-
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.
Editorial RPG Codex Editorial: Where Journalism Goes to Write Itself
- Thread starter Grunker
- Start date
Gurkog
Erudite
GAF OK'ed me after 3-4 days. Guess GAF will promptly react to the request of a straight, white, american, male. You all are ignorant barbarians in their eyes! Crooked bee would probably never be admitted into their ranks for the sin of belonging to the inferior sex. Muahaha!
I could post his reply over on gaf.
EDIT: Lancehead already posted Grunker's reply.
EDIT2: A moderator should hurry up and approve the Kuntaco guy's posts. His tears will sustain me.
I could post his reply over on gaf.
EDIT: Lancehead already posted Grunker's reply.
EDIT2: A moderator should hurry up and approve the Kuntaco guy's posts. His tears will sustain me.
Last edited:
Gonna be kind of hilarious for anyone reading this thread for the first time in a few months if, when his post eventually shows up, it's followed by like three pages of posts about how we can't wait to read something that was posted an hour ago.
Good article.
I've been turned on to quite a few games by reading news, and member posts here.
Plus I do share many of the opinions voiced here about what makes a game really great.
I've been turned on to quite a few games by reading news, and member posts here.
Plus I do share many of the opinions voiced here about what makes a game really great.
Don't expect a worthwhile or unbiased post from someone who works for the Gawker network that pioneered click-baiting garbage and pushed the formula to an obscene level, ruining the Internet and our culture. They even have a giant electronic billboard in their office where top hits are updated to the second, and the editors are paid according to this, creating some very perverse incentives. There are also lots of other factors that make them utterly corrupt. And this type has the gall to accuse Grunker of click-baiting? This site could not care about click baiting in a million years, and Gawker is not placed to lecture anyone about anything concerning ethics. They're a large part of the reason why shallowness and shock value reign supreme in the gaming media. They always push this bar lower and even revel in it. This is a sick joke.
Last edited:
Whisky
The Solution
Pure slander! Everyone knows NeoGAF members are Sony fanboys, not Nintendo.
Menckenstein
Lunacy of Caen: Todd Reaver
Lorica
Educated
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2013
- Messages
- 302
Good, use your aggressive feelings. Let the hate flow through you!
Wat, there were only two other blokes there?
That... changes matters a bit. I mean, saying "nobody asks questions!" when the basis of your argument is a presentation with just two other dudes present, it's a rather heavy stretch. The claim would be valid if there were like ten of them, but two?
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 99,611
Jaesun doesn't moderate the news forum. Only an admin can approve posts here.
I realize I probably put too much emphasis on this, but I do think it is evident my conclusions did not arrive from that session alone. It was just a drop in the ocean. During the evening I went to a lot of closed demos (the one on Watchdogs for instance), and everyone was as silent as the grave. There wasn't even room for questions, the demonstrations were not planned to halt for that kind of thing. Furthermore, the point is that it doesn't matter. The format is so speedy and the information so limited that the ultimate result - a preview - is pretty useless.
Like I wrote:
Darth Roxor: There were few in the Wastelands presentation, but during Watchdog et al there were between 10 and 40 journalists at a time.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 99,611
jschreier: It's kind of difficult for me to respond point-by-point to your post since you didn't really extend me that courtesy, so I only have a few comments:
Indeed, that story looks good (from a quick look-see), and it is so because it is not a preview. This is the third time that you basically concede to my point; game conventions and previews suck, so why do them?
It seems you have chosen to withdraw the accusation that I am trying to slander your profession in order to get clicks, and it also seems like you have dropped the strawman that I have somehow framed RPG Codex as the only worthwhile news venue.
However, it also seems to me you are basically agreeing with me that previews and conferences are useless to the journalist profession. I cannot reconcile that with the fact that you seemed to disagree harshly with me on GAF.
As for points you do not reply to, well, you don't really reply directly to my post. What I will say, however, is that I'm not interested in discussing your career or Kotaku specifically. The fact is that much of the news stream comes from these places, and previews are almost as big as reviews in terms of the space they fill. That is a structural, systemic problem with games journalism and THAT'S what is interesting to discuss. THAT'S what I'm critiquing in the editorial.
