log in or register to remove this ad

 

Beginning to Doubt That RPG Play Can Be Substantively "Character-Driven"

Sadras

Hero
So what was at stake then?
I'm not certain if the correct term should be "at stake" as this fallout was already pre-planned by the players upon character generation and although they had laid the bread crumbs for this story arc along the way (now evident), both myself and the other players had missed them. We had noticed the peculiarities but had not picked up that this was going to explode.

So in essence (and I'm not doing their story much justice with this one paragraph) both are followers of Bahamut, one a paladin and another a warlock. Incidents along the way began to create doubt until eventually the truth of their individual relationship to their deity and each other was revealed. The paladin had always thought of her brother as a cleric to Bahamut who shared her love and respect for the deity. Her brother so as not to upset his sister had kept up the charade. In reality he despised Bahamut for having to beg and suffer for his divine blessing which he only did to protect his younger sister who seemed to always and naively place herself in danger for her foolish ideals. With the revelation that her brother's devotion to her beloved god was not genuine and that her supposedly loving god had exercised such an ugly servitude upon her sibling - the paladin began suffering a crisis of faith as her most important bonds in her life were revealed (in her eyes) to be false. All this played out through unscripted dialogue.

Needless to say, the player of the paladin is retiring her character (for now) - while the warlock now free from the burden of the lie, looked to continue on a different path (new class). I run two groups (ToD and SKT) who are now converging due to the main storyline. The player of the paladin is to create a new character to join the others.

Might we revisit these characters down the line, realistically yes since they play an integral roll - but that will require some discussion with the players about their characters, so that we may find an agreeable way to re-introduce them to each other and the story.

If the characters being themselves isn't the main arc, then you're not describing character-driven play.What you're describing is players adding thespian touches to GM-driven play.
Ah, but that was not my initial contention though. Look again to what I responded to (cited below for ease)

pemerton said:
There can't be dramatic character arcs if "the story" is already written (by the GM or the module author or whomever) and the GM already knows what is to come.

Doubly so if the GM has already decided what that story will be independently of the development by the players of their characters.
I feel the above statement is clearly false, given my above example.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Sadras

Hero
But part of me is feeling unsure if this is EXACTLY what I'm looking for. As I analyzed this, several thoughts came to mind:
So just at the outset my above reply to @chaochou might answer some of these concerns but more importantly I reiterated where my disagreement lies. And apologies for breaking up your post, I just find sometimes I can arrange my thoughts better this way.

  • It's very cool that this was purely player-driven . . . but would it have been better if the players and GM had been collaborating to have this kind of experience all along? Would the rest of the players at the table been as equally invested and enjoyed such a thing had they known it was an available avenue of player agency?
  • Who is to say what is better. I found the experience rewarding, would I have enjoyed it more if I was in on it? I don't know. We (the players and I) will likely collaborate on their entrance back into the storyline at some point. I do not feel everyone needs to be involved in every character arc all the time.
Is it even possible for this type of thing to be GM-led, or GM-guided? Or is this something that the GM cannot and should not try to artificially build or constrain?
I do not believe I would have run things differently had I known about it. The players would find opportunities to creatively seed their story. They did so while I was following the Storm King's Thunder AP.

  • While this type of interaction could happen in any system, there are definite constraints in the core conceits of stereotypical fantasy roleplaying that would make sustaining this kind of activity difficult.
    • The idea that you have to have a "party", and that the "party" is supposed to stick together will quickly become a sticking point. In real life, when we as people begin to have divergent worldviews, or changing allegiances due to new life perspectives, we tend to change who we spend our time with. Truly character-driven play is going to be nigh impossible if the primary goal of the game is for "the party to stick together, because without you we can't defeat the big baddie, and no, I don't really care if your character would actually be involved or not. Figure out a viable reason for your character to do what the party is doing!" For character driven play, you have to accept the reality that the party is going to have to focus on character-driven needs. Otherwise, just like real life, the most "realistic" thing for a character to do might be to leave the party.
    • This goes back to @Celebrim's assertion that this kind of play is exceedingly difficult with a large cast of PCs. I'm guessing the most PCs you could have in a party to come even close to doing this kind of thing long term would be 3.
    • To really accomplish this kind of thing consistently, you have to be willing to accept as players that there's going to be a lot more "split screen" / non-focus time on your character. You have to be willing to let other people's characters "go where their desires take them," and sometimes you're going to just be the tag-along.
I do not disagree with any of this but this goes back to my point that the system although maybe helpful in for this style of roleplaying, does not matter overall. These kinds of players seeking dramatic character story-arcs can do so in any system, even D&D.

