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.

4X Dominus Galaxia - MoO 1 Spiritual Successor

Jeff Graw

StarChart Interactive
Developer
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
802
Location
Frigid Wasteland
UPDATE 2:

We did it! The Kickstarter was successful!

UPDATE:

The KickStarter campaign is live now!

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/starchartinteractive/dominus-galaxia

And there's a free beta build available for download:

https://starchart-interactive.itch.io/dominus-galaxia




**************************

The general idea behind Dominus Galaxia is to make the game that Master of Orion 2 should have been had that game been made as an evolution of Master of Orion 1 - and not a Civilization derivative. The project began early last year when Brent Patterson (who was making a little 4X named Beyond Beyaan) and I combined our then individual projects together.

Because our website is in a pretty poor state (eventually I'll get around to improving it, but for now I'm head down in game development) I'll share a few random screenshots laying around on my dropbox that should highlight some progress.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/s5zjmdju7we0s7e/R69xihj.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/i2zqps20n6xbovj/UI Stuff.png?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cutg2yfq2ee85a6/ShipDesign4.png?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/33r76h31vcyfdoi/Space Battle.png?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qh6fwqh8cjxfabv/Spider Scientist Promo.jpg?dl=0

A few bullet points:

-The AI as it currently stands rapes us like a multi headed abomination, yet does not cheat and is still improving. Alex of Pandora fame is spearheading AI development.
-Unlike most recent entries, combat is tactical, hex based, and turn based.
-Simulated battles follow the same logic as manually resolved ones. You can choose to automate battles you don't want to bother with on a case by case basis.
-Space and ground combat support more than two sides.
-There are different types of galactic terrain, and more than any other space 4X with point-to-point movement, the galaxy feels like it has form. There are natural choke points, and interesting geographical features. I think we've been able to solve a lot of the problems star lanes are supposed to solve without actually having to resort to implementing them. You can easily add additional shapes for the galaxy generator to use.
-Exploration is heavily emphasized. When you start the game, you do not know where you are in the galaxy or how many opponents you are facing.
-Almost everything is defined in data. The game is very moddable.
-The tech tree is a mix of hand crafted and procedural, infinite technologies. You never run out of techs to research. Six individual fields of research, like MoO 1.
-Although mechanically we're very similar to MoO 1, there's less busy work and you can manage colonies faster. Many UI and QoL improvements.

I'll try to post updates here semi-regularly. Also, we'll be looking for testers fairly soon. Because a big factor will be testing the AI and looking for exploits, people who can beat MoO 1 on impossible get bonus points.
 
Last edited:

Zeraan

Novice
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
11
Hi, I'm Brent, the guy mentioned in the original post. We merged our projects (There was a thread on Beyond Beyaan) for several very good reasons.

One, why re-invent the wheel? Both of us were working on a MoO 1-esque game.
Two, Jeff had pretty graphics that I was jealous of.
Three, I had game logic that Jeff was jealous of.
Four, BB was only for Windows. Using Unity meant it'd be cross-platform with Mac and Linux
Five, I'm deaf, so I needed someone else to do the sounds :)
Six, Jeff works on the game full-time, meaning the game will get done a lot quicker than if I went at it alone with my part-time efforts.

Those who backed Beyond Beyaan on kickstarter will get Dominus Galaxia at no additional charge. Ever since we merged and worked together, we've got a lot more done than my 5 years of working on Beyond Beyaan alone! We've got tactical space combat, ground combat, colony management, technologies, and many other goodies. And it's playable from start to end! We're working on polishing, improving the interface, and bug fixing to hopefully have it ready for testing soon.

I wanted to add a note about exploration. I noticed that half of the fun in land-based 4X games were exploration and conquering of terrain. I wanted more of that in my game, so I implemented fog of war and came up with different types of nebulas. There are three types: Dense, Radioactive, and Anti-matter. Dense slows movement speed by half, radioactive blocks line of sight to any fleet (both inside and beyond the nebula), and antimatter blocks any travel besides wormhole/stargate. Antimatter nebulas is kinda equivalent to impassable mountains in land 4X games. Every game has unique terrain because the nebula's shapes and numbers are spawned procedurally.