It seems to me that Florence ran his head into this brick wall as well when he criticized the profession. When he pointed out the systemic problems, people responded with a bunch of anecdotes on how they once wrote a really good article or how they have a policy to ensure good reporting. Yeah, that's not really the point.
So the bottom line is this: You argued against my editorial on GAF, seemingly because you disagreed that games journalism had the systemic problems I identified in the editorial. Since then, you have stated that you generally don't like the things I don't like (previews, conferences), that your best story was one that refused to fit the idiotic format, and you have linked me to a Kotaku editorial dismissing the value of previews but succumbing to the demand for them.
All in all, I find myself confused. Confused that you disagree so vehemently, and then basically tell me I'm right.
I'm not asking you or Kotaku to single-handedly deal with these systemic problems, but the first step is admitting you have a problem. That would be a neat first step to take, instead of dismissing the supposedly naive, wide-eyed folk like me out of hand.
I'm rather shitty at supplying the drama the forum-dwellers crave I suppose, because above all I wrote that fucking editorial because I am gravely concerned about the quality of my main passtime and the critics who report on it. I view all other venues of entertainment with jealous eyes because I want what they have. I want a highly professional set of mainstream critics that the industry of publishers and developers rely on.
I want my watchdogs. I want you to get better. I want you to admit that perhaps both you and I are pretty young, perhaps video games are young, and perhaps we have a long way to go before any of us grow up enough to produce solid quality.
Otherwise, I dare you to identify for me video gaming's giants of criticism. The people who embrace a wide, mainstream audience of people and have the same authority and knowledge as people like Ebert or Dirda or Grimes or Siegel or whoever.
Indeed, that story looks good (from a quick look-see), and it is so because it is not a preview. This is the third time that you basically concede to my point; game conventions and previews suck, so why do them?
It seems you have chosen to withdraw the accusation that I am trying to slander your profession in order to get clicks, and it also seems like you have dropped the strawman that I have somehow framed RPG Codex as the only worthwhile news venue.
However, it also seems to me you are basically agreeing with me that previews and conferences are useless to the journalist profession. I cannot reconcile that with the fact that you seemed to disagree harshly with me on GAF.
As for points you do not reply to, well, you don't really reply directly to my post. What I will say, however, is that I'm not interested in discussing your career or Kotaku specifically. The fact is that much of the news stream comes from these places, and previews are almost as big as reviews in terms of the space they fill. That is a structural, systemic problem with games journalism and THAT'S what is interesting to discuss. THAT'S what I'm critiquing in the editorial.
It seems to me that Florence ran his head into this brick wall as well when he criticized the profession. When he pointed out the systemic problems, people responded with a bunch of anecdotes on how they once wrote a really good article or how they have a policy to ensure good reporting. Yeah, that's not really the point.
So the bottom line is this: You argued against my editorial on GAF, seemingly because you disagreed that games journalism had the systemic problems I identified in the editorial. Since then, you have stated that you generally don't like the things I don't like (previews, conferences), that your best story was one that refused to fit the idiotic format, and you have linked me to a Kotaku editorial dismissing the value of previews but succumbing to the demand for them.
All in all, I find myself confused. Confused that you disagree so vehemently, and then basically tell me I'm right.
I'm not asking you or Kotaku to single-handedly deal with these systemic problems, but the first step is admitting you have a problem. That would be a neat first step to take, instead of dismissing the supposedly naive, wide-eyed folk like me out of hand.
I'm rather shitty at supplying the drama the forum-dwellers crave I suppose, because above all I wrote that fucking editorial because I am gravely concerned about the quality of my main passtime and the critics who report on it. I view all other venues of entertainment with jealous eyes because I want what they have. I want a highly professional set of mainstream critics that the industry of publishers and developers rely on.
I want my watchdogs. I want you to get better. I want you to admit that perhaps both you and I are pretty young, perhaps video games are young, and perhaps we have a long way to go before any of us grow up enough to produce solid quality.
Otherwise, I dare you to identify for me video gaming's giants of criticism. The people who embrace a wide, mainstream audience of people and have the same authority and knowledge as people like Ebert or Dirda or Grimes or Siegel or whoever.