  • For this kind of interplay to be more than just an incidental, one-off experience, the GM must be willing to let go of any notion of "where the game is supposed to go." It would require extreme flexibility and willingness on the part of the GM to truly go along with the player/character choices to their endpoint.
100% agree. Despite me running APs and I'm certainly grateful for the player buy-in, I have repeatedly made exit points for the group because I try, as best I can, to have an open game.
 
Last edited:

pemerton

Legend
Given that the vast majority of people in the hobby are playing D&D (mostly 5e) and thus - if they're reading this - will be trying to fit what's said into that paradigm, then D&D is always relevant.
This board has a stand-alone and very active D&D forum. This, though, is the General forum. The OP is known to anyone who has read his previous posts as a fan of Savage Worlds. He didn't mention D&D in his OP except as a (late) example of a trend to have character-oriented bells & whistles as elements of PC build. He didn't ask for advice about how to play D&D.

And that's no real surprise. Discussing D&D is largely unhelpful to addressing the issues raised in the OP. It may be possible to use D&D as a vehicle for character-driven play - I did so in the second half of the 80s, non-coincidentally using Oriental Adventures (which has resolution mechanics that go beyond combat, traps and dungeon doors) and later a modified skill system for AD&D that I subsequently learned was modelled on Rolemaster. But if someone is having trouble getting character-driven play going, why would we want to talk about D&D except to the extent - fairly well-known - that it poses many obstacles to character-driven play. (In this thread I would say @Ovinomancer has given the best account of them. All I would add/stress is that 5e D&D has no finality of player-initiated action resolution outside of combat.)

In a thread about whether a certain sort of character-driven RPGing is possible, let's talk about systems and associated techniques that actually aim at that and reliably produce it.

pemerton said:
D&D - at least in its 5e variant - has many mechanical limitations that get in the way of mechanically-driven character arc play; namely, it has no mechanics for player-imposed finality of resolution outside of combat.
Doesn't make sense - you say it has mechanical limitations and then your example is a situation where is has no mechanics?

'No mechanics' is never a limitation;
If I want to run a game that will give me the feel of Ben Hur, it's probably a limitation if the system doesn't have any way to resolve chariot races, or interactions with prophets and holy men.

If the OP wants to run a character-driven game, it's a limitation if the system doesn't have the mechanics needed for the player to try (and perhaps fail) to put his/her PC's mark on the gameworld. If that domain of finality of resolution is confined to combat then that is going to be a pretty big bar to character-driven play.

in a character-based or social situation, unless a combat-worthy finality is somehow applied (e.g. one character charms or captures another) the situation is never truly finalized,
If it's always open to the GM to re-open the situation, re-enliven the stakes, treat nothing as resolved, then there can't be character-driven play of the sort referred to in the OP - ie the mechanical resolution of action declarations generating a dramatic arc. There can only be GM decision-making about what story to establish.
 


Imaculata

Adventurer
If I want to run a game that will give me the feel of Ben Hur, it's probably a limitation if the system doesn't have any way to resolve chariot races, or interactions with prophets and holy men.

If the OP wants to run a character-driven game, it's a limitation if the system doesn't have the mechanics needed for the player to try (and perhaps fail) to put his/her PC's mark on the gameworld. If that domain of finality of resolution is confined to combat then that is going to be a pretty big bar to character-driven play.
Do you really need game mechanics for that though?
 


Lanefan

Victoria Rules
This board has a stand-alone and very active D&D forum. This, though, is the General forum. The OP is known to anyone who has read his previous posts as a fan of Savage Worlds. He didn't mention D&D in his OP except as a (late) example of a trend to have character-oriented bells & whistles as elements of PC build. He didn't ask for advice about how to play D&D.

And that's no real surprise. Discussing D&D is largely unhelpful to addressing the issues raised in the OP.
And ignoring D&D while addressing those issues is largely unhelpful to the vast majority of readers.

