D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

Status
Not open for further replies.

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Oh, I think one criticism really is that simple. There’s often many other criticisms layered on top though.

I really don't think it is, but your lack of any support for the assertion doesn't suggest to me there's much point in discussing it further.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
In games like Fate or Cortex, however, conflict is conflict and all conflict risks taking you out of the scene. There may be different stess tracks - e.g., physical, mental, social, fear, exhausted, wealth, etc. - but the conflict resolution remains constant.

I am well aware. I don't consider Fate or Cortex to really fit in the "traditional" mold any more.
 

pemerton

Legend
Why do you need rules to implement goals and motivation? D&D has never really had that and in my experience has never needed it. Yes, in some editions we had the magic item bonus hamster wheel where they codified the "you need a +X weapon by level y" but other than that I don't see any way the rules can provide goals.
One example has already been given: gold for XP.

Other examples, with different structures, come from 4e: players can author quests for their PCs, which then create an overarching framework for the GM to establish encounters; and players can indicate desires for magic items for their PCs, which the GM refers to in providing treasure parcels.

How much treasure the PCs get is always in the hand of the DM.
This claim isn't true of D&D in general. 4e D&D, for instance, treasure per level is specified via treasure parcels.

It's a case where if you follow the random treasure chart, you actually demotivate people because treasure becomes meaningless.
The editions of D&D which I strongly associate with random treasure charts are the "classic" ones - Gygax's AD&D, B/X and similar. I don't see why following random treasure charts make treasure meaningless. As already noted by other posters, a principle function of treasure in those systems is to earn XP. This doesn't become meaningless because there is a luck/lottery element to how much treasure is found by the PCs on a given occasion.

Gaining levels is only rewarding for some people, and only rewarding so long as it really means something. If you just level up and simply face more generic boring but more difficult encounters, what's the point?
I don't know whether you use a lot of generic boring encounters in your RPGing; I try to avoid them in mine. I GMed a 4e campaign from level 1 to level 30 - the reward of gaining levels was both mechanical - increased character intricacy and depth - and "story" - the stakes in, and scope of, the fiction changed in the ways described in the "tiers of play" sections of the PHB and DMG.

Or ... one aspect of the game needs more structure and a different aspect doesn't need that structure. Having that difference is part of the reason D&D works for me. I enjoy combat, but after a while having a fairly constrained system of conflict resolution gets old. Meanwhile the non-combat aspect of the game feels different and lets me stretch different mental gaming muscles. Having the two aspects of the game is a big benefit.

Some groups can focus on the combat if they want a relatively constrained system while those that like more free format immersion can focus on the RP aspects. We get the best of both worlds.
Are you making an assertion about your tastes - in which case go with whatever floats your boat! - or about what D&D, or RPGs more generally, need? Clearly there have been D&D designers who thought the game would benefit from having structure outside the context of violent conflict resolution: Gygax's AD&D, for instance, provides structure around recruiting and retaining hirelings; around travel and encounters, including escape and avoidance, in both dungeons and wilderness; around the creation of holy water, scrolls, potions and other magic items; etc. And as well as these structures around action resolution, there are many structures around PC advancement, of which XP for gold is one.

4e D&D creates structure - in the form of skill challenges - around non-combat conflict resolution. And also has structures around PC advancement, built around an interplay of XP-for-encounters (both combat and skill challenges), XP-for-quests, and treasure parcels per level.

And there are RPGs which are much less structured than D&D in combat - the one I play most often is Prince Valiant, and it is extremely functional and a great RPG.

Let's take 4E's skill challenges as an example of how D&D tried to implement procedural approach to non-combat encounters.

<snip>

If someone came up with a solution that should have ended the challenge immediately, it still only counted as 1 success.
I would have no clue how to run combat encounters without rules.
Reading these two posts together with what I've quoted above suggests that you are very familiar with the rules processes of D&D, relatively unfamiliar with other possibilities, and are generalising from that particular experience.

For instance, the way that you would run a combat encounter without D&D-like structure would simply be for players to declare actions like "I chop off the Orc's head!", set a DC, and call for a roll: just as you do when a player declares "I jump over the pit!" or "I ask the sentry to let us in!" There is nothing magical about violent conflict that demands different ways of establishing fiction from jumping over things or talking to people.

