Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Of all the complaints about 3.x systems... do you people actually allow this stuff ?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5795209" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Well, yes. That would more-or-less be a tautology.</p><p></p><p>In the actual post to which I replied, you said that it suggests there can be no "long term consequences". I took that phrase to have its natural meaning, not simply to be restating what I had said ie that the PCs will arrive in time so that they don't fail offstage.</p><p></p><p>I didn't say it's a bad thing. I said that I prefer to play a game in which there is no off-screen failure. How others play the game is no concern of mine.</p><p></p><p>I've said nothing about good GMing, perpetual or otherwise. I've talked about how I run my game. In particular, I've tried to point out why, for certain playstyles, "time pressure" is not a viable solution to the 15 minute day. (Hppily, there are many other conceivable solutions - such as changes to the PC build and action resolution rules - and there are some games, inlcuding at least one version of D&D, which adopt them.)</p><p></p><p>I don't follow your symbolism. Does "A:B" mean "If A, then B"? And what are the values of A and B?</p><p></p><p>Are you trying to show that, if no failure happens offstage, the PCs will never fail? I know that is not true, because I run a "no failure offstage" game, and the PCs have failed - as I have now mentioned multiple times, the PCs did not rescue one of the prisoners that they wanted to, because they chose defensive rather than aggressive tactics in the confrontation.</p><p></p><p>Are you trying to show that, by permitting the PCs to lose one of the prisoners, I disregarded my own maxim? In that case you are wrong - my maxim is "no failure offstage", and when the PCs faff around on stage and therefore lose - in the encounter that I am talking about, they adopted a very defensive approach of trying to clear out the bodyguards before confronting the gnoll demonic priest - that is not a violation of the maxim. The failure happend onstage. The players were playing their PCs, making decisions about how to tackle the encounter. And from the pont of view of rescuing prisoners, they made the wrong decisions.</p><p></p><p>What do you mean "critical to the future of the campaign"? The only thing that is critical to the future of my campaign is that my players keep turning up, and are happy to keep playing their PCs, and that I can still think of challenges and encounters that willl engage those PCs.</p><p></p><p>So far from being fair, I actually think that your speculation suggests a failure to grasp the essence of the sort of play that games like Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling and similar "modern", narrativist games support. Because your speculation fails to distinguish between authority over situation and authority over plot.</p><p></p><p>In the sort of play I am describing, authority over situation rests firmly with the GM, and is settled at the metagame level, not at the action resolution level. This is why I regard 4e as the best version of D&D for supporting this sort of play, because it has the lowest amount of action resolution mechanics that bleed over from situation to situation. (In D&D terms, it is almost the opposite of Gygax's AD&D in this respect.)</p><p></p><p>In the sort of play I am describing, no one has authority over plot - which is the whole point - the story that emerges should be both engaging and unexpected. And the point of the action resolution mechanics - which distribute authority in various ways across the players and the GM - is to produce this sort of plot in an emergent fashion.</p><p></p><p>This comment seems to reinforce your apparent failure to distinguish between authority over situation and authority over plot, because you seem to see no difference between a rule about scene-framing ("no failure offscreen") and a rule about scene-resolution via action resolution mechanics ("if the PCs happen upon the priest in the middle of a ritual, and spend too much time dealing with the minons, they might fail to save all the prisoners the priest is intending to sacrifice").</p><p></p><p>And what is "apple pie"? A game of D&D? I know what the brand is on the cover of the rulebooks I'm using, and I have a very good sense of how far I am drifting the game from how it is written (ie not that much).</p><p></p><p>Or is "apple pie" a game that you want to play? I already know that I run a game that is different from yours. Your post has reinforced that - your game must be very different from mine, if it does not make salient to you the difference between authority over situation and authority over plot.</p><p></p><p>Why would you say that? I'm not entirely sure what sort of scenario you have in mind, but suppose (i) the players (and their PCs) know that the princess can't be rescued without a password, and (ii) the players (and their PCs) know that only a certain prisoner knows the password, and (iii) the players try to rescue the prisoner and fail, well I guess now they failed to rescue the princess too. And where is the offscreen failure? It all happened onscreen.