http://brilliantgameologists.com
September 03, 2014, 02:58:51 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: These boards are now READ ONLY. We've started over! So don't try posting here. Go here www.minmaxboards.com
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: 1
  Print  
Author Topic: "game balance" -- fetishistic obssesion?  (Read 2364 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
wotmaniac
Man in Gorilla Suit
*****
Posts: 2207


Emperor's Enforcer


« on: September 30, 2009, 03:52:12 PM »

***warning/disclaimer***: this is a rant.  It is steeped in hyperbole, and is irrespective to what may or may not be considered socially acceptable; and is presented in free-form (read: A.D.D.) stream-of-consciousness.  As such, anything in this thread that resembles either tact or coherency is strictly coincidental.  Continue at your own risk.



Seriously, am I the only one that has noticed this trend?  It used to be that the idea of "game balance" was simply some abstract concept that simply referred to making sure things didn't fall apart due to insane inequities.  But, apparently, things have been shifting to mean something more -- much more.  I just read a post/thread that was talking about that you should never penalize a character for any choice that they make, unless you make up for it somewhere else -- all in the name of "game balance".  ARE YOU FRIGGIN' KIDDING ME?!  Am I actually supposed to buy this idea that any and all choices that a player/character makes should be equally viable to all others?  One guy was even saying that a character shouldn't experience so much as a "-1" to anything unless he in turn gets a "+1" to something else -- and claimed that game balance was the reasoning.  There was another thread that was talking about the intimidate skill; the OP of that thread was looking to bring a little verisimilitude to the concept of a halfling trying to intimidate an orc.  I suggested a size modifier (it was a 4e discussion, apparently), and was descended upon with a shit-storm, the likes of which I've never before encountered.  All I could say is "WTF?!".

Speaking of 4e, I've got a bit of a theory (and no, I'm NOT trying to continue the edition war).  I've noticed something as it pertains to the philosophical approaches of the various editions, and the players that play them (this is, of course, a generalization -- I realize that there are exceptions).  It seems that with each successive edition, more discretion is taken away from the DM (and yes, I understand the intent of "consistency"), and you have the emergence of players that have an over-developed sense of entitlement.  This crescendo really started to show with 3rd, and has reached it's climax with 4e.  In 2nd, the DMG stated flat-out that you should feel free to change things as you see fit; and the PHB made sure to emphasize the importance of DM's prerogative.  However, in 3rd, you start seeing rhetoric to the effect that players run the game (I'm not trying to take anything away from the players' role here); and that, while the DM still has some discretion, you should be wary of house-ruling stuff, else you chance completely killing "game balance".  Now, with 4e -- my monopoly games have more variance than what some of these 4e players will allow for.  Not only does the verbiage encourage rules-lawyering (much as in 3rd); but it goes even further by basically saying that things MUST be done a certain way, else the entire space-time continuum collapse.  Furthermore, it even goes on to describe how everything must have perfect parity -- everything.  Even the races feel like the designers used the "everybody gets a trophy" mentality.  You want your halfling to be just as much as a powerhouse as the half-orc?  Sure, why not.  You want your tiefling to be just as socially acceptable as the elf?  Go for it.  Everybody has equal potential for everything as everybody else -- it's the only way that things can be "balanced" -- right?

