Judgement calls vs "railroading"

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
You're also left with /just/ that. You can say your character is being alert, you can describe him as perceptive, but with no mechanic to back you up, you're back to DM judgement calls. Sure, it's out in the open - you know the system has given you no mechanism with which to model your character in that case, the 'game' is reduced to your ability to advocate for your character and make decisions for him, thus 'gaming the GM' or 'Gygaxian skilled play' - I like to call it 'player as resolution system.' The character you're playing doesn't matter anymore, just your ability to make a case to your GM.


That's all you really have with the design of most mainstream game designs anyway. Consider a traditional perception or knowledge check. Here are the judgement calls a GM in a mainstream game generally makes in order to resolve them:
  • The Content of the Fiction
  • If a Check is Called For.
  • The Difficulty Class of the Check.
  • Any Bonuses or Penalties That Apply.
  • Whether to Reveal the Difficulty Class If It Is Even Real.
  • What Success Means.
  • What Failure Means.

The entire body of the rules remains firmly under the control of the GM. Even if a check is successful there is no guarantee that it will provide real information you can use rather than a chance for the GM to impart bits of world building or color. It implies a certain amount of real machinery that gives some players solace, but is ultimately illusory. Pay No Attention To The GM Behind The Curtain. It might make you feel better about what happens, but it is just as subject to GM judgement calls as a more fiction oriented approach. It also makes it more difficult to see what is going on from the player's perspective, especially when we have a culture that does not see GMs and other players as equals at the game table. We might be able to use the rules as a form of coded language to indirectly address the fiction, but I feel that is all we are really doing.

I feel like a directive like always say what honesty demands that is every bit as much part of the system in use has the potential to have far greater impact. It shifts the cultural fabric of the game to one where players are allowed to expect principled decision making from their GMs and see where they are acting against the shared interests of the game. Part of what I enjoy about running a game with explicitly stated principles is that those principles become a measure by which the other players can hold my feet to the fire. It allows us to course correct and helps to keep me honest. Also when we keep things closer to the fiction it becomes far easier to see what is actually going on and tell if my framing was off.

I am not saying there is no use for mechanisms. We know how to structure mechanisms that can have a stronger impact on the social dynamic at the table. The specific questions that read a charged situation obliges a GM to answer truthfully if you succeed does far more to encourage GMs to impart useful information. The way Blades in the Dark represents actions according to effect and position(risk level) encourages transparency, negotiation and powerful expectations of what results should look like in the fiction. Although I am not really that much of a fan of explicit stake setting and intent based resolution much of the time it does create powerful expectations that enable more informed decision making.

I would add that I believe we should be careful that whatever game we use does not short circuit skilled play of fictional position. I think Things On Character Sheets can serve to increase our interests in the fiction and relate it to us in a way that can more effectively be gamed, but the beating heart of any roleplaying game should reside in meaningful exploration of the fiction. I also have no significant issue with judgement calls. I just think we should be applying our judgements in principled ways that enable greater player investment in the game and impactful decision making.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

The descriptive paragraph goes beyond what I'd do all at once: instead I'd spread it out a little to give the players time to interrupt or ask questions. I'd also probably intersperse information about other patrons to make the establishment seem more fluid, rather than forcing the focus on the newcomer.

But no, I'd never ask my players to tell me who the newcomer was. Honestly, it never would have even occurred to me to do so until reading this thread--that question is completely outside anything I've ever encountered in an RPG. Learning that there is much greater diversity in GMing styles that I ever knew about is part of what makes this thread so interesting.

That said, I think the giant gulf between the preferred styles of many of the posters is making communication difficult. When two games are so radically qualitatively-different, I'm not sure it's meaningful to try to measure them on the same axis. For example, I don't think it means much to say that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s or [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s style is more "player-driven" than the other, because I'm not sure that there is a definition of "player-driven" that makes sense in both contexts simultaneously. Their games are just too different.

Returning to the concept of "ask questions and use the answers", I think the very premise isn't compatible with my GMing style's emphasis on immersion and verisimilitude. And as a player, I don't see how I could maintain my IC focus when I'm confronted with an OOC request from the GM to add an element to the game world. I consider myself pretty good at switching back and forth quickly (I have to do it all the time as a GM), but what you're describing sounds extremely jarring--especially the part where after adding the element OOC, I'd need to immediately interact with the element I'd just created, this time from my character's perspective and while trying to forget about the OOC motives underlying my choice of what to add.