If I want to run a game that will give me the feel of Ben Hur, it's probably a limitation if the system doesn't have any way to resolve chariot races, or interactions with prophets and holy men.
Resolving chariot races need only draw on whatever that system might use for movement rules or chase/pursuit rules, modified by the GM to suit the situation.

"Resolving" interactions with prophets or holy types rolls right into the point I'm trying to make: those interactions can occur and be roleplayed through but IMO without external pressure (which would almost invariably drift quickly into combat rules and-or GM fiat) they cannot ever be resolved in finality.

You meet the prophet, you hear what the prophet has to say, and the meeting for whatever reason ends. Even if that meeting can never be repeated (the prophet dies, or is no longer accessible, or whatever) it's still entirely up to each individual character* what to make of that meeting, and whether or not to act on anything the prophet said (or didn't say).

* - perhaps in discussion with others in the party, but this isn't mandatory.

If the OP wants to run a character-driven game, it's a limitation if the system doesn't have the mechanics needed for the player to try (and perhaps fail) to put his/her PC's mark on the gameworld. If that domain of finality of resolution is confined to combat then that is going to be a pretty big bar to character-driven play.
Here I suppose it hinges on what you mean by "mark on the gameworld". If you mean something like a PC trying to rise to become Empress of the realm or a party trying to overthrow a barony* then I think we're talking about similar sorts of things.

* - by the party's own choice; though this could just as easily be a GM-guided plot.

If it's always open to the GM to re-open the situation, re-enliven the stakes, treat nothing as resolved, then there can't be character-driven play of the sort referred to in the OP - ie the mechanical resolution of action declarations generating a dramatic arc. There can only be GM decision-making about what story to establish.
This is just it, though: in any roleplay situation that doesn't have an artificially-forced closure it's also always open to me-as-PC/player to re-open the situation, re-enliven the stakes, and-or treat nothing as resolved as long as a) those involved the first time are still around i.e. not dead or far away, and b) those involved are still in control of their own thoughts and-or opinions i.e. not charmed or otherwise mechanically restricted. If I don't agree with what the Duke had to say the first time before he shut me down, I can always try to talk to him again - maybe he's changed his mind or had second thoughts. By the same token, if the Duke doesn't like the answer we-as-party give him when he tries to send us on a mission, he can always try to ask again. There's no hard closure on these sorts of things, and yes, sometimes it can result in things going in circles - just like real life. :)

This no-forced-closure idea holds even more water if the situation mostly involves one or more other PCs rather than any particular elements of the setting and-or its NPCs.

Example: I-as-PC might be trying to talk the party into chipping in funds toward a castle for use as a home base. Should a game mechanic be allowed to determine whether I succeed or fail? Of course not! It's up to me to roleplay the request in character in such a way as to get the response I want, and up to the other players to respond as they would in character to the request. And if they say 'no', a game mechanic should never prevent me from trying again later or - if I'm less wise - from continuing to badger them about it till hell's half frozen over. Again, though, I stress that the GM has to allow however much time it takes for this discussion to play out; and not get impatient.

Or, in a different vein take two PCs (or groups of) who have for whatever reason established a non-deadly rivalry of one-upsmanship within the party that drives most of their in-character decision-making. Regardless what the GM might put in front of them, any decision those characters make is likely to be filtered through how it might affect that rivalry; perhaps even getting to the point where the GM's hooks and stories are ignored in favour of acting in furtherment of one side of the rivalry: "You met the Duke, did ya? Gave us a mission [GM hook]? Well it's just going to have to wait, because I've got a date with Prince Vonwe next week and anything he wants us to do will of course take priority." (I saunter off, and then frantically start pulling every string I can to get this date 'cause I was making that crap up and if I don't deliver I'm screwed! And even if I get the date, if Vonwe doesn't have a mission for us I'll have to dream one up because there's no way in hell that popinjay Fighter's setting our agenda if I can help it!)

There's no way in the world a social game mechanic should ever be able to step in and say "Sorry, rivalry's over in finality, here's who won".
 
Last edited:


Lanefan

Victoria Rules
1. A attacks B. Resolved through game mechanic?