Last edited:
RPG Codex
Trannies aren't
RPG Codex
I think it's time for someone to stop and think for a while, because when your best example of Kotaku's fearless and uncompromising journalism is "Arkane said they aren't doing Prey 2, but they are!", something might be wrong...
I think he's replying to the wrong Codex article as well, he should be responding to this one http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=8579 , especially since it mentions Kotaku and Schreier.
Ah yes, using a hurricane as scapegoat to not publish anything about all that scandal...
As I posted at the time:- Hey guys, aren't you a bit corrupted?
- WHAT? HELL NO, WE ARE PURE BRO!
- You sure? Because, we may have some proff that you're all a bunch of PR bitch...
- BRO, PEOPLE ARE DYING! HOW CAN YOU WORRY ABOUT THAT NOW? Now go buy Halo 4 (10/10 GOTY) & Mtn Dew, it's your civic duty to save US economy or some shit...
The hilarious part is that worrying about journalism corruption mid-Sandy is having wrong values, but reviewing AssCreed & Halo 4 at that time is being professional.
Bruticis
Guest
There is NO such thing as video game journalism. Give me a fucking break. It's a fucking insult to all the 2 bit hacks and shill reporters and journalists of the mainstream press. At best you're a food critic working for some shitty local newspaper.
jschreier
Literate
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Messages
- 2
OK, let me go one by one here. Apologies for the long post. And apologies for not offering up any drama for those of you craving it.
Game conventions don't suck. I've gotten plenty of cool stories out of conventions. They're great opportunities to meet people and learn things and discover games you wouldn't have known about otherwise.
Previews sometimes suck. Usually, even. A few months ago, just after Aliens: Colonial Marines came out (after having gotten pretty decent previews a few months before that, thanks to a deceptive demo), I asked my boss if we could stop doing previews. We all had a long discussion, and we decided against it, because it'd do a disservice to our readers to not provide them with the information that we get from those conferences. The solution, at least for us, is to be as honest and as candid as possible about what we're seeing and hearing, and to ignore the demos that suck or feel like a waste of time.
This story we published yesterday, for example, came from a preview: http://kotaku.com/the-truth-is-last-years-games-had-problems-this-year-1264532486 It's a fantastic story, and it's part of what's led me to agree with my colleagues that the best solution is to find more creative and interesting ways to approach previews, not to ignore them altogether. Sometimes that means calling out EA Sports for a bizarre practice; other times it might mean a bullet-point list of facts, or a diary, or a conversation, or something else that conveys what we saw as if we were telling it to you over a beer.
That's how I interpreted your story, because those were the implications, whether you intended them or not. This sort of thing happens all the time. When the Penny Arcade Report launched, they had a giant banner that said "Video game journalism is broken." The implication: "we're the only ones doing it right."
That said, I have no way of knowing whether you had that in mind, so I apologize if it's not what you meant.
Ah, well, you're way off about that. There are what, five major game shows every year? Two PAXes, E3, Gamescom, and the Tokyo Game Show. There are also a handful of big publisher events every few months, but the majority of our news and content does not come from those places - it comes from us talking to people, and playing games at our homes or in the office, and finding interesting things on the Internet.
Previews are not a big part of our website at all. As I said before, if the bulk of my job revolved around previews, I don't think I'd stick with this career for very long. I have very little interest in telling people about vertical slices of games. I like telling stories about people in the world of gaming.
But Florence's arguments were based on their own anecdotal evidence: a gross PS4 contest, an image of advertisements, one writer who did something really scummy (worked for Square Enix and then wrote about them without disclosing that fact).
I spent a whole lot of time talking about that story both on NeoGAF and Kotaku, and it led to a lot of great discussion and re-examination, which was great. Props to Florence for accomplishing that. But what bothered me about his original column is much like what bothers me about your piece, Grunker - it paints with too broad a brush. There are lots of reporters who don't regularly party with PR people, and who would never even consider advertising for a game in order to win a PS4, just like there are lots of reporters who don't write the same cookie-cutter previews every time there's a game show.
There is nothing inherently flawed with the field that makes it impossible to be ethical or honest. The people he mentioned had done unethical or dishonest things, yes, but that doesn't mean it's systemic to game journalism.