It seems like the designers have actively gone out of their way to shrink the size of their collective "box", and do everything humanly possible to keep people (i.e., the players and DMs) from wanting to think outside of that box.  As ridiculous a the 3.5 CO boards can get from time to time (oh, who am I kidding? -- most of the time), I thank the heavens for their existence -- if for no other reason that they have demonstrated the majestic splendor of outside-the-box thinking.  
Of course, some of the mentality that comes from the CO boards does anger me quite a bit.  The whole "just play a wizard/cleric/druid -- it 'wins' the game" bothers me immensely.  That kind of mentality, I think, misses the whole point of a RPG.  The point, I believe, is to develop a particular concept, and have fun trying to do a specific thing -- to play a role, so to speak (oh, wow, look at that -- a "role").  Here's the problem -- the term "role" has seemingly come to only mean "function"; as opposed to "character performance" (which I believe was the original intent).
Speaking of "role", this brings me back to my original point.  Not all concepts (or "roles") are equally viable in all situations.  While I'm sure that this may seem obvious to most, it is a concept that is lost to an ever-increasing demographic.  If I choose to be 3', 35lbs, then I should be prepared to not be very effective as a powerhouse (at least, not when compared to someone who has chosen to be 7', 300lbs).  If I choose to be some demon-spawn abomination, then I should expect to be socially persecuted.  If I choose to dedicate my talents to the intellectual  pursuits of arcane spellcasting, then I should expect that I'm gonna have to forgo being able to crush the life out of things with brute strength (and vice-versa).  If I choose to shoot my bow across a distance that has 5 of the squares occupied by people -- even if they are allies -- then I should expect to have my accuracy decreased; not only decreasing the chance to hit my intended target, but increasing my chances of hitting an unintended target (possibly even an ally) -- I should expect to have to take special training to help avoid such follies.  Basically, it seems as if the whole concept of opportunity costs is completely lost on some people; and the # of people who ignore this concept seems to be rising at an alarming rate.  This whole idea of only having positive reinforcement is what leads to the horrifying concept of the "tyranny of fun".

I'm sure that this is simply a reflection of society.  We've become a culture that demands that our free lunch be accompanied by instant gratification -- otherwise, live just wouldn't be "fair".  Fair?  Fair?  Let me say something about "fair".  Is it "fair" for someone to work their ass off, sacrificing the pleasures and luxuries that life has to offer, only to have the fruits of his labor be taken from them to pay for someone else to sit on their ass and keep popping-out kids that they can't afford while watching their big-screen cable TV?  I can say a thing or two about fair.  You, as a player, have choices to make (whether in or out of character); and not all choices are created equal.  All choices involve decisions; and those decisions have consequences.  Ever hear of the law of unintended consequences?  Look in to it.  And to say that living with the consequences of those decisions is not "fair" is complete b.s.  And, no, I'm talking about the hypothetical "false" choices.  OTOH, if you, as a player/character, choose to limit your choices, then a subsequent "false" choice may very well result -- but you'd have no one to blame but yourself.  If there are vast differences between the power levels of the different PCs -- to the extent that one or more of the player just can't have any fun -- then there are probably a couple of different things going on; either:
1) the DM isn't doing his job;  -and/or-
2) one or more of the players is inappropriately (often maliciously) exploiting the game-table dynamics (in which case, refer to #1).

And what's up with this whole idea of using 10 different PrCs within a single 20-level "build".  As I see it, a PrC represents a special kind of dedication -- to the exclusion to all else.  Sure, once you "complete" a PrC, go ahead and take on another one.  But, since most PrCs are so front-loaded (and the abilities being scalable even without further advancement in the class), it just seems rather inappropriate to bounce around from PrC to PrC.  I fully believe that this should be required reading for all RPG gamers.  Speaking of "the build" -- are we "playing" the "build" in an effort to game the system; or are we playing a character concept (a performance "role", if you will) and using the "build" to quantify what that character's skill-set would be?  Sadly, I find, more and more, that we are trending towards the former.  Nice going -- anything else you want to do to destroy the spirit of the game?

I understand that this is a game; and as such, the goal is to have fun.  However, if feeling the consequences of choices is more than you can handle, then perhaps you should find a game where the gravity of your choices is felt a little less.  Likewise, if you don't care for any verisimilitude within the established "accepted reality", then I'd say that this is also not the game for you.  There has been WAY too much effort to bring some sort of realism to such abstract mechanics for someone to honestly say "don't try to bring realism in to it".  Really?  Then why is there so much correlation (with varying levels of "goodness of fit", of course) between reality and the way that certain rules work?  Coincidence -- I think not.  If you doubt me, then you should probably read this first.  Besides, the whole "magic isn't real, so don't bother with reality in D&D" thing is a false argument -- the "realism" is a reference to verisimilitude within the parameters of the game.

