OSR Is there room in modern gaming for the OSR to bring in new gamers?

Retreater

Legend
This isn't true either. Those older books are full of passages about rulings over rules, not letting a rule hinder fun, etc. Are you arguing that the only PC who could be stealthy is a thief because they are the only ones with a Move Silently/hide in shadows skill? Nonsense. Every PC can attempt to hide. I don't have the 1e DMG in front of me, but I do the 2e one, and it repeats much of what was in the 1e DMG as well
Now you can't be quoting old, out-of-print books. We're talking about the OSR here, not the 1e DMG. (Which players wouldn't have had access to in any case.)
So try finding that in OSE or S&W. Called out in a chart. Listed under what a character can do. Or in the examples of play. There's not even a suggestion of how to handle it other than the thief ability, which is like a 10% chance. And if a trained thief has a 10%, what can we infer a non-trained magic-user would be able to do?
Again, I'm not saying you can't do it. It's the book that's saying you can't do it. Or it just has a half-assed disclaimer to "make it up."
How to play the game isn't in the books. How to be a good GM isn't in the books. The optional rules that allowed our characters to carve out nations and reach 10th level back in the 1970s and 80s aren't there.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Who says it sells poorly? It’s never going to compare to 5e, nothing will. The current edition of d&d is (usually ) always going to absolutely dominate the market. Thus, if something is dominant enough to essentially be the lingua franca, it makes sense to compare to that to highlight what is different and interesting no?
I don't mean selling OSR books.

I mean selling the idea to play OSR.

Not for nothing, most D&D fans can't market their way out of a paper bag. I think most attract of new folk to the hobby comes from raw curiosity and official marketing than fans bringing other sin with their words.
 

Fanaelialae

Legend
And that's my whole point of selling OSR poorly.

The main things said in OSR introductions is comparisons. And some of the most said comparisons are that PCs have few or no abilities, PCs can die if they make mistakes, and there is a deemphasis of roleplaying as another character.

Not "the game is so easy to hack that a DM can quickly make up new surprising challenges and monsters". One of the biggest and repeated strength of 4e by the way.
Here's an excerpt from the intro to Worlds Without Number (you can download the free version from DriveThruRPG).

"...The players take up the role of adventurers in this fading age, raising sword and sorcery against the foes of humanity and the obstacles that hinder their own ambitious aims. Many will perish on the spears of bitter rivals, be rent by the talons of monstrous beasts, or fall prey to their own reckless daring. Others, however, may yet live to obtain a name more glorious than kings.

The characters in Worlds Without Number are assumed to be budding adventurers, men and women who have particular talents suitable to a life of dating exploration, bloody battles, or ruthless intrigue. They are skilled and capable practitioners of their particular specialties, but all of them are acutely mortal, and a too-ready recourse to their blades is likely to get them killed early in their career.

More experienced and skilled heroes have less to fear from an unlucky spear-thrust, but even the most hardened hero must be wary of a quick death when facing numerous foes. A gritty life of swords and sorcery awaits them..."

What it describes sounds fairly exciting, but warns that you're no superhero. All in all, I think it's a pretty great OSR game intro.
 

Now you can't be quoting old, out-of-print books. We're talking about the OSR here, not the 1e DMG. (Which players wouldn't have had access to in any case.)
So try finding that in OSE or S&W. Called out in a chart. Listed under what a character can do. Or in the examples of play. There's not even a suggestion of how to handle it other than the thief ability, which is like a 10% chance. And if a trained thief has a 10%, what can we infer a non-trained magic-user would be able to do?
Again, I'm not saying you can't do it. It's the book that's saying you can't do it. Or it just has a half-assed disclaimer to "make it up."
How to play the game isn't in the books. How to be a good GM isn't in the books. The optional rules that allowed our characters to carve out nations and reach 10th level back in the 1970s and 80s aren't there.
Being stealthy certainly is in the books. It’s called the surprise check. You are always assumed to be moving cautiously and quietly in a dungeon as a competent adventurer would be. Its an inverse of later editions active stealth roll. The NPC rolls surprise to be surprised by your presence... because you got the drop on them. Of course, certain actions may hinder or remove the surprise check.

