Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

On addictive design in RPGs

Latro

Arcane
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Messages
7,348
Location
Vita umbratilis
except he's in the fucking CRPG business and this is Codex where something "Addicting" has to do with fun gameplay mechanics/engaging hour long quests/etc. Sawyer/Obsidian aren't in the mobile/MMO side of things, so it's nonsensical at best. Even the best CRPGs aren't WoW level of crack addiction, it's more "I've got nothing to do and feel like blowing a weekend on Wizardry 6" or some such.

Because there is a world outside that is awesome and terrible and people should engage it most of the time instead of continually retreating from it.
since he lives in an affluent part of california and takes trips around europe, I'm assuming the "terrible" part of the world involves avoiding hobo cowpies and other poor people
 

Roguey

Codex Staff
Staff Member
Sawyerite
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
35,823
Funny how you guise hate Bethesda and Bioware so much considering they're the ones most guilty of including skinnerbox elements in their single player games. :M

Think of Witcher 3 and its points of interest. "I hate it but I feel like I have to visit them all so the only way this game is tolerable is if I turn it off." That's what Josh is against (the inclusion of that element in the first place).
 

DeepOcean

Arcane
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
7,395
All the best games I have played, I consider them addictive. That's what made me come back for more and more. Maybe he means something different, but then someone should explain.

Now, where is my cigarette.

"Addictive" means something built around a fast frustration-reward cycle. Classic examples are the Civilization series with "just one more round," most RTS's, and just about every MMO ever where the moneymaking model is to keep people playing no matter what. And of course almost every "casual" game from Angry Birds to Candy Crush. It's based on a treadmill of frequent rewards for repetitive actions which hooks directly into your dopamine system.

"Engaging" means something that snags your imagination, intelligence, or emotions. It's a goal that's inherently opposed to "addictive," because eventually the story will end, the puzzles will be solved, or the system will be mastered, and that's it... until, perhaps, you return to it a few years later.

Addictive games can have engaging elements and vice versa of course; Civ has a quite a bit of system to master which is engaging rather than addictive, and most RPG's also rely on character and gear progression which are addictive rather than engaging. So while the two are opposed, they're not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Ehh... those talks are strange, he is talking about a niche RPG and not an MMO or a mobile game so talking of "addictive" and tread mills on niche RPG products is just non applicable. Unless he is trying to sell this game to an MMO and mobile audience and is comparing it to Candy Crush or something, what is something worrisome and with the major dumb down on the mechanics...

Yep, Casual Obsidian confirmed, I regard PoE as a shitty attempt of making a BG style RTwP rpg, if Tranny is successful, guess I will have to regard PoE 2 as a shitty attempt of making a 2d Dragon Age. Obsidian always follows Bioware footsteps to the end, seems they are slowly following their decline too but with Paradox in place of EA this time.:M
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,489
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
On the contrary, the rise of Sawyer and Obsidian 2.0 signals the end of the company's attempts to become Bioware 2, which was their original founding strategy. Obsidian may never again develop a cinematic AAA RPG.
 

Fairfax

Arcane
Joined
Jun 17, 2015
Messages
3,518
On the contrary, the rise of Sawyer and Obsidian 2.0 signals the end of the company's attempts to become Bioware 2, which was their original founding strategy. Obsidian may never again develop a cinematic AAA RPG.
I doubt it. I don't think Feargus gave up on his episodic Skyrim or whatever, just taking a different path there.

Also, I'd argue MCA's depature was much more of a turning point than "the rise of Sawyer", but that's just me. :M
 

Trashos

Arcane
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
3,413
On the contrary, the rise of Sawyer and Obsidian 2.0 signals the end of the company's attempts to become Bioware 2, which was their original founding strategy. Obsidian may never again develop a cinematic AAA RPG.

Interesting. Care to elaborate on this? What would they have done differently, if they were still thinking about AAA cinematic experiences? Sawyer was the leader in FNV, was he not?
 

DeepOcean

Arcane
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
7,395
On the contrary, the rise of Sawyer and Obsidian 2.0 signals the end of the company's attempts to become Bioware 2, which was their original founding strategy. Obsidian may never again develop a cinematic AAA RPG.
I wish I could be optimistic but while I agree with you and the days of cinematic AAA RPG for Obsidian maybe are getting to an end, I don't think we should expect any major incline from Obsidian. Obsidian maybe is slowly leaving the AAA world but the AAA mentality continues there very strong... All Obsidian games were weak on gameplay and strong on the storyfag side, with a ton of people responsible for the storyfag side leaving Obsidian and a designer that surely talks big but underdelivers on practice... it seems things on the gameplay front will remain as mediocre as ever.
 

vortex

Fabulous Optimist
Joined
Mar 25, 2016
Messages
4,221
Location
Temple of Alvilmelkedic
My opinion is that PoE2 will be full 3d game. It's just a hunch why is not being developed right away. I think Unity will be more mature in that sense with #5.5 to 6 version.