</p><p></p><p>There are a couple of differences. One difference is significance, climax, pacing and so on. If the earlier thing that happened onscreen was rescuing a cat from a tree, or taking three rounds rather than two to deal with some muggers, and as a result of <em>that</em> the PC doesn't get there in time, and the city blows up, that is (typically) hugely anticlimactic.</p><p></p><p>Another difference is knowing the stakes. In the "just in time" case, it is rare for a player to have a perfect grasp of the times and distances by refrence to which a GM adjudicates ingame movement. So when the player decides to have his/her PC rescue the cat, how is s/he to know whether or not this will cost his/her PC the chance to stop the bomb? Of course, this idea of "stakes" relates back to the idea of climax - in the real world we make all sorts of decisions in ignorance all the time, and sometimes suffer for them - I mean, in the real world it really can be the case that stopping for a red light means that you don't arrive at the hospital in time to be by the bed of your dying loved one. But I'm not interested in GMing (and not really interested in playing, either) an RPG that replicates these narratively unsatisfying elements of real life. The <em>point</em> of narrativist play is "Story Now", which includes the deployment of techniques - in scene framing, action resolution, etc - to ensure satisfying narrative.</p><p></p><p>Applying the same thought about "stakes" to the prisoner/princess scenario: if the players <em>don't</em> know, when they're rescuing the prisoner, that the prisoner is the only one who knows the password, then that would be an instance of offscreen failure (because the players would fail without knowing that they had done so, and without being able to play their PCs in full knowledge of the stakes). But I personally wouldn't run such a scenario. To me it smacks of excessive pre-plotting by the GM.</p><p></p><p>You've probably seen my produce <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=1361" target="_blank">the following quote</a> before, and for me it is the single best guideline for GMing my game (although I think I'm much less hardcore than Paul Czege - as is shown by the fact that I'm GMing D&D rather than My Life With Master!):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Let me say that I think your "Point A to Point B" way of thinking about scene framing is pretty damn incisive. . . </p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">There are two points to a scene - Point A, where the PCs start the scene, and Point B, where they end up. Most games let the players control some aspect of Point A, and then railroad the PCs to point B. Good narrativism will reverse that by letting the GM create a compelling Point A, and let the players dictate what Point B is (ie, there is no Point B prior to the scene beginning).</p></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">. . . [A]lthough roleplaying games typically feature scene transition, by "scene framing" we're talking about a subset of scene transition that features a different kind of intentionality. My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details of the Point A of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">"Scene framing" is a very different mental process for me. . . Delicacy is a trait I'd attach to "scene extrapolation," the idea being to make scene initiation seem an outgrowth of prior events, objective, unintentional, non-threatening, but not to the way I've come to frame scenes in games I've run recently. . . By god, when I'm framing scenes, and I'm in the zone, I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. It's intentional as all get out. . . I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this. And like Scott's "Point A to Point B" model says, the outcome of the scene is not preconceived.</p><p></p><p>I don't run a fully <a href="http://inky.org/rpg/no-myth.html" target="_blank">"no myth"</a> game, but as Czege describes I keep the backstory somewhat unfixed so that I can use it and adapt it to keep presenting new situations. I adopt the same approach to princesses whose rescue is likely to be a focus of play somewhere down the track, but who are at the moment are mere background elements.</p><p></p><p>I don't follow this at all. <em>Some</em> long term consequences are at the GM's discretion. For example, will the family of the prisoner whom the PCs failed to rescue react badly? Seek revenge? This is a matter of GM discretion in the way I play - it is one element of the GM's role of confronting the PCs with adversity, and so I wouldn't decide if via a reaction roll, for instance. But it is a consequence that, if brought into play, the players could try and change - they could have their PCs try and persuade the family to forgive them, for example.</p><p></p><p>An example of play a bit like this is when I GMed The Bastion of Souls (a 3E WotC adventure, that I ran in one of my Rolemaster games). </p><p></p><p>*SPOILER ALERT* (for a 10 year old module)</p><p></p><p>The module proceeds on the assumption that the PCs will want to make contact with an imprisoned god. And when I ran the module this turned out to be true. The gate for the god's prison is in fact a powerful angel (a planetar, I think, in the D&D version), and the only way to open the gate is to kill the angel.