And the converse is the case for structured resolution of non-violent conflicts. Just as, in D&D combat, a brilliant plan ("I chop off the Orc's head!") typically requires multiple checks to be achieved, and the GM narrates consequences and reframes the situation to reflect that, the same is true in skill challenge adjudication (and similar adjudication in other systems). Or to put it another way: a solution that should end the challenge immediately only makes sense if we take it as given that the fictional parameters are fixed (eg the challenge is to get over the pit; no parameters are changing other than the fact of the pit; someone conjures up a plank using a Create Plank spell). But just as we don't do that for D&D combat (the parameters are changing all the time: NPCs move and manoeuvre and make their own attacks) so when using structured non-combat resolution that sort of assumption has to be abandoned.

There are endless actual play post on these boards that illustrate these points.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I really don't think it is, but your lack of any support for the assertion doesn't suggest to me there's much point in discussing it further.
Okay. Do you want to discuss how very surprised I am by this response?
 

pemerton

Legend
I don't consider gaining levels alone to be a goal unless gaining levels allows you to achieve something you couldn't achieve before. If I gain a level and find that I'm still just walking around a plain vanilla dungeon fighting slightly stronger orcs, I don't consider it motivation. If I'm gaining levels it's so I can someday confront whatever BBEG destroyed my home city.

Of course leveling is part of the reward system
What part?

If the reward of play is achieving different things then why have levelling at all? Classic Traveller illustrates the point.

Getting gold for xp just speeds up leveling.
Huh? This depends entirely on the relationship between (i) gold typically accrued per time unit of play, (ii) XP earned for gold accrued, and (iii) XP required to gain a level. Any of those factors is amenable to being varied, and authors/designers like Gygax, Moldvay and Lewis Pulsipher expressly address this in their discussions of how to build dungeons and how to adjudicate play in this style of D&D.
 


Oofta

Legend
One example has already been given: gold for XP.

Other examples, with different structures, come from 4e: players can author quests for their PCs, which then create an overarching framework for the GM to establish encounters; and players can indicate desires for magic items for their PCs, which the GM refers to in providing treasure parcels.

This claim isn't true of D&D in general. 4e D&D, for instance, treasure per level is specified via treasure parcels.

The editions of D&D which I strongly associate with random treasure charts are the "classic" ones - Gygax's AD&D, B/X and similar. I don't see why following random treasure charts make treasure meaningless. As already noted by other posters, a principle function of treasure in those systems is to earn XP. This doesn't become meaningless because there is a luck/lottery element to how much treasure is found by the PCs on a given occasion.

I don't know whether you use a lot of generic boring encounters in your RPGing; I try to avoid them in mine. I GMed a 4e campaign from level 1 to level 30 - the reward of gaining levels was both mechanical - increased character intricacy and depth - and "story" - the stakes in, and scope of, the fiction changed in the ways described in the "tiers of play" sections of the PHB and DMG.

Are you making an assertion about your tastes - in which case go with whatever floats your boat! - or about what D&D, or RPGs more generally, need? Clearly there have been D&D designers who thought the game would benefit from having structure outside the context of violent conflict resolution: Gygax's AD&D, for instance, provides structure around recruiting and retaining hirelings; around travel and encounters, including escape and avoidance, in both dungeons and wilderness; around the creation of holy water, scrolls, potions and other magic items; etc. And as well as these structures around action resolution, there are many structures around PC advancement, of which XP for gold is one.
Not sure I can be any clearer or how many times I have to repeat. XP, gold for XP or any variation therein is metagame motivation, it's motivation for the player not the character. When I DM I want the motivation for the player to be playing a game that they enjoy, I do that by creating motivations for the PC.

I'm well aware of the reward centers of the player being rewarded by leveling up. I did not make myself clear. I was discussing what would motivate some farm kid to pick up a pointy stick one day and say "I'm going to go risk getting my derriere handed to me by goblins! Later my dudes!"

4e D&D creates structure - in the form of skill challenges - around non-combat conflict resolution. And also has structures around PC advancement, built around an interplay of XP-for-encounters (both combat and skill challenges), XP-for-quests, and treasure parcels per level.
Right. I discussed that structure. I didn't care for it.
And there are RPGs which are much less structured than D&D in combat - the one I play most often is Prince Valiant, and it is extremely functional and a great RPG.


