log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E The D&D Advantage- The Campaign

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
So it both had the early advantage, and it continues to have that system in place, that is harder to put into a "new" TTRPG that isn't "D&D-like." IMO.

But that's where I thought the discussion might go- how easy is it to re-create that reward system in a new, modern TTRPG that doesn't have the benefit of "grandfathering in" XP, leveling, loot, etc.
I admit I can't think of too many RPGs that don't have some kind of growth system in place, even if it isn't specifically XP-level-loot like D&D and its many clones. Although I am also entirely unfamiliar with a lot of the licensed RPGs you mentioned above, as they've never interested me.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Helpful NPC Thom

Adventurer
Another thought: thinking of Ron Edwards in that 4e thread, he has described some games as "incoherent," meaning that they not designed for a particular purpose. D&D is incoherent, at least the later editions that moved beyond strict dungeoncrawlers. That incoherence is detrimental from a design perspective, but it is beneficial from a gameplay perspective. Incoherence is why every Tom, Dick, and Harry wants to use D&D for everything. I want to play D&D Game of Thrones! Here's wookies for D&D Star Wars! Can I do D&D Call of Cthulhu?

My own perspective is that D&D is terrible for all of those things. If you want anything outside of a resource management tactical skirmish game, I think you should play another system. However, the malleability of D&D to play those games (poorly) has given it longevity. No, Call of Cthulhu D&D doesn't work. It won't approximate the fiction. You can run a Lovecraft-themed D&D game, though, as long as there's some aberrations to kill.
 

J-H

Adventurer
Agreed. The "My character gets better and more powerful" reward is a big one. My players often seem to get more excited over leveling up than finding gold or a magic item - unless it's a substantial magical item. +2 bow with 1d6 damage? Cool.
+2 bow with no bonus damage but that doubles my range? AWESOME! I am now arrow sniper murder-kensei!
 

payn

Hero
Another thought: thinking of Ron Edwards in that 4e thread, he has described some games as "incoherent," meaning that they not designed for a particular purpose. D&D is incoherent, at least the later editions that moved beyond strict dungeoncrawlers. That incoherence is detrimental from a design perspective, but it is beneficial from a gameplay perspective. Incoherence is why every Tom, Dick, and Harry wants to use D&D for everything. I want to play D&D Game of Thrones! Here's wookies for D&D Star Wars! Can I do D&D Call of Cthulhu?

My own perspective is that D&D is terrible for all of those things. If you want anything outside of a resource management tactical skirmish game, I think you should play another system. However, the malleability of D&D to play those games (poorly) has given it longevity. No, Call of Cthulhu D&D doesn't work. It won't approximate the fiction. You can run a Lovecraft-themed D&D game, though, as long as there's some aberrations to kill.
Totally agree about D&D being a bad system for generic gaming. In the last few decades the hobby community has grown and folks are moving into more RPGs, which is great. Still, people want to smash the D&D peg into every hole because its the one game system you can always find players for. For one reason or another, players are reluctant or resistant to new systems. They want what they know. Popularity and a smallish hobby community have more to do with it than any award winning persistent character formula.
 

clearstream

Be just and fear not...
Supporter
I'd probably reframe it slightly. Leveling up and long-term campaigns were a crucial innovation that gave D&D a major advantage over competitors during its early period. But it's hard to call it a current "advantage" when the design has been so fully plundered into gaming design over the past 45-50 years. I mean, most TTRPGs and video games have some sort of persistent avatar than can continually grow during play and gather rewards.
Suppose I advance a hypothesis - D&D invests more pages (words, rules, whatever measure we favour) in character advancement than any other RPG, and that contribute materially to its success. It's a two-part hypothesis. One way to disprove the first part is simply - take another RPG that we think comes close, and count pages invested in character advancement. The second part is perhaps harder to disprove, and is perhaps what @Snarf Zagyg's OP best speaks to.

But if we can find another RPG that invests as much in character advancement as D&D, but succeeds less well, then character advancement can't be the only factor. (It isn't ruled out as a factor, nor even as the most important factor, but there it would imply there are other factors that have a material impact.)

