What is Political and Mod Direction

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Black Leaf said:
And yeah, I wouldn't *necessarily* have thought the OA thread was a good idea. But I'm not sure how to handle that, unless you declare the very subject of OA off limits and I don't really like that either as a solution.
Click to expand...

I just haven’t looked at that thread. Problem solved for me. I’d think anyone who wanted to avoid such a discussion could do likewise.

It’s not a topic I really care to hear about nor share my thoughts about. But I don’t care if others do so.
 
CRKrueger said:
Yeah, Black Leaf mentioned that.
Edit: Oh FFS, of course Venger would do that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you can see why this puts us in a bind and I don't want to single Venger out too much here, he's an example.

There are an increasing number of RPG commentators who have politics as a major content of their focus and that's on all sides of the political divide.

I'm not talking about someone like Jeffro who mentions politics in passing and mostly tells us that only he and his mates truly understand the magic of D&D.
I'm talking about people who do talk about RPGs, but mention politics a lot.

Do we allow discussion of those figures? Is there a point where we consider them politicians rather than RPG people. 50% of their content being political? 80%?

I don't have an easy answer here. The lines have become increasingly blurred between "RPG Commentator" and "Political Commentator" to the point there really are no easy answers.
 
Black Leaf said:
Yeah, you can see why this puts us in a bind and I don't want to single Venger out too much here, he's an example.

There are an increasing number of RPG commentators who have politics as a major content of their focus and that's on all sides of the political divide.

I'm not talking about someone like Jeffro who mentions politics in passing and mostly tells us that only he and his mates truly understand the magic of D&D.
I'm talking about people who do talk about RPGs, but mention politics a lot.

Do we allow discussion of those figures? Is there a point where we consider them politicians rather than RPG people. 50% of their content being political? 80%?

I don't have an easy answer here. The lines have become increasingly blurred between "RPG Commentator" and "Political Commentator" to the point there really are no easy answers.
Click to expand...
Most of his stuff is Lurid and Smutty, which is no problem, but when he does something like that, it's gotta go.
 
Black Leaf said:
Yeah, you can see why this puts us in a bind and I don't want to single Venger out too much here, he's an example.

There are an increasing number of RPG commentators who have politics as a major content of their focus and that's on all sides of the political divide.

I'm not talking about someone like Jeffro who mentions politics in passing and mostly tells us that only he and his mates truly understand the magic of D&D.
I'm talking about people who do talk about RPGs, but mention politics a lot.

Do we allow discussion of those figures? Is there a point where we consider them politicians rather than RPG people. 50% of their content being political? 80%?

I don't have an easy answer here. The lines have become increasingly blurred between "RPG Commentator" and "Political Commentator" to the point there really are no easy answers.
Click to expand...

I think there are a lot of gray areas. I favor the mods using common sense with those. Obviously there may be relevant discussion about a particular product or podcast. And people who make games might have political views or have those views in their products. At the same time it is a kind of pandoras box once you start going down the "now we are going to allow politics" road (especially if it is being allowed because just one or two exceptions were made for particular cases where it maybe made sense).

Personally I would be very in favor or erring on the side of leaving politics at the door as much as possible (but not excluding people from posting if they happen to be political outside the forum, and not excluding a political game or podcast channel that has political views: as long as the threads aren't turning into what we see on our facebook pages and in comments sections, or in the political section of forums). Another thing to consider with politics in a gaming forum is its potential to rip the community apart. People who otherwise share interests and tastes in games, can find themselves at one another's throats when they realize they vote for different parties or come down on different sides of a contentious political issue. That is a very real danger for an RPG forum I think. I get my fill of politics everywhere else in life. I am not especially interested in it when I am talking about games
 
In all of this, I’m reminded of the lawyer’s maxim that ‘hard cases make bad law.’ That is, it’s probably not worth attempting to codify precisely what counts as political and what does not, and especially not worth trying to come up with comprehensive definitions that deal with difficult edge cases.
 
Lofgeornost said:
In all of this, I’m reminded of the lawyer’s maxim that ‘hard cases make bad law.’ That is, it’s probably not worth attempting to codify precisely what counts as political and what does not, and especially not worth trying to come up with comprehensive definitions that deal with difficult edge cases.
Click to expand...