Reading these two posts together with what I've quoted above suggests that you are very familiar with the rules processes of D&D, relatively unfamiliar with other possibilities, and are generalising from that particular experience.

For instance, the way that you would run a combat encounter without D&D-like structure would simply be for players to declare actions like "I chop off the Orc's head!", set a DC, and call for a roll: just as you do when a player declares "I jump over the pit!" or "I ask the sentry to let us in!" There is nothing magical about violent conflict that demands different ways of establishing fiction from jumping over things or talking to people.
So you have a more simplified set of rules. But you still have a set of rules.

But your right, mea culpa, sorry I failed your test of accuracy in my statement. I would not know how to run relatively complex combat without the rules. You could have one person point and say "Bang your dead" to which the target says "Nah uh, I ducked". If I wanted a simplified system I could play rock paper scissors with my players. Another option would be to have the attacker roll up to 3 6 sided die if they have the resources while the defender rolls up to 2 6 sided die to defend if they want to risk that many resources and they're available. But I was discussing the somewhat complex give and take combat represented by D&D, not Risk.

D&D is not a particularly accurate simulation of combat (and an accurate simulation would probably not be particularly enjoyable) but there it's there at least in broad brushstrokes. [Of course I shouldn't even type that because out will come the "D&D AIN'T ACCURATE LOL" posts]

And the converse is the case for structured resolution of non-violent conflicts. Just as, in D&D combat, a brilliant plan ("I chop off the Orc's head!") typically requires multiple checks to be achieved, and the GM narrates consequences and reframes the situation to reflect that, the same is true in skill challenge adjudication (and similar adjudication in other systems). Or to put it another way: a solution that should end the challenge immediately only makes sense if we take it as given that the fictional parameters are fixed (eg the challenge is to get over the pit; no parameters are changing other than the fact of the pit; someone conjures up a plank using a Create Plank spell). But just as we don't do that for D&D combat (the parameters are changing all the time: NPCs move and manoeuvre and make their own attacks) so when using structured non-combat resolution that sort of assumption has to be abandoned.

There are endless actual play post on these boards that illustrate these points.

Yep. There are many different styles of games. I was stating my preferences and opinions, especially as it relates to the style and tone of D&D because this is a D&D forum and the topic of the thread is D&D.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I don't consider gaining levels alone to be a goal unless gaining levels allows you to achieve something you couldn't achieve before. If I gain a level and find that I'm still just walking around a plain vanilla dungeon fighting slightly stronger orcs, I don't consider it motivation. If I'm gaining levels it's so I can someday confront whatever BBEG destroyed my home city.

Of course leveling is part of the reward system so let me say instead: "outside of leveling, there has been little motivation built into the game." Getting gold for xp just speeds up leveling.
Gaining levels is a default goal of the game. Whether an individual cares about that goal or not will vary from person to person. That means that while gaining levels is a goal of the game, you personally don't see it as a goal, or when it is, it is secondary to other goals that you care about more.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Yeah, the XP for gold works because it makes it clear what the game is meant to be about. You're supposed to get gold.

If you want the game to be about finding your brother's killer, then maybe a game that rewards XP for gold isn't the best choice. Or else maybe it can be modified for that.
It can be both XP for gold and about finding your brother's killer. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. The DM just has stuff along the way that involves you finding gold and magic items. Your brother's killer has minions with gold. He learns you are coming and sends hired ogre thugs to waylay you.

XP and gold come freely while you pursue your goal of finding your brother's keeper.
 

Well. @Imaro you called it.

Okay. Last week player ended up on the roof with the enemies long rifle and was going to use it to shoot some muscle the other players were engaged with. I ruled situation risky with normal effect. He rolled and got a 4. I had him take out the target but the strong recoil made him drop the gun and it fell off the roof.

The game didn’t tell me to pick that consequence. I could have picked lesser effect and have it take out the enemies left arm instead of kill him. Or have the recoil hit the pc so hard it caused harm. Or have the bullet go through and hit and harm his ally below. Or I could have had the pistol toting bad guy get a lucky shot off on him. Etc. Tons of options.