I work about 10-11 hours a day, 5 days a week, and I usually clock in a few hours on weekends too. I spend the bulk of that time sharing cool/funny/interesting things with our readers and working on larger stories that I hope will be interesting.
Do you really think I spend most of that time writing previews?
I won't argue that there aren't problems in game journalism, and yes, there's something bizarre about the idea that we get to see multiple marketing-crafted chunks of every video game before it's even out, but that's not a huge part of my job, and when I am at those events and conventions, I get a lot out of them. So, no: I don't think this is a systemic problem. I think that so long as previews and game demos exist, the best reporters will find ways to write about them that don't feel gross or dishonest. And one of my jobs is to keep getting better at everything I do--even previews.
Well, the argument was that we're afraid to piss off corporations, so I posted the most recent example of us doing just that.
If you want a better example of reporting that actually makes a difference, check out this story: http://kotaku.com/investigation-a-video-game-studio-from-hell-511872642
And the results: http://kotaku.com/shake-up-at-studio-from-hell-512135529
Game conventions don't suck. I've gotten plenty of cool stories out of conventions. They're great opportunities to meet people and learn things and discover games you wouldn't have known about otherwise.
Previews sometimes suck. Usually, even. A few months ago, just after Aliens: Colonial Marines came out (after having gotten pretty decent previews a few months before that, thanks to a deceptive demo), I asked my boss if we could stop doing previews. We all had a long discussion, and we decided against it, because it'd do a disservice to our readers to not provide them with the information that we get from those conferences. The solution, at least for us, is to be as honest and as candid as possible about what we're seeing and hearing, and to ignore the demos that suck or feel like a waste of time.
This story we published yesterday, for example, came from a preview: http://kotaku.com/the-truth-is-last-years-games-had-problems-this-year-1264532486 It's a fantastic story, and it's part of what's led me to agree with my colleagues that the best solution is to find more creative and interesting ways to approach previews, not to ignore them altogether. Sometimes that means calling out EA Sports for a bizarre practice; other times it might mean a bullet-point list of facts, or a diary, or a conversation, or something else that conveys what we saw as if we were telling it to you over a beer.
That's how I interpreted your story, because those were the implications, whether you intended them or not. This sort of thing happens all the time. When the Penny Arcade Report launched, they had a giant banner that said "Video game journalism is broken." The implication: "we're the only ones doing it right."
That said, I have no way of knowing whether you had that in mind, so I apologize if it's not what you meant.
Ah, well, you're way off about that. There are what, five major game shows every year? Two PAXes, E3, Gamescom, and the Tokyo Game Show. There are also a handful of big publisher events every few months, but the majority of our news and content does not come from those places - it comes from us talking to people, and playing games at our homes or in the office, and finding interesting things on the Internet.
Previews are not a big part of our website at all. As I said before, if the bulk of my job revolved around previews, I don't think I'd stick with this career for very long. I have very little interest in telling people about vertical slices of games. I like telling stories about people in the world of gaming.
But Florence's arguments were based on their own anecdotal evidence: a gross PS4 contest, an image of advertisements, one writer who did something really scummy (worked for Square Enix and then wrote about them without disclosing that fact).
I spent a whole lot of time talking about that story both on NeoGAF and Kotaku, and it led to a lot of great discussion and re-examination, which was great. Props to Florence for accomplishing that. But what bothered me about his original column is much like what bothers me about your piece, Grunker - it paints with too broad a brush. There are lots of reporters who don't regularly party with PR people, and who would never even consider advertising for a game in order to win a PS4, just like there are lots of reporters who don't write the same cookie-cutter previews every time there's a game show.
There is nothing inherently flawed with the field that makes it impossible to be ethical or honest. The people he mentioned had done unethical or dishonest things, yes, but that doesn't mean it's systemic to game journalism.
I work about 10-11 hours a day, 5 days a week, and I usually clock in a few hours on weekends too. I spend the bulk of that time sharing cool/funny/interesting things with our readers and working on larger stories that I hope will be interesting.
Do you really think I spend most of that time writing previews?