Are your players simply phenomenal at flipping back and forth from thinking as their characters to thinking as themselves? Or, alternatively, do your players add the requested elements in-character (i.e. the character, rather than the player, is choosing how the character knows the newcomer)? Or maybe roleplaying at your table means something different than it does at mine, in a way that makes the transition easier?

I've posted many times over the course of the last few years about developed mental frameworks and cognitive biases being the source of much of the incredulity and mismatched expectations in these discussions.

Here is a quick example (I'll talk about a few other components of inhabitation and mental frameworks in a follow-up, but let us start with this):

D&D 4e has rife Martial Forced Movement inherent to the combat engine. This almost always (but not always) comes in the form of a rider to an attack in which that rider doesn't require discrete resolution unto itself. This concept was a problem for many players coming from 3.x that were expecting a process-sim resolution chassis. For them, as you say above, this draws them out of inhabitation of their PC (Actor Stance), forcing them to engage the situation from either Pawn Stance or Director Stance. So they're either:

(a) relating to their character as if they are controlling a piece on a game board

or

(b) they have a mismatched expectation of what is happening (and what their character is capable of) in the fiction because they conceive this sort of Martial Forced Movement (without discrete mechanical resolution) on an NPC as having the mandate of a director rather than "organically" (I use that term very loosely, because we are, of course, talking about a thing that doesn't actually exist) interacting with the components of our shared imagined space.

Why is this not a problem for any of the participants in my 4e games?

All of us have been lifelong athletes with two of us playing collegiate sports (and continuing afterward). When you have that sort of exposure to combat/contact sports, you develop both an instinctual and empirically-driven awareness that the concept of "autonomy" is very different in that arena than what most folks consider (either as their level of autonomy in day to day affairs or how they erroneously extrapolate and map that to "what they think" happens in martial exchanges...think, rather than know, because of lack of intimate exposure). The significant majority of the micro-exchanges that take place are driven by the subconscious permutations of the martial actor's honed OODA Loop. The locus of control is indeed internal to the martial actor (they are actually doing the Observation, Orientation, Decision, and Action). However, due to the nature of the processing (the speed with which it must take place, the muscle memory, the honed instinct, and the inherent gravity/consequence of each decision to be made) that is taking place, it is, for all intents and purposes, automated.

So, for instance, when the ball is snapped, an American Football Linebacker has (a) a suite of assignments, (b) physical keys to read, (c) tons of spatial information to incorporate into his instantaneous decision-making (including not just where objects are, but where s/he is, and relative velocities/angles), (d) and the fact that the mind fundamentally knows that the activity it is engaging in is extremely dangerous.

So all of the myriad of information processing, decisions, and actions that take place in the next few seconds are going to be more the product of automated response to stimuli than shrewd, cognizant-in-the-moment, deliberation. The Quarterback performs a play-action-fake to the Running Back. The Linebacker automatically takes a step or two toward the Line of Scrimmage. The Quarterback pulls it out of the Running Back's belly and drops back to pass. The Linebacker automatically scrambles back to drop into the Zone coverage assignment it has. A receiver runs a shallow cross in front of the LB though his zone. The LB automatically moves forward to a point of contact intercept should the pass go there. But oh no. There is another crossing route behind the LB and now they're out of position to contest the pass. 12 yard completion. This collection of sensory information and route combination is designed precisely to manipulate the LB and achieve this outcome.

This is but one example in a never-ending deluge of them. Automated Martial Forced Movement happens constantly in contact/physical sports (actual combat sports are even more automated in the moment of action) so 4e's rampant Forced Movement is intuitive to them. Simultaneously, it also plays to their sense of genre logic (where dynamic movement, forced or otherwise, and battlefield interaction is also rife; be it Wesley and Inigo's famous duel, Pirates of the Caribbean, LotR/Hobbit fights, or Avengers/X-Men).