Edit: but indeed, that is another roll procedure. But, I think what you’re missing with the complaints about the just rolls is what it gives you. The emergent narrative. By following the roll procedure, the GM is just as excited by what’s going to happen as the players. its not supposed to be a staid, prescriptive roll, go. It’s what do the dice tell you happens? Build off that.

Id say you are right about the lack of, explititness around that? Id agree that is a weak point around OSR, there seems to be an assumption that you’ve played d&d before in any of its forms in order to access much of the material.
 
Last edited:

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Here's an excerpt from the intro to Worlds Without Number (you can download the free version from DriveThruRPG).

"...The players take up the role of adventurers in this fading age, raising sword and sorcery against the foes of humanity and the obstacles that hinder their own ambitious aims. Many will perish on the spears of bitter rivals, be rent by the talons of monstrous beasts, or fall prey to their own reckless daring. Others, however, may yet live to obtain a name more glorious than kings.

The characters in Worlds Without Number are assumed to be budding adventurers, men and women who have particular talents suitable to a life of dating exploration, bloody battles, or ruthless intrigue. They are skilled and capable practitioners of their particular specialties, but all of them are acutely mortal, and a too-ready recourse to their blades is likely to get them killed early in their career.

More experienced and skilled heroes have less to fear from an unlucky spear-thrust, but even the most hardened hero must be wary of a quick death when facing numerous foes. A gritty life of swords and sorcery awaits them..."

What it describes sounds fairly exciting, but warns that you're no superhero. All in all, I think it's a pretty great OSR game intro.

I agree. Worlds Without Number is one of the few OSR titles I think that sells itself well to newcomers.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Now you can't be quoting old, out-of-print books. We're talking about the OSR here, not the 1e DMG. (Which players wouldn't have had access to in any case.)
So try finding that in OSE or S&W. Called out in a chart. Listed under what a character can do. Or in the examples of play. There's not even a suggestion of how to handle it other than the thief ability, which is like a 10% chance. And if a trained thief has a 10%, what can we infer a non-trained magic-user would be able to do?
Again, I'm not saying you can't do it. It's the book that's saying you can't do it. Or it just has a half-assed disclaimer to "make it up."
How to play the game isn't in the books. How to be a good GM isn't in the books. The optional rules that allowed our characters to carve out nations and reach 10th level back in the 1970s and 80s aren't there.
I think we're shifting goalposts. We weren't just talking about OSR books, we were talking about OSR books and the the books they are all drawn from (TSR era) because the claim was that back then, you didn't have those options when in fact, you did. Also, those books aren't out of print. You can very much get a brand new copy of the 1e DMG.

Secondly some screen shots of an OSR rulebook:

1621462577362.png


From OSRIC, the one that started all of the OSR (note the lack of ability rolls):
1621462861731.png


Page 138 and 139 also describe how PCs narrate what they are doing outside of a die roll to accomplish certain tasks (like finding secret doors or disarming traps or opening locks)

What you're saying isn't in the books absolutely is there.
 

First I will state that I do not accept being grouped in the OSR mindset. I will clarify this statement below. I have stated this as far back to its foundation when vociferous voices within the community were attempting to lump designers and adherents of certain historical RPG lineages (thus on the OSR side or NOT on OSR side) into an undefined and, IMO, undefinable and disjointed group (sussed mostly by historical publications bearing their names, etc. or by merely raising one's hand and assenting).

Now for my clarifications. I am a game designer. Period. Full stop. Designers design games. They adhere to philosophies in order to do so and they often challenge said philosophies, amend them and sometimes throw them out. If they do not, they are not true designers.

Thus, the philosophy that the OSR espouses is very narrow and self-limiting for one paramount reason alone: That there is no one single pin-pointed or lasting game philosophy other than as noted in OD&D as making the game your own, change the rules, throw them out, invent new ones, etc. etc. This philosophy has been perverted from its original expression by Gygax, Arneson and myself, into a concrete SCHOOL which is of itself a contradiction to the game's original elasticity in design and that was handed over to each individual DM for them to do as they wished with it. Like many other human "movements" of this type it finally devolved from individual desires and unique expressions thereof to a collective calcification based upon statistical returns and tacit agreement of what it was as a singular group ideal (quite the opposite, by 180 degrees, of what it had born as).

As there is no one true way to engage the original philosophy there can be no codification of what it is as a politicized movement, which I am afraid is what the current OSR suffers under.