So - Pathfinder - I think it puts about the same page count as D&D into character advancement. Why isn't it as successful as D&D? In design parlance, I think that an RPG may have what are called basic features, and performance features. Basic features are like wheels on a normal road car. Drivers just expect their road cars to have tires - they're not an optional extra. Performance features (aka excitement features) are like the Tesla Model S 1000 HP. But clearly you don't have to have 1000 HP to have a viable road car - its an optional extra.

I believe D&D designers invest great care into creating classes and sub-classes that are distinct and offer interest over a long campaign arc. I agree with the OP that character advancement was a profound innovation underpinning D&D's initial successes. I suspect (and of course, the OP doesn't rule out, by any means) that there are other factors that are having a material impact. And maybe that is really the thing with D&D: each part of the package is at a very high level of quality. It continues to offer a very good take on its own original innovation, while also having strong visual design, strong writing, thoughtful supporting products, etc.
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
So - Pathfinder - I think it puts about the same page count as D&D into character advancement. Why isn't it as successful as D&D? In design parlance, I think that an RPG may have what are called basic features, and performance features. Basic features are like wheels on a normal road car. Drivers just expect their road cars to have tires - they're not an optional extra. Performance features (aka excitement features) are like the Tesla Model S 1000 HP. But clearly you don't have to have 1000 HP to have a viable road car - its an optional extra.
I think D&D overshadows the TTRPG market to such an extent that it's difficult to use relative "success" as a metric.

I mean, I don't think it's a secret that persistent characters with power growth are hugely popular; there's a reason even video games genres like action and sports have made them big elements of their newer games. I'm not sure how much more one could really develop that idea.

A new TTRPG that uses D&D's campaign structure exactly and one that explicitly rebels against it are both going to be less popular than D&D because they aren't D&D.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
A new TTRPG that uses D&D's campaign structure exactly and one that explicitly rebels against it are both going to be less popular than D&D because they aren't D&D.

But that's .... not helpful, is it? We see other games rise and fall (clones, like PF, or different systems, like CoC and WoD).

I don't think anyone would say that D&D has been so dominating because of its stellar management over time. In most markets, you will get overtaken- someone will win out based on a superior product, or price, or something!

So the assertion that all other games will be less popular* than D&D because they aren't D&D is both trivially true based on historical fact, but also raises the question- why has that been the case for 50 years?

I think it's an interesting question, unless we want to default to George Mallory's, "Because it's there." :)


*And again, it's not a question of other games just being "less popular." D&D is, and other than a brief blip when it was neck-and-neck with a D&D clone, has always been overwhelmingly more popular than any other game.
 

Mort

Legend
This is an interesting position and I agree that "the campaign" has been a huge draw.

But other games detail campaigns - you can have a GURPS campaign after all!

SO what's the big difference?

I think there are 2:

1. D&D has SO many adventures available - and of multiple levels. Designing good adventures isn't easy and it takes time, especially if you're a novice. But with D&D, you have a ton of low level adventures to choose from, many mid level and while not as many high level they exist (plus by that time you may have gotten enough experience and play to be comfortable homebrewing). Most other systems (let's exclude Pathfinder here) don't have near the breadth of adventures available. This means people CAN do the campaign and play for a while - not just some introductory adventure at the back of the book. Most companies see adventures as low money generators so don't produce them, in favor of actual system content - and short term, they have a point - but long term? premade adventures lead to more and happier players.

2. The level up structure. This has been stated in this thread repeatedly, but it's just a big factor. People like the levels, they like 0-Hero and they like it a lot. With many systems, you get 0 to slightly bigger 0 or Hero to slightly bigger Hero, but not both - D&D has both. Plus the levels themselves make a difference. Systems where you add points etc. work well mechanically but they don't seem to be near as addictive (better term?) to keep going. Sure they have their adherents, but not to the height of the systems with levels.

I think the combination of these 2 factors is key to the big success.
 

I just finished the first part of Jon Peterson's new book last night. One of the things it really hammers home is both how dire the straits were for Gygax, and how unexpected the success of D&D was in the overall context of the hobby.

I think it is easy to see, now, especially with video games having aped the model, that the play model of D&D is crucial to the success. But I still think we often forget how crucial it is to the success of D&D vis-a-vis the TTRPG market. To put it in simple terms- one reason that D&D succeed, where branded TTRPGs (Dr. Who, Star Trek, etc.) do not do as well, is because of this leveling loop that is crucial to the long-term interest. As much fun as it is to be your Kirk (or Picard, or Sisko, etc.), you want that reward mechanism.

