log in or register to remove this ad

 

Renegade Game Studios Takes Over World of Darkness

Renegade Game Studio is taking over the World of Darkness! They will be publishing books produced in-house by owner Paradox, starting in December with the free (digital) Vampire: The Masquerade Companion, which has rules for playing humans and ghouls, as well as the clans Tzimisce, Ravnos, and Salubri.

vamp.jpg


Modiphius took over the line in December 2018; there's no mention of whether that is continuing. Renegade Game Studios, which brought us Kids on Bikes, recently announced that it was producing D&D 5E-powered lines for various Hasbro properties, including Power Rangers, and possibly Transformers, G.I. Joe, and My Little Pony.

The new World of Darkness books are to be produced in-house at Paradox, under the leadership of Justin Achilli, from White Wolf. They won't only be making RPGs -- they're also creating video games, comics, and more.

The Vampire Companion is coming free in December.

The Vampire: The Masquerade Companion book brings three highly-anticipated Vampire clans into V5, and gives Storytellers more tools to enhance their chronicles, including:
  • Three vampire clans: Tzimisce, Ravnos, Salubri
  • Discipline powers representing each of the new clans
  • Expanded rules and roleplaying information for ghouls and mortals
  • Details on each clan’s view on vampire coteries
  • New Merits for players characters
  • Rules errata to Vampire: The Masquerade 5th Edition
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey


log in or register to remove this ad

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
With all this talk of katanas and trench coats I can't help but think you guys are missing out on something very vital. Desert Eagles! You were supposed to be armed with a katana and a .50 caliber Desert Eagle. Or possibly dual wield Desert Eagles.
Dang. That's brought back a memory. At the time, there was this weird fascination with Desert Eagles amongst some RPG players. I never understood it. I assumed it was just some of the people I knew, but it sounds like it was more widespread!
 

TrippyHippy

Adventurer
I don't feel the least bit bad admitting I wasn't ready to deal with mature subjects like abusive relationships or addiction in any meaningful sense when I was a teenager.
Nor should you. As before, there isn’t anything wrong with playing the game how you want. The issue, as I said, with fans berating developers for actually developing the game in the way that the text of the game presents itself as. It's like ‘Damn you! This game really is about personal horror!!’.
 
Last edited:

MGibster

Legend
Dang. That's brought back a memory. At the time, there was this weird fascination with Desert Eagles amongst some RPG players. I never understood it. I assumed it was just some of the people I knew, but it sounds like it was more widespread!
There might have been statistics for it in one of the Vampire splat books but the Desert Eagle is such a ridiculous pistol that I can't help but think it could have come from the fevered mind of an RPG player. It was also a popular firearm in a lot of action movies from the late 80s early 90s including such classics as Hell Comes to Frogtown and La Femme Nikita. I may be using the word classic in the loosest sense. I really associate the use of the Desert Eagle with the early 1990s and gaming though.
 

MGibster

Legend
Nor should you. As before, there isn’t anything wrong with playing the game how you want. The issue, as I said, with fans berating developers for actually developing the game in the way that the text of the game presents itself as. It like ‘Damn you! This game really is about personal horror!!’.
I'm a big fan of V5. I like very much that the rules encourage a certain type of game.
 

GreyLord

Hero
Dang. That's brought back a memory. At the time, there was this weird fascination with Desert Eagles amongst some RPG players. I never understood it. I assumed it was just some of the people I knew, but it sounds like it was more widespread!

Max Payne!!!

Using Double Desert Eagles as you slow mo your way through various areas shooting up gangsters...

Though some liked to use other guns instead...but almost always one in each hand.
 

Then you’d better start providing quotes, because you are talking absolute garbage as far as I can see. You don’t speak for the majority of gamers playing Vampire, for sure.

What you are doing is revising history to make your own narrative. It is not factual, and no I don’t agree with you, and I doubt Justin Achilli would either. The derogatory phrases, as you insist, of ‘superheroes with fangs’ or ‘trenchcoats and katanas’ were around way before Achilli - which you can find in White Wolf magazines as much as anywhere else.