2. Kingdom A attacks Kingdom B. Resolved through game mechanic?

3. A intimidates B to get through the gate. Resolved through game mechanic?

4. The House of A intimidates the House of B to stand down in the war. Resolved through game mechanic?

5. A tries to life the sword of excalibur. Resolved through game mechanic?

6. A becomes the King of the Realms. Resolved through game mechanic?

The scope (social, combat) and level of granularity (micro, macro) can vary and be a matter of preference; there are many people that feel that if the game mechanics get too macro, or too outside of certain areas, it's not quite right, whereas other prefer game mechanics (even abstract ones) for macro and social areas as an aid to gameplay. There isn't really a wrong, so much as preferences. IMO.
In order:

1. Yes (combat)
2. Maybe (if the game has suitable mechanics then Yes, otherwise probably comes down to GM fiat)
3. No (roleplay)
4. No if PCs are involved in the negotiations (roleplay); if PCs are not involved then see 2. above.
5. No (resolution determined by setting fiat - if you ain't Arthur, that sword's not going anywhere)
6. Yes and No - see below.

Regarding 6, if A is a PC and is trying to become King there's going to be a gajillion sub-steps along the way, some of which will take mechanics to resolve (e.g. anything involving combat, stealth, etc.) and some of which will - or should! - be roleplayed (e.g. any political discussions, negotiations, deal-bartering, etc.).
 


pemerton

Legend
pemerton said:
If I want to run a game that will give me the feel of Ben Hur, it's probably a limitation if the system doesn't have any way to resolve chariot races, or interactions with prophets and holy men.

If the OP wants to run a character-driven game, it's a limitation if the system doesn't have the mechanics needed for the player to try (and perhaps fail) to put his/her PC's mark on the gameworld. If that domain of finality of resolution is confined to combat then that is going to be a pretty big bar to character-driven play.
Do you really need game mechanics for that though?
For what? Chariot races? Meetings with prophets and holy men? Domains of activity beyond combat?

@Ovinomancer and @hawkeyefan have both posted upthread about the centrality, to character-driven play, of risk to the character.

In the absence of mechanics whereby the player, in attempting to have his/her PC put his/her mark on the gameworld, can fail, then we don't have character-driven play of the sort @innerdude referred to in the OP. There is no chance (to borrow hawkeyefan's language) of the player discovering that his/her PC is actually not A at all, but rather is B. All there is is GM fiat combined (perhaps) with table consensus.

And ignoring D&D while addressing those issues is largely unhelpful to the vast majority of readers.
I'm posting in response to the OP. There are plenty of participants in this thread who are doing likewise, and who do not use D&D as the principal or even secondary frame of reference for talking about these things.

Won't someone think of the D&D players?! There's a lot of them around. I'm sure that as a group they don't need me, or even this thread, to help them out!
 

pemerton

Legend
Resolving chariot races need only draw on whatever that system might use for movement rules or chase/pursuit rules, modified by the GM to suit the situation.
Here are some prominent RPG systems I know of that have no rules for resolving chases/pursuits in a way that would make for a satisfying chariot race:

* AD&D (the dungeon pursuit rules just compare movement rates,; the outdoor evasion rules are not relevant to chariot races);

* B/X D&D (ditto);

* Classic Traveller (the referee would have to make up some rules based around the vehicle skill);

* Rolemaster (there are rules for resolving vehicular manoeuvres, but not in the context of a race - the GM would have to make up a system for opposed checks);

* I think RQ also has the RM problem, but I'm a bit less confident about that as it's been a while.

"Resolving" interactions with prophets or holy types rolls right into the point I'm trying to make: those interactions can occur and be roleplayed through but IMO without external pressure (which would almost invariably drift quickly into combat rules and-or GM fiat) they cannot ever be resolved in finality.
I have no idea what you mean by "resolved in finality". I mean something fairly concrete - an outcome to the present fictional situation is established, by application of the resolution mechanics, and is binding on all participants, most saliently in this context the GM.

Gygax's morale rules in his DMG assume this sort of finality, inherited from wargaming: if a unit breaks than the player controlling it can't just arbitrarily (eg in the absence of some sort of "rally" mechanic) decide that it returns to the fight.

Classic Traveller in its rules for NPC reaction rolls expressly provides for finality. From p 23 of the 1977 version:

Reactions are used by the referee and by players as a guide to the probable actions of individuals. . . . Reactions govern the reliability and quality of hirelings and employees. Generally, they would re-roll reactions in the fact of extremely bad treatment or unusually dangerous tasks​

The GM can't just decide that a NPC changes his/her mind after the reaction is rolled for. Something significant in the fiction, initiated by the players (eg bad treatment, dangerous task) is required.