Sometimes the obvious needs to be pointed out.

(I have to admit that I feel like I can't win with certain commenters- either they pick apart a single sentence in a giant essay I write because I'm wrong wrong wrong, or they chime in to complain that I shouldn't bother writing about something so obvious. I guess they want a refund of the money they paid me? :) )
We are likely to disagree on most things, purely due to our widely divergent tastes, but taste had nothing to do with my response here. Saying "The D&D Advantage" communicates, to me, something special and/or unique about D&D, in particular, right now, since that's what "advantage" means. If everyone has a particular characteristic, is that characteristic still "an advantage"? "Advantage," AIUI, needs to be specially favorable, not required or merely useful. Would be like saying having an MD is "an advantage" for getting a medical license. Such degrees are (usually) explicitly required to get such licenses, not favorable for it (specially or otherwise).

I could have said "duh," but I consider such behavior extremely rude, and openly insulting. If I actually engage with your words, and demonstrate that I've actually thought about what you said (via examples of my own, frex), I show respect to you as an interlocutor. It would be incredibly disrespectful to you to just say "duh"--that's equivalent to saying that your point has so little merit, it doesn't even deserve a full sentence reply. Your point has merit, in the sense that it references real facts and the like. But, for me, it comes across as...well, a bit like saying that the advantage of the car is (not was, is) that it requires less maintenance and is more versatile than horses. While those facts may be true, horses are not used as a primary means of transportation or hauling anymore, so...those aren't "advantages," they're expected baselines now.

As a raw historical fact, sure. This thing, which was an advantage 50 years ago, was a big part of what propelled D&D to its dominant position. But just as (for example) the Internet was once a huge business advantage and now is a requirement for any large business to succeed today, any game getting into the immersive personal experience benefits highly from using these tools. As I tried to show with my B5 example, such tools are no longer exclusive to the TTRPG or even general gaming environment, but found in quite diverse entertainment media.

If what you wanted to focus on was the historical development of D&D as a thing, then...changing how you present it so that it is centered on that history, rather than repeatedly connecting the argument to present-day experiences/events/products/etc., would make your argument significantly clearer. (And, frankly, I probably would just have left no comment; I don't really have much to say about most "history of TTRPGs" threads, though there are occasional surprises.)
 

Well, I would say that it's both a crucial innovation that led to competitive advantage (path dependency), as well as a continuing advantage (Part 3 of the above).

It's not that other TTRPGs don't try to mimic the reward loop of D&D (and similar systems). It's that, for various reasons, other systems often aren't able to model the reward loop as well (for genre reasons, for rule reasons, for realism reasons, etc.).
I...personally think you're just wrong on this then.

Plenty of games assume a campaign, or at least something much longer than a one-shot. Even some legit actual board games, like Kingdom Death, straight-up expect multiple sessions of play. Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying, the various World of Darkness games, various Star Wars games, the nigh-innumerable systems Powered by the Apocalypse, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, Das Schwarze Auge, I'm sure I could list more if I went out and dug them up. And plenty of these, while either listening to, inspired by, or defying D&D convetion, definitely are not D&D games.

Tons of systems, with different genres, implied settings, or perspectives pull off exactly the same reward loop as D&D. Your "(and similar systems)" sweeps under the rug easily dozens of unrelated things. D&D retains its lofty position primarily through familiarity, marketing, and having been the top dog. Much like, for example, EverQuest retained its position as top dog for several years, before its aging mechanics and antiquated (often, very specifically D&D-derived) player experience got trumped by the hot new thing, World of Warcraft, which became enough of a juggernaut that it took some pretty serious controversy and missteps before it began to fumble--and it's still not clear that it's truly lost its way yet.

So it both had the early advantage, and it continues to have that system in place, that is harder to put into a "new" TTRPG that isn't "D&D-like." IMO.

But that's where I thought the discussion might go- how easy is it to re-create that reward system in a new, modern TTRPG that doesn't have the benefit of "grandfathering in" XP, leveling, loot, etc.
Okay so...how exactly can one even do that?