It's the whole "when in Rome" concept -- if you choose to enter and engage an environment, then, by making this choice, you have taken on the responsibility of operating by the rules/standards/norms of that environment -- you DON'T force the environment to conform to your whims.  But, no, they couldn't leave table-top RPGs alone, could they?  No, they had to make it conform to the whims of cry-baby video-gamers (and no, I'm not saying that all video-gamers are cry-babies -- I'm saying that there are certain elements of video-game design that have the potential to lend to advancing an already-existing cry-baby mentality).  In an effort to "broaden the market", Hasbro, through WotC, has, IMO, whored-out a product that was best fit for a niche market.  In order to expand to a more "mainstream" market, they decided to cater to the worse elements of that market.  So now, not only is the game that I have grown to love over the last 20 years being flooded by a bunch of jackholes; it also caters to those jackholes in such a way as to actually breed and nurture that jag-off mentality -- and even to the extent of transforming many a previously-discerning player in to even more jackholes.  See what happens when you have a society that encourages libertinism and licentiousness?  Damn it people -- get it together!

And all this just to advance some sick, perverted concept of supposed "game balance".  


*sigh*  Now that I've got that off my chest -- where am I wrong?  
« Last Edit: September 30, 2009, 03:54:24 PM by wotmaniac » Logged


If you stop ignoring 289 pages telling what the intent is to stretch "more power" in your own god complexion of your interpretation trumps all to cover ability adjustments from aging then I will ignore a quarter page of rules that exist within a sidebar.
I think in this case the grammar is less important than whether the Str and Dex bonus provided to your created undead scales.

Greenbound Summoning RAI
Expanded Gestalt
More Savage Progressions
Report any wrongs I have done here.
Alea_Iacta_Est
Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
***
Posts: 128


Unfortunate Writer

brotherofthebrokenfedora@hotmail.com
WWW Email
« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2009, 04:52:39 PM »

Before I go into this, I mostly play indie games and I don't like 4e but I can appreciate it and still enjoy playing it. It is a good game for what it does, which is killing things that don't look like you while being heroic and awesome. This post is long because the OP is long.

Well, it isn't that you are wrong. D&D 4e took out negatives because from a design standpoint, making races with positives and negatives is difficult. In 3rd you would always have to balance everything. Give elves one thing, take away something else. Designers would have to use 'level adjustments' to make races equal. A 1st level minotaur is supposedly equal to a 3rd level human. Wait... what? That doesn't balance anything out, because the minotaur has the hit points of a first level character while it is up against CR 3 battles. The races in 4e have it about right. However, Savage Worlds does an extremely good job of balancing races. The whole idea of balancing races only applies once you have added on way too much to a race for it to function under the base race rules. That is why 4e races only have positives, easier to make them.

There is a difference between a halfling fighter and a dragonborn fighter. Dragonborn have better strength. There are still differences, but those differences are measured in 'I'm better than you' rather than 'you are weaker than me'.

The second part of your rant isn't really about game balance and it is more about mechanics and the 4e system.
4e is a very structured system. 3rd was more structured than AD&D. Picture each edition of D&D(or every game) as a giant hall of a long dead dwarf king. The more structure in the game, the more pillars the hall has. There is a better chance the game will not collapse because a pillar is missing such as the, 'What happens if I do this *insert idea here*?' However, the more pillars and supports a game has, the less space you have to move around in the game's system. AD&D was a small hall with only a few pillars, because you couldn't do much to begin with, but there was a lot of room for trying things out.
AD&D2 refined skills went into the mix and the room got a lot bigger, and the number of pillars increased, but the structure was a little iffy in places, like weird race/class restrictions and how the rules needed to go outside of the basic mechanics to do things, but thank the gods for THAC0 because AD&D's matrix sucked ass.
3rd brought in an even bigger room and more pillars. The number of pillars seem just right. THAC0 was replaced with a simple yet brilliant idea. Saving throws saved a lot of trouble by being simpler. There was a new multi-class system (which caused its own problems). But, grappling sucked, magic had chains that could throw the game off and shit in everyone's face. Martial classes couldn't do as much as casters beyond 11th level, and it became redundant to be a fighter. There is still enough room to do something clever with rope, chalk, a dead orc, and your ten-foot pole.
4e made the room a tad larger, but filled the room up with pillars. Not much room for a ten-foot pole. All classes became equal, no race penalties, group experience, didn't cost xp to make magical equipment, standardized hp, and a standardized skill challenge system. However, there is still not much of a social system, no groupthink, they fired Dave Noonan, and there isn't much room for outside of the box thinking.

