure what you've got in mind for Against the Giants (I'm fairly familiar with it, and have just had a quick flick through, and couldn't find anything like what you describe - but I have seen it in other modules.)

    But Against the Giants does have a perfect example of your point about "sleeping quarters", though with a different fiction: Room 5 of the Fire Giant Hall is Queen Frupy's Chamber, and it has the following text:

    Any intruders entering the place will be commanded by Queen Frupy to kneel in her August Presence and state their business, so that she may fairly dispose of their humble requests. Any so foolish as to do so will be sorry, as Frupy will call forth her pets [a pair of giant weasels that are described as being out of sight when the PCs enter the room] and herself strike at the most powerful appearing of the intruders, She will strike at +4 due to her position, do +8 hp of damage . . . and a score of natural 20 on the die indicates she has decapitated the victim of her attack. She will then bellow for her serving maids [8 more giants] to come to her aid.

    From the point of view of a "living, breathing world" this makes absolutely no sense. Given the layout of the place, anyone who arrives in Room 5 has already fought their way through the Grand Hall and probably dispatched the serving maids too. It's only when we treat each room of the dungeon as its own little vignette, with its own internal logic, that Room 5 can be seen as a puzzle/challenge posed by the GM to the players.
    Canned modules - particularly some of the very early ones - had some rather consistent issues that a DM had to be on her toes to catch and fix. One was the sort of thing you mention above where monsters a) never move and b) are still assumed to be alive even though the PCs may have already killed them elsewhere (and c: never do anything in reaction to what the PCs have done). Another was the not-often-correct assumptions that the PCs would a) approach a given room from a particular direction where other options existed, and b) go through the adventure in a particular order.

    On your point about a "middle path", I think you're correct that that is what is intended by Gygax, but my own view is that that middle path is incredibly hard to tread - if all the defenders in a dungeon really act rationally, as (say) the inhabitants of a mediaeval castle might, then the PCs would have to be laying siege, not picking them off room-by-room - and I think the model of gameplay has largely collapsed under the weight of verisimilitude concerns.
    Not at all, mon ami. Instead, what's required sometimes is more patience on the part of the players - and sometimes the DM - to spend the time to pick the occupants off piecemeal* rather than wade in and take 'em all on at once.

    * - an example: information gathering and divination have told the PCs there's upwards of 100 Ogres in those caves. No way in hell the party can take on even 10 or 15 at a time, never mind 100, but they've for some reason committed to doing this and so they find a good vantage point and spend a week watching the entrance. They see that once or twice a day hunting parties of about 6 well-equipped Ogres come out, usually returning a couple of hours later...and so the PCs start picking off these hunting parties when each gets well clear of the caves, as they (correctly, as it turns out) think dealing with 6 Ogres is within their pay grade. After the first four or five hunting parties this will start getting tedious for players and DM alike - but from the PCs' perspective it's exactly what they'd most logically do; and this is where the patience comes in. They can't storm the caves until the number of Ogres inside has been reduced to a way more manageable level, so they act more like a cat in front of a mousehole.

    And there'd be developments, of course. The Ogres are going to notice their hunters aren't coming back (and nor is the food they bring in!) and will send out search parties. If a search party finds the corpses of a hunting group the alert will go up. And so on...

    Lanefan

  10. #180
    Member
    Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)



    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    2,872
    Quote Originally Posted by pemerton View Post
    I haven't been approaching this thread as a competition. I'm not avoiding admitting things. I have a conjecture - that there is a threshold of fictional scope/verisimilitude beyond which a "living, breathing world" is so much a product of GM judgement and presentation, and so cognitively inaccesible in its totality to the players, that it can no longer be the meaningful object of puzzle-solving.
    The problem here is, that you seem to have a very narrow definition of puzzle-solving. Columbo and Magnum PI did not puzzle-solve?


    What's the nature of the puzzle you see in T1? I've told you what I think the puzzle is in B2. What is the puzzle in T1?
    T1 may offer rumours about the Moathouse and its occupants, about the possible relationship of the 2 merchants in the village to the evil forces beyond, lore about the various ideologies and cults, possible rewards for various tasks/quests...etc


    Doesn't that tend to reinforce my point, though? That the content of the puzzle isn't leanrable by the players in the right way
    The right way?


    ...after all, we don't think that beating a dungeon depends upon the GM roleplaying the walls, pits or otyughs as 3-dimensional beings.
    Well the DM decides when the goblins will or will not attack, when they will flee, how they will react to torture, what plan the denizens of the dungeon will come up to defeat the ever pressing adventurers, how much information the evil bandit leader will impart....Surely?!!

    As written, it's mostly a puzzle (to beat the goblins and find the Hutakaans). I've not run it as such, but I suspect that if it is run as such it would fall over fairly easily, because some of the clues depend heavily on the PCs interacting in particular ways with particular people/places in ways that depend heavily upon sticking to a particular course of action.
    But that is all I'm saying, the classical dungeon and the later adventures specifically MiBG and LoftCS are puzzles and can be run as such. Certainly many Ravenloft adventures (specifically 2e) that I have seen are puzzles (definitely mysteries) and yes the range of possible actions in those is wider than your typical dungeon but how is worldbuilding less important in those?

    How can you create a mystery adventure without lore (worldbuilding)?

    It does try to confine the action in various ways - but what happens if the players decide to try and raid Kelven or Threshold instead of sticking to the intended plot line? Or even just decide to become mercenaries in those towns, leaving the Hutakaans for someone else to investiage?
    Okay, this might relate more to the other thread we are discussing (which I haven't yet got back to), but I have to ask. Given that the characters CAN attempt to deviate from the intended plot line, is the gaming style a railroad?
    Last edited by Sadras; Tuesday, 23rd January, 2018 at 11:56 AM.
    XP pemerton gave XP for this post

Similar Threads

  1. Why Worldbuilding is Bad
    By I'm A Banana in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 1901
    Last Post: Monday, 21st May, 2018, 06:14 PM
  2. need some help in worldbuilding
    By badgerfrank10 in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Thursday, 29th July, 2010, 05:03 PM
  3. Why Worldbuilding is Bad II
    By FireLance in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Friday, 18th May, 2007, 04:26 PM
  4. Blogging worldbuilding
    By GuardianLurker in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, 11th May, 2006, 04:29 PM
  5. Blogging worldbuilding
    By GuardianLurker in forum *Pathfinder & Starfinder
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, 11th May, 2006, 04:28 PM

Posting Permissions

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