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.

Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity [BETA RELEASED, GO TO THE NEW THREAD]

mindx2

Codex Roaming East Coast Reporter
Patron
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
4,520
Location
Perusing his PC Museum shelves.
Codex 2012 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire RPG Wokedex Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64...onger-well-i-sure-hope-so/page-6#entry1407354
Josh said:
We have taken (and continue to take) great pains to maintain a challenge for players without being oppressive or frustrating in the ways that the original IE games could often be.

Is he serious?! :retarded: In what ways were any of the IE games' challenge "oppressive or frustrating" ...unless he's talking about pathfinding. :troll:

Dude. It's been established multiple times that Josh agrees with retards that buying equipment is teh hard. He's an idiot when it comes to that aspect. The fact that he's developing a hardcore mode with, according to him, more satisfying difficulty than the IE-games, is enough for me.

Man, I hope you're right. I would hate for their thinking going into design being based on the IE games being too hard!
 

Lancehead

Liturgist
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
1,550
yeah, deus ex is a class a example of developers focused on gameplay

motherfucker every decision made in that game was about introducing deus ex to a console environment

abstract systems

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! NOT ABSTRACT SYSTEMS, PLEAAAAAAAAASE
You should be more sensitive, abstraction killed Draq's dad.
Not abstraction, but "abstract systems concocted with utter disregard for what they are meant to represent", in other words, arbitrariness.
 

Harold

Arcane
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
785
Location
a shack in the hub
A game that has no claims to being mainstream shouldn't go out of its way to cater to casual players (it's a waste of time and resources as far as I'm concerned), plenty of games out there for people who can't find Caius Cosades and/or those who go into panic mode when a vampire in BG2 level drains them.
This is all true, but Feargus most likely wants Josh & co. to also draw in as many biotards as possible. Just you wait and see, next update will probably be a video of MCA talking about romances - tears in his eyes, pistol to his head.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,740
Location
Copenhagen
yeah, deus ex is a class a example of developers focused on gameplay

motherfucker every decision made in that game was about introducing deus ex to a console environment

abstract systems

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! NOT ABSTRACT SYSTEMS, PLEAAAAAAAAASE
You should be more sensitive, abstraction killed Draq's dad.
Not abstraction, but "abstract systems concocted with utter disregard for what they are meant to represent", in other words, arbitrariness.

Yeah right. Say what you will about Sawyer, but arbitrariness is hardly something he can be accused of. The man spends a billion hours overthinking the purposes of every little random modifier in his system.

What DraQ rages against are artefacts of the system that aren't deeply rooted in simulated reality. That is, objects which are not meant to clearly represent something from reality. I.e. when Int adds to damage, it is hardly arbitrary; it has a range of fundamental reasons to do that from a mechanical system-standpoint. However, it isn't rooted in simulated reality, so DraQ hates it. I.e. elements of the system have to be an abstraction for something, in their minds.

And that's just a bullshit, subjective way of viewing system design that aspie little DraQ (and to be fair to him, Awor and Excidium and others) think should be a rock solid principle of system design. Because it's important to them, so obviously it should be to everybody.

Suffice to say, there are people that disagree with that. My favourite system is deeply rooted in simulated reality (GURPS), but I like plenty of systems that aren't, as well.
 
Last edited:

LivingOne

Savant
Joined
May 5, 2012
Messages
485
since it wasn't copy-pasted...

There are a bunch of ways:



* The success or failure of fights often hinged on a single die roll for powerful abilities. Besides metagaming hard and soft counters after a reload (which I'll get to, below), these were elements where the player's choices did not have a ton of impact; their success or failure mostly depended on the outcome of a die roll. In some cases, there's really a tiny set of hard counters (e.g. Protection from Petrification for use against basilisks). Most other tactics just shifted odds and asked the player to hope for the best and reload if/when the worst came true. Reloading is a part of these games, but I don't think anyone wants it to be a core mechanic for success.



* There are many bad ways to build characters in virtually all of the IE games. Leveling was a little easier pre-3E, but you could make an absolute garbage character in 2nd Ed. very easily. Players should learn to play to the strengths of their characters, but with many builds, there was no strength to that character -- just a lot of suck. 6 characters * bad stat arrays = a slow but steady descent into a non-viable party near the late game. This was mitigated somewhat in the BG games since they were balanced around the companions, but it was a huge problem in the IWD games.