Kind of like this:

I know it when I see it - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

This standard is obviously not great in serious situations, but this is a forum. "I know bad-faith culture-war posturing when I see it" is good enough for a forum.
 
AsenRG said:
I mean, do we also go around blaming all the people that bought "50 shades of grey" and/or "Twilight"? There's most certainly a lot of what would/should be termed "toxic content" in both of these!
And how about some anime genres? No, I don't even mean hentai...
So yeah, until we spread the blame around, I don't plan to justify my decisions* to run Tales of Gor, Maid, or whatever else I like. And if we start assigning blame for that...well, the great leader Kim would certainly approve!
But I wouldn't approve, so anyone who isn't entertained by the same things is simply invited to use the Open Door tool.

*I don't actually run Tales of Gor, nor am I really planning to. Nor does it look likely that I'd run Maid.

:thumbsup:


I concur. Both have their time and place...and for Chrissake, if someone states he's looking to do the former, don't tell him or her to do the latter, or vice versa!





Also, when we talk about stuff like racism upsetting people, why don't we mention other reasons to be upset? For example, there are genuinely upsetting CoC and DG scenarios.
So how comes nobody claims those shouldn't be run? Why is it that somehow, horror fans are given leeway for scenarios and settings involving anything, because that's part of the draw of horror, but fans of historical games are supposed to edit their settings, when getting as close to the authentic setting as possible is a major draw for us:gunslinger:?
Click to expand...

One of the things that drives me nuts is how often people base acceptable only on their view point, and sadly RPGs are not immune to this. It seems like many have difficulty differentiating the difference between "I don't like" and "is without value". There are types of games I'm not interested in but it doesn't hurt me in the least that there are people who enjoy them. Don't like LARPs, narrative games, crunch heavy games etc, fine don't play them, stating your disapproval adds no value to the discussion.

This becomes very obvious in any thread including sex or fetishes, or games like Gor, Powered by the Apocalypse, Alpha Blue, Black Tokyo etc which tend to get derailed by juvenile and judgmental posts. Now I'll admit some of these posts are funny, but it is a shame that serious discussions can't exist for some subjects. I single this specific topic as it is so blatant. It doesn't matter if I'm interested in playing these games, I'd prefer that we not send the message that only certain types of games are welcome.


I would disagree that horror gets a pass, I see a lot of the same stuff brought up with horror scenarios particularly when "safety cards" get brought up.


Shipyard Locked said:
For the record, while I agree with many of the insights in it, I think the current "What's Wrong with Oriental Adventures?" thread is a bad fit for this forum and will set pernicious precedents.
Click to expand...

I haven't been following that thread, but I'd say it has much to do with how it is discussed. Historical context is more than fair game to highlight errors if that is where the discussion is headed. Clearly offensive aspects that may not be obvious to outsiders may be a welcome observation depending on context. That a "far east" fantasy setting must be more accurate than the typical "medieval Europe" fantasy setting because reasons, then that starts to become an issue. Sometimes it is fun to play in an outdated setting, and yes this can have pitfalls, as always know your group. For somebody looking for it Flash Gordon or Buck Rodgers as products of the 1930s are full of -isms, that doesn't make them unsuitable as a setting to play or discuss, it just adds more things to think about.

A recent non-gaming example works here as well. I recently got back into drawing and picked up a pencil drawing instruction book that was reprinted, but originally written in the 1930s. Towards the end of the book the author starts to discuss ways of finding your own style and provides his own examples of starting with a figure and developing it to fit different situations, fatter, skinnier, standing vs action etc. Well 2 pages of the 120 in the book resulted in some reviewers condemning the book because he gave some examples of drawing people of other cultures / races with what are admittedly very 1930s stereotypes. A warning that the book was written in the 1930s and includes some images that haven't aged well is reasonable, and I'm sure appreciated by some but talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. 99% of the book is great, but it is trash because I can't comprehend socially acceptable has changed in 90 years.

Dammit Viktor said:
Without hyperbole, I maintain friendships and close family relationships with people who openly advocate policies that violate my most dearly held moral values and that I would-- as a simple factual statement-- rather die than see come to pass.

Fish deny the existence of water. That doesn't mean that water doesn't exist, it means fish are grossly unqualified to have opinions about it.
Click to expand...

It is amazing how well you can get along with people if you simply agree not to talk about things you strongly disagree on.