Another thing is that in many 4X space games, as soon as you contact an empire, their territory is revealed, and the whole map is visible from the get-go, which really spoils the "eXplore" aspect of 4X games. We don't even reveal stars or empire ownership, you'd have to scout and expand to find out where they are! Every time I start a new game of DG, there's always the thrill of the unknown, and I don't even know where I am in the galaxy until mid-late game. One time I encountered an AI, and waged war against it, thinking I'm in a good shape, only to find out that the same AI was being attacked on the other side, and that AI's empire is much much larger than I am...:argh: One game was particularly cruel, as I unknowingly spawned in middle of the galaxy, with an AI on each corner, and their only way to access to each other was through me, ouch... I feel that we've achieved my goal of making "eXplore" a bigger role!
 

Beowulf

Arcane
Joined
Mar 2, 2015
Messages
1,963
I think he meant the overall trend of new 4x planned to release Soon (tm) being "MOO 1/2 inspired".

From the top of my head:
Stars in Shadow,
Lords of Rigel,
Predestination (more focused on deeper colony micromanagement, but the devs still cite MOO2 as influence),
Star Drive 2 Sector Zero, being almost straight MOO 2 clone with updated graphics,
Dominus Galaxia,
M.O.R.E (which will never come out :P),
Remnants of the Precursors (not before 2017, but still)
 

Malakal

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
10,266
Location
Poland
Dated graphics and resolution of the first MoO have repulsed me so I'm watching this project with great interest!
 

Raapys

Arcane
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
4,960
Looks good.

I think a focus on exploration and "terrain" could be a definite boon. MoO1/2 pretty much perfected the 'classic space 4x features', so you need something new to bring to the table.
 

Zeraan

Novice
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
11
I think he meant the overall trend of new 4x planned to release Soon (tm) being "MOO 1/2 inspired".

From the top of my head:
Stars in Shadow,
Lords of Rigel,
Predestination (more focused on deeper colony micromanagement, but the devs still cite MOO2 as influence),
Star Drive 2 Sector Zero, being almost straight MOO 2 clone with updated graphics,
Dominus Galaxia,
M.O.R.E (which will never come out :P),
Remnants of the Precursors (not before 2017, but still)

I think the biggest misconception is that MoO 2 expanded on MoO 1 like Civ 2 expanded on Civ 1. But MoO 1's gameplay is vastly different from MoO 2. Most everything has been radically re-designed. Tech tree is done differently. Space combat is done differently (stacked vs single ships). Spying is done differently. It's like saying Warlords Battlecry is a direct sequel to Warlords 2, because they have the same name and developed by the same people. So people think that MoO 1 was a simpler version compared to MoO 2, and never tried it out as a result.

I think when people try our game out, it will be immediately obvious that it wasn't inspired by MoO 2. But that's not a bad thing! Even with incomplete features, DG already feels fun to play and late-game have only slightly more micro than in early game due to how colony management is done, keeping the focus on fun parts.
 

Beowulf

Arcane
Joined
Mar 2, 2015
Messages
1,963
All space 4x games share a lot of elements, that is why superficially they all look alike.
And it's not a bad thing, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. It's good when a new game tries to spice up approach to one or more established elements with its own unique take (like Predestination with colonies, or Polaris Sector with spies and research), but what matters is - if the features are properly realized and you are not left with the feeling that older games did the same + a lot more.

But the most important thing, if you are going to develop a game not exclusively with multiplayer in mind, is the AI. It will brake, or make it.

Besides. I would rather like to play a clone of Emperor of the Fading Suns, than MOO2.

I'm keeping tabs on this one though and wish you best of luck. If you succeed in your endeavour it will only benefit everyone.
 
Last edited:

Zeraan

Novice
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
11
Ah yes, Emperor of the Fading Suns. I have it, but never really got to play it much. I should set some time apart and try it out. I was curious if there's any clones of EotFS, and found this, maybe you've already heard of it?