The game really doesn’t actually offer advice on which fiction to pick does it? If not, then I was absolutely correct.

Its difficult to know exactly if this was the right call on Position and Effect, but it could easily be.

So lets take a look at Position, Effect, Consequences, and Resistance.

POSITION

Position is about how troublesome and dangerous the situation is. In order for me to be confident that I know Risky was the best choice, I would need to know more about the fiction and what had been established through play to this point. Things like:

* which city ward were they in?

* what was the Score type?

* was this in broad "daylight" with civs around?

* Bluecoat patrols or precinct nearby?

* was this a haunted building or is there any other supernatural phenomenon in play?

* does this gang have an allied gang laired nearby?

* it appears this gang includes rifleman/snipers (a member of the Crew secured a long gun from them). Is this their Turf and are their other buildings nearby where they migh have sentries in an overwatch position that could put this PC downrange of some iron sights?

* Is this just a one story building with easy ingress/egress to the top via fire escape? If this is their turf, this could be an easy reinforcements complication with Thug tag enemies (a few mooks or an Expert based on Position).

EFFECT

* Scale - if you're in melee and they've got a numerical advantage, Scale differential hurts your Effect level. The opposite is true if you're in an overwatch position firing down on a melee. If the bad guys have your Crew outnumbered, that means you've got a target-rich environment so your one shot to take somebody out is at an advantage.

* Scale - distance. If this shot is beyond your typical blunderbuss/long gun range, then reduce Effect for that.

* Quality/Tier - If your long gun (or a long gun in your hands) gets + Effect and you're same Tier than the bad guys, that is increased Effect (and vice versa).

* Potency - Probably not much in the way to help here unless they have armor and you've secured armor-piercing rounds as an asset (or something like that).

So just tally up the factors for Effect.

CONSEQUENCES

So, like you've mentioned above, there is always going to be a diverse menu of consequences. The flow chart for evaluating consequences and winnowing them down to your ultimate choice is basically like this:

* Always change the situation tangibly.

* Follow the rules for Position.

* Follow the fiction (what constellation of Consequences are in play).

* Don’t make the PCs look incompetent.

* Follow through with the Consequences you've already telegraphed (Telegraph Trouble and Tell them the Consequences and Ask <if they want to follow through> before the Action Roll is made...maybe they want to revise their course of action).

* Don't negate a PCs success with your Consequence (you can throttle it back just like they can do with your Consequences via Resistance, but don't negate).

* Advocate for the interests and capabilities of the setting and your NPCs via your Consequences.

* Play Goal-Forward (understand what the players are trying to accomplish and put obstacles and consequences in the way of their evinced objective/intent).

* Ask leading questions and follow their lead. Do they think their Rival could be in play here? Is something thematically relevant to them potentially at risk.

* Set and Tick a Clock. Think both on-screen (intra-Score) and offscreen (Setting/Faction Clock outside of the Score). Is that the best and most interesting play here?

* Don't overcomplicate things. Sometimes its just Harm or its just Heat. If that makes sense and it fits all the rest of the bills...do it.

* Use more than one Consequence where you can (especially Desperate Position; eg a Controlled Consequence + Risky Consequence = Desperate). It changes the situation more dynamically, creates more interesting decision-points for players, and gives them the opportunity to outright mitigate a Controlled Consequence to nothing.

* Keep the meta channel open. Ask them what they think of the consequences. Make sure they remember they can Resist the consequence and tell them the mitigated impact of the Consequence (eg now that you will be moving it from Risky to Controlled).


RESISTANCE

As mentioned directly above, (a) always remind the players they can Resist a Consequence and (b) be ready to depict what that newly mitigated/throttled-back Consequence (eg from Risky now to Controlled) will look like so they can navigate their decision-point.





So without knowing a bit more, I can't say for sure if the Position or Effect was the way to go here...but Risky : Standard is the default matrix so its a good fallback if you aren't sure!

As far as your Consequence goes, I would say one big thing to be mindful of is "Don’t make the PCs look incompetent." Scoundrels handle firearms routinely so about the only time I would go with the complication of "the recoil is so intense that you fumble the weapon and it clickety blacks on the street below you" is if this was a specialty weapon with special effects that was either (a) crafted or (b) acquired as an asset which also has (c) a Volatile tag (an auto-Consequence) where you've already telegraphed that the kick/recoil is the default Consequence you're going to administer for the Volatile tag.