That is a very brief overview and I did leave things out. I agree that 4e is very restrictive, but it did push ahead in the goal of D&D. Everything is as it is. You can always change the system or play a different game or edition. The game is the way it is. Realism has an effect, because games try to reflect reality within the system. Overall though, the mainstream market doesn't have anything good for me, and hasn't for the past while. I suggest playing different systems.
Logged

Seldom Affirm, Never Deny, Always Distinguish
My Gaming Blog, Reviews, and Design at: Laughing Jack Wilton
The Barely Legal Podcast: An AP Podcast From The Wednesday Night Gamers
wotmaniac
Man in Gorilla Suit
*****
Posts: 2207


Emperor's Enforcer


« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2009, 09:38:18 PM »

yeah, and domes are self-supporting without the need for any pillars.  Tongue  (sorry -- was that abusing the analogy?  Wink)

the "straw that broke the camel's back", so to speak, concerning the whole positive/negative mechanics with the 4e thread had to do with players wanting to use special tactics/maneuvers that would involve a degree of risk; when someone suggested the possibility of representing that risk with a penalty or a consequence of failure, an apoplectic shit-storm ensued.  All of the rebuttals boiled-down to basically a bunch of cry-baby stuff about "oh, how dare you suggest that a character be subjected to actual consequences of a risky choice! -- that would destroy the game's balance."  I was simply blown away by it.  The honest impression that I get is that players are coming to expect that there should be no consequences whatsoever for anything that they have their characters do, or for any choices that they, as players, make -- and I absolutely refuse to accept that as being in any way a valid stance. 
I get the concept of replacing positives/negatives with only varying degrees of positives -- I believe that the concept is not without merit.  However, without also lowering the baseline (or raising the standard) to account for that, they've inadvertently bred a mentality much like what I've just described (this goes back to unintended consequences).
Logged


If you stop ignoring 289 pages telling what the intent is to stretch "more power" in your own god complexion of your interpretation trumps all to cover ability adjustments from aging then I will ignore a quarter page of rules that exist within a sidebar.
I think in this case the grammar is less important than whether the Str and Dex bonus provided to your created undead scales.

Greenbound Summoning RAI
Expanded Gestalt
More Savage Progressions
Report any wrongs I have done here.
Dan2
Honorary Moderator
Hong Kong
*
Posts: 1024


Wizicist


« Reply #3 on: October 01, 2009, 09:58:00 PM »

What risky choices are you talking about that would normally have a consequence for failure, but don't now?
Logged

wotmaniac
Man in Gorilla Suit
*****
Posts: 2207


Emperor's Enforcer


« Reply #4 on: October 01, 2009, 10:32:11 PM »

What risky choices are you talking about that would normally have a consequence for failure, but don't now?

well ........

Quote
If I choose to shoot my bow across a distance that has 5 of the squares occupied by people -- even if they are allies -- then I should expect to have my accuracy decreased; not only decreasing the chance to hit my intended target, but increasing my chances of hitting an unintended target (possibly even an ally) -- I should expect to have to take special training to help avoid such follies.

This was a real example -- and the particular one that sent me off the deep end.
Logged


If you stop ignoring 289 pages telling what the intent is to stretch "more power" in your own god complexion of your interpretation trumps all to cover ability adjustments from aging then I will ignore a quarter page of rules that exist within a sidebar.
I think in this case the grammar is less important than whether the Str and Dex bonus provided to your created undead scales.

Greenbound Summoning RAI
Expanded Gestalt
More Savage Progressions
Report any wrongs I have done here.
Dan2
Honorary Moderator
Hong Kong
*
Posts: 1024


Wizicist


« Reply #5 on: October 02, 2009, 12:35:41 PM »

Ok, an understandable reaction, for the most part.
Understand that I don't agree with the choice to take out the possibility of hitting an ally, but I think I understand the reasoning behind it.

In D&D, the PCs are heroes.  They are well-trained in their particular idioms.
In 4e, the idea is that since each of the characters is a hero that can (to a large degree) hold their own in battle, they would be able to work together.  (Shouting things like "Now!" or "Duck!"; maybe whistling right before firing.  Note that enemies do provide cover.)
Obviously this doesn't hold with all possible backgrounds and stories that one can come up with for characters, but the assumption is that the characters are still heroes; the best of the best.