I won't argue that there aren't problems in game journalism, and yes, there's something bizarre about the idea that we get to see multiple marketing-crafted chunks of every video game before it's even out, but that's not a huge part of my job, and when I am at those events and conventions, I get a lot out of them. So, no: I don't think this is a systemic problem. I think that so long as previews and game demos exist, the best reporters will find ways to write about them that don't feel gross or dishonest. And one of my jobs is to keep getting better at everything I do--even previews.
Well, the argument was that we're afraid to piss off corporations, so I posted the most recent example of us doing just that.
If you want a better example of reporting that actually makes a difference, check out this story: http://kotaku.com/investigation-a-video-game-studio-from-hell-511872642
And the results: http://kotaku.com/shake-up-at-studio-from-hell-512135529
Last edited:
tuluse
Arcane
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2008
- Messages
- 11,400
This asks the question, what is the point of a preview? If all you're doing is telling us what you saw, why can't we just watch an actual video of what you saw? What is the point of having a person there?
The answer is that the publishers/developers are using your credibility to make their advertisement seem like it's something else.
Now, I understand a website needs to make money, and not doing previews would essentially just be throwing money away as readers to to other sites to get them. However, making it sound like it's some kind of service to your readers you are proud to provide makes you sound either disingenuous or that you've stuck your head in the sand and pretending there is nothing wrong with reporting on advertisements.
jschreier
No, they're not. They're opportunities for such things, but they are very far from great at it. Unless you have some sort of backstage pass to the secret VIP area that is quiet and has couches for actual discussion, standing up in noisy halls leaning forward to hear what people say do not constitute anything "great." Oh look, a journalist agreeing with me, I guess that makes us 1-1 on experience: http://www.cadred.org/News/Article/200167/
Again with the "they suck, so the solution is to ackknowledge that and carry on as usual." The logic is baffling.
Do not expect me to take seriously the argument that even though I have written NOTHING to indicate the RPG Codex are more right than others, that is the hidden meaning of my editorial.
No wonder you didn't understand Florence's arguments back then, you don't know what anecdotal evidence means. Florence didn't use the contest, the image and the writer as his base of evidence, he used them examples of a trend he was arguing. He used them so the reader understood what he meant by warning about the buddy-buddy relation between PR and games critcism, and the problems games journalism had. Florence's article wasn't an attempt to collate data on how things went wrong, we already knew that. And when he did, people like you missed the point entirely and said "well, I'm totally a good guy, so there are no problems, right?" This buddy-buddy relation is unquestionable: the GMA's and plenty of other things display that the PR community and video game journalism are the best of friends.
Do you truly, honestly believe video game criticism is as solid as other entertainment criticism? Are you that blind?
You don't think the fact that games journalists are a) less educated and b) much younger than all other industries pose any sort of complications? No?
But it IS.
There is much, much less good games criticism than film criticism or book criticism. There are less knowledgable criticis (most critics aren't even professionally educated in their field - they're just random gamers) there are much, much worse standards (pay and so forth) for video games and the sale of games rarely rely on critics to do one way or the other. Major titles from major publishers generally receive very high scores on average. There are plenty of video game award shows that rely on the PR community and the journalists both. And well, if that's not enough for you, you really should read this: http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=8579 (you get some spotlight in it yourself, so really, read it)
You do not have journalists/critics acting like that in other industries, and if you had, they would be flayed alive by their peers. Yet when scummy, corrupt shit like this happens in games journalism, you rally to protect these people, as indeed you did yourself during the last scandal.
You know who changes creative surges and paradigms in all other entertainment? Interplay between cutting edge criticism and new creative people. Critics identify creative problems, and writers, directors or musicians solve them.
You know what changes creative surges and paradigms in video gaming? Fucking fed up fans who went to Kickstarter. Crazy missile-developers with enough respect in the industry to go whackjob and make something strange. The indie scene with its shitty antigame philosophy got destroyed and arose anew with a willingness to investigate game mechanics, no thanks to the pile of critics who shouted "GLORIOUS" at every little movie-game sprouted by some guy in a basement.
Because there is no mainstream criticism which is both academic, simple and which has integrity. There is no Ebert. There is only you, Jason Schreier, satisfied with the status quo.