If you played the game in this manner, you were seen as playing the game as a parody of its intent - and no, the majority of gamers did not try to play it that way. If you did, then I can see why any utterances from Achilli would have upset you - or indeed any developer worth his/her salt. It is simply not what any of the creators of any edition of Vampire intended - merely a hiccup in the looseness of the game’s mechanical design that anybody could interpret the game as ’superheroes with fangs’ if they chose to. Regardless, the Revised and V20 versions of the game still encouraged an open inclusivity for all types of games - and were more open than previous editions, explicitly and practically in terms of support.

However, if your accusation against his stewardship of the game was that he ‘purified’ it from playing the game from playing it like ‘superheroes with fangs’ or ‘trenchcoats and katanas’, then you’d be disappointed as I am that some people were shocked to find that V5 was not built around the idea either - and its mechanics are much more clear to the intent. Either way, I don’t think this game is aimed at you. As such, I doubt Achilli or anybody else should heed your advice about how it should move forward.

You're continuing to support my point after initially contradicting me, which is kind of amazing, I have to say. You keep trying to have your cake with "Achilli didn't do it!" and yet eat it with "Achilli was totally right to do it!". I dunno man, you didn't add anything to your previous post, and you demand "quotes" from a time you know perfectly well is just gone from the internet, and I'm not even sure what quotes you want, or from who.

As for "a parody of intent", that sounds a lot like I was right about you being confused re: the RPG I mentioned, and you're backpedaling, because if you'd meant that, you wouldn't have said "literally" (unless you're one of those people who uses literally to mean "metaphorically").

V5 I haven't played or bought but a lot of people seem to think it repeats the same mistakes as Revised, whilst making a whole bunch of new mistakes to boot.

This whole thing where you want it both ways though is amazing. You're claiming Revised was inclusive, but also claiming that "any developer worth their salt" should have been angry about "superheroes with fangs". As for "I don't think this game is aimed at you", that's amazing after you claiming it was "open inclusive", because you're literally saying it's exclusionary by saying that. You're just contradicting yourself directly.

And the rules absolutely supported, even encouraged "superheroes with fangs" or "katanas and trenchcoats". Humanity basically meant that acting like Nick Knight or other vampire quasi-superheroes/goody-two-shoes was absolutely the way to go - and the combat and ability rules very much made you a superhero.

This hysterical stuff where you try and argue that the Sabbat are some latter-day addition is absolutely amazing too. Dude, they're from 1993 at latest. When did Vampire 1st come out? 1991. So what, you think "TRU VAMPIRE!" is like a two-year period in the early 1990s? Come on. You're not allowed to talk about "moving goalposts" when your idea of what VtM is, is limited to a two-year period. Maybe that's not what you meant, but that claim, wow.

As for claims re: "not aimed at that audience", that's a ridiculous approach, because that's not only the audience who made it successful, but it's an audience that WW pandered to. Even in Revised, just not initially. The peak of success, financially, for WW, was the 2E era for their various games, and they pumped out huge numbers of splatbooks, many of them very mechanics-heavy and with a ton of combat stuff - including making katanas particularly good weapons, IIRC. But that pandering alone hard-disproves the notion of "not aimed at that audience". Achilli was essentially being juvenile, like one of those musicians who decides the mass appeal of his music sucks, so he's going to tell most of his audience that they suck. And it clearly worked - Revised was a lot less financially successful and less broadly popular than previous editions (I don't think was the only or even dominant factor, to be honest). But again the pandering disproves the claims re: not aimed at. This is a company who brought out the Street Fighter RPG for goodness sake - they nearly convinced Capcom to created a WtA-based Street Fighter/Vampire Saviour (i.e. Darkstalkers)-style beat 'em up at one point in the 1990s.

Also can I just say, from an entirely personal note, how extremely unpleasant it is that you're basically telling me I need to not like VtM, when my brother and I were fascinated by it from 1991, and I still remember the shock and amazement when he threw the copy he'd just bought onto my bed, and I started reading it (I was getting up at like 1pm, to be fair it was a Saturday), and we basically bought everything that came out for 2E (and a lot for 1E), and played it a ton (in a way that was both personal horror and superheroes-with-fangs, because they're not incompatible, whatever Achilli thought in like 1998). We even pre-ordered two (2!) copies of Revised Special Edition, before Achilli made his various comments. I still have one unopened on my shelf (shrink-wrap still on!) because we really didn't enjoy the changes. And I know I wasn't the only one, because I was at university, and most of the people at the RPG club (which wasn't small, 30+ people turning up a lot of the time, not always the same people) ran WoD games (I mean, it was 1998 so...) and when Revised came out, a lot of people were unhappy or unimpressed.