I wouldn't say that it was done for game balance.  If it affects you, it affects the enemy too...
I would say it was done in the name of "fun".  (Shooting teammates isn't fun and often causes people to get angry at one another)
There's no question that it's pandering to a less mature set of people over all, and it does nothing to help the awful entitlement issues people seem to have nowadays.
Logged

awaken DM golem
Organ Grinder
*****
Posts: 3294


PAO'd my Avatar


« Reply #6 on: October 02, 2009, 03:30:04 PM »

I wouldn't go so far as to say that You Are Wrong.
Rather, you have your opinions, and that's fine. You have your facts, and that's fine too.
Then there's the facts, and then there's The Facts.
Ok.
So, once upon a time, the CO-board was interested in The Facts, with the capital letters.
That hasn't happened quite yet on the 4e CO-board.
There's still a big pile of 26 hit combo Joy  vs. a supposed 3 or 4 combo game.
And that's fine too.

But that doesn't mean, those ARE the facts.
I've taken a good look at the Monster Manual, and some of the game design stuff that's related.
But ignore me, and go with what the 4e CO-board did with Orcus.
First Rattata beats Orcus.
Second Orcus is recognized to be Not a cupcake.
Third Rattata beats an Orcus that fights back.

Fourth hasn't happened yet.
Orcus has buddies.
Orcus has a level 34 encounter available.
Orcus can do rituals, lots of rituals, ahead of time.
Orcus has A.H. amounts of resources available to him.
Players cap at level 30, but can face (now) a level 35 monster.
Orcus CO-ed vs. level 29 party.
I think the party dies.
Brutally.
 Smirk

Now what does this, have to do with what you've posted?
It almost doesn't ... almost !!
I don't think any real fact based definition of "Balance" has been achieved in 4e.
Rather, I think the designers got a lot closer with this edition, and almost all players are playing along with that supposition.
Supposition ... only.
It doesn't rank as a Premise.
It's not provable, and it's also not true.
So at some point it's gonna die, a mean cruel death with lots of yelling screaming Internet-y-ing, and nonsense.

As usual I'm hoping my tone is more tongue-in-cheek than it may be taken  Smile

**

Anyways - 4e is not balanced, it's just played that way. That's not too bad.
And this is ~just my opinion.
I'm not really trying to use My facts.
The facts will only happen much later, and who knows who or what will be around then.

{ ... insert I'm surprised I was this long winded smiley face ... }
 Big Grin
« Last Edit: October 02, 2009, 03:32:04 PM by awaken DM golem » Logged
Alea_Iacta_Est
Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
***
Posts: 128


Unfortunate Writer

brotherofthebrokenfedora@hotmail.com
WWW Email
« Reply #7 on: October 02, 2009, 09:34:05 PM »

When it comes down to it, in the genre of heroic fantasy it does a very good job. It has sound mechanics for the protagonists to be heroes. In Lord of the Rings, Legolas never hits Gimli, Boromir, or Aragorn with his arrows. That is heroic. However, in Solomon Kane, people are shot 'accidentally' all the time. The flavour of the game's genre reflects the mechanics and the system. In D&D, you succeed a lot. In Burning Wheel, you don't. In D&D you save princesses, in BW you kill wenches.
Logged

Seldom Affirm, Never Deny, Always Distinguish
My Gaming Blog, Reviews, and Design at: Laughing Jack Wilton
The Barely Legal Podcast: An AP Podcast From The Wednesday Night Gamers
wotmaniac
Man in Gorilla Suit
*****
Posts: 2207


Emperor's Enforcer


« Reply #8 on: October 06, 2009, 03:50:06 AM »

When it comes down to it, in the genre of heroic fantasy it does a very good job. It has sound mechanics for the protagonists to be heroes. In Lord of the Rings, Legolas never hits Gimli, Boromir, or Aragorn with his arrows. That is heroic. However, in Solomon Kane, people are shot 'accidentally' all the time. The flavour of the game's genre reflects the mechanics and the system. In D&D, you succeed a lot. In Burning Wheel, you don't. In D&D you save princesses, in BW you kill wenches.
Right.  But the idea of being epically heroic at 1st level is ridiculous.  And the reason that these epically heroic feats of combat prowess are so inspiring and impressive is exactly because of the risks involved and the possible consequences of failure.  And to be competent at such feats, your character sheet should probably demonstrate some level of training.
Like I said before -- this is what happens when you give away trophies for last place.  
« Last Edit: October 06, 2009, 03:53:27 AM by wotmaniac » Logged


If you stop ignoring 289 pages telling what the intent is to stretch "more power" in your own god complexion of your interpretation trumps all to cover ability adjustments from aging then I will ignore a quarter page of rules that exist within a sidebar.
I think in this case the grammar is less important than whether the Str and Dex bonus provided to your created undead scales.