So, because of this, the phenomenon of Martial Forced Movement in 4e (and active melee control effects like Marking) actually improves (considerably so) the capacity for my table's participants to inhabit their characters (because the OODA Loop dynamics are considerably closer to what they've experienced in contact sports/physical martial contests). The character build mechanics (such as a character being more adept at deploying Forced Movement or having some level of passive resistance to it or ability to actively mitigate/negate it) and the resolution mechanics enhance their conception of archetype and their immersion.

Meanwhile, folks who have a different developed mental framework and different cognitive biases feel...well...very differently about it.

Thoughts on that before we move to other aspects of this component of the conversation?
 

pemerton

Legend
pemerton said:
in the real world, this is not mediated. If you want to know something about your immediate environment you just look around.
Which in the game is modeled by asking the DM.

<snip>

just ask for more details (preferably those specific ones relevant to what you're doing e.g. don't ask about the number of tables in the bar if your main interest is whether there's a hook or not) until you get the relevant info you need.

Some players will take this too far and ask for descriptions of absolutely everything whether relevant or not; some DMs will also take this too far by proactively describing everything whether relevant or not. Both of these just waste time.
Relating this back to [MENTION=6802765]Xetheral[/MENTION]'s posts: I don't see how this is very immersive. It seems quite unimmersive to me, as my sense of "being there" is constantly disrupted by this 20-questions-style back-and-forth with the GM to establish basic details which would be immediately known by my PC.

Adding in a constraint of "relevance" only compounds the issue, particularly in an environment where players are discouraged from explaining what their motivations or intentions are for their PCs, and where the GM is keeping secret from the players what s/he thinks is at stake in the situation, and hence there is no real clarity at the table as to what may or may not be relevant.

pemerton said:
he game mentioned in the OP has been driven primarily by the mage PCs desire to redeem his brother, the assassin/wizard's desire to kill the same, and the elven ronin's inability to come to terms with the loss of his master (which was what led him to wander into human lands).

Without those background elements, there wouldn't be any play.
Whyever not? Can't the play be driven by greater forces (external plots, wars, impending apocalypse, etc.) than the characters' own angst?
But why would the PCs engage with those "greater forces" in a proactive way, without some motivation?

The Hobbit - all of Bilbo's motivation is external to begin with
I don't think that's right. Bilbo doesn't want to go on an adventure and take risks. He sleeps in and thinks he's got out of it.

But then a sense of shame (or something in that neighbourhood) and loyalty (especially to Gandalf), as well as a longing to break free of village life, lead him to head off and join the dwarves. Those are not external motivations. He's certainly not motivated by a longing for treasure!
 

@Manbearcat: For me, it depends a bit on the game.

In BW, I wouldn't ask "Who is this guy? Do you know him?" Because either, (i) it's framing, in which case I'm in charge (as GM), though perhaps using elements already established by the players, (ii) it's a consequence of a successful check, in which case the action declaration has already established what happens on a success, or (iii) it's a consequence of a failed check, in which case I'm narrating some adverse thing happening.

If, in circumstance (i) or (iii), a player volunteered some connection between his/her PC and the NPC, that would be quite permissible. Either I'd "say 'yes'", or I'd call for a check, or - if it was an attempt to revisit something that had already been tried and failed, then I'd enforce Let it Ride and so veto the attempt.

MHRP is a bit different, though. For instance, Wolverine's player earns 1 XP "when you declare someone an old ally or foe." In my MHRP game, the heroes were raiding a Clan Yashida office tower in Tokyo, looking for information (i) about the attempted theft of some Stark Tech, and (ii) about the whereabouts of Mariko, who was missing. At a certain point Wolverine was in combat with a NPC ninja/martial artist. Wolverine's player, in character, announced that he recognised this person, and their paths has last crossed in Hong Kong (? or Madripoor, or . . . I can't remember the details), and this time Wolverine was not going to let said ninja get the better of him. The XP was therefore earned, and the fiction established. There's no real sense that I've got veto rights as GM, and MHRP doesn't have a mechanic, analogous to a Lore or Circles check, that I can fall back on as a "roll the dice" alternative to "saying 'yes'".

"Ask questions and use the answers" is definitely not something to be deployed for all play agendas/systems. It (of course) is a terrible principle for a game like B/X. It also is dysfunctional for a game like Torchbearer, it being a modernized (much more complicated) B/X but with aspirations and an experience of a different (more profound) sort.