I travel a lot for work, all over the country so often have to work with people who have very different views from me, some probably hold views I would find abhorrent. Thankfully work place rules discourage exploration of these topics, and even if some people can't help themselves from going there I can control myself so we don't go down into the pit of despair. Just because they say it, and I say nothing does not further their cause. My speaking up is unlikely to change their mind, but it most certainly would lead to a less productive work environment.

Not engaging with these discussions (often more of a rant) does tend to limit them, either because they think I agree or because they realize I may not and further discussion may be unwelcome. When several people get involved I sometimes learn more about those around me than I'd really like to know. It can be hard to put that genie back in the bottle.

Fenris-77 said:
I like to open the Overton Window in the afternoon to let in a nice breeze, and possibly spend some time drinking a nice cup of tea with my elbows on the sill watching the world go by.
Click to expand...

Funny but whenever I hear Overton Window, I immediately imagine a large old timey oval window in the upper story of an old house, and am riminded of a story where such a window was a portal leading to many unpleasant places...

Black Leaf said:
One reason I think we do let stuff slide is that generally speaking we moderate from a position of assuming good faith where most issues are mistakes rather than intentional fuckery. (Especially the other mods. It's fair to say I'm the most cynical I think).
Click to expand...

I think this is the only way it can work. The highly regimented structure at big purple combined with mods who were extremely opinionated and snarky led to its downfall. You don't have to agree with a mods decision on a call, but if presented in a mature even handed way it is hard to argue. "Hey, this line of thought is getting out of hand, we are asking those involved to drop it" is far different from "We will not tolerate bigoted comments like that, have a ban for being a sexist pig".

Having less defined lines, allows the mods to use their judgement, and it is usually fairly clear when something is said in the heat of the moment vs intentional, and when a discussion close to the line is beginning to cross it. The ever growing list of rules over there just created a game for some posters of creeping up to the line and then helping others to step over it while they stepped back and laughed with the other fuckwits.

Black Leaf said:
Yeah, you can see why this puts us in a bind and I don't want to single Venger out too much here, he's an example.

There are an increasing number of RPG commentators who have politics as a major content of their focus and that's on all sides of the political divide.

I'm not talking about someone like Jeffro who mentions politics in passing and mostly tells us that only he and his mates truly understand the magic of D&D.
I'm talking about people who do talk about RPGs, but mention politics a lot.

Do we allow discussion of those figures? Is there a point where we consider them politicians rather than RPG people. 50% of their content being political? 80%?

I don't have an easy answer here. The lines have become increasingly blurred between "RPG Commentator" and "Political Commentator" to the point there really are no easy answers.
Click to expand...

This is unfortunate, some make it hard to separate the author's views from the game. There are some authors who produce some interesting and very unusual games, some are better than others of knowing their space.

In the case of Venger, I've followed some of his threads and seen him step out of bounds, but at the same time I've also watched at least one thread where some including a mod help goad him over that line. Most of the time it seems like he is fairly good about policing himself and a simple, hey that point needs to be discussed elsewhere could get things back on track. The specific post I noticed, he did step out of bounds, but then instead of just hey get back across the line, other posters took up the the topic completely derailing the thread clearly taking it into an area violating the pub guidelines.

Lion and Dragon is another example, Pundit can be very lucid and intelligent when discussing the game, but his persona now carries so much baggage it becomes very hard to discuss the game without it turning into a diatribe about him.

Just a shame that some people can't separate this crap, and while many do bring it on themselves it take two to dance.


The only gripe with moderation here would be to always remain civil, and 99% of the time the mods are professional. Snarkiness when obviously speaking as a poster is fine, but when it comes to moderation it should be all business. That is not the time for a witty jab as that instantly exposes bias. Moderation works best when it is calm and impartial.
 
Last edited:
There's a phenomenon that I've noticed when we've had the storygae vs traditional and other such debates here at The Pub that also applies to any time politics are discussed here that I think is worth calling attention to - pretty quickly the arguments become, not about the two posters interacting, but a "They" group that exists somewhere else online that people have ecountered. A sort of bogeyman stereotype of the "other side" that is malicious and subversive in intent, whose words carry dogwhistles and other secret implications, and who are actively seeking to "harm" others (whether "harm" means gatekeeping, telling them their opinions or choices are badwrong, or otherwise dismiss their opinions).