Anyway, the reason I'm working on this is because out of the MoO series, I played MoO 1 the most. There's no other games like it. Closest is Heroes of Might and Magic because it has stack-based units and tactical combat. If HoMM is so successful with similar mechanics, why not a space 4X game? It seems like most of the game follow in MoO 2's footsteps in using one representation = one ship.

Simply using MoO 1 as a base for inspiration is an unique take already :) But on top of that, we're making management of things more streamlined and more interesting. For example, in MoO 1, the "ECO" slider covers those projects:
Terraforming
Atmospheric Terraforming (change hostile to normal)
Soil Enrichment (change normal to fertile)
Adv. Soil Enrichment (change either normal or fertile to gaia)
Cloning
Pollution cleanup

What if you wanted to clone, and not terraform just yet, when both is available? Too bad, you can't! In Dominus Galaxia, we've split out the sliders so that you are actually capable of making interesting decisions. Cloning is now its own slider, terraforming is another slider. Busywork like making sure all pollution is cleaned up is now automatically handled as a deduction from the planet's production. We also made it so that when a slider is finished, it sets next slider to work on their project, on more aspects. For example, when you are done building factories, it will automatically set sliders to work on terraforming and enrichment/atmo terraforming if those are available. What this means is that you can colonize a planet, then leave it alone until it's fully developed, without any intervention, unlike MoO 1. However, this means that the planet may not follow the optimal development path, so if you want maximum efficiency, you'd manage the planets more directly. So late-game, if you colonize a bunch of worlds, but don't want to micro them, you can! YOU determine the amount of micro you want. There's no "AI" managers, it's just simply that the game mechanics avoids "busywork" microing like setting up the only optimal build queue in MoO 2.

We're taking extra care in ensuring that things that don't add to interesting choices are abstracted away, and things that can add to interesting choices are controllable. We don't have fleet list or planet list screens yet, after a year of development. But that's because they weren't as critical to late-game management as other 4X space games, but they are still important. What I'm trying to emphasis here is that we want the game to be fun, and not a spreadsheet. We want players to focus on diplomacy, researching, designing ships, and waging wars, not excessive fiddling of colonies' economies.

For the AI, are you familiar with Alex, or AiL as he is known to Pandora: First Contact? He was granted permission to work directly with the game's source code to improve the AI. He worked over a year or so tweaking the AI. The end result is that there's players who complain that the AI is brutal and cheating, despite them not cheating, on Normal! This is the same person working on AI for our game! The AI are already experts at managing their economies, as expert min/maxers. They're pretty good at designing ships as well as picking research topics, and are brutal in their attack strategies. They don't just attack one target, they calculate how much forces is needed to conquer a target, then sends that much over, and repeat for other targets. The end result is that you're forced to spread out your defenses to counter the AI's aggressiveness. If you amass large forces at a planet, the AI will attack other planets!

Alex knows how the game works pretty well, but last week he played 5 games, and lost 3 of them to AI! The other two were broken as game's code changed in the meantime. I've had to disable AI sometimes to be actually able to test certain features, as the AI was too aggressive at wiping the floor with me and each other (AI don't care if you're AI or human, it just cares if it can conquer you). AI doesn't even cheat, I know because I can see the code. And Alex is still making improvements! When the game finally enters testing, we will observe expert players' behaviors and add those to the AI so they'd perform even better. I think I can safely say that AI won't be an issue people will complain about, besides them being too hard. Don't worry, we'll add difficulty levels that nerfs the AI :)
 

Beowulf

Arcane
Joined
Mar 2, 2015
Messages
1,963
Thorough response and well deserved brofist.

I was just wondering in the other thread, that I heard that Alex was working on AI for another 4x game. So it was you all along. Glad to hear that.

Anyways, don't forget to keep us updated from time to time.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
14,153
To be fair to MOO1, wasn't it pretty much always better to do terraforming before cloning, since larger planets gave larger natural pop growth? Cloning was generally too expensive unless it was a late game super planet sending off an invasion every other turn, better off just maxing the natural growth rate and investing your production into industry/colonies/research. I guess in instances of 'we're getting invaded next turn' its better to go cloning but 99% of the time it wasn't really an interesting choice (and if getting invaded it's far better to abandon the planet, nuke the incoming colonists, then take it back).