If nothing is binding on the GM, then nothing is character driven via the actual mechanical processes of play as described in the OP. There is only the GM deciding what happens.

I suppose it hinges on what you mean by "mark on the gameworld".
It could be anything. In a Rolemaster campaign a PC wanted to end slavery in the Great Kingdom. Another PC in that campaign wanted to ally with Vecna to take over the government of the Great Kingdom, but also helped his sometime companion (the first-mentioned PC) at a key point in his anti-slavery and anti-chauvinist aspirations.

In a different RM campaign a PC met a sorcerer on another plane and helped rescue her. He then set out to woo and marry her. In the end he succeeded in this endeavour, the player having built up the PC's social skills sufficiently to make it possible.

In our Prince Valiant game one of the PCs started play as a squire - the son of a moderately prosperous bourgeois family - and wanted to be knighted. He achieved this by challenging a knight to a joust who was blocking the path and would relent only if defeated in a joust by a fellow knight:


The PC asked for a joust, but the proud Sir Lionheart declined to joust with a mere squire. To which the PC responded, "Fine, I'll just continue on my way then!" and tried to pass Sir Lionheart and continue along the road. This called for a Presence vs Presence check, which the PC won - and so Sir Lionheart knighted him so that he could joust and perhaps succeed where the others had failed.

That's a mark made on the gameworld, in virtue of finality of resolution.

I-as-PC might be trying to talk the party into chipping in funds toward a castle for use as a home base. Should a game mechanic be allowed to determine whether I succeed or fail?
Different systems approach this in different ways:

* In Burning Wheel, this can and normally should be resolved via a Duel of Wits;

* In MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic it can be resolved via the use of the standard resolution mechanics (this happened in our game on Sunday when the dwarf tried to dress down Gandalf but failed, and Gandalf instead mad him feel ashamed of questioning a wizard's judgement);

* In 4e D&D there is no system for player vs player social conflict, which takes this mostly out of the ambit of character-driven arcs;

* In Apocalypse World a player can't force another player to have his/her PC do something, but can make doing something difficult and/or create mechanical incentives (ie XP awards) to do something else.​

In those last two games, the rules are different vs NPCs: 4e D&D has pretty robust mechanics for the players to have their PCs force their will upon NPCs; and Apocalypse World does also. Here's the AW move:

Seduce or Manipulate
When you try to seduce or manipulate someone, tell them what you want and roll+hot. For NPCs: on a hit, they ask you to promise something first, and do it if you promise. On a 10+, whether you keep your promise is up to you, later. On a 7–9, they need some concrete assurance right now. For PCs: on a 10+, both. On a 7–9, choose 1:
• if they do it, they mark experience​
• if they refuse, it’s acting under fire​
What they do then is up to them.​

All these differences affect the play experience.

if they say 'no', a game mechanic should never prevent me from trying again later
Once (and as best I recall only once) in our 4e game, when debate about what to do next had dragged on to a point beyond decency, I called for opposed d20 checks, I think with adds on each side reflecting CHA bonuses.

Twice in our Classic Traveller game I've called for opposed checks to settle a debate between the PCs (being played out at the table) with modifiers reflecting noble status (ie Social Standing B+) and Leadership skill.

I've got no particular aversion to applying finality of resolution in these contexts, though as I've posted above not every system provides for it. (For what it's worth, I think what I did was a much bigger hack of 4e than Traveller, which is probably why it happened once in 100-ish sessions of D&D whereas has happened twice in a dozen-ish sessions of Traveller.)
 



Do you really need game mechanics for that though?
This is pretty much what it boils down to. Need is a strong word, and implies that you can't do without. And I don't think that's the case.

Do you need combat mechanics for D&D? Not really. The GM can just decide, given the comparative strength of each side in a conflict, who wins.

That seems to be how many are advocating for social interaction with D&D. Relying solely on role play. So why not do the same for combat?

The answer is that D&D places more focus on combat. Which is not a bad thing. Sometimes pointing this out seems to rub people the wrong way....as if what's being said is that D&D is somehow "lesser". But that's not the case. It's simply about different things.

So all value judgement aside, D&D has a lot of combat based rules because it focuses on combat, it's about combat.

If you wanted to play a RPG that was more about the characters than about where they go and who they fight, then it would probably make sense to play a game that has rules and mechanics that promote that the same way that D&D promotes combat, doesn't it?