What it leads to, from my perspective, is not only abandoning the assumption of good faith, buta sort of depersonalization where people aren't directly engaging with or debating the individual in front of them, but instead lumping people into this amorphous "They" where they expect folks here at The Pub to answer for or justify what other people, elsewhere have done or said - which is, of course impossible, and distorts and interferes with any meaningful attempt to reach an understanding of another person's PoV.

I think one of the reasons The Pub has become and felt like a second home for me and many others online is not simply that it's a respite from the tribalistic ideological battles elsewhere online, but rather that, for the most part, people converse with each other with the assumption of good faith, with the understanding that a disagreement in tastes doesn't mean having to put another person down, and treating each other like individuals without ascribing them to groups or sides or categories and all the attendant assumptions that carries.

All of us, to one degree or another, carry baggage from unfortunate interactions elsewhere online. But it's when we start projecting that baggage onto people we interact with here that they esentially cease to be people, individuals with unique lives, experiences, and perspectives. We stop listening to what they are saying, and instead start "reading into" their intent. We stop giving the benefit of the doubt and start looking for confirmations of our suspicions.

And that's exactly what I don't want The Pub to become.

I don't want us to try and make the Pub a better place by weeding ot all the "They". I don't want us to spend all our time obsessing over and complaining about what the "They" elsewhere are doing.

I want the Pub to be a place where we are united by what we have in common, rather than divided by what makes us different.

And to that end, I see politics as the enemy.
 
TristramEvans said:
There's a phenomenon that I've noticed when we've had the storygae vs traditional and other such debates here at The Pub that also applies to any time politics are discussed here that I think is worth calling attention to - pretty quickly the arguments become, not about the two posters interacting, but a "They" group that exists somewhere else online that people have ecountered. A sort of bogeyman stereotype of the "other side" that is malicious and subversive in intent, whose words carry dogwhistles and other secret implications, and who are actively seeking to "harm" others (whether "harm" means gatekeeping, telling them their opinions or choices are badwrong, or otherwise dismiss their opinions).
Click to expand...
I do think that there is a way (mostly due to history) that the narrative vs trad debate has become a proxy culture war debate, sometimes without its proponents even realising it. I think there is an argument that we haven't cracked down on that and I'd be interested if other people agree. As a general observation, games vs games is ok, but if people are dividing the board into two camps (as if anyone's gaming tastes are that reductionist) it's borderline at best.
 
Black Leaf said:
I do think that there is a way (mostly due to history) that the narrative vs trad debate has become a proxy culture war debate, sometimes without its proponents even realising it. I think there is an argument that we haven't cracked down on that and I'd be interested if other people agree. As a general observation, games vs games is ok, but if people are dividing the board into two camps (as if anyone's gaming tastes are that reductionist) it's borderline at best.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know a few good posters who have moved on from the forum because of the toxicity around discussing certain games, which often strikes me as a proxy for American culture wars. It would be nice to people to discuss a PbtA or Fate game or what-have-you without having to debate naysayers all the time. I've addressed it by selectively muting posters when they get on their high horses.
 
David Johansen said:
One thing I think people should bear in mind here is the amount of political influence rpgs have in the wider world: less than none.

In the balance between art influencing society and society influencing art, rpgs are on the low end of the scale. Partially it's because they're niche but more than that, because they're a small venue interaction in practice. A movie reaches millions, an rpg is lucky to reach thousands, and a DM is hard pressed to reach a dozen.
Click to expand...
D&D 5e, the most popular version of D&D, had something in the vicinity of 14 Million players in 2017, and sales have increased by 40%-50% every year since. As many people play D&D as see Marvel movies.

Critical Role has had over 225 Million views, just on Twitch.

Actors, directors, artists and creators of the biggest media properties today constantly cite or are still actively playing D&D. Many credit D&D and roleplaying games as part of their formula for success.

RPGs are not as small time a hobby as you seem think. RPGs, and D&D specifically, are definitely culturally significant.
 