You seem to be saying, essentially, "anything that uses these things is D&D-like," which makes the argument circular: nothing can use these structures without being D&D-like, and anything D&D-like doesn't count as a different system using these structures, no matter how unrelated it might be.

Like, if we applied this exact same logic to fantasy topics, you're basically saying that absolutely everything which includes elves that are human-sized and at least used to have an ancient and powerful society is 100% "Tolkien-like," and thus it's impossible to tell a fantasy story with elves in it that isn't Tolkien-like. Except...that we generally recognize that it's totally possible to have a high-fantasy story that learns from Tolkien without merely being Tolkien with a fresh coat of paint. Elves in Dragon Age, for example, are not (as OSP puts it) "gorgeous, elegant relics of a better time, ancient, wise, and more than a little alien." They're almost all either (a) slaves or at least a racially-oppressed minority within human cities ("Alienage" elves) or (b) "savage" wild folk who live in the forests and conduct guerilla campaigns against humans for current atrocities and past wickedness.

So: Is it even possible for a game to include structures like experience, levels, etc. and not be, by whatever definition you're using, "D&D-like"? Because if not, then your argument is circular as I've said. You've defined the term so that it can't happen. If, on the other hand, there is some way in which a game could use these things without being "D&D-like," then we can actually have a conversation about how such things could occur.
 




loverdrive

Makin' cool stuff (She/Her)
So the assertion that all other games will be less popular* than D&D because they aren't D&D is both trivially true based on historical fact, but also raises the question- why has that been the case for 50 years?
Because it has not only marketing, WotC money and all that jazz, but also cultural cachet. "Dungeons and Dragons" is basically a normie way of saying "tabletop RPGs".

In some ways, it's like Coca-Cola. Coke can screw up all they want, their product may be bad for your health or tasting worse than stuff you can make at home for dirt-cheap, Coca-Cola is the beverage, and it's not likely to ever change.
 

Because it has not only marketing, WotC money and all that jazz, but also cultural cachet. "Dungeons and Dragons" is basically a normie way of saying "tabletop RPGs".

In some ways, it's like Coca-Cola. Coke can screw up all they want, their product may be bad for your health or tasting worse than stuff you can make at home for dirt-cheap, Coca-Cola is the beverage, and it's not likely to ever change.
Indeed. Why are McDonald's burgers or chicken nuggets some of the most eaten foods on Earth? Why is Budweiser the most consumed beer in America (producing some 90 million barrels per year in the United States alone in 2020)?

It's not because these things are incredible achievements of their crafts (they aren't, though there is challenge in being so uniformly consistent), nor because they have some ultra-secret property that makes them utterly unique in their classes (they don't; consider that KFC prizes its secret spices so much, but isn't as big as McDonald's chicken nuggets). There's a huge variety of reasons why they're actually not super ideal options in one way or another. The factors that make them big are, often, only tangentially related to the specific details of the product itself.

Similarly, even for something that genuinely has significant meritorious qualities, being a bestseller or the most widely used X or whatever can be almost entirely dependent on external factors. The Bible is, and remains, the single most-published book ever, with over 5 billion copies sold or distributed--and other likewise deeply ideological books (the Quran, the Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong aka the Little Red Book). Or a book can simply be extremely old. Sun Tzu's The Art of War is an ancient text, and has thus simply had an enormous amount of time to get around--it absolutely deserves the accolades it's gotten, but "it's existed for an extremely long time" can easily shape whether something qualifies for a "top dog" position or not.

These confounding variables make it really difficult to discuss the success of a thing in isolation, separate from utterly unrelated external factors. E.g., I think Star Wars Episode IV is an excellent (if very tropey) film, but a big part of its success in 1977 was that it offered an aspirational, positive message in a time when cinema had kinda ground down pretty deep in dark and brooding stuff (consider Dirty Harry or The Godfather I and II). The Vietnam War had only ended two years previously, and the Watergate scandal was still quite fresh in the public consciousness (72-74). A New Hope was, in a very real sense, exactly what it said on the tin--and while it probably would have been successful no matter what due to its timeless-classic elements (as stated, it's very tropey), the context in which it occurred was critical to its success, and Lucas' own success was him hitting on the notion that merchandising was the future of money in cinema, an idea that has since become almost comically overwrought today.