These sorts of games have specific procedures for play conversation which focuses on testing/challenging the players, through their player characters, and finding out what happens. Torchbearer also has at its heart a much more grim and desperate disposition (which it, intentionally, infects the players with) due to the way all the parts work together. "Ask questions and use the answers" is (a) not necessary for these games (because each unit of conversation, the high utility prep, the fundamental play procedures, and the resolution mechanics all do their expectant job) and (b) it would actively work against the play agenda of Torchbearer because it could potentially mitigate some/much of that grim, anxious desperation that is part and parcel of the experience. There are some games where part of the experience of being protagonized is to allow the System Agency to do its thing and provoke your dread, your sense of forboding, your grim outlook, your sense of loss (My Life With Master, Dread, Torchbearer). "Ask questons and use the answers" is not for those systems.

Unrelated, I think there is some confusion as to the process here of "Ask questions and use the answers." I don't recall who I should summon here, so I'll just summon @Xetheral and @Lanefan and cross my fingers that the clarification will be relevant to them.

"Who is this guy?...how do you know him?" is an offer. Its not "leading the witness" or an instruction/demand. It can absolutely be handled by the player how they see fit. The following is absolutely a legit response (whether this situation unfolded as a result of framing or was the product of a action resolution (perhaps the system's equivalent of a Contacts move resulted in either a Success with Complications or a Fail Forward/Twist).

Player: I cover my mouth and speak under my breath to my companions as the man makes a mess of himself toward our table. "I've never seen this man. Be on your guard." I casually slide my boot knife from its sheathe and keep that hand under the table...
 

pemerton

Legend
I think your line of inquiry is misguided for a few reasons.
  • It presents a false binary that fails to capture the diversity of play as experienced. It also enables debates which present another false binary that also fails to capture actual diversity of play - that a game is either a railroad or there is no significant pressure on a player to follow a path that is contrary to playing their character with integrity. We then become gridlocked in a discussion about which of these false binaries is true, rather than meaningful discussion of play.

    <snip>
  • We also sidestep discussions about distinctions between various forms of player motives, the sort of decisions they are expected to make, how they are expected to make those decisions, and what that means for group dynamics, the fiction, and play of the game. For example by framing things in terms of who is driving play the subtle social cues that encourage GMs to mitigate undesired outcomes could be framed as a sort of player driven play when I am fairly certain that is anathema to the way you play roleplaying games. I know it is to me.
  • It also averts discussion of the possibility that we could all play a game with no one really driving the game. We're all just playing.
One reason I have adopte the framing that I have is that I think (hope?) that it can bring out some ideas about modes of GM control/influence over the direction of the game, and especially the content of the shared fiction.

For instance, some posters have suggested that unless the players literally have no choice for their PCs, then the game is not a railroad. But as far as I can see, unless the GM is literally sitting down and reading a story to the players - in which case we don't have a RPG at all - the players must have some choices to make. So the focus then shifts to the ways in which those choices are or are not meaningful, contribute significantly to the themes and directions of play, etc.

I think this can encompass reflecting on the sorts of social cues you mention, but I agree with you that it doesn't foreground them. I'm not a behaviourist by any means, but I think in this sort of discussion it is very hard to get serious and sincere discussion about social cues in situations where the only person able to describe the situation is also probably committed to defending its integrity. This is why I tend to focus on procedures and behaviours at the table - eg who establishes that such-and-such obtains in the shared fiction? How does the fiction - fiction that is public at the table, and fiction that is known only to the GM - figure in action resolution? Etc.

The last of the three points above is interesting, but my reason for sidestepping it - and for relying on what may be an overly-simplistic binary contrast - is that there is a good chance that everyone will describe their game that way (qv [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] above) and then the very real differences become hard to tease out.

  • It presumes a general lack of shared player interests or any real meaningful distinctions in how the game and social group shape player interests. We then get to avoid the equally contentious, but far more meaningful discussion about conflicts of interest that can arise when we have an aversion to actually talking these things out.
  • I think there are better ways to talk about these distinctions in a way that better accounts for diversity of play and does not assume poor alignment of player interests. Character Advocacy is one such way that I believe avoids going through the weeds.
Can you elaborate on the presumption that you refer to?