* Pre-buffing alters the difficulty of fights enormously. About halfway through IWD's development, a QA tester (who went on to become a pretty well-respected developer) came up to Black Isle and was furious at the difficulty of a fight in Lower Dorn's Deep. He had been trying to legitimately get through it for 2 hours and hadn't succeeded. Kihan Pak and I loaded it up and beat it on the first try. He asked to see what we were doing. Naturally, we were pre-buffing for 5-6 rounds before we even went into the fight. Because there was no opportunity cost to using buffs, this was "the way" to get through fights, but it was tedious -- and for people who were not D&D veterans, it was not something they ever thought to do, which resulted in a full roadblock (see also: Burial Isle misery, which was also pretty easy for me and Kihan).



* Hit points make the world go 'round. There are specific party and resource builds you need to maintain your hit points over several fights. If you don't use those party builds, you suffer enormously or have to backtrack and rest very frequently. This is one of the major reasons why we have a split Stamina/Health system for short term/long term damage (and why 4E uses healing surges). In PoE, getting knocked out takes you out of the fight, but when the fight ends, you're still in the war. In IWD, if you got super-slammed and weren't ready to devote your precious healing resources on getting that dude back into shape, you had to pack up and head back to a safe zone -- or rest on the spot and reload if you got an encounter, which isn't much better. Along the same lines, almost all character resources that were limited were per-rest, so if you used any of them it was a big deal. Per-rest resources are a big deal in PoE, but every class also has per-encounter resources as well.



* Many fights could end in Pyrrhic victories due to level draining, petrification, or character gibbing. There's a fine line here between an interesting tactical/strategic element (i.e. how will I deal with this affliction in upcoming fights) and something that 99% of will simply reload after experiencing. Some of these things can be toggled by player difficulty settings, but other elements can be redesigned to still be interesting without being obnoxious. And again, many of these things that happen (especially with long/permanent durations) rely on raw luck or the use of hard counters that the player needs to reload and metagame to prepare for. A Dire Charm with a long duration is (if you lack a hard counter) essentially an immediate KO for that party member and bolstering of the enemy ranks by a character of equal strength -- for the rest of the combat.



* Stand-alone random rolls are pointless outside of an Ironman-style mode. Random resting encounters, rolls to learn a spell, rolls to pick a lock, etc. The player is better served by having those things be thresholds (or non-existent) and giving them tools to increase their ability to meet those thresholds. Failure to make a stand-alone random roll is not a failure on the part of the player; they just got a bad roll. You can get bad rolls in combat, too, but those are part of a big shifting soup of randomized results hat happen over time.



Now, these are all things that clearly a ton of people adapted to and worked around. But it should be asked: was adapting to them interesting and enjoyable or just something that you did so you could enjoy the other parts of the game? If the latter, we should really try to find ways to not repeat those things in PoE.
 

Roguey

Codex Staff
Staff Member
Sawyerite
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
36,546
Most people usually hate how you can get killed by a single enemy critical when you're level one, though I wouldn't be surprised if there were some masochists in here who like that kind of thing.
 

Lancehead

Liturgist
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
1,550
Yeah right. Say what you will about Sawyer, but arbitrariness is hardly something he can be accused of. The man spends a billion hours overthinking the purposes of every little random modifier in his system.
Not arbitrary in the sense of without purpose, arbitrary in the sense of without in-universe rationale. Anyway, I wasn't talking about Sawyer there, even though some of the his design is arbitrary because he tends to make up stuff to achieve balance.

What DraQ rages against are artefacts of the system that aren't deeply rooted in simulated reality. That is, objects which are not meant to clearly represent something from reality. I.e. when Int adds to damage, it is hardly arbitrary; it has a range of fundamental reasons to do that from a mechanical system-standpoint. However, it isn't rooted in simulated reality, so DraQ hates it. I.e. elements of the system have to be an abstraction for something, in their minds.
You seem to have missed some pages in the thread because DraQ actually supported INT giving damage bonus, but that was because it's not a bad abstraction when applied to combat in isolation.
 