Nothing that succeeds does so in a vacuum, and sometimes, the winner really does win purely because they coincidentally got there first.

Edit: Consider strategy games like Civilization. If you succeed early, that means you're stronger in the mid-game, which makes you more likely to succeed again. And each time you succeed again, you make it even more likely that you'll succeed another time. The "snowball" can be an incredibly powerful force, where even if you make a bunch of mistakes all throughout the game, getting really lucky right at the start can make a huge difference across the entire rest of the game. (It's a thorny and serious design problem with such games: how do you make the early game matter, but not matter so much that the late game just becomes cleanup?)
 
Last edited:

I...personally think you're just wrong on this then.

Plenty of games assume a campaign, or at least something much longer than a one-shot. Even some legit actual board games, like Kingdom Death, straight-up expect multiple sessions of play. Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying, the various World of Darkness games, various Star Wars games, the nigh-innumerable systems Powered by the Apocalypse, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, Das Schwarze Auge, I'm sure I could list more if I went out and dug them up. And plenty of these, while either listening to, inspired by, or defying D&D convetion, definitely are not D&D games.

Tons of systems, with different genres, implied settings, or perspectives pull off exactly the same reward loop as D&D. Your "(and similar systems)" sweeps under the rug easily dozens of unrelated things. D&D retains its lofty position primarily through familiarity, marketing, and having been the top dog. Much like, for example, EverQuest retained its position as top dog for several years, before its aging mechanics and antiquated (often, very specifically D&D-derived) player experience got trumped by the hot new thing, World of Warcraft, which became enough of a juggernaut that it took some pretty serious controversy and missteps before it began to fumble--and it's still not clear that it's truly lost its way yet.


Okay so...how exactly can one even do that?

You seem to be saying, essentially, "anything that uses these things is D&D-like," which makes the argument circular: nothing can use these structures without being D&D-like, and anything D&D-like doesn't count as a different system using these structures, no matter how unrelated it might be.

Like, if we applied this exact same logic to fantasy topics, you're basically saying that absolutely everything which includes elves that are human-sized and at least used to have an ancient and powerful society is 100% "Tolkien-like," and thus it's impossible to tell a fantasy story with elves in it that isn't Tolkien-like. Except...that we generally recognize that it's totally possible to have a high-fantasy story that learns from Tolkien without merely being Tolkien with a fresh coat of paint. Elves in Dragon Age, for example, are not (as OSP puts it) "gorgeous, elegant relics of a better time, ancient, wise, and more than a little alien." They're almost all either (a) slaves or at least a racially-oppressed minority within human cities ("Alienage" elves) or (b) "savage" wild folk who live in the forests and conduct guerilla campaigns against humans for current atrocities and past wickedness.

So: Is it even possible for a game to include structures like experience, levels, etc. and not be, by whatever definition you're using, "D&D-like"? Because if not, then your argument is circular as I've said. You've defined the term so that it can't happen. If, on the other hand, there is some way in which a game could use these things without being "D&D-like," then we can actually have a conversation about how such things could occur.
Adding to this o5e itself make significant steps away from the whole "d&d-like" construct. By tuning the system & all of its math to a spherical cow of no feats no magic items while shifting the power from those things directly onto the base pc itself under bounded accuracy, the GM is left with no room for growth and a goodie ie bag they cant actually draw from without rebuilding the system into something that once again becomes "d&d-like". O5e sidesteps sun sized spotlight by having the name of "dungeons and dragons".
 

AtomicPope

Adventurer
I think it is easy to see, now, especially with video games having aped the model, that the play model of D&D is crucial to the success.
I've heard these arguments too often, especially with the advent of 3e and later 4e calling them "video games" (each previous generation saw it that way). The problem with this argument is it misses the point: video games are the great imitator. All activities came first, and then video games copied them. Ping pong? That's a video game. Boxing? That's a video game. RPGs? That too is a video game. The D&D structure was imitated because it works, but that's what video games do: imitation.
 

TerraDave

5ever, or until 2024
Yes, leveling is very important. Rewards are important, and OD&D had three interlocking ones, non-magical treasure, XP, and magic items. From which flowed advancement.