Also, none of the above is meant to persuade that you that my approach is not misguided. It's simply to explain a bit further why I have taken the approach that I have.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION],

When you "ask questions and use the answers", how do you decide which player(s) get(s) to provide the answer? Is it first-come-first-serve? Round robin? Collaborative?

Also, what critetia do you expect the players to use when coming up with their answer? What they would find fun individually? What the other players would find fun? Free association with the current storyline? Logicial inference? Whimsy? I'm having hard time figuring out how I would begin to answer such a question as a player. This is in part because I don't understand which OOC GM responsibilities (if any) implictly attach to such on-the-spot delegation of content creation from the GM to the players.

I think you may have me confused with someone else.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
This still doesn't seem to answer my question. If you can run the pirate game without prep, and "everyone had a blast", what is the point of the prep?

I never said I didn't prep. There was plenty of time for me to prepare for the pirate excursion while they traveled from Baldur's Gate to the Nelanther Isles.
 

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
When you "ask questions and use the answers", how do you decide which player(s) get(s) to provide the answer? Is it first-come-first-serve? Round robin? Collaborative?

Also, what criteria do you expect the players to use when coming up with their answer? What they would find fun individually? What the other players would find fun? Free association with the current storyline? Logical inference? Whimsy? I'm having hard time figuring out how I would begin to answer such a question as a player. This is in part because I don't understand which OOC GM responsibilities (if any) implicitly attach to such on-the-spot delegation of content creation from the GM to the players.

It depends on the specific game and the specific principles in play. When I bring these techniques into other games I generally also have a list of specific principles and agenda I have prepared for the game in question. Generally I prefer ask provocative questions and build on the answers to Dungeon World's weakening of the principle to ask questions and use the answers. The way that it tends to work in practice for me is I go where my own interests are and ask directed questions of specific players' characters that should add interest to the fiction. I only ask questions that their character should have the answer to.

Here are my expectations for players:
  • It should be interesting fiction that will have an impact on play.
  • It should tell us something about your character that we don't already know. Let us peel back the layers on the onion.
  • Approach the question as a curious explorer of the fiction.
  • It should leave room for more questions.

In practice, I am not really all that concerned with vetting their answers. I trust them to play their characters with integrity, be curious about the fiction, and say interesting things.

The following passage from Masks should highlight the use of the technique:

Masks said:
ASK PROVOCATIVE QUESTIONS
AND BUILD ON THE ANSWERS


Always ask questions of the PCs. When you’re curious about something and one of them should know the answer, ask. Make the question pointed, provocative, and leading. Not, “Is there anyone in your class you like?” But, “Someone here is your best friend. Who is it?” Not, “Have you ever been defeated by a villain?” But, “How did Vortex defeat you so badly last time you clashed?” Only ask provocative questions that the PCs would know the answers to. You shouldn’t ask them, “What’s that villain’s dastardly plan?” unless it’s somehow believable that they would know.

Remember those answers, keep in mind they add to the fiction, and target them for further development. Those answers are now true, and what’s more, the PC who gave you that answer is inherently interested in it—it was their answer! Don’t let it lie. Build on it.



I describe the direct consequences of failing the task that the check was modeling. I stick as closely as possible to consequences that would be expected in the real world, so that players can rely on their real-world experience to accurately judge the stakes of their actions in advance. When the game world predictably responds to actions analogously to the real world, this contributes to verisimilitude.

The players aren't going to get what they want as a result of a failed check, but the failed check usually doesn't preclude them getting what they want via other means or more effort. For some checks, that won't always be possible. Failure on a check to catch a falling vase, for example, is likely to frustrate the players' intent in catching it, but only as a direct consequence of that failure when the vase, foreseeably, shatters.

The point of the check was to determine, in a case where there was doubt about the outcome, whether the action in question succeeded or failed.

My approach is generally the same, but with a twist. I am not big on intent, but I still want to know what has changed. I am big on every action being consequential, regardless of the result. Nothing ever stays the same. There is always risk and change involved. The fiction is dynamic.


Much of the content of my games is generated on the fly. If the players decide to follow a plotline I hadn't added deliberately (and this happens all the time when the party finds something unexpectedly interesting and decides to pursue it) this does indeed require me to make up a mystery or plot as I go along. Often, I can do this seamlessly, staying one step ahead of the players, without letting on that I've switched to wholesale improv. If it's a situation where I think I need a little planning time first, or I think I'm too tired to pull off full-improv well, I'll simply admit that this is an area of the game I've only got a vague sketch of, and call for a 10-minute break while I fill in the details.