One of the valuable things about the "no politics" rule is that, with a rule like that in place, the default assumption is that people aren't being political when they post something. I don't want to have to worry that I'll say something innocuous and someone will decide it's secret code for something awful, and call me a nazi or an MRA or whatever other mendacious nonsense they want to read into it. I came here to get away from crap like that. That, and the tasty beers.
 
thebigh said:
One of the valuable things about the "no politics" rule is that, with a rule like that in place, the default assumption is that people aren't being political when they post something. I don't want to have to worry that I'll say something innocuous and someone will decide it's secret code for something awful, and call me a nazi or an MRA or whatever other mendacious nonsense they want to read into it. I came here to get away from crap like that. That, and the tasty beers.
Click to expand...
No, but I might call you a big ninny, or perhaps even a poopy head, were I really feeling my oats. Feel the burn!
 
thebigh thebigh sleeps with the fishes. Wait, or this when I'm supposed to make him an offer he can't refuse? Pop culture references are hard...
 
Fenris-77 said:
thebigh thebigh sleeps with the fishes. Wait, or this when I'm supposed to make him an offer he can't refuse? Pop culture references are hard...
Click to expand...
First make the offer then go to the mattresses then sleep with the fishes.
 
Tulpa Girl said:
You should probably leave his sex life out of it.
Click to expand...
But (not) Mythras can do that..

iu
 
Black Leaf said:
I do think that there is a way (mostly due to history) that the narrative vs trad debate has become a proxy culture war debate, sometimes without its proponents even realising it. I think there is an argument that we haven't cracked down on that and I'd be interested if other people agree. As a general observation, games vs games is ok, but if people are dividing the board into two camps (as if anyone's gaming tastes are that reductionist) it's borderline at best.
Click to expand...
I've genuinely been curious what Narrative vs. Tradtional Role playing is, but it's hard to find out when every conversation involving it turns into a dumpster fire. Do people argue over different styles of play? Like Vampire Rpg's vs. Fantasy?
 
Giganotosaurus said:
I've genuinely been curious what Narrative vs. Tradtional Role playing is, but it's hard to find out when every conversation involving it turns into a dumpster fire. Do people argue over different styles of play? Like Vampire Rpg's vs. Fantasy?
Click to expand...
To be fair there's a whole lot of don't you dare put that poop in my litterbox on both sides.
 
Giganotosaurus said:
I've genuinely been curious what Narrative vs. Tradtional Role playing is, but it's hard to find out when every conversation involving it turns into a dumpster fire. Do people argue over different styles of play? Like Vampire Rpg's vs. Fantasy?
Click to expand...

That dichotomy is the only way you can derail a flame war with more fire. I am sure a forum search will turn up the topic

It is complicated but an easy way to frame the debate is whether it prioritizes things like exploration and mechanics meant to emulate things going on in the game world, versus a style where the priority is story and having mechanics that facilitate story or movie conventions. It isn't worth getting into here. My breakdown may be flawed or inadequate. It is just off the top of my head
 
Black Leaf said:
I do think that there is a way (mostly due to history) that the narrative vs trad debate has become a proxy culture war debate, sometimes without its proponents even realising it. I think there is an argument that we haven't cracked down on that and I'd be interested if other people agree. As a general observation, games vs games is ok, but if people are dividing the board into two camps (as if anyone's gaming tastes are that reductionist) it's borderline at best.
Click to expand...

I’ve been involved in some of those kerfuffles. I don’t know if it’s a proxy for anything else specifically, but I can say for sure that in many cases I get that “monolithic representative” treatment that TristramEvans TristramEvans posted about. Like people aren’t talking to me, but instead to all fans of whatever game (PbtA and Blades in the Dark mostly, in my case).

And although I can say I honestly try not to do that, when it happens to me, it’s difficult for responses to not take that on, making the “us/them” angle even more of a factor. It’s something I need to handle better.

I don’t think I’ve ever felt there was a political bent to it, but I think perhaps similar tactics are used: “Shit post or flame till conversation I don’t like is shut down or becomes so mired that no one wants to take part.”

One connection could be the idea of “they’re coming for us” fear that’s been ramped up by plenty of people. Wether it’s fear of people with different ideas or people who like different games, that base response seems similar.
 