Reasons: Divinity Original Sin 2 will set up new standards of pen'n'paper RPGs with dungen master mode. Releasing PoE2 afterwards would be a step back in that sense.
Personally, I would like 2d design as in Baldur's gate.
I believe Obsidian is aiming for more wider audience with MP and maybe a console release which I think is a must for the studio to grow.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,489
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
My opinion is that PoE2 will be full 3d game. It's just a hunch why is not being developed right away. I think Unity will be more mature in that sense with #5.5 to 6 version.

Your opinion is wrong, Josh has already said they'd never do that
 

Xzylvador

Arbiter
Patron
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
386
Location
The rich part of Europe
Divinity: Original Sin 2 Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture
Obsidian games were weak on gameplay and strong on the storyfag side, with a ton of people responsible for the storyfag side leaving Obsidian and a designer that surely talks big but underdelivers on practice... it seems things on the gameplay front will remain as mediocre as ever.

...

PoE was supposed to be a storyfag game?

Wow. That's just sad.
 

Prime Junta

Guest
My opinion is that PoE2 will be full 3d game. It's just a hunch why is not being developed right away. I think Unity will be more mature in that sense with #5.5 to 6 version.

Reasons: Divinity Original Sin 2 will set up new standards of pen'n'paper RPGs with dungen master mode. Releasing PoE2 afterwards would be a step back in that sense.
Personally, I would like 2d design as in Baldur's gate.
I believe Obsidian is aiming for more wider audience with MP and maybe a console release which I think is a must for the studio to grow.

Ain't gonna happen.

Console release is also extremely unlikely due to the interface difficulties; it's just not easy to control a game like this with a controller. Tablet release is much more plausible.
 

Telengard

Arcane
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
1,621
Location
The end of every place
All the best games I have played, I consider them addictive. That's what made me come back for more and more. Maybe he means something different, but then someone should explain.

Now, where is my cigarette.

"Addictive" means something built around a fast frustration-reward cycle. Classic examples are the Civilization series with "just one more round," most RTS's, and just about every MMO ever where the moneymaking model is to keep people playing no matter what. And of course almost every "casual" game from Angry Birds to Candy Crush. It's based on a treadmill of frequent rewards for repetitive actions which hooks directly into your dopamine system.

"Engaging" means something that snags your imagination, intelligence, or emotions. It's a goal that's inherently opposed to "addictive," because eventually the story will end, the puzzles will be solved, or the system will be mastered, and that's it... until, perhaps, you return to it a few years later.

Addictive games can have engaging elements and vice versa of course; Civ has a quite a bit of system to master which is engaging rather than addictive, and most RPG's also rely on character and gear progression which are addictive rather than engaging. So while the two are opposed, they're not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Ehh... those talks are strange, he is talking about a niche RPG and not an MMO or a mobile game so talking of "addictive" and tread mills on niche RPG products is just non applicable. Unless he is trying to sell this game to an MMO and mobile audience and is comparing it to Candy Crush or something, what is something worrisome and with the major dumb down on the mechanics...
Come come. Surely all of you have noticed the big game companies hiring behavioral psychologists and implementing manipulative and profiteering elements into every game they control (or in the case of Valve, also all over the Steam store). Loot crates, collectibles, social unlocks, and time-vaulted gameplay are merely the most egregious of a vast array of addictive and manipulative elements that can be inserted into any game. Very unchristian to do so, of course, but if your goal is to take as much money from the weak-willed and defenseless as you can get, it's certainly the way to go.
 

Shin

Cipher
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
683
All the best games I have played, I consider them addictive. That's what made me come back for more and more. Maybe he means something different, but then someone should explain.

Now, where is my cigarette.

"Addictive" means something built around a fast frustration-reward cycle. Classic examples are the Civilization series with "just one more round," most RTS's, and just about every MMO ever where the moneymaking model is to keep people playing no matter what. And of course almost every "casual" game from Angry Birds to Candy Crush. It's based on a treadmill of frequent rewards for repetitive actions which hooks directly into your dopamine system.

"Engaging" means something that snags your imagination, intelligence, or emotions. It's a goal that's inherently opposed to "addictive," because eventually the story will end, the puzzles will be solved, or the system will be mastered, and that's it... until, perhaps, you return to it a few years later.