Having such rules may not be necessary, but don't you think it would help?

A game's mechanics tell us what the game is meant to be about.
 


Do you really need game mechanics for that though?
Here is a quick case study.

Torchbearer is a brutal, dungeon crawl game where the guttering light of a torch/candle/lantern and the PCs' individual and collective "coming-unglued" state are the epicenter of all 3 of (a) the suffocating, unnerving feel of play, (b) the status/change/failure of Player Characters, and (c) the mechanics and GMing ethos that perpetuates the whole.

There are basically multiple, player-facing, ticking clocks that are constantly counting down...constantly counting down...like the dying, flickering flame.

Players have to manage their resources (time, equipment, effort in terms of load-out and PC staying power) amidst the multiple, player-facing feedback loops that is stressing their wits and their will to continue. Characters are routinely changed forevermore (mechanically and those attendant effects on subsequent fiction...and this isn't something a player can opt-out from...the game's machinery makes it so...but they have a huge say in its manifestation), and rarely for the better.

If you're familiar with the video game "Darkest Dungeon", it was inspired by and cribbed most of its tech from Crane's Torchbearer.




Now take Dungeon World. It isn't built for this style of play (its built for something else). However, you can hack it to make it something like "Darkest Dungeon World." You can put in moves that emulate the guttering light, have resources that work similarly (timescale and effectiveness), deploy a pair of Apocalypse World's (and Blade's) Clocks to give shape to the player-facing turn structure + countdown of light failing and conditions being accrued, you can use Harm/Trauma instead of DW's Hit Points.

You can make a very good hack that hews to Torchbearer's oppressive feel and stressful (but wonderful) experience and the inevitable weight that imposes brutally difficult decision-points upon the characters and ultimately changes them.

But its just not going to be perfect in its approximation. While awesome, it will feel subtly different. And that is before you even deal with trying to hack the other phases (Journey, Town, Winter) of the game which are absolutely central to the holistic play experience!

You're going to get some of this stuff wrong...its going to feel wobbly and askew both during play and upon reflection...regardless how many times you iterate.




Now sub out all of that game machinery that has been carefully and beautifully rendered to create (i) feel, (ii) the ever-escalating situation and all its attendant decision-points, (iii) the GM guidance and constraint such that everything is dynamic, coherent, reproducible, (iv) the finality of each conflict and then adventure such that there is no opting-out...no softening the blow...no GM Force/Illusionism to artificially make things better or worse...you get what you deserve and the Sword of Damocles is ever-looming . Get rid of the player-facing, transparent aspects of play that inform the decision-tree and emotional quality of each moment.

Now sub in "GM decides", overwhelmingly GM-facing machinery that isn't tightly rendered and quality controlled to create an exact play experience (that is left to the GM), and the means for players to just opt-out of both conflicts and their fallout if both of the GM allows for it.




These three things are not the same thing. They aren't the same in feel or weight from moment-to-moment, they aren't the same in terms of the experience of navigating individual decision-points, they aren't the same in terms of stress/anxiety/crestfallenness/exaltation both during and upon reflection of what transpired.

This is saying nothing about what is better.

Its simply saying "the experience is just fundamentally not the same...and in big, meaningful ways."
 



@lowkey13

Thanks!

As to your post, it really depends on the participants.

If you put me at that GM's game, I 100 % guarantee I would know what has happening under the hood...and I would not be pleased. Neither that GM, nor myself (and I know the source material through and through and would put my hard-earned GMing skill-set up against anyone who has ever run a game) can remotely recreate something approximating the Torchbearer experience (neither the lovely agony of the hostile decision-trees that must constantly be navigated nor the overall emotional quality of play) via "GM Decides."

If he thinks he can, two things are happening; (1) he either hasn't wrangled his hubris or had it beaten out of him by exposure/experience and (2) his players' expectations are somewhat muted.

And neither of (1) nor (2) are objectively bad things (certainly not when it comes to market share). GMs with ample hubris and players with somewhat muted expectations (just looking to be entertained and/or be run through a compelling story and/or have a Power Fantasy fulfilled) are likely what makes up the overwhelming bulk of the tables in our hobby. And people are still playing and we're experiencing renewed vigor within the hobby.
 

Most Liked Threads

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top