Note that this same philosophy is paramount and is reflected in every RPG to this very moment as a route from its past to present. If it had not existed in the form as I claim it to be, as Gygax and Arneson claimed that it was, there would have been no further editions of D&D to present. The crux is: Fantasy is unlimited and so should be the systems that are created to express its infinite access points and scope.

D&D has continued to evolve, but in the vast majority of cases I do not feel that the OSR has evolved. There are vast panoramas of fantasy to be discovered but yet the object apparently remains to repeat what is known rather than evolving the system to continue to pull back the curtain to reveal the unknown. This should be a cautionary tale for all designers and for all companies, small or large, pushing calcified positions as schools of thought normally do.

This is not heresy, by the way. It is a designer's view upon what he's been tasked with designing: engaging the design for the resulting expression of Fantasy.
 

Yes, any edition of D&D can bring players to the game. It's not the game "rules" so much, as it is the whole role playing experience. The D&D game rules are just like any other game, like MONOPOLY. No one really cares, talks about or remembers how their character "moved forward" per the movement rules on page 22.

It's the role playing. When a non-gamer gets that first thrill of role playing.....it can hook them forever.
 

Retreater

Legend
Id say you are right about the lack of, explititness around that? Id agree that is a weak point around OSR, there seems to be an assumption that you’ve played d&d before in any of its forms in order to access much of the material.
Except, I don't think it's just "in any of its forms." I think that experience has to be specifically in OSR/TSR based D&D. Otherwise, you're going to come in with the sensibilities that a roll is a pass/fail, that stats and abilities matter, etc. It's a completely different experience that isn't adequately expressed for groups that don't have that knowledge (or in the case of my group, have been removed from it for 20+ years.
What you're saying isn't in the books absolutely is there.
So are we disagreeing that if you run the game RAW that it's an unmitigated blood-bath? Because that's a hill I'm willing to die on. Or actually run away from, because like all old school characters I can only survive because I'm a "scaredy-cat chicken."
 

kenada

Legend
Supporter
Except, I don't think it's just "in any of its forms." I think that experience has to be specifically in OSR/TSR based D&D. Otherwise, you're going to come in with the sensibilities that a roll is a pass/fail, that stats and abilities matter, etc. It's a completely different experience that isn't adequately expressed for groups that don't have that knowledge (or in the case of my group, have been removed from it for 20+ years.
Couldn’t that be said of any game that’s different from the dominant form? For example, trying to play Dungeon World like D&D will go badly. I can’t speak to other retroclones, but OSE at least points you to the Principia Apocrypha if you’re new to old-school games.

So are we disagreeing that if you run the game RAW that it's an unmitigated blood-bath? Because that's a hill I'm willing to die on. Or actually run away from, because like all old school characters I can only survive because I'm a "scaredy-cat chicken."
Shouldn’t you push as far as you can, and then engage the retreat procedure should things go badly? To help ensure your escape, you can even create a distraction such as by asking people what’s in their notes, questioning whether chess is an RPG, positing that everyone’s favorite system has too much or not enough crunch, or asking if non-TSR games can be OSR. 🙃
 

Let me drop you OSR people a questline.

Polygon, a gaming website, is now accepting pitches for articles relating to Tabletop gaming. To those who wish to promote OSR gaming, this is perfect opportunity to pitch the OSR way to hundreds, even thousands, of impressionable gamers. Are there any writers among you who will heed this call?

 

First I will state that I do not accept being grouped in the OSR mindset. I will clarify this statement below. I have stated this as far back to its foundation when vociferous voices within the community were attempting to lump designers and adherents of certain historical RPG lineages (thus on the OSR side or NOT on OSR side) into an undefined and, IMO, undefinable and disjointed group (sussed mostly by historical publications bearing their names, etc. or by merely raising one's hand and assenting).

Now for my clarifications. I am a game designer. Period. Full stop. Designers design games. They adhere to philosophies in order to do so and they often challenge said philosophies, amend them and sometimes throw them out. If they do not, they are not true designers.