In any case I'll always be interested in hearing about a MOO-like.
 

Zeraan

Novice
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
11
To be fair to MOO1, wasn't it pretty much always better to do terraforming before cloning, since larger planets gave larger natural pop growth? Cloning was generally too expensive unless it was a late game super planet sending off an invasion every other turn, better off just maxing the natural growth rate and investing your production into industry/colonies/research. I guess in instances of 'we're getting invaded next turn' its better to go cloning but 99% of the time it wasn't really an interesting choice (and if getting invaded it's far better to abandon the planet, nuke the incoming colonists, then take it back).

In any case I'll always be interested in hearing about a MOO-like.

While that's true in MoO 1, we've tweaked the economics of our game to be a bit different from MoO 1. As stated, we wanted to make more interesting choices, so we balanced things a bit to make cloning a lot more beneficial.

The biggest difference is the factory cost. MoO 1 manual and official strategy guide both states that factory cost starts at 10 BC per, and robotic control improvements increases the cost by 5 BC for each increment, but only after previous tier has been maxed out.

For example, if you have 100 pop planet, and robotic controls 2, you could build up to 200 factories for 10 BC each. But if you research robotic controls III, the theory is that the first 200 factories still costs 10 BC each, then when you reach 200 factories, you refit the 200 factories (spending extra 5 BC per factory for total of 1,000 BC), then finally build the next 100 factories at 15 BC each. For a planet that already has 200 factories, you simply spend 5 bc per factory to refit, then build the extra factories.

However, what's actually happening is that ALL factories now cost whatever the new cost is, and planets with existing factories are forced to refit, no matter the amount of factories already built. This is particularly harmful to new colonies, especially when you just discover RC III without any cost reduction techs, as they'd have to shell out the full cost of new factory (Robotic controls VII costs 35 BC each!).

The whole refit thing was a bit hard for regular players to understand, so we decided to simplify things a bit, but also balance the economics a bit. For each tier of factories, they cost 10 X n, where n is the tier number that increments after max pop amount is reached for previous tier. So on a 100 pop planet, first 100 factories costs 10 BC each, 2nd 100 factories costs 20 BC each, 3rd 100 factories costs 30 BC each, and so forth. What this does is allow new colonies to set up factories relatively quickly, but as more factories are built, the progress slows down.

While working on AI, Alex discovered something interesting. For the klackon-equivalent race, it was actually benefical to clone first, then build factories later! At level 1 planetology tech, each pop does .53 production, with klackons with their double pop production bonus doing 1.06. Building 2 factories, which in turn generates 2 units of pollution that is cleaned up with 1 production, only generates 1 production for cost of 20 BC (with first tier of factories). In 2nd tier, it's 40 BC per 1 production, while cloning is only 20 BC per 1 pop that generates 1.06 production! So AI clones first when playing that race, and builds factories with other races. AI dynamically checks which would result in most production for least investment, and assigns production to maximize the returns, factoring in racial bonuses. Silicoids-equivalent race (Morions) has cloning cost doubled due to its racial disadvantage of half growth, and there's no pollution that it cares about, so it's a no brainer for it to build factories. 40 BC for 4 production with factories, or 40 BC for 0.53 production from one new pop? On the other hand, Sakkras equivalent (Spider race), has double pop growth bonus, which means cloning cost is halved. So it edges out factories a bit (0.53 prod per pop vs 0.5 prod per factory). Both Sakkra and Klackon-equivalent races benefits from cloning first.