</p><p></p><p>As written, the module states that the angel will not talk to the PCs, and therefore the PCs must fight her. Not being a big fan of that sort of nonsense, I was quite happy to adjudicate my players' attempts to have their PCs talk to her (although the RM rules for social resolution are not particularly robust, they aren't completely hopeless either). And one PC, in particular (in a nice piece of emoting by the player, at least by my table's standards) persuaded her to let herself be killed because the greater good of the world required that the PCs deal with this imprisoned god.</p><p></p><p>So that is one example of how players might change consequences to be different from those which the GM initially presents to them.</p><p></p><p>But there is another dimension to consequences as well. One cosequence of the PCs' failure to rescue the prisoner is that <em>as heroes, they failed</em>. (Or, at least, failed to fully succeed.) This is a consequence that is not at the GM's discretion at all. It is the result of the application of the action resolution mechanics to the situation with which the GM confronted the players. It is a consequence that emerges out of play, and that no one participant dictated.</p><p></p><p>Perhaps you think that that is not a very significant consequence. In the absence of a mechanical alignment system, it is not an operational consequence of any sort. For me, it is just about the most important sort of consequence that can flow from playing the game. It is precisely to generate that sort of consequence - a thematic consequence - that I play the game.</p><p></p><p>I hope I've made it clear that I don't agree with this at all. Failure to save the prisoner <em>while being in the same room as him, trying to rescue him</em> is absolutely a different sort of consequence from failing to make it in time because you got stuck in traffic at a red light. One is dramatic. The other is prosaic. One is the stuff of romantic fantasy - the sort of game I am playing. The other belongs in a certain sort of ultra-modernist or post-modernist RPG with a nihilistic bent (<a href="http://www.halfmeme.com/nicotinegirls.html" target="_blank">Nicotine Girls</a>, maybe, although it is perhaps not cynical enough).</p><p></p><p>And the consequences also differ in thematic content. Failing to get there in time reveals little about the PC - that s/he's a bungler, perhaps, or unlucky. Whereas failing to rescue the prisoner because you were too scared to charge in until all the minions were defeated shows something much more dramatic about the PC, especially in the context of a heroic fanatsy RPG. It shows something about the PC's failure of heroism.</p><p></p><p>Credit from whom? The inhabitants of the gameworld? - the fictions are no different. The players at the table? - it depends on whether or not they are impressed by, and care about, clever operational play. The gods of RPGing? - well, I like to think that they are aware that different RPGers have different playstyles and are looking for different things from a game.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5795209, member: 42582"] Well, yes. That would more-or-less be a tautology. In the actual post to which I replied, you said that it suggests there can be no "long term consequences". I took that phrase to have its natural meaning, not simply to be restating what I had said ie that the PCs will arrive in time so that they don't fail offstage. I didn't say it's a bad thing. I said that I prefer to play a game in which there is no off-screen failure. How others play the game is no concern of mine. I've said nothing about good GMing, perpetual or otherwise. I've talked about how I run my game. In particular, I've tried to point out why, for certain playstyles, "time pressure" is not a viable solution to the 15 minute day. (Hppily, there are many other conceivable solutions - such as changes to the PC build and action resolution rules - and there are some games, inlcuding at least one version of D&D, which adopt them.) I don't follow your symbolism. Does "A:B" mean "If A, then B"? And what are the values of A and B? Are you trying to show that, if no failure happens offstage, the PCs will never fail? I know that is not true, because I run a "no failure offstage" game, and the PCs have failed - as I have now mentioned multiple times, the PCs did not rescue one of the prisoners that they wanted to, because they chose defensive rather than aggressive tactics in the confrontation. Are you trying to show that, by permitting the PCs to lose one of the prisoners, I disregarded my own maxim? In that case you are wrong - my maxim is "no failure offstage", and when the PCs faff around on stage and therefore lose - in the encounter that I am talking about, they adopted a very defensive approach of trying to clear out the bodyguards before confronting the gnoll demonic priest - that is not a violation of the maxim. The failure happend onstage. The players were playing their PCs, making decisions about how to tackle the encounter. And from the pont of view of rescuing prisoners, they made the wrong decisions. What do you mean "critical to the future of the campaign"? The only thing that is critical to the future of my campaign is that my players keep turning up, and are happy to keep playing their PCs, and that I can still think of challenges and encounters that willl engage those PCs. So far from being fair, I