I do a small amount of prep work for each session (I do more at the start of a new campaign), based on my best guesses of what the party will choose to do. If I'm wrong and my work isn't used that session, I'll keep it around in case the party follows up later. If they don't, I can file off the serial numbers and use generic parts of it (e.g. a dungeon layout) to supplement future on-the-fly content.

The biggest difference here is that I do not want to know or guess what they will do. A large part of my fun in running the game comes from playing off the other players and not knowing what course they will take. I want to approach the game with a spirit of curiosity. My prep tends to be focused on thinking up threats and challenges to what the players' characters believe about themselves. I tend to leave this all in potentia rather than nailing things down so I don't become invested in outcomes.
 
Last edited:

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
D&D 4e has rife Martial Forced Movement inherent to the combat engine. This almost always (but not always) comes in the form of a rider to an attack in which that rider doesn't require discrete resolution unto itself. This concept was a problem for many players coming from 3.x that were expecting a process-sim resolution chassis. For them, as you say above, this draws them out of inhabitation of their PC (Actor Stance), forcing them to engage the situation from either Pawn Stance or Director Stance.
Yep, guilty as charged - forced movement as a built-in feature of a regular attack does nothing for me. If someone - either a PC or a foe - is trying to force movement that gets resolved separately, regardless of the success/failure of the actual attack roll.

All of us have been lifelong athletes with two of us playing collegiate sports (and continuing afterward).
Which may make you unique - or certainly highly uncommon - among gaming groups.

So, for instance, when the ball is snapped, an American Football Linebacker has (a) a suite of assignments, (b) physical keys to read, (c) tons of spatial information to incorporate into his instantaneous decision-making (including not just where objects are, but where s/he is, and relative velocities/angles), (d) and the fact that the mind fundamentally knows that the activity it is engaging in is extremely dangerous.

So all of the myriad of information processing, decisions, and actions that take place in the next few seconds are going to be more the product of automated response to stimuli than shrewd, cognizant-in-the-moment, deliberation. The Quarterback performs a play-action-fake to the Running Back. The Linebacker automatically takes a step or two toward the Line of Scrimmage. The Quarterback pulls it out of the Running Back's belly and drops back to pass. The Linebacker automatically scrambles back to drop into the Zone coverage assignment it has. A receiver runs a shallow cross in front of the LB though his zone. The LB automatically moves forward to a point of contact intercept should the pass go there. But oh no. There is another crossing route behind the LB and now they're out of position to contest the pass. 12 yard completion. This collection of sensory information and route combination is designed precisely to manipulate the LB and achieve this outcome.
May I just chuck in here that American football might not be the best of analogies, due to the very stop-and-start nature of its play; and despite the best (and by that I mean worst) attempts of the turn-based system to make D&D combat a stop-and-start affair I still prefer to think of it as a fog-of-war free-flowing sort of thing. For a similar sport to use as an analogy, rugby might be a better (though still not perfect) comparison as the action tends to keep flowing longer between stoppages.

Lan-"what's the D&D equivalent to a missed field goal"-efan
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Unrelated, I think there is some confusion as to the process here of "Ask questions and use the answers." I don't recall who I should summon here, so I'll just summon @Xetheral and @Lanefan and cross my fingers that the clarification will be relevant to them.
Reporting for duty, sir!

"Who is this guy?...how do you know him?" is an offer.
And my immediate response OOC as a player is something like "How the <bleep> do I know? It's not my place [as a player] to answer that."

Player: I cover my mouth and speak under my breath to my companions as the man makes a mess of himself toward our table. "I've never seen this man. Be on your guard." I casually slide my boot knife from its sheathe and keep that hand under the table...
I can't say if I've ever seen this man (unless the DM tells me/us whether I/we have or not) as it's not my place to do so; but I can certainly whisper "I'm not sure about this guy" as I surreptitiously slide out my boot knife, as that's a legitimate in-character reaction.

Lan-"meanwhile the barmaid, pissed about being trainwrecked by this guy, is setting up her backstrike..."-efan
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top