You get a face of games journalism who awards Game of Forever to Skyrim. You get a face of games criticsm calling BioShock: Infinite a major step towards merging art and games. You get tons of critics naming The Last of Us 'The Citizen Kane of video gaming.' It would be like if Transformers got Best Movie at the Oscars, or Man of Steel won in Cannes.
When shit like this happens in your professions, brave men say "we have a problem", and cowards say "well, I'm not part of the problem, so there isn't one!" Decide who you want to be, Schreier.
No, they're not. They're opportunities for such things, but they are very far from great at it. Unless you have some sort of backstage pass to the secret VIP area that is quiet and has couches for actual discussion, standing up in noisy halls leaning forward to hear what people say do not constitute anything "great." Oh look, a journalist agreeing with me, I guess that makes us 1-1 on experience: http://www.cadred.org/News/Article/200167/
Again with the "they suck, so the solution is to ackknowledge that and carry on as usual." The logic is baffling.
Do not expect me to take seriously the argument that even though I have written NOTHING to indicate the RPG Codex are more right than others, that is the hidden meaning of my editorial.
No wonder you didn't understand Florence's arguments back then, you don't know what anecdotal evidence means. Florence didn't use the contest, the image and the writer as his base of evidence, he used them examples of a trend he was arguing. He used them so the reader understood what he meant by warning about the buddy-buddy relation between PR and games critcism, and the problems games journalism had. Florence's article wasn't an attempt to collate data on how things went wrong, we already knew that. And when he did, people like you missed the point entirely and said "well, I'm totally a good guy, so there are no problems, right?" This buddy-buddy relation is unquestionable: the GMA's and plenty of other things display that the PR community and video game journalism are the best of friends.
Do you truly, honestly believe video game criticism is as solid as other entertainment criticism? Are you that blind?
You don't think the fact that games journalists are a) less educated and b) much younger than all other industries pose any sort of complications? No?
But it IS.
There is much, much less good games criticism than film criticism or book criticism. There are less knowledgable criticis (most critics aren't even professionally educated in their field - they're just random gamers) there are much, much worse standards (pay and so forth) for video games and the sale of games rarely rely on critics to do one way or the other. Major titles from major publishers generally receive very high scores on average. There are plenty of video game award shows that rely on the PR community and the journalists both. And well, if that's not enough for you, you really should read this: http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=8579 (you get some spotlight in it yourself, so really, read it)
You do not have journalists/critics acting like that in other industries, and if you had, they would be flayed alive by their peers. Yet when scummy, corrupt shit like this happens in games journalism, you rally to protect these people, as indeed you did yourself during the last scandal.
You know who changes creative surges and paradigms in all other entertainment? Interplay between cutting edge criticism and new creative people. Critics identify creative problems, and writers, directors or musicians solve them.
You know what changes creative surges and paradigms in video gaming? Fucking fed up fans who went to Kickstarter. Crazy missile-developers with enough respect in the industry to go whackjob and make something strange. The indie scene with its shitty antigame philosophy got destroyed and arose anew with a willingness to investigate game mechanics, no thanks to the pile of critics who shouted "GLORIOUS" at every little movie-game sprouted by some guy in a basement.
Because there is no mainstream criticism which is both academic, simple and which has integrity. There is no Ebert. There is only you, Jason Schreier, satisfied with the status quo.
"I don't do many previews, so there's not a systemic problem." For the last time: I am not talking about you or Kotaku, and I don't care what you do. I'm am talking about the collective of gaming media, the face of it. IGN, Kotaku, GameSpot, whatever. And the fact is, when you group all this up, you get extremely high review scores, you get a preview business almost as big as the review business, you get reporters and PR people who are each other's closest allies, you get a lack of critical analysis and an overabundance of optimism towards major publishers and their game.
You get a face of games journalism who awards Game of Forever to Skyrim. You get a face of games criticsm calling BioShock: Infinite a major step towards merging art and games. You get tons of critics naming The Last of Us 'The Citizen Kane of video gaming.' It would be like if Transformers got Best Movie at the Oscars, or Man of Steel won in Cannes.
When shit like this happens in your professions, brave men say "we have a problem", and cowards say "well, I'm not part of the problem, so there isn't one!" Decide who you want to be, Schreier.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.