Another thing to consider is that we introduced "Starports" as building. We wanted to get rid of colony base specials for ships, and use Star Lords' (MoO 0) transport mechanic where you colonize planets via transports. But the issue is how to slow down expansion, for which we introduced starports. A colony cannot send transports, build ships, or propagate fuel range until it has built a starport which costs 1,000 production. The fact that the game uses transports to send population for colonizing, building up pop, and invading makes cloning a bigger incentive. In fact, the AI takes advantage of this by sending cloned population from more fertile worlds to hostile planets to fill the planets because it was more effective than waiting for natural pop growth or cloning on hostile planets. Yes, the AI is pretty brutal, Alex managed to wipe out factions that were smaller than him production-wise simply due to the fact that his larger empire allowed for some margin of error in colony management. But with equal or larger empires, Alex wasn't able to kill them without help of other AI attacking the same empire.

Another thing about AI that's a bit annoying at the moment is that they can calculate each side's strength in space combat. If they're at a disadvantage, they immediately retreat. So when you face the AI, if they don't retreat immediately, they kill your fleet. The battles are boring as a result, because the AI is way too good at determining the outcomes. We're debating what we can do to force all sides to battle without dumbing down the AI, and is considering retreat cooldown timer (can't retreat for 5 turns) or something similar. Things are still subject to balance, but our ultimate goal is to have enjoyable and intense experiences from playing Dominus Galaxia.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
14,153
Well the factory increase is an important balance mechanism for MOO1. The cost-reduction techs need to be fairly close in parity to the industrial-multiplication techs or you'll suffer being able to build up your new colonies. If you let players (in MOO1) build level 1 factories->upgrade to level 2->then build the 2nd tier, the development is much too fast and much too advantageous to just gun the Computer techline forever (already a powerful techline and essentially what the Darloks are designed to do best). Frankly once you have 1000 factories on a planet it doesn't matter much whether the next 200 factories cost 10 BC each or 50 BC each, you are churning them out almost instantly. To penalize overteching Computer too hard the factory building penalty has to hit at the beginning of the growth curve, not the end.

So on a 100 pop planet, first 100 factories costs 10 BC each, 2nd 100 factories costs 20 BC each, 3rd 100 factories costs 30 BC each, and so forth. What this does is allow new colonies to set up factories relatively quickly, but as more factories are built, the progress slows down.

Math is a bit off, its not slowing down.

50->100 @ 10 BC = 500 BC cost / 50 factories = 10 turns
150->200 @ 20 BC = 1000 BC cost / 150 factories = 6.6 turns
250->300 @ 30 BC = 1500 BC cost / 250 factories = 6 turns

(simplified a lot of things but the basic trend holds out)

Of course there's no inherent problem with it working like this, but this might not be what you intended. I'm assuming you are removing the factory cost decreasers in Dominus Galaxia? Otherwise the return rate on investment in industry will be way too fast with your progressive factory cost method. Imagine all of those turn estimates divided by 5.

Are you implementing the planetary reserve feature that let you selectively double production on any planet? That was a very handy way to massively speed up growth. If you taught the AI to use it at maximum efficiency every turn it would probably be nigh unstoppable.

Klackons being better off producing more workers rather than factories is an interesting observation. Though you are still losing the free growth (= free extra production) once you've maxed a planet, and growth is highest around 50% of max population, so there's probably some equilibrium between cloning and factory building (dunno if you AI automatically finds this).
 
Last edited:

Jeff Graw

StarChart Interactive
Developer
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
802
Location
Frigid Wasteland
Well the factory increase is an important balance mechanism for MOO1.

But the fact that researching better controls makes your initial colony development worse was convoluted as f---. There are so many numbers that we can tweak: Factory cost, cost step per control, factory production, population production, etc. that I'm sure we can up with numbers that feel good without committing design sins. A lot of that tweaking will rely on feedback from the approaching closed alpha.

The cost-reduction techs need to be fairly close in parity to the industrial-multiplication techs or you'll suffer being able to build up your new colonies. If you let players (in MOO1) build level 1 factories->upgrade to level 2->then build the 2nd tier, the development is much too fast and much too advantageous to just gun the Computer techline forever (already a powerful techline and essentially what the Darloks are designed to do best). Frankly once you have 1000 factories on a planet it doesn't matter much whether the next 200 factories cost 10 BC each or 50 BC each, you are churning them out almost instantly. To penalize overteching Computer too hard the factory building penalty has to hit at the beginning of the growth curve, not the end.

Factory cost reduction is one of the infinite techs, where the cost reduction is, at the moment, 0.9^n. We might end up lowering this a bit, but for now 0.9^n feels OK.

As far as the computer field becoming too powerful relative to other fields, that's something else we'll need to balance (but have plenty of levers and nobs to play with). A few things to keep in mind: factory cost reduction is not going to be in the same tree as controls (it wasn't in MoO 1 either), we'll likely have technologies for espionage rather than just going off of computer tech level, battle computers aren't as effective as they were in MoO 1, and we are going to mix things up a bit versus the MoO 1 tree (spreading weapons out over several fields in particular).

Are you implementing the planetary reserve feature that let you selectively double production on any planet? That was a very handy way to massively speed up growth. If you taught the AI to use it at maximum efficiency every turn it would probably be nigh unstoppable.

Yes, the planetary reserve has been implemented - with a bit of a twist. You can set an individual tax/stimulation rate on a per colony basis. This is achieved via a slider that goes from -100 to +100. At -100, all of that colony's production goes into the reserve. At +100, the colony will take enough out of the reserve to double it's production each turn. If there isn't enough in the reserve to meet the target stimulation rate, it will take what it can.

Klackons being better off producing more workers rather than factories is an interesting observation. Though you are still losing the free growth (= free extra production) once you've maxed a planet, and growth is highest around 50% of max population, so there's probably some equilibrium between cloning and factory building (dunno if you AI automatically finds this).

While there will obviously be exceptions for different races with unique attributes, the goal is to balance things so that various paths are relatively close to equal. For example, if cloning is too good we can just increase the cost of cloning. Ditto for factories.
 

coldcrow

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
1,650
Having Alex Stumpp of Pandora fame on board lends HUGE credibility to this project. I can only encourage everyone interested in serious 4X games to try out Pandora with the latest AI patches. It was such a shame that people ended at comparing this game to SMAC and discarding it. Its focus is on the war aspect - shares many similarities with, for example, Dominions 4. But has a much better AI!

I wish you guys all the best and will follow this.
 

Norfleet

Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
12,250
Another thing about AI that's a bit annoying at the moment is that they can calculate each side's strength in space combat. If they're at a disadvantage, they immediately retreat. So when you face the AI, if they don't retreat immediately, they kill your fleet. The battles are boring as a result, because the AI is way too good at determining the outcomes. We're debating what we can do to force all sides to battle without dumbing down the AI, and is considering retreat cooldown timer (can't retreat for 5 turns) or something similar. Things are still subject to balance, but our ultimate goal is to have enjoyable and intense experiences from playing Dominus Galaxia.
I think this might be a sign that your combat system is bland and overly predictable, rather than a problem with the AI or retreating. If the outcome of a battle is so obvious, then this is the only logical outcome. Real, all-out battles don't get fought between sides that already know what the outcome is going to be in real life, either, unless your opponent is cornered. Space lacks corners, and the only reason the battle occurs at all is because of the granularity of turn-based movement.

If combat and its tactics are so predictably obvious that there is no room to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, then it's also kind of a boring and redundant combat system you may as well do without. The meat of a tactical combat system is to win battles you shouldn't have won. If this cannot happen, why bother having it?
 

Beastro

Arcane
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
7,952
:D

One, why re-invent the wheel? Both of us were working on a MoO 1-esque game.
Two, Jeff had pretty graphics that I was jealous of.
Three, I had game logic that Jeff was jealous of.
Four, BB was only for Windows. Using Unity meant it'd be cross-platform with Mac and Linux
Five, I'm deaf, so I needed someone else to do the sounds :)
Six, Jeff works on the game full-time, meaning the game will get done a lot quicker than if I went at it alone with my part-time efforts.

:(
 

Jeff Graw

StarChart Interactive
Developer
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
802
Location
Frigid Wasteland
Beastro

There's nothing wrong with Unity, even if many Unity "developers" give it a bad name.

(I blame tutorials, even the official ones, that teach terrible practices)
 
Last edited:

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