The other thing to consider is this. Unless otherwise stipulated (like the Hound's weaponry), Duskvol firearms are all breech-loading weapons with Slow reload. So firing off your Blunderbuss long gun and then losing it actually may not be much of a complication at all because they would be out of the conflict for a bit having to reload it anyway.


Here are my thoughts on what I might have done given a particular set of parameters/fiction:

* IF it was Risky.

* IF it was a one-story building.

* IF this is on their Turf.

* IF the gang has sufficient scale to support reinforcements/more personnel (due to their Tier).

* IF this gang is Billihooks (dogs and thugs).

* THEN, I'm probably saying the following:

GM: "From your position you can hear "sniper on the roof(!)", followed by the sound of the doors to their vice den double doors opening and shutting dramatically. "I got 'em! Sick 'em boy!" The sound of a ravenous barking dog bolting up the iron-wrought stairs to your position on the roof (Its going to be an Expert Thug). Its going to be on top of you QUICK. No time for reload before it gets up here. (If you can somehow Resist this, then its just a Thug Dog and not an Expert...they didn't have time to deploy their meanest canine so they grabbed what was on-hand)."

They have a moment to act, the long gun isn't going to do much for them here, and their facing down a dangerous Thug (if they're a "long gunner", it may be that melee Action Dots aren't their forte). Maybe they flash back to trap the steps. Maybe they flashback and load out a zip line that they set up and they're going to slide down it all the way to the alley across the street while they reload the long gun. Maybe they pull out a melee weapon and go to work against this dog. Maybe they can somehow befriend it. Maybe their a Hound and their ghost-dog-friend will handle this dangerous mutt while they reload and continue raining hell down upon the bad guys.

Who knows.
 

Oofta

Legend
Gaining levels is a default goal of the game. Whether an individual cares about that goal or not will vary from person to person. That means that while gaining levels is a goal of the game, you personally don't see it as a goal, or when it is, it is secondary to other goals that you care about more.
Yeah, I wasn't expressing my thoughts correctly. 🤷‍♂️

Seems to me there has been a shift over editions. The leveling carrot, or at least the mechanism to achieve that carrot has been changing and evolving. Old school D&D it was all about killing the monsters and and getting the loot. You can still do that of course, but there's also more emphasis on leveling because you can tell different parts of the story.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
One example has already been given: gold for XP.

Other examples, with different structures, come from 4e: players can author quests for their PCs, which then create an overarching framework for the GM to establish encounters; and players can indicate desires for magic items for their PCs, which the GM refers to in providing treasure parcels.
How much of the quest did the player author vs. what the DM authors?
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Yeah, I wasn't expressing my thoughts correctly. 🤷‍♂️

Seems to me there has been a shift over editions. The leveling carrot, or at least the mechanism to achieve that carrot has been changing and evolving. Old school D&D it was all about killing the monsters and and getting the loot. You can still do that of course, but there's also more emphasis on leveling because you can tell different parts of the story.
I agree. They've also dropped the amount of XP to level considerably so PCs level faster.
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
It can be both XP for gold and about finding your brother's killer. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. The DM just has stuff along the way that involves you finding gold and magic items. Your brother's killer has minions with gold. He learns you are coming and sends hired ogre thugs to waylay you.

XP and gold come freely while you pursue your goal of finding your brother's keeper.

Sure, there are a lot of ways that it can be handled. My opinion is that it's best when the reward system of the game aligns with the goals that players have for their characters. So if revenge on your brother's killer is a goal, the game would probably benefit from some kind of reward for taking steps toward that.

Then you don't have to worry about finding some way to align the game's reward system toward what you want. It will just be what you want.

Old school D&D it was all about killing the monsters and and getting the loot. You can still do that of course, but there's also more emphasis on leveling because you can tell different parts of the story.

That's not quite right. Old school D&D did XP for gold so that it wasn't the killing of a monster that earned you the XP, but rather getting the loot. It's an important distinction.