Thus, the philosophy that the OSR espouses is very narrow and self-limiting for one paramount reason alone: That there is no one single pin-pointed or lasting game philosophy other than as noted in OD&D as making the game your own, change the rules, throw them out, invent new ones, etc. etc. This philosophy has been perverted from its original expression by Gygax, Arneson and myself, into a concrete SCHOOL which is of itself a contradiction to the game's original elasticity in design and that was handed over to each individual DM for them to do as they wished with it. Like many other human "movements" of this type it finally devolved from individual desires and unique expressions thereof to a collective calcification based upon statistical returns and tacit agreement of what it was as a singular group ideal (quite the opposite, by 180 degrees, of what it had born as).

As there is no one true way to engage the original philosophy there can be no codification of what it is as a politicized movement, which I am afraid is what the current OSR suffers under.

Note that this same philosophy is paramount and is reflected in every RPG to this very moment as a route from its past to present. If it had not existed in the form as I claim it to be, as Gygax and Arneson claimed that it was, there would have been no further editions of D&D to present. The crux is: Fantasy is unlimited and so should be the systems that are created to express its infinite access points and scope.

D&D has continued to evolve, but in the vast majority of cases I do not feel that the OSR has evolved. There are vast panoramas of fantasy to be discovered but yet the object apparently remains to repeat what is known rather than evolving the system to continue to pull back the curtain to reveal the unknown. This should be a cautionary tale for all designers and for all companies, small or large, pushing calcified positions as schools of thought normally do.

This is not heresy, by the way. It is a designer's view upon what he's been tasked with designing: engaging the design for the resulting expression of Fantasy.

Rob, a really interesting post with some great points. This is not to argue against your post (for that would be a foolish endeavour) but I guess some thoughts on what you’ve stated?

I think when MOST people (for their will always be puritans of all factions thst refuse to accept a broader view) talk of schools, it’s not so much hard categorisation, merely an expression of the human tendency to try and categorise things. These things are alike. These espouse similar philosophies in their design and approaches, thus these can be grouped one way. Something I don’t think is unique to OSR as it can also apply to vastly different new wave story games and the like.

Does the OSR have to evolve as a constant design goal? The intention of some games is supposed to be a recreation of then out of print rules sets to preserve them because some players enjoyed and still enjoy those rulesets. For example, does Monopoly or cluedo need to evolve in order to stay relevant (I mean yeah, they come out with special editions and twists but the core game pretty much stays the same). Does that make those games any less legitimate in the eyes of gamers?

I feel this politicisation and codification is the reactionary side that I was alluding to in a prior post. For some, that can be enough (try these games as they were and enjoy them as they were). But I think this initial regression can actually benefit all. There are plenty in the OSR movement that do want to experiment and explore and created systems to do that. The reactionary systems can provide a common starting point to explore new avenues not taken to explore new frontiers of fantasy.

For example, in Dungeon Crawl Classics, Goodman calls out this tendency to revert back to TSR mechanics and encourages others to move beyond. DCC being created as a new rule set to explore and engage with the appendix N literature (which, whilst old, has lain fallow in recent years and so a new experience for some). Others are using this baseline to twist the mechanics and presentation around what can be done with these rules paradigms. So I don’t feel it’s entirely static or fossilised either?

But yeah, a great post, got me really thinking :)
 

Jack Daniel

dice-universe.blogspot.com
So I just finished running a session this evening. Fourth session of the campaign, fourth delve into the dungeon. All of the PCs are still 1st level. Red box Basic. All veteran players who have played with me for years and know the game and know my DMing style.

The party went into the dungeon ten strong on this occasion: three PCs (Iowynn the dwarf, Ragnyr the dwarf, Leonard the mage), one NPC (Clara the cleric), and six men-at-arms (Jek, Wäld, Lily, Kurtz, Renée, and Tibbit). Having previously discovered three different entrances to the dungeon, they opted for the south entrance (a secret door behind four towering statues of elvish warriors) because it puts them nearest to kobold territory; on previous delves, they had befriended the kobolds and now counted them as trusted allies. That gave them safe passage through a good number of rooms before they struck out into unexplored territory. They passed through a room occupied by some confused orcs who didn't speak Common (a bit of gesturing allowed the two parties to cautiously avoid each other without a fight breaking out); poked around in some empty halls with broken furniture and statuary; made a second failed foray into a large chamber choked thick with rubble and glistening clear slime, with blind cave-locusts jumping around; but decided on caution and retreated from the big bugs rather than engage them.