This feeds the campaign but is not the campaign, and they were still figuring that out. The other thing about D&D rewards: they are randomized.

Also there are a few reasons why fantasy is the dominant genre in rpgs. Main one: you can do anything in it.
 

Aldarc

Legend
These confounding variables make it really difficult to discuss the success of a thing in isolation, separate from utterly unrelated external factors. E.g., I think Star Wars Episode IV is an excellent (if very tropey) film, but a big part of its success in 1977 was that it offered an aspirational, positive message in a time when cinema had kinda ground down pretty deep in dark and brooding stuff (consider Dirty Harry or The Godfather I and II). The Vietnam War had only ended two years previously, and the Watergate scandal was still quite fresh in the public consciousness (72-74). A New Hope was, in a very real sense, exactly what it said on the tin--and while it probably would have been successful no matter what due to its timeless-classic elements (as stated, it's very tropey), the context in which it occurred was critical to its success, and Lucas' own success was him hitting on the notion that merchandising was the future of money in cinema, an idea that has since become almost comically overwrought today.
Minor quibble: Star Wars: A New Hope didn't get the subtitle "A New Hope" until the theatrical re-release in 1981. I think that until then it was just "Star Wars."
 

clearstream

Be just and fear not...
Supporter
Nothing that succeeds does so in a vacuum, and sometimes, the winner really does win purely because they coincidentally got there first.

Edit: Consider strategy games like Civilization. If you succeed early, that means you're stronger in the mid-game, which makes you more likely to succeed again. And each time you succeed again, you make it even more likely that you'll succeed another time. The "snowball" can be an incredibly powerful force, where even if you make a bunch of mistakes all throughout the game, getting really lucky right at the start can make a huge difference across the entire rest of the game. (It's a thorny and serious design problem with such games: how do you make the early game matter, but not matter so much that the late game just becomes cleanup?)
Civilisation (the videogame) and Minecraft have in a way similar stories. The developers recognised (or at least, adopted) the crucial innovations in a design that predated them (Francis Tresham's Civilisation boardgame, and Zach Barth's Infiniminer, respectively) and were able to supply a level of quality that made them more broadly appealing.

A big factor is always accessibility. Riot's Team Fight Tactics solved the inaccessibility of DOTA Autochess, making it now one of the more successful strategy games. D&D design teams have on the whole resisted going for too much complexity. They've found ways to make the core mechanics easier to grasp and use. Another is polish. D&D has always presented a reasonable level of artwork (for the time!) in its published versions. It's easy to compare D&D products in each epoch and see them as very competitive on polish. Another is market presence - the ability to distribute and promote. Electronic Arts secured a very early advantage by owning distribution and buying shelf space for its titles, it also put more effort into localisation than other companies. These success factors can form a virtuous cycle. Commercial success provides money to pay for more design effort and stronger visuals, the brand-recognition of the more polished product makes retailers happier to give it shelf-space, and the scale makes promotion efficient.

However, there is a design concept sometimes called brand-pillars. Success is more likely when a company can recognise and make the most of its brand pillars. That is where I believe character advancement mattered, and still matters today to D&D. Because it is a brand-pillar. A number of popular archetypes, each with an extended advancement-arc is going to be on offer. Consider how the prestige-class experiment in 3rd edition has evolved to the 5th edition subclasses, and then how those allow interest to be engineered back into classes via splatbooks like XGE and TCoE. There is a neat bit of design in 5th edition that gives each class 'handles' for snapping in a new subclass. When you analyse the mechanics and meta-mechanics, the capabilities and power-curve for each class is well mapped out. (I might write something more on that down the line, if time permits me.)

Thus responsive to @EzekielRaiden's critique of the OP, I believe it isn't a past advantage simply playing out as a kind of market or audience inertia. It is a live brand-pillar, recognised by the designers and actively wielded to appeal to players. I'd agree that the innovation was salient to the initial success, and without the initial success there'd be no D&D today. I don't agree that it is just a fact about the past.

[EDIT And I think UA in a fashion forms proof of this conclusion. The constant searching and testing of design space for character advancement. Races. Feats. Sub-classes. Classes. Look at the recent Strixhaven cross-class sub-classes. These experiments are evidence that the designers are as focused on their character classes - and their advancement-arcs - as ever!]
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top