Fenris-77 said:
To be fair there's a whole lot of don't you dare put that poop in my litterbox on both sides.
Click to expand...
It's been a bit frustrating, I'm still fairly new to the rpg scene and haven't fully developed an idea of what I like. I'm genuinely interested in learning more but stuff like this gets bogged down in some grudge two people have for each other.
BedrockBrendan said:
That dichotomy is the only way you can derail a flame war with more fire. I am sure a forum search will turn up the topic

It is complicated but an easy way to frame the debate is whether it prioritizes things like exploration and mechanics meant to emulate things going on in the game world, versus a style where the priority is story and having mechanics that facilitate story or movie conventions. It isn't worth getting into here. My breakdown may be flawed or inadequate. It is just off the top of my head
Click to expand...
That sounds like people arguing over ice cream flavors, some people like chocolate and others like vanilla, but instead of accepting that other people have different tastes they whine about how terrible the other flavor is.
This feels dumb. I'm going to eat a sandwich.
 
Giganotosaurus said:
I've genuinely been curious what Narrative vs. Tradtional Role playing is, but it's hard to find out when every conversation involving it turns into a dumpster fire. Do people argue over different styles of play? Like Vampire Rpg's vs. Fantasy?
Click to expand...
There's a lot of theorywank in both OSR-focused and more indie-focused spaces. There's less of it in communities that aren't trying to pretend there isn't a lot of overlap between OSR and indie-- but what there is, is generally a lot more interesting.
 
Last edited:
Giganotosaurus said:
That sounds like people arguing over ice cream flavors, some people like chocolate and others like vanilla, but instead of accepting that other people have different tastes they whine about how terrible the other flavor is.
This feels dumb. I'm going to eat a sandwich.
Click to expand...

It is essentially arguing over ice cream flavors. Or maybe arguing over gelato versus ice cream. Or cone versus bowl.
 
Giganotosaurus said:
It's been a bit frustrating, I'm still fairly new to the rpg scene and haven't fully developed an idea of what I like. I'm genuinely interested in learning more but stuff like this gets bogged down in some grudge two people have for each other.
Click to expand...

Take everything with a grain of salt. RPG discussions emerged in a wide variety of camps with their own unique approaches (and when they would clash, it often left lingering resentments). If you can overlook the resentments and the quirks, you can find a lot of great advice, mechanics and tools. Just take what you like and take what works at your table. It can become an issue if you start worrying about the opinions of people who aren't even gaming with you after rite conversation has ended.
 
Dammit Viktor said:
There's a lot of theorywank in both OSR-focused and more indie-focused spaces. There's less of it in communities that aren't trying to pretend there's a lot of overlap between OSR and indie-- but what there is, is generally a lot more interesting.
Click to expand...

The use of "indie" here is confusing I think; the OSR is indie by most people's definition. (Not having a go, I just think it's a useful example of how confusing jargon can slip into the discussion without that being deliberate).
 
Voros said:
Yes, I know a few good posters who have moved on from the forum because of the toxicity around discussing certain games, which often strikes me as a proxy for American culture wars. It would be nice to people to discuss a PbtA or Fate game or what-have-you without having to debate naysayers all the time. I've addressed it by selectively muting posters when they get on their high horses.
Click to expand...
Eh, the Forge Wars predate the current Hot War going on in US Social Media and the broader culture. 2008 and 2009, Twitter was in its infancy, Breitbart had literally just started, Milo was ~6 years away, as was Gamergate. 4chan was famous as the originators of the Rickroll, etc.

Yeah, politics was bad, but social media hadn't yet made politics everyone's Personal Jesus, raison d'etre, or favorite bloodsport.

Oh, what a difference 14 years makes...
 
Giganotosaurus said:
I've genuinely been curious what Narrative vs. Tradtional Role playing is, but it's hard to find out when every conversation involving it turns into a dumpster fire. Do people argue over different styles of play? Like Vampire Rpg's vs. Fantasy?
Click to expand...
I'll give you a hint. It's all a load of bollocks.

In the beginning there were the Forge Wars that culminated in a lot of folks throwing their toys out of the cot. Subsequently, it wasn't helped by FATE fanboys answering every question with 'If you want a rules-lite system I'd use FATE Core with . . .' and a similar era of it from PBTA fanboys, then a generation of immersionist arguments from the OSR fanboys and so forth. It got all partisan, and most of the arguments that leak into The Pub are really the ghosts of 15 year old shitfights on The Forge.

Really, I just want to shitpost on forums and play PbP games.
Promise I Will restart S&V when work calms down. Honest.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top