Going another way, they bypassed several side-passages and doors, came to a room covered with matted webs, and fought four giant spiders—Wäld was a casualty, but only one dead soldier wasn't going to get the PCs turning around. And they found a cache of 480 electrum coins in a coffer among the webs, just a small treasure but not a terrible take considering the monsters guarding it. In the next chamber, a big grand hall (deserted, with lots of worn statues of armed elves and some furniture crowded around a big stone hearth), the party found some side-passages, but also a secret shaft down to the next level inside the hearth.

And Ragnyr the dwarf (run by my group's consistently most reckless player—he's already lost a character this campaign, press F for Jakob the thief) decides to head down alone. He starts poking around at the bottom, finds a secret door that opens onto a creepy chamber occupied by some mutant sahuagin. And does he close the door? Run? Try to climb back up the rope? Nope. He calls for help from the party and charges, one 1st level dwarf vs. four 2-HD monsters with multiple attacks. So, yeah, in the ensuing mêlée, with the party climbing down the rope one at a freaking time, we have the PCs literally marching into a meat-grinding bottle-neck of their own making, never even considering retreat. Because Ragnyr, the first to fall, was also carrying the bloody treasure.

During the fight, the party lost Ragnyr, Clara, Jek, Kurtz, and Tibbit. Two of the sahuagin were slain, while the other two fled with 1 and 2 hp remaining. Only Iowynn, Renée, Lily, and Leonard made it out of the dungeon—and Leonard never even climbed down the shaft or tried to use his one spell (charm person). Freaking disaster, and it's all because the players made one tactical blunder after another. They could've made out much better if they'd proceeded with due caution and common sense, or used better tactics, or simply retreated early on. But they didn't, and they paid for it in blood.

And at the end of the evening? Laughter and smiles all around. Some weary and accepting smiles, some appropriate pathos for the loss of the NPC soldiers and cleric and the dwarf PC with a coveted Str 18. But the player who lost that dwarf? He just rolled up a new thief with a natural 17 in Dex on 3d6 in order (sacked his Int two points to bump that up to an 18, natch). And maybe he'll play that thief next time, or maybe he'll use one of his other characters (he's already got an elf that survived the third delve into the dungeon and earned a bit of XP for it, as well as a cleric that he hasn't even played yet). The point is, nobody's mad at the game rules or disappointed in how they've allowed things to play out—because everything is fair and above-board. I rolled every die out in the open; and the players are well aware of the fact that their own actions led to the consequences they experienced. They also know full well that better play would have very likely caused things to turn out differently.

And I don't think that they'd want it any other way; because a victory that's been handed to you (whether by a set of rules stacked in your favor or a DM who fudges dice behind the screen to favor whatever you do) is a hollow victory.

Now, what does all this have to do with the topic of the thread? Well, I've seen lots of people ragging on the old rules. Saying that this level of lethality isn't heroic and isn't fun. I'll agree that it's not heroic—of course it isn't, the PCs are only 1st level!—but how could it not be fun? "Disaster sessions" like this are memorable, they're entertaining, and they're also valuable (because the players now know more about the dungeon they're exploring). And while it's true that I'm running this game at home for friends and family who are all old hats at D&D, this campaign is no different from the public tables I typically ran pre-plague. Games which—despite the nigh-inevitability of early disaster sessions, or even full TPKs—never fail to draw in new players. And new players will very quickly acclimate to the very same attitude evinced by my longtime players: a basic understanding that the game is challenging, that the challenge is in a sense "real" (i.e. not some Houdini trick that I'm pulling by fudging dice behind the screen or tweaking monster numbers and hp on-the-fly), and that the PCs' failures and victories alike are come by honestly.

Once you get a taste of that, you can just tell when a DM is handing you a win, and it's not a pleasant feeling. Regardless of whether you're running old-school or OSR or 3e or 5e. That's what I'd argue is no fun and no way to excite new gamers.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
And I don't think that they'd want it any other way; because a victory that's been handed to you (whether by a set of rules stacked in your favor or a DM who fudges dice behind the screen to favor whatever you do) is a hollow victory.
For those wondering why a lot of people have a sour taste in their mouths from interactions with OSR ambassadors, this. This right here.
 