Greenbound Summoning RAI
Expanded Gestalt
More Savage Progressions
Report any wrongs I have done here.
Alea_Iacta_Est
Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
***
Posts: 128


Unfortunate Writer

brotherofthebrokenfedora@hotmail.com
WWW Email
« Reply #9 on: October 06, 2009, 04:02:08 PM »

The game assumes that you start out knowing what you are doing. In 4e, with evidence from the sample concepts, your character is someone who knows what to do and they are different than the regular folks in the world. You are a hero. Not some peasant or regular townsman.
Compare D&D to a superhero game in this one respect. You start off with a lot compared to a citizen.
Like in Greek and Roman heroic epics, Achilles is a hero. He can easily kill any mortal or monster. It takes another hero to defeat him. Aeneas is a hero from Virgil's Aeneid. Many mortal companions travel with Aeneas, but they are killed off by the obstacles in the story.

D&D does have dynamic heroic combat. Critical hits, hits and misses. Inspiring, successful, or unimpressive. Instead of multiple levels of success and one level failure, in a gritty genre game you have one level of success and multiple levels of failure.
Logged

Seldom Affirm, Never Deny, Always Distinguish
My Gaming Blog, Reviews, and Design at: Laughing Jack Wilton
The Barely Legal Podcast: An AP Podcast From The Wednesday Night Gamers
Turalisj
Ring-Tailed Lemur
**
Posts: 34


« Reply #10 on: November 06, 2009, 12:33:41 PM »

The game assumes that you start out knowing what you are doing.

 This is why I moved on to other game systems. I don't like playing characters who are Mary Sues.
Logged
bhu
Organ Grinder
*****
Posts: 6783


Convincing the rich whale fat enemas are healthy


« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2009, 02:02:39 AM »

Some part of this is that DnD evolved from simulationist wargames that tried to write the rules to simulate how to do things.  Beginning with 3.5 (and especially with 4E) the game was retconned to provide a different type of game, i.e. not simulationist as much as being a leisure game like any other board game or video game because if RPG's want younger players they felt they needed to make a product they understood and could grasp as opposed to something created 30 years ago.  This is ultimately leading towards the obsession with balance, because modern RPG's are being designed similar to board/video games where everyone is supposed to be on the same level with no one having a clear advantage (at least initially).  What designers dont quite seem to grasp is that with time and study of the rules, players quickly separate into haves (those who understand and can best exploit the rules) and have nots (everyone else).   To some extent they keep trying to 'fix' this by making things ever simpler (which is why the games seem to be getting 'dumbed down').  Remember the goal of companies isn't to make the best game they can make.  Its to make the game that will sell the most copies, and to do that you will have to kiss the ass of each new generation as it arises, and toss the preceeding ones aside just like any other product company does.  If you see players arguing they shouldn't be allowed to die/take penalties unless they want to, remember they probably started gaming via video games, which never really allow them to die (or have cheat codes if they're too tough), just reset at the last save point (or board games which never allow you to 'die', even if you've boxed yourself into such a corner you can no longer influence the game or have any hope of winning).
Logged

awaken DM golem
Organ Grinder
*****
Posts: 3294


PAO'd my Avatar


« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2009, 06:25:31 PM »

heh yeah

For what ever reason, the crowd was concerned with "balance" of some sort during 3e.
v3.5e CO-board blew that up (although some of the early birds had most of it down).
Borkt by whatever spelling became a canard thrown out left and right.
Only CO had the stones / system knowledge to figure all that out for real.
Everyone else is left with the sneaking suspicion ...  Smirk ... that something is out of whack.
Tough beans.
Logged
Pages: 1
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!