Roguey

Codex Staff
Staff Member
Sawyerite
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
36,546
Oh yeah, regarding that QA tester
QA Testers
Eric Chung
Charles Salzman
Jeff Mitchell
Brian Mitsoda
Amy Avery
Seth Baker
Marc Droudian
Jeff Husges
Rick Avelos
Sean Johnson
Asher Luisi

Now I suppose it could be Husges since he moved on to become a designer on Van Buren, NWN2, MotB, SoZ, and New Vegas, but wouldn't it be a scream if it was Mitsoda?
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,740
Location
Copenhagen
You seem to have missed some pages in the thread because DraQ actually supported INT giving damage bonus, but that was because it's not a bad abstraction when applied to combat in isolation.

:lol:

Inadvertently, that is exactly my issue with the simulationist crowd. You can argue that anything is/isn't a proper abstraction of reality. If the whole debate where the simulationists argued amongst themselves about whether Int as a damage modifier made sense or not isn't enough, then find the Gazebo thread where Awor argues that AD&D is simulationist. Or find any discussion between 2000 and 2010 on old RPG forums about how D&D is/isn't realistic. The argument that an object of a system isn't properly rooted in the fiction (what you call 'in-universe') is a catch-all argument that cannot be falsified.

It's like when sword-geeks argue about how proper sword-fighting should be mechanized in systems. You get these incessant debates that never fucking end because everyone is right and no one can prove anyone wrong.

More often than not, what simulationist arguments come down is this: "I have subjective gut feeling about how something should emulate reality. That gut feeling is not being satisfied by X. Therefore, X is a bad abstraction."

Try to read DraQ's posts through that lense. 90% of them is him trying to define everything around him according to his subjective standards. That has a name. AUTISM.

(besides a friendly rivalry I have no issues with our resident lizard-lover and I think he's a decent poster even though I seldom agree with him - but the aspie repetition of his subjective standards for "realism/setting coherency" gets old real fast)
 
Last edited:

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
Dude. It's been established multiple times that Josh agrees with retards that buying equipment is teh hard.
:retarded:

The first time I've ever played a cRPG it was a natural notion for me from the very start.

arbitrariness
:salute:
If I had to distill the things I hate the most into a single word, that would be it.

What DraQ rages against are artefacts of the system that aren't deeply rooted in simulated reality. That is, objects which are not meant to clearly represent something from reality. I.e. when Int adds to damage, it is hardly arbitrary; it has a range of fundamental reasons to do that from a mechanical system-standpoint. However, it isn't rooted in simulated reality, so DraQ hates it.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Never. Fucking. Change.
:hero:
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,740
Location
Copenhagen

Like I said, it was an (arbitrary :troll: ) example. I responded to it at the same time you posted your reply. It doesn't really change anything that you defended Int to damage.

In point of fact, if anything, it strengthens my argument since it highlights just how arbitrary your own criteria are. The one thing that has met the most criticism from simulationist-fags is Int to damage, yet even on such a clear point apparantly you cannot define any coherent measures for what is arbitrary and what is not.

Anyway, I replied in the post above yours.
 

MicoSelva

backlog digger
Patron
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
7,511
Location
Arx
Codex 2012 Codex 2013 Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Enjoy the Revolution! Another revolution around the sun that is. Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Divinity: Original Sin 2 Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I helped put crap in Monomyth
JES is generally right, but I feel easing up the randomness curve (to make the game more balanced) will cause PoE to be less exciting than games of yore, which had tiny chances of some stuff happenning (like your character getting gibbed after getting critically hit three times in a row, or managing to sucker punch Firkraag with Finger of Death) and when it actually happened it made such moments memorable, if sometimes frustrating.

It's a bit like making a new Diablo II and getting rid of the most powerful (and hard to find) unique items, because some players never find them anyway (which is frustrating) and the ones who do are comparatively overpowered.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,740
Location
Copenhagen
JES is generally right, but I feel easing up the randomness curve (to make the game more balanced) will cause PoE to be less exciting than games of yore, which had tiny chances of some stuff happenning (like your character getting gibbed after getting critically hit three times in a row, or managing to sucker punch Firkraag with Finger of Death) and when it actually happened it made such moments memorable, if sometimes frustrating.

It's a bit like making a new Diablo II and getting rid of the most powerful (and hard to find) unique items, because some players never find them anyway (which is frustrating) and the ones who do are comparatively overpowered.