Jack Daniel

dice-universe.blogspot.com
For those wondering why a lot of people have a sour taste in their mouths from interactions with OSR ambassadors, this. This right here.
I'm not an OSR ambassador. In case I haven't been clear: the OSR can go hang for all I care.

But I won't apologize for my intense (and well-earned) dislike of games where the the PCs are all but certain to win, whether by fiat or by design.
 
Last edited:

Aldarc

Legend
Yep. And perpetuating these stereotypes contributes to maintaining said perceptions.

I'm saying that we should stop publicly dercying "OSR neckbeards" - therefore keeping the meme going for any new people who visit the board - and get on with talking about the game we all love.
If the town well has been poisoned, then we should definitely warn people before they think about drinking from it, though hopefully without scaremongering about "neckbeards."

When people ask why I'm focusing on inclusivity and diversity in the OSR project I'm working on, usually telling me some variation of "the rules should be the selling point, because we can all play whatever ethnicity we want in the game", your comment is a big reason why I'm doing what I'm doing, bringing representation into the OSR, and hiring a lot of people from many diverse backgrounds as contributors and artists.

Because it is in fact important to a lot of people who don't fit the traditionally catered to demographic.
And I am all on-board with trying to make the OSR community more inclusive, and I definitely support your project.

I think part of that, however, requires not just social issues inclusivity, but also addressing the "toxic elitism" that sometimes exists in OSR circles that seems to demean people who play non-OSR games as easy-mode "care bears" and the like.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I'm not an OSR ambassador. In case I haven't been clear: the OSR can go hang for all I care.

But I won't apologize for my intense (and well-earned) dislike of games where the the PCs are all but certain to win, whether by fiat or by design.

But it explains the point of why OSR has problems expanding.

No one said it wasn't fun. What was said is that Herism, Grand Plots, Motivation, and Deep Character were the Hallmarks of fantasy since the 90s and many of the OSR community actively avoids that.

There's no Game of Throning in the background. No weird philosophy of the Brujah Vampire. No saving the Village. No saving the princess.

A lot of description of OSR fun is often dismissal of other styles and/or a bunch of "You had to be there". That's hard to sell.
 

Part of the problem with this Us & Them attitude (between what is referred to as OSR and those "New School" adherents, 3.0 edition onward to present) has been in large part not just a philosophical reaction but a defensive one.

As I read it, and as quoted from a 2015 interview I gave prior to attending Lucca Comics & Games:

During the upcoming Lucca Comics & Games there will be some limited edition copies of “Cairn of the Skeleton King”, an old school adventure belonging to founder generation, as well as the debut product of Pied Piper Publishing. What [does] this work represents for you?

Well. “Old School” is a misnomer, really, originally deriving as a pejorative from the New School when there were edition wars and mud-slinging around 2001 onward. The ascendant school in the market usually stakes their territory by attacking the established philosophy as “Old”. The phrase was quickly adopted as a badge of honor when “Old Schoolers” coalesced around principles that the New School derided. I consider both schools to be rather intractable, but schools of thought historically tend to extreme views more often than not. As a free-lance designer there is only one school for me, and that is what works, continues to expand, and does not calcify thought. So, at best, I refer to all of that as “Classic,” that which withstands the test of time and continues to holistically influence one’s design history.
 

Fanaelialae

Legend
I'm not an OSR ambassador. In case I haven't been clear: the OSR can go hang for all I care.

But I won't apologize for my intense (and well-earned) dislike of games where the the PCs are all but certain to win, whether by fiat or by design.
There's nothing wrong with hard earned victories being what you enjoy.

However, can you grasp that not everyone necessarily has the same play priories as you do? For example, some might have the rule of cool as a play priority. Their goal in playing the game is to feel awesome. Your style of hard scrabbled victory would likely be more of a hollow victory for them than a game that let them smite their enemies with panache. Calling their victory hollow is dismissive at best. You might see it as hollow, and that's genuinely fine, but not everyone will.

In other words, can you imagine that there are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy?
 

kenada

Legend
Supporter
If someone is offended that @Jack Daniel enjoys a particular type of hard-earned victory, they can speak for themselves. This is the sort of thing I was getting at. One rarely sees this sort of policing done to trad and OC/neo-trad play. Yes, there are arguments, but those involve actual people advocating for what they do.
 

Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition Starter Box

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top