actually think that your speculation suggests a failure to grasp the essence of the sort of play that games like Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling and similar "modern", narrativist games support. Because your speculation fails to distinguish between authority over situation and authority over plot. In the sort of play I am describing, authority over situation rests firmly with the GM, and is settled at the metagame level, not at the action resolution level. This is why I regard 4e as the best version of D&D for supporting this sort of play, because it has the lowest amount of action resolution mechanics that bleed over from situation to situation. (In D&D terms, it is almost the opposite of Gygax's AD&D in this respect.) In the sort of play I am describing, no one has authority over plot - which is the whole point - the story that emerges should be both engaging and unexpected. And the point of the action resolution mechanics - which distribute authority in various ways across the players and the GM - is to produce this sort of plot in an emergent fashion. This comment seems to reinforce your apparent failure to distinguish between authority over situation and authority over plot, because you seem to see no difference between a rule about scene-framing ("no failure offscreen") and a rule about scene-resolution via action resolution mechanics ("if the PCs happen upon the priest in the middle of a ritual, and spend too much time dealing with the minons, they might fail to save all the prisoners the priest is intending to sacrifice"). And what is "apple pie"? A game of D&D? I know what the brand is on the cover of the rulebooks I'm using, and I have a very good sense of how far I am drifting the game from how it is written (ie not that much). Or is "apple pie" a game that you want to play? I already know that I run a game that is different from yours. Your post has reinforced that - your game must be very different from mine, if it does not make salient to you the difference between authority over situation and authority over plot. Why would you say that? I'm not entirely sure what sort of scenario you have in mind, but suppose (i) the players (and their PCs) know that the princess can't be rescued without a password, and (ii) the players (and their PCs) know that only a certain prisoner knows the password, and (iii) the players try to rescue the prisoner and fail, well I guess now they failed to rescue the princess too. And where is the offscreen failure? It all happened onscreen. There are a couple of differences. One difference is significance, climax, pacing and so on. If the earlier thing that happened onscreen was rescuing a cat from a tree, or taking three rounds rather than two to deal with some muggers, and as a result of [I]that[/I] the PC doesn't get there in time, and the city blows up, that is (typically) hugely anticlimactic. Another difference is knowing the stakes. In the "just in time" case, it is rare for a player to have a perfect grasp of the times and distances by refrence to which a GM adjudicates ingame movement. So when the player decides to have his/her PC rescue the cat, how is s/he to know whether or not this will cost his/her PC the chance to stop the bomb? Of course, this idea of "stakes" relates back to the idea of climax - in the real world we make all sorts of decisions in ignorance all the time, and sometimes suffer for them - I mean, in the real world it really can be the case that stopping for a red light means that you don't arrive at the hospital in time to be by the bed of your dying loved one. But I'm not interested in GMing (and not really interested in playing, either) an RPG that replicates these narratively unsatisfying elements of real life. The [I]point[/I] of narrativist play is "Story Now", which includes the deployment of techniques - in scene framing, action resolution, etc - to ensure satisfying narrative. Applying the same thought about "stakes" to the prisoner/princess scenario: if the players [I]don't[/I] know, when they're rescuing the prisoner, that the prisoner is the only one who knows the password, then that would be an instance of offscreen failure (because the players would fail without knowing that they had done so, and without being able to play their PCs in full knowledge of the stakes). But I personally wouldn't run such a scenario. To me it smacks of excessive pre-plotting by the GM. You've probably seen my produce [url=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=1361]the following quote[/url] before, and for me it is the single best guideline for GMing my game (although I think I'm much less hardcore than Paul Czege - as is shown by the fact that I'm GMing D&D rather than My Life With Master!): [indent]Let me say that I think your "Point A to Point B" way of thinking about scene framing is pretty damn incisive. . . [indent]There are two points to a scene - Point A, where the PCs start the scene, and Point B, where they end up. Most games let the players control some aspect of Point A, and then railroad the PCs to point B. Good narrativism will reverse that by letting the GM create a compelling Point A, and let the players dictate what Point B is (ie, there is no Point B prior to the scene beginning).