Compared to later editions where the gaining of XP has shifted more onto killing monsters (with some recommendations on how to include other things, as well, but boy killing monsters is pretty central). I don't think it's a coincidence that this coincides with encounter balance and CR and all of that.
 

pemerton

Legend
Not sure I can be any clearer or how many times I have to repeat. XP, gold for XP or any variation therein is metagame motivation, it's motivation for the player not the character. When I DM I want the motivation for the player to be playing a game that they enjoy, I do that by creating motivations for the PC.

I'm well aware of the reward centers of the player being rewarded by leveling up. I did not make myself clear. I was discussing what would motivate some farm kid to pick up a pointy stick one day and say "I'm going to go risk getting my derriere handed to me by goblins! Later my dudes!"
No one in this thread - me, @hawkeyefan, @ Aldarc, @EzekielRaiden to whom you replied with your post about D&D having no rules for player goals, anyone else - thinks that "XP for gold" is a character motivation.

Character motivations can be anything at all. Or none - a lot of classic D&D has been played using characters who have no motivations at all, but are just playing pieces (eg I ran a session of S2 White Plume Mountain earlier this year that was as I've just described).

I also note that you say when I DM I create motivations for the PCs. That's interesting. I started a thread earlier this month on different ways of establishing starting situations and motivations: Various ways of setting up and starting RPG play What you describe is an example of category D in my thread. One reason for having different structures and processes of play in a RPG is to open up some of the other possibilities that I described.

I would not know how to run relatively complex combat without the rules. You could have one person point and say "Bang your dead" to which the target says "Nah uh, I ducked". If I wanted a simplified system I could play rock paper scissors with my players. Another option would be to have the attacker roll up to 3 6 sided die if they have the resources while the defender rolls up to 2 6 sided die to defend if they want to risk that many resources and they're available. But I was discussing the somewhat complex give and take combat represented by D&D, not Risk.
When a player says (speaking as their characer) "I jump the pit", presumably you don't just say "Nah uh, you fall your doom!" Or if they are in a running race against a NPC, you presumably don't just say (in the voice of the NPC) "Huh, suck on that, you lost!" Presumably you call for opposed checks, or checks against a DC that reflects the difficulty of what the PC is attempting, or whatever. Combat can be done the same way. You prefer to do it a different way (and dismiss other approaches as "playing Risk") but that other way is not needed. It's an option.

I don't know how you do resource depletion when a PC jumps a pit or talks to a sentry, but however you do that could be equally applied to combat resolution (eg in Prince Valiant, the RPG I mentioned upthread, the GM decides: RPG combat without injury and healing rules).

D&D is not a particularly accurate simulation of combat (and an accurate simulation would probably not be particularly enjoyable) but there it's there at least in broad brushstrokes.
I don't follow this. Where does simulation come into it?
 



Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Sure, there are a lot of ways that it can be handled. My opinion is that it's best when the reward system of the game aligns with the goals that players have for their characters. So if revenge on your brother's killer is a goal, the game would probably benefit from some kind of reward for taking steps toward that.
I completely agree. Rather tepid non-combat XP awards have frustrated me since 1e gave piddling amounts for picking locks and casting spells. I personally give more XP for roleplaying and quest completion, than for combat. Not by a lot, but it's more and you could theoretically level up quite a bit without ever getting into a fight.

I'd probably have a player revolt if I tried to remove combat like that, but it could be done. :p
 

If it's a player-authored quest, all of it? I mean, by definition, right?
So they decide the treasure, the monsters, the map layouts, everything?
normally I think of player authored quest being the player laying out (at least) any 2 of the following 3 "What monster you are going to fight" "What treasure is there" "What is the point of this" the map layout isn't normally part of it.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
normally I think of player authored quest being the player laying out (at least) any 2 of the following 3 "What monster you are going to fight" "What treasure is there" "What is the point of this" the map layout isn't normally part of it.
When I think of player authored quests I think of the example I often give. I'm telling the DM that my fighter is going to travel to the northern wastes to unite the barbarian tribes under my banner and raise a new kingdom. It gives him a clear, possibly achievable goal for him to flesh out. I don't normally view treasure as part of it, but it could be if the quest was to track down the location of and acquire a rod of lordly might or some other powerful item or artifact.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top