Addictive games can have engaging elements and vice versa of course; Civ has a quite a bit of system to master which is engaging rather than addictive, and most RPG's also rely on character and gear progression which are addictive rather than engaging. So while the two are opposed, they're not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Ehh... those talks are strange, he is talking about a niche RPG and not an MMO or a mobile game so talking of "addictive" and tread mills on niche RPG products is just non applicable. Unless he is trying to sell this game to an MMO and mobile audience and is comparing it to Candy Crush or something, what is something worrisome and with the major dumb down on the mechanics...
Come come. Surely all of you have noticed the big game companies hiring behavioral psychologists and implementing manipulative and profiteering elements into every game they control (or in the case of Valve, also all over the Steam store). Loot crates, collectibles, social unlocks, and time-vaulted gameplay are merely the most egregious of a vast array of addictive and manipulative elements that can be inserted into any game. Very unchristian to do so, of course, but if your goal is to take as much money from the weak-willed and defenseless as you can get, it's certainly the way to go.

The sad thing is that a lot of them youngsters have trouble separating the two. Like RPG = threadmill progression, threadmill progression = RPG. That's why some probably believe call of duty is a RPG (IT HAS RANKS DUH) and actual RPG's are remnants from the time people listened to cassette tapes. But where does the Skinner box stop and meaningful progression begin? These are questions answered better by ones wiser than myself.
 

Prime Junta

Guest
But where does the Skinner box stop and meaningful progression begin? These are questions answered better by ones wiser than myself.

Good thing I'm here then.

Any character progression, whether it's with stats and abilities or with gear, has an inherent Skinner-boxiness to it, especially if challenges ramp up with your power (as they should, more or less, or else the game will turn into a yawn.)

The determining factor is design intent. What was the designer thinking when putting in a particular feature? If the intent was to create a progression where challenges get more complex at the same time as the tools at your disposal, then it's not Skinner box design. If the intent was to keep the player hooked in a frustration-reward cycle, then it is Skinner box design.

It is pretty easy to tell what the design intent is by looking at the design, because the different intents lead to different outcomes. For example, if progression is largely or exclusively based on pumping numbers without adding new qualities, then we're looking at a Skinner box design. Conversely, if progression regularly introduces qualitatively new features, then we're looking at an engaging design.

This is rarely either-or, it's more about which side dominates. DA:I design lies really heavily on the Skinner box side: most progression, whether it's with gear or with your stats, just involves pumping numbers, with qualitatively new abilities only introduced sparsely -- and many of the "new" abilities are actually just plain old attacks with bigger numbers and a cooldown.

Pillars design is much more engaging by intent: when levelling up, you almost(?) always get qualitatively new abilities -- things that you couldn't do before, but can do now --, items don't have a progression where you're continuously dumping old stuff in favour of new stuff, and tougher enemies aren't just the same enemies with bigger numbers; they often can do things the less tough enemies couldn't (ranged stun buttfucks for example).
^
This paragraph is true even if you hate Pillars BTW. Designers don't always succeed, and intent does not always translate to reality. In Pillars' case, before the AI changes in version 2, the game could be effectively played by cycling through a couple of rote strategies, with progression only making them more effective, turning what was supposed to be an engaging design into merely an addictive one... and, perhaps, not even all that addictive, given that it doesn't have many Skinner box features.
 

DeepOcean

Arcane
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
7,395
It is holyday here and I'm bored, so wall of text incomming:

I dunno, it is best to separate different practices, there are the practices that are there to artificialy extend the value of the game and the ones you could classify as of evil gambling nature. (you could classify number inflation and grinding as evil, on both, the designers try to fool the players on playing repetitive gameplay while thinking they are getting value but this isn't addictive gameplay by itself, randomness and time/money asre needed.)

There is the "addictive" design that takes gambling and make a "legal" version of it. Loot boxes on Heart Stone or similar games are like that, just legal gambling. You have a reward that may come or not and you make an investment in money on the hopes of getting it, the tension of the risk of not getting it and losing the investment creates a high that make people addicted to it.

There are other design practices that could be considered "addictive" but I dunno if that is the right word, inflating numbers on RPGs is a common practice on JRPGs but it has more to do with creating the illusion of progression on what is a really simplistic system than "addictive" design by itself, it is an attempt of the designers to hide the lack of well tought out progression of the game. You have this shit on things like Borderlands, for example, but inflating numbers by itself isn't an addictive element unless you add the choice to invest time and the randomness of the reward to it. Borderlands 2 has addictive design not because the numbers are inflated to the size of the US debt (this is an artificial design to create value on guns that wouldn't have value) but because of the random nature of the loot.