[/indent] . . . [A]lthough roleplaying games typically feature scene transition, by "scene framing" we're talking about a subset of scene transition that features a different kind of intentionality. My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details of the Point A of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about. "Scene framing" is a very different mental process for me. . . Delicacy is a trait I'd attach to "scene extrapolation," the idea being to make scene initiation seem an outgrowth of prior events, objective, unintentional, non-threatening, but not to the way I've come to frame scenes in games I've run recently. . . By god, when I'm framing scenes, and I'm in the zone, I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. It's intentional as all get out. . . I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this. And like Scott's "Point A to Point B" model says, the outcome of the scene is not preconceived.[/indent] I don't run a fully [url=http://inky.org/rpg/no-myth.html]"no myth"[/url] game, but as Czege describes I keep the backstory somewhat unfixed so that I can use it and adapt it to keep presenting new situations. I adopt the same approach to princesses whose rescue is likely to be a focus of play somewhere down the track, but who are at the moment are mere background elements. I don't follow this at all. [I]Some[/I] long term consequences are at the GM's discretion. For example, will the family of the prisoner whom the PCs failed to rescue react badly? Seek revenge? This is a matter of GM discretion in the way I play - it is one element of the GM's role of confronting the PCs with adversity, and so I wouldn't decide if via a reaction roll, for instance. But it is a consequence that, if brought into play, the players could try and change - they could have their PCs try and persuade the family to forgive them, for example. An example of play a bit like this is when I GMed The Bastion of Souls (a 3E WotC adventure, that I ran in one of my Rolemaster games). *SPOILER ALERT* (for a 10 year old module) The module proceeds on the assumption that the PCs will want to make contact with an imprisoned god. And when I ran the module this turned out to be true. The gate for the god's prison is in fact a powerful angel (a planetar, I think, in the D&D version), and the only way to open the gate is to kill the angel. As written, the module states that the angel will not talk to the PCs, and therefore the PCs must fight her. Not being a big fan of that sort of nonsense, I was quite happy to adjudicate my players' attempts to have their PCs talk to her (although the RM rules for social resolution are not particularly robust, they aren't completely hopeless either). And one PC, in particular (in a nice piece of emoting by the player, at least by my table's standards) persuaded her to let herself be killed because the greater good of the world required that the PCs deal with this imprisoned god. So that is one example of how players might change consequences to be different from those which the GM initially presents to them. But there is another dimension to consequences as well. One cosequence of the PCs' failure to rescue the prisoner is that [I]as heroes, they failed[/I]. (Or, at least, failed to fully succeed.) This is a consequence that is not at the GM's discretion at all. It is the result of the application of the action resolution mechanics to the situation with which the GM confronted the players. It is a consequence that emerges out of play, and that no one participant dictated. Perhaps you think that that is not a very significant consequence. In the absence of a mechanical alignment system, it is not an operational consequence of any sort. For me, it is just about the most important sort of consequence that can flow from playing the game. It is precisely to generate that sort of consequence - a thematic consequence - that I play the game. I hope I've made it clear that I don't agree with this at all. Failure to save the prisoner [I]while being in the same room as him, trying to rescue him[/I] is absolutely a different sort of consequence from failing to make it in time because you got stuck in traffic at a red light. One is dramatic. The other is prosaic. One is the stuff of romantic fantasy - the sort of game I am playing. The other belongs in a certain sort of ultra-modernist or post-modernist RPG with a nihilistic bent ([url=http://www.halfmeme.com/nicotinegirls.html]Nicotine Girls[/url], maybe, although it is perhaps not cynical enough). And the consequences also differ in thematic content. Failing to get there in time reveals little about the PC - that s/he's a bungler, perhaps, or unlucky. Whereas failing to rescue the prisoner because you were too scared to charge in until all the minions were defeated shows something much more dramatic about the PC, especially in the context of a heroic fanatsy RPG. It shows something about the PC's failure of heroism. Credit from whom? The inhabitants of the gameworld? - the fictions are no different. The players at the table? - it depends on whether or not they are impressed by, and care about, clever operational play. The gods of RPGing? - well, I like to think that they are aware that different RPGers have different playstyles and are looking for different things from a game. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Of all the complaints about 3.x systems... do you people actually allow this stuff ?
Top