I dunno, I don't think it automatically leads to less exciting games, just different games. Like, I like Banner Saga combat even though it is almost devoid from randomness, and I like Blood Bowl even though that game is insanely randomized.
 

MicoSelva

backlog digger
Patron
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
7,511
Location
Arx
Codex 2012 Codex 2013 Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Enjoy the Revolution! Another revolution around the sun that is. Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Divinity: Original Sin 2 Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I helped put crap in Monomyth
I dunno, I don't think it automatically leads to less exciting games, just different games. Like, I like Banner Saga combat even though it is almost devoid from randomness, and I like Blood Bowl even though that game is insanely randomized.
Yes, but if someone asked me for a spiritual successor to Blood Bowl, I wouldn't make them Banner Saga.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,740
Location
Copenhagen
I dunno, I don't think it automatically leads to less exciting games, just different games. Like, I like Banner Saga combat even though it is almost devoid from randomness, and I like Blood Bowl even though that game is insanely randomized.
Yes, but if someone asked me for a spiritual successor to Blood Bowl, I wouldn't make them Banner Saga.

Fair point, I suppose. I'm not sure they diverge enough in terms of randomness to make that claim though. You can still miss and shit.
 

AMG

Arbiter
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
374
* Pre-buffing alters the difficulty of fights enormously. About halfway through IWD's development, a QA tester (who went on to become a pretty well-respected developer) came up to Black Isle and was furious at the difficulty of a fight in Lower Dorn's Deep. He had been trying to legitimately get through it for 2 hours and hadn't succeeded. Kihan Pak and I loaded it up and beat it on the first try. He asked to see what we were doing. Naturally, we were pre-buffing for 5-6 rounds before we even went into the fight. Because there was no opportunity cost to using buffs, this was "the way" to get through fights, but it was tedious -- and for people who were not D&D veterans, it was not something they ever thought to do, which resulted in a full roadblock (see also: Burial Isle misery, which was also pretty easy for me and Kihan).

Wow how stupid can you be. It is true that reliance on pre-buffing is bad design but how can on earth can you not figure out that casting buffs might help. And this guy becomes a Well Respected(by whom?) Developer(tm).

No wonder that games are getting stupider if they are designed for people unable to read spell descriptions. Also I guess playing IE games makes me a D&D veteran, without ever seeing a rulebook, since I know how to cast buffs.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,740
Location
Copenhagen
Yeah. Again, this excuse of "people who are not D&D veterans" keeps ringing fucking hollow when you think of how many times you and your mates beat these games as kids.
 
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
3,144
My favourite system is deeply rooted in simulated reality (GURPS), but I like plenty of systems that aren't, as well.

Doesn't this ever make you think that there might be something to the simulationist approach to game design, even if stuff making sense isn't that important to you in abstraction (lol pun). I mean, I'm pretty sure that going from AC to DT and/or DR for most designers started with the idea that armor making you better at dodging didn't make any sense; the result of changing that to something that does make sense means you can allow for both hard to hit but vulnerable characters, and easy to hit but damage absorbing characters, making for more interesting gameplay.
 

MicoSelva

backlog digger
Patron
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
7,511
Location
Arx
Codex 2012 Codex 2013 Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Enjoy the Revolution! Another revolution around the sun that is. Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Divinity: Original Sin 2 Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I helped put crap in Monomyth
Fair point, I suppose. I'm not sure they diverge enough in terms of randomness to make that claim though. You can still miss and shit.
I'm not saying PoE will not have good & exciting combat. It might actually have better & more exciting combat than BGs or IWDs, but it will be for different reasons.

BTW, missing is only in because JES got convinced it adds to the gameplay (viable dodging/blocking character build). I'm one of those simulationfags which think missing should be in the game because it sometimes happens and no other reason is required.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,740
Location
Copenhagen
My favourite system is deeply rooted in simulated reality (GURPS), but I like plenty of systems that aren't, as well.

Doesn't this ever make you think that there might be something to the simulationist approach to game design, even if stuff making sense isn't that important to you in abstraction (lol pun). I mean, I'm pretty sure that going from AC to DT and/or DR for most designers started with the idea that armor making you better at dodging didn't make any sense; the result of changing that to something that does make sense means you can allow for both hard to hit but vulnerable characters, and easy to hit but damage absorbing characters, making for more interesting gameplay.