But honestly, as I've said a few times, V20 makes this a moot point. I've got a copy now, and it's basically 2E updated, without the Revised lore and style changes for the most part. So Achilli is forgiven.
 

And many Storytellers/Game Masters aren't ready to create complex stories about conspirances and intrigues in the court. You can't ask your Game Master to writte a plot as Game of Thrones. Even profesional authors can't with that level.
More to the point, even GRRM can't consistently write at that level, as he's been finding out for the last decade or two.
 

I'm a big fan of V5. I like very much that the rules encourage a certain type of game.
Sure, but the rules of VtM 2E particularly also encouraged a certain type of game, which WW then totally pandered too/exploited re: splatbooks (KotE literally couldn't exist unless "superheroes with fangs" was basically the main mode of play at that point), and that wasn't "personal horror". And rules-wise, Revised largely continued to support that too. None of 1E, 2E, Revised or V20 do a particularly good job of encouraging "personal horror"-style play (nor does the LARP, which is generally intrigue/politics/vampire peacocking-centric). It's poorly supported by splatbooks and even the storyteller advice/resource books for those editions take more of a badgering/hectoring approach to encouraging that mode of play, rather than explaining it well, or adding more rules support or the like (or modifying the rules to support it better). Maybe V5 does a better job - I've certainly seen similar reactions to it to Revised, and it seems to be somewhat unpopular, though for a variety of reasons.

To be fair this is sort of representative of an entire era of 1990s gaming, where people still didn't fully realize that the rules shape the game (indeed many people outright rejected the idea), and instead a lot of authors thought you could just demand people play a certain way and they would, even if the rules pushed in another direction. It wasn't just a WW or Revised problem, though the actual disavowing of fans was pretty wild and unusual. I think the first game I met where the author really understood how rules shaped what actually happened, like really got it, was Feng Shui, but it wasn't until well into the 2000s that the idea really blossomed.
 

TrippyHippy

Adventurer
You're continuing to support my point after initially contradicting me, which is kind of amazing, I have to say. You keep trying to have your cake with "Achilli didn't do it!" and yet eat it with "Achilli was totally right to do it!". I dunno man, you didn't add anything to your previous post, and you demand "quotes" from a time you know perfectly well is just gone from the internet, and I'm not even sure what quotes you want, or from who.

As for "a parody of intent", that sounds a lot like I was right about you being confused re: the RPG I mentioned, and you're backpedaling, because if you'd meant that, you wouldn't have said "literally" (unless you're one of those people who uses literally to mean "metaphorically").

V5 I haven't played or bought but a lot of people seem to think it repeats the same mistakes as Revised, whilst making a whole bunch of new mistakes to boot.

This whole thing where you want it both ways though is amazing. You're claiming Revised was inclusive, but also claiming that "any developer worth their salt" should have been angry about "superheroes with fangs". As for "I don't think this game is aimed at you", that's amazing after you claiming it was "open inclusive", because you're literally saying it's exclusionary by saying that. You're just contradicting yourself directly.

And the rules absolutely supported, even encouraged "superheroes with fangs" or "katanas and trenchcoats". Humanity basically meant that acting like Nick Knight or other vampire quasi-superheroes/goody-two-shoes was absolutely the way to go - and the combat and ability rules very much made you a superhero.

This hysterical stuff where you try and argue that the Sabbat are some latter-day addition is absolutely amazing too. Dude, they're from 1993 at latest. When did Vampire 1st come out? 1991. So what, you think "TRU VAMPIRE!" is like a two-year period in the early 1990s? Come on. You're not allowed to talk about "moving goalposts" when your idea of what VtM is, is limited to a two-year period. Maybe that's not what you meant, but that claim, wow.

As for claims re: "not aimed at that audience", that's a ridiculous approach, because that's not only the audience who made it successful, but it's an audience that WW pandered to. Even in Revised, just not initially. The peak of success, financially, for WW, was the 2E era for their various games, and they pumped out huge numbers of splatbooks, many of them very mechanics-heavy and with a ton of combat stuff - including making katanas particularly good weapons, IIRC. But that pandering alone hard-disproves the notion of "not aimed at that audience". Achilli was essentially being juvenile, like one of those musicians who decides the mass appeal of his music sucks, so he's going to tell most of his audience that they suck. And it clearly worked - Revised was a lot less financially successful and less broadly popular than previous editions (I don't think was the only or even dominant factor, to be honest). But again the pandering disproves the claims re: not aimed at. This is a company who brought out the Street Fighter RPG for goodness sake - they nearly convinced Capcom to created a WtA-based Street Fighter/Vampire Saviour (i.e. Darkstalkers)-style beat 'em up at one point in the 1990s.