There are the filling of the map with pointless collectible stuff, technicaly you could claim this is addictive design as you invest your time to get to that place where the collectible is on the hopes of good stuff being there and the reward being good, most of the time it is not, like on real gambling. This is a complicated practice to label as addictive design because if the collectibles aren't random on nature and the reward isn't impressive, it is very to dismiss those collectibles and hardly that cause addiction.

There are other practices like grinding on Diablo clones for example, the designers try to create artificial value on a really simplistic as fuck gameplay. You have some stuff like Destiny and The Division where millions of people waste hours grinding to get coloured loot while playing absolute mediocre to really poor games, sure, you get a high and technicaly the treadmill works by replacing money with time, you invest time on the hopes of getting a reward that may come or not. Grinding on itself isn't addictive design however, it is another way to create artificial value on a game but when it is coupled with random loot drops, it becomes addictive design.

I dunno if Civilization, one more turn feel is addictive, technicaly, you are investing your time on your civilization and you may get or not the reward of winning the game as random shit can happen to you and other civs may decide to ally against you and gangrape you, for example, the tension of what is going to happen create some addictive feels BUT here things get blurry. On Civ, you have control, you have choices and you can tilt luck on your favor by using the right strategy, the gameplay is addictive AND engaging.

So, a game can be addictive AND engaging, it is a fake dichotomy to claim otherwise. To try to remove the addictive element of Civ is just to be a fool, actually to care about addictive elements on games is to be a fool. The problem of addiction is when it is used on a cynical manner by developers to fool the players and keep them engaged with money and time on a game that doesn't deserve that. If Scarlet Johanson, Anne Hethaway and Eva Green came to my house and wanted to blow me all day, I would be very addicted AND engaged with that with pleasure and fuck you if you think I would want that to stop because I might get addicted but wasting money on virtual coloured loot is another sort of evil.
 
Last edited:

Telengard

Arcane
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
1,621
Location
The end of every place
I think it's time for an illustration. I choose (because everyone knows them and the system uses a number of the top tier profiteering methods all at once) Steam cards.

Steam cards are, of course, a collectible. But a particular kind of collectible. Regular collectibles are things people buy because they have an interest in the subject. Manufactured collectibles are the things that have 'collectible' on the box and are designed to take your money and aren't actually collectible at all, and then there's the game collectible. The game collectible is designed to keep people playing a game even after they are done with it. Why? For a variety of reasons, but most of them boil down to advertising. When you load up Steam, you're hit with advertising. Then the landing page (if left unchanged) is inundated with advertising. Many games have splash screens with advertising. A number of games have menu lobbies that contain advertising and DLC storefronts. And finally, there's the in-game advertising. Which all means, the longer the company can trap you in their space, the more money their ads earn them. And that translates to a game design of collectibles, collectibles everywhere. Which, even if it weren't manipulative, is lazy design.

But wait! There's more. So, how does one get Steam cards? They are time-vaulted, so one must play the game for a certain amount of time, whether one wants to play or not. This encourages people to play games they don't want to play in order to score (a drug term) these cards. But people don't get a specific card in a specific order, oh no, they get a random card. Thus causing double-ups. Not only that, one only gets enough cards to complete a half-set, since the rest are vaulted in a money store. And you have to complete three of these sets to get the full collection of related collectibles and social ranks. This encourages you to drop by the helpfully nearby enclosed marketplace. A setup that not only keeps you on Steam longer, screwing around on the marketplace, and thus lets you be inundated with more advertising, it opens your wallet. In sales, getting someone to open their wallet is the hard part. Once it's open, though, the dam bursts, and people spend freely. So, they're already invested in this card set, and completing it is only a couple bucks. Their wallet just opened, and now they're freely buying and selling on the market. Spending money they wouldn't have otherwise done.

What's more, there's the chance of the money drop (the foil card). This combines the collector mentality so common amongst humans with an entry-level gambling process - if you just keep playing this game, you might score the big one! You probably won't, but the hope is there. Tantalizing.

But wait! There's more. Once one completes a set of collector cards, one gets a series of social emotes to be used in Steam chat, backgrounds to be used on their Steam page, and badges to display on those pages. All of which are exclusive social elements, designed to not only foster a Keeping-Up-With-the-Joneses mentality (That emote is cool! Where did you get it? I want one!), but to invest you further and further in the Steam experience. So that you become so invested in the Steam materials you go nowhere else. So that they can inundate you with more advertising.