Eh no? You actually make my argument for me, in that post. The switch from AC to DR makes all kinds of simulationist sense, obviously, but you can't say that it's a strict mechanical improvement. For instance, the right way to go about would be saying "hmm, DR highlights some mechanical problems with AC (hit or miss), can we fix them and still make a game about avoidance rather than soaking?" And the answer is obviously yes. Yes you can. And if you make armor make you harder to hit in that game (because you want to make a game about avoidance), then who cares that DR is more like the way armor really works?

The problem with your argument here is that the root of it is the same argument some people have falsely made in defense of NASA. "Hey man, investing in space travel has gotten us all these incidental technologies, maybe space travel is cool?" Yeah, so has investing in war. Turns out, investing billions and billions of dollars into any research has incidental benefits. Same here. Some designers in the 90s shifted towards simulationism, and a great deal of thought and resources was put into design. THAT was the reason for improvement, not that they were specifically simulationist.

Case in point: a lot of the major steps towards simplifying system design was made by increasing the level of system abstraction by the people working for White Wolf. Later when they made a worse setting with a better rules system (nWoD), they invented all sorts of concepts for character generation that were really vague and not that deeply rooted in reality (like Composure) and made them have very tangible effects on all sorts of in-game concepts.

TL;DR: your argument shows no causality between GURPS' simulationism and mechanical improvement, just correlation. What was really behind the mechanical improvement GURPS made wasn't the fact that they had some vision based in GNS theory, it was that Steve Jackson and Sean Punch are fucking brilliant dudes.
 
Last edited:

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,740
Location
Copenhagen
I'm one of those simulationfags which think missing should be in the game because it sometimes happens and no other reason is required.

If you guys don't see the irony in the fact that you're the ones accusing me of arbitrariness, then que sera, sera, I suppose.
 

Wizfall

Cipher
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
816
Like, I like Banner Saga combat even though it is almost devoid from randomness, and I like Blood Bowl even though that game is insanely randomized.
Blood Bowl is not insanely random.
If it was the best coaches would not have above 75% win rate (especially since a draw is 1/2 win and means a huge blow to their win%, in fact these coaches almost never lose except against other top coaches).
You are just not good enough, like a lot of people including me, to manage the complexity and the randomness of the game.
Reminds me Battle of Wesnoth that some people find too random.
It is not since a top players can also have an excellent win% even on the highest difficulties. What people said by "too random" is in fact "too hard for me" to master the randomness so it looks like random.
But it is wrong, the randomness is almost always manageable and that what make the game complex.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,740
Location
Copenhagen
When did "Blood Bowl is highly randomized" become "I suck at Blood and only lose because it's random OMG" :lol:

I'm quite proficient at Blood Bowl, thank you. I totally would have won the last Codex Cup if hoverdog hadn't gone AWOL :rpgcodex:

I am also an outspoken fan of this little article: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html which has the basic point of "blame the player, not the game." So please fuck off with your giant-ass strawman.

However, Blood Bowl is a game where the best of coaches can actually lose to the worst of coaches in fringe scenarios. In most games, that is straight up impossible. Obviously, that randomization becomes more and more important the closer two coaches are to the skill level of each other.

If you make the claim that Blood Bowl isn't randomized compared to Banner Saga, then you don't know what randomization is. Fundamentally, Blood Bowl is a great game because it's about managing a highly randomized environment.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
3,144
Eh no? You actually make my argument for me, in that post. The switch from AC to DR makes all kinds of simulationist sense, obviously, but you can't say that it's a strict mechanical improvement. For instance, the right way to go about would be saying "hmm, DR highlights some mechanical problems with AC (hit or miss), can we fix them and still make a game about avoidance rather than soaking?" And the answer is obviously yes. Yes you can. And if you make armor make you harder to hit in that game (because you want to make a game about avoidance), then who cares that DR is more like the way armor really works?

I probably missed your point, but I'm pretty sure most (including Sawyer) would agree that being able to choose between either focussing on soaking or avoiding is inherently more interesting gameplay than simply becoming progressively better at avoidance; at least in rpg's.
 

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