Also can I just say, from an entirely personal note, how extremely unpleasant it is that you're basically telling me I need to not like VtM, when my brother and I were fascinated by it from 1991, and I still remember the shock and amazement when he threw the copy he'd just bought onto my bed, and I started reading it (I was getting up at like 1pm, to be fair it was a Saturday), and we basically bought everything that came out for 2E (and a lot for 1E), and played it a ton (in a way that was both personal horror and superheroes-with-fangs, because they're not incompatible, whatever Achilli thought in like 1998). We even pre-ordered two (2!) copies of Revised Special Edition, before Achilli made his various comments. I still have one unopened on my shelf (shrink-wrap still on!) because we really didn't enjoy the changes. And I know I wasn't the only one, because I was at university, and most of the people at the RPG club (which wasn't small, 30+ people turning up a lot of the time, not always the same people) ran WoD games (I mean, it was 1998 so...) and when Revised came out, a lot of people were unhappy or unimpressed.

But honestly, as I've said a few times, V20 makes this a moot point. I've got a copy now, and it's basically 2E updated, without the Revised lore and style changes for the most part. So Achilli is forgiven.
These posts seem to get longer and longer each time, however, one relevant thing at this point is you don’t play the current version of the game. It shows. Playing Vampire as ‘superhero with fangs’ is your own business, which is clearly stated in Vampire Revised and is why it is inclusive, but it lacks the ambition that the Vampire game had for itself. That is what Justin Achilli was talking about. If you turned up to my group and insisted on playing ’superhero with fangs’ when we play Vampire, I personally, would be less inclusive about it because it comprises the atmosphere I try to build with the narrative.

The backlash about Revised that you are citing isn’t really any different to typical edition wars of any game, but your attribution to Achilli’s motivations are your own interpretation which are not objective. You are merely reflecting on the game you imagined in your head not being supported by the game the creators set out to design - and then asserting that you were playing it the right way and the developer, or anybody else, didn’t know what he was doing. I don’t think that is particularly pleasant - because you don’t speak for the entire fanbase. Revised sales, incidentally, were more of a plateauing effect than a decline. It is actually not my favourite edition either, but that is not because it declined to let people play ’superheroes with fangs’ but because it broadened the scope of the game, to be less focussed on the gameplay of 1st and 2nd, and more inclusive of being able to play it that way. There is more imagery and capacity to play ‘superheroes with fangs' in Revised than in previous editions, and then more capacity again in V20. That is the reason why I don’t like it as much.

The point about the Sabbat, is that they were not integrated into the core rules until Vampire Revised came out too. In V1, the Sabbat was merely referenced without details. V2 came out in 1992, and again, they were only mentioned without details. Both were ‘complete’ games, in as much as you din’t need to buy anything else to play. In order to include the Sabbat in your chronicles, you had to wait till 1993 and then buy a supplemental book - which gave the ST the option of whether to include them as playable options or not. Many groups didn’t choose to make them a playable option - they are a very inhuman group - and it was only in Revised that they were fully included in the core. Again, it was a more inclusive edition.

In the most recent V5 edition of the game - of which Justin Achilli was not involved with, but was influenced by the original creator Mark Rein-Hagen - the capacity to play ‘superheroes with fangs’ is significantly reduced by the mechanics in play. Again, there is substantial flexibility within the core premise, but the purpose of the game is clear and flatly, if you did want to play 'superheroes with fangs’ you’ll probably end up being disappointed. It’s not what it is designed to do - it never was - and there are other games out there more suited for this purpose.
 
Last edited:

The backlash about Revised that you are citing isn’t really any different to typical edition wars of any game, but your attribution to Achilli’s motivations are your own interpretation which are not objective. You are merely reflecting on the game you imagined in your head not being supported by the game the creators set out to design - and then asserting that you were playing it the right way and the developer, or anybody else, didn’t know what he was doing.
My entire point is that this is a false claim on your part.

I'm not attributing things I've "thought up" to Achilli. That's the whole point. If Revised had just, y'know, come out, without Achilli saying anything about the whys/wherefores of the design/lore changes, I'd have been like "Hmmm some of these changes are rubbish", but not felt like I was being excluded, or like they were motivated by exclusionary thinking, just that they were a bit dumb.

The reality, however, as that Achilli explained at some length, on sadly long-gone sites, what they had done with Revised, and why, and was quite open that his motivation was basically exclusionary (obviously he never used that term - it wasn't one in much use back then) towards a lot of people playing VtM. Claiming it's "imagined in my head" is just extremely rude gaslighting on your part.

Also, claiming I'm saying we were "playing it right" and everyone else was "wrong" is straightforward lying about what I've said in my post. I've not said anything of the sort. I'm saying that it was a playstyle they supported heavily in terms of 2E material published, and indeed, even in Revised, they later started supporting it again. So it was bizarre to try and exclude this both "superheroes with fangs" and more "romantic" takes on vampires - let's not forget that latter bit. I doubt V5 does the latter.
 

TrippyHippy

Adventurer
My entire point is that this is a false claim on your part.

I'm not attributing things I've "thought up" to Achilli. That's the whole point. If Revised had just, y'know, come out, without Achilli saying anything about the whys/wherefores of the design/lore changes, I'd have been like "Hmmm some of these changes are rubbish", but not felt like I was being excluded, or like they were motivated by exclusionary thinking, just that they were a bit dumb.

The reality, however, as that Achilli explained at some length, on sadly long-gone sites, what they had done with Revised, and why, and was quite open that his motivation was basically exclusionary (obviously he never used that term - it wasn't one in much use back then) towards a lot of people playing VtM. Claiming it's "imagined in my head" is just extremely rude gaslighting on your part.

Also, claiming I'm saying we were "playing it right" and everyone else was "wrong" is straightforward lying about what I've said in my post. I've not said anything of the sort. I'm saying that it was a playstyle they supported heavily in terms of 2E material published, and indeed, even in Revised, they later started supporting it again. So it was bizarre to try and exclude this both "superheroes with fangs" and more "romantic" takes on vampires - let's not forget that latter bit. I doubt V5 does the latter.
You still talking?

I don’t care whether you think it’s a false claim - then onus is on you to provide evidence for your claims, not the other way round. You cannot, because you made it up in your head.

And yes, you precisely did say that the game was supposed to be played the way which you like, and that Achilli was wrong to do whatever you assume he did. So you’re simply in denial if you start accusing others of lying.

Either way, it doesn’t matter, because we have established that the game in its current form isn’t for you - not that you’ve even read it anyway.

Feel free to post again in another couple of weeks or so. Are you trying to win an argument by invoking sheer boredom?
 

And yes, you precisely did say that the game was supposed to be played the way which you like, and that Achilli was wrong to do whatever you assume he did.

Wow. It's kind of amazing that you say this - you're asking me to go back to 1998, find websites and forums long since deleted, and get "quotes" for them and claiming it's "made up in [my] head" unless I do, which is pretty extreme - it's very different to you simply saying "I don't remember it that way", or "I sure don't remember that happening", for example.

But you yourself can't even be bothered to quote from within this thread to support this nonsensical claim which you've repeated twice now. I didn't say the game as "supposed to be played that way" (which is a very specific claim). That's a lie you've stated at least twice now, without any kind of support. I said that was a way that the game could be played, and which was materially supported (which is unarguable, given the existence of the combat sourcebooks, I would suggest) by the developers. I guess by your own logic, what you're claiming here is "made up in your head", though, due to the lack of quotes so... :)
 

TrippyHippy

Adventurer
Wow. It's kind of amazing that you say this - you're asking me to go back to 1998, find websites and forums long since deleted, and get "quotes" for them and claiming it's "made up in [my] head" unless I do, which is pretty extreme - it's very different to you simply saying "I don't remember it that way", for example.

But you yourself can't even be bothered to quote from within this thread to support this nonsensical claim which you've repeated twice now. I didn't say the game as "supposed to be played that way". That's a lie you've stated at least twice now, without any kind of support. I said that was a way that the game could be played, and which was supported (which is unarguable, given the existence of the combat sourcebooks, I would suggest). I guess by your own logic, what you're claiming here is "made up in your head", though, due to the lack of quotes so... :)
Well done for not leaving it a couple of weeks before your next response, but I don’t know if you can read the subtle hints: nobody cares what you think on the matter any more. It is boring.
 

Well done for not leaving it a couple of weeks before your next response, but I don’t know if you can read the subtle hints: nobody cares what you think on the matter any more. It is boring.
OK? The point remains that you've made demonstrably false claims in this thread - claiming, for example, that it was never "intended" that people play it in the ways described as "superheroes with fangs" or with a "trenchcoats and katanas" bent, when the very existence of the combat sourcebooks shows it was - they push the game extremely hard in that direction, and make a focus on combat much more likely. And as I've noted, stuff like Kindred of the East barely even makes sense outside of a pretty "trenchcoats and katanas" approach.

Mage was even more open about this, I note, it had the whole "Tales of Magick: Dark Adventure" sourcebook which was entirely and literally about this mode of play and how to better support it.

What I'm pointing out is that there's a distinct and odd break between 2E's approach, and Revised's approach (at least initially, when Revised hasn't been out long), and the claim I am making, but don't have direct evidence for, because it's gone, is that Justin Achilli made detailed comments clearly outlining that he wanted to go from a scenario where "superheroes with fangs "and "trenchcoats and katanas" were common part of VtM, to one where they were not. You have repeatedly agreed that this was a de facto impact of Revised, and defended it on ideological grounds, but seem to simply be claiming that unless I provide quotes, the comments were never made. Which isn't much of an argument.

One thing not mentioned yet, that to me is kind of interesting, is that at the same time, WW was putting out more adventure-oriented, less horror-oriented RPGs - Aeon/Aberrant/Adventure, and not long thereafter, Exalted. So maybe the feeling was that instead of making the WoD stuff more "adventure-oriented", as I would argue 2E very much defacto did, WW wanted to try and have a horror line and an adventure line separately. I think the decline in popularity of the WoD in Revised, and the lower popularity of the nWoD (despite VtR, frankly being pretty great - less so the nWoD Mage and Werewolf), is actually in part a result of this. My feeling is that the popularity of the 2E WoD, and the fact that it's still remembered fondly today by a lot of people was in large part down to it being a "broad church", where one group could happily be Nick Knight'ing it up, but another could be Vampire Diaries-ing it, and yet a third could be a very serious and horror-y The Hunger-but-less-sexy-type deal. The same in other games. One Werewolf game might be about tribal politics, or even politics and change in general, and another could be "LETS STAB PENTEX WITH KLAIVES WOOOO". Or one Mage game could be esoteric arguments about the nature of reality and philosophical threats and so on, but another could involve a mage using magic to ride an motorbike through a window whilst blasting away at Matrix/Terminator-style enemies with a shotgun. And Revised in general, initially at least, seemed to really try to clamp down on the adventure, and focus more on the horror (and the nWoD seemed to try and do that whilst also upping the "personal" element and moving away from ideological stuff - which is particularly evident in the nWoD Mage and Werewolf).

I'm not saying that was entirely illegitimate. I am saying it seemed rude at times, and was probably a bad idea.
 



The TTRPGs are like the bloc-building toys, after buying the product you can create how you want, and it hasn't to be like in the cover of the box.

If I want because I am totally free to do it, I will play a mash-up, a noir-punk version of Ravenloft (with arcologies or super-skycrapper buildings) with the factions and creatures, from WoD and CoD, I liked, and even if I want I can say the rose of Gualaupe ( = a Mexican supernatural drama TV sere about miracles by Guadalupe Virgin) can hurt, or heal, supernatural creatures.

Or the storytelling system totally replaced with a homebred version, closer to d20 system, with some litle changes in the list of abilities scores.

Or the metaplot totally changed, for example adding a civil war within Technocrazy, between members of different rival powers, or "patriots vs globalists", or to add a Russian and a Chinese "cousin" for Pentex megacorporation. Or mixing Demon: the Fallen and Demon: Descent. Or mixing WoD with Aeon franchise (Trinity, Aberrant, Adventure!..).

This is a TTRPG, and we are totally free to break, destroy the canon, no orthodoxy has to be keeped here.
 
Last edited:

Advertisement1

Latest threads

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top