Even better, there's Steam Level, which is a leveling system thingie that is increased by putting together these card collections. Steam levels require an increasingly larger number of card sets to be completed in order to gain them as one gets higher, and the leveling process is entirely based in social-ranking. The purpose of Level is mostly a notation thing that is always displayed next to your Steam name in the social window, thus fostering a sense of competition amongst the very weak-willed. And more importantly, a few - a very few - Steam Levels have additional social unlocks, such as a different shield shape around the level number or the ability to have more Steam 'friends'. With Steam Friends again being a thing to keep you on Steam. Which all adds up to a treadmill system.

But wait! There's still more. Not only does one get cards by playing the game, once a sucker player has all the drops possible from a game, they become eligible for a card pack drop. Which basically boils down to the possibly of a random drop of a pack of three unknown cards - that is, if you load up Steam at least once a week. So, even if you would have chosen to do something else otherwise, due to the pressure of Steam time-vaulted content, you're back on. Load up Steam, and, boom, advertisements. And once loaded, most people are likely to then play a game. And, boom, more advertisements. And not only that, these pack cards are a random set of three, thus feeding back into the market system due to double-ups, incomplete card sets, and the ever-present hope for a big money drop.

Basically, the entire goal of the collectible cards is to keep you on Steam even when you would rather be somewhere else. It is a method of controlling the environment of the player, so they only see Steam and are always on Steam seeing Steam's advertisements.

For games, such as Battlefield, the trick is implementing all of these things (and EA certainly did) in such a way that most players don't notice (a meh job on that one). And what is the purpose of hemming players in like this? Extracting money from the weak-willed and defenseless. Who are the weak-willed and defenseless? Children, the retarded, the mentally ill, addicts.

Yes, one of the key targets of these tactics is children. This whole experience is all 'children & video games', after all. So basically, those advocating using these tactics are advocating the encouragement of asset-stripping children and corrupting them by introducing them to the classically immoral ways of gambling.
 
Last edited:

Prime Junta

Guest
Telengard huh.

I did notice there are these things called 'cards' on my Steam account but had no clue what the deal is. Sounds profoundly unappealing. Thanks for the explanation...

BTW, is there a way to make your Steam profile completely private?
 

Ogg

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
1,005
Location
River Seine
Codex 2012 Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Codex USB, 2014 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech
Basically, Sawyer doesn't like Candy crush. And still, Codexers will argue to death about that.
I love this place.
 

Jrpgfan

Erudite
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
2,023
Now, Sawyer talks about how he doesn’t want players getting addicted in order to save electricity! He wants then to save their time to do something more important. Let me guess, they should play less games in order to save the environment! Jesus Fucking Christ. The studio should be renamed “SJW entertainment”.

But living in a post-apocalyptic world is every rpg player's dream. Why would we want to save the environment? That makes no sense.
 

Lacrymas

Arcane
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
18,015
Pathfinder: Wrath
His thought process(es) is (are) weird. He doesn't want to make addictive games because he thinks there are more important things to do. Like what? Does he think the same of musicians who play on their instrument a lot? His phrasing and meaning are either really deluded and vague or he's on the path of totally losing it. Not to mention that RPGs usually don't employ intentional Skinner's boxes or psychological manipulation. It comes off as smug and holier-than-thou tbh, like he's trying to teach us how to live our lives. Thank you, Josh, I've seen the light. Not to mention that there are more important things you can be trying to teach us.

One other problem is the concept of the Skinner's Box in itself. Like Prime Junta said, one of the clear differences is design intent. To use the musician analogy again, is your progressively getting better at your instrument by repeating passages or pieces a Skinner's Box? No, obviously, that's insane. Another problem is the addiction part - it's only addiction if something is preventing you from living your life in the way you want or is detrimental to your health. If he's using it in the sense of "addictive design is bad design", then sure, but it doesn't come off as such from his quotes. His whole position is just bizarre and kinda creepy from my perspective.

Addiction - Addiction is a medical condition that is characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, despite adverse consequences.
 
Self-Ejected

Lurker King

Self-Ejected
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
1,865,419
Come come. Surely all of you have noticed the big game companies hiring behavioral psychologists and implementing manipulative and profiteering elements into every game they control (or in the case of Valve, also all over the Steam store). Loot crates, collectibles, social unlocks, and time-vaulted gameplay are merely the most egregious of a vast array of addictive and manipulative elements that can be inserted into any game. Very unchristian to do so, of course, but if your goal is to take as much money from the weak-willed and defenseless as you can get, it's certainly the way to go.

Causals aren’t helpless victims. They buy AAA games because they want an escapist time sink activity and mindless entertainment. Studios just provide that product with efficiency. It is not as if they are selling crack with evil purposes. They provide specific products tailor-made for the need of escapist people.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom