Jump to content

Subsequent parries RQG


Rob Darvall

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

You will mess up missile fire an magic in this way. Two arrows out in 2 seconds is a bit too much. Weird as it can sound, the SR system has been around for a long time and its subcomponents are  quite integrated. It is not easy to houserule one of its parts without breaking the others.

All you need to do is get rid of the (unjustified) exception that some missiles (basically bows) get rolling SR unlike nearly anything else in the game. 

Just treat missile fire SR like any other attack strike rank - when you go, you get your shot.  Not the start of of series of shots.

Then it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

To maintain the current balance with missile, you'd have to adjust the chances of dealing damage.

You don't have to, but if you don't it changes the way missle combat works and the balance between melee and missile. I'm not advocating doing so, but it would "work" functionally. It would change the way combat plays out though. Archers would have to drop their bows and draw melee weapons if engaged simply to keep up on the number of attacks. Not that that would be a bad thing, but it would definitely be different. 

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

. The whole attack/parry mechanic would need to be redesigned.

Not necessarily. There is nothing wrong with a swird fight being over in 10-20 seconds as opposed to a minute or two. Frankly the 10-12 seconds is probably more accurate. But again, it would radically alter things. I wouldn't mind trying it as an experiment some time. but it would be a one-shot or short term game with new PCs. I wouldn't want to risk existing PCs with such a radical change. 

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, styopa said:

All you need to do is get rid of the (unjustified) exception that some missiles (basically bows) get rolling SR unlike nearly anything else in the game. 

Just treat missile fire SR like any other attack strike rank - when you go, you get your shot.  Not the start of of series of shots.

Then it works.

Yeah, although with 2 second MRs, the archers should probably take DEX MR to reload. That gives you an average of 10 arrows a minute, about the same as it is now.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, all this discussion is ignoring the fact that the '12s round' with 'one' melee attack in it is an abstraction of a 12s round with a pair of combatants throwing combos at each other and the 'successful'  attack roll representing the sequence that actually 'came to something', rather than being neutralised by the opponent's movement and parrying, and the 'successful' parry roll meaning the target managed to follow the combo enough to stymie even the 'best' the attacker could come up with in that 12s. There are probably a number of 'glancing' contacts in there that are insignificant because of armour or half-blocks.

Of course, any abstraction will break down when the parameters are stretched. My example of line fighting, earlier, probably included actual swings at me from 3 or 4 people. Some swings missed, others hit my shield (without me needing to actively parry). One guy probably stabbed at me 4 or more times, but hadn't enough variety of angle to need a different shield parry; just rinse and repeat. Some attacks needed active intervention. Some of those were the only attack that participant threw my way at all, others (like the stabby spearman) would have been 'combos', full-fledged attacks.

Resolving every swing, riposte, counter, stop hit and timed/broken sequence would require a much, much more detailed treatment of skills and weapon ranges (the main reason I was on 'full defense' in my line fighting example was that I was being held at range by a polearm block - fighting distance is a crucial element in a fight, and a system that doesn't address range in the same detail as speed or damage inflicted (and I've not seen any system yet that would sit at a Role Playing game table which achieves that balance) will generate results that feel 'off'.

RQ is gritty. It deals with specific damage, allowing for limb-lopping and one-shot kills. It's visceral: if you don't think too hard about the timescale, there is enough detail with attack-parry-location-armour-hitpoints that it feels like a blow-by-blow without making some weapon whose shortcomings aren't addressed in the simulation's elements feel like some superweapon. If Phoenix Command is the hyperrealistic school of combat depiction, RuneQuest is the Impressionist, with DnD being the Cubist version.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

In Legend of the Five Rings, a combat round is "3 to 10 seconds". Most samurai swordsmen will get two attacks in that time depending on rank (level).

I have no problem with elastic durations. Pendragon does state a specific duration but based on movement it's most likely a 2 or 3 seconds duration. So even a knight in Pendragon, who doesn't claim to be blow by blow and visceral, attacks 4 to 6 times faster than a competent fighter in RQG. There is a disconnect here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

I have no problem with elastic durations. Pendragon does state a specific duration but based on movement it's most likely a 2 or 3 seconds duration. So even a knight in Pendragon, who doesn't claim to be blow by blow and visceral, attacks 4 to 6 times faster than a competent fighter in RQG. There is a disconnect here.

Given that Pendragon posits about a round's gap between lance charges, there is no way it's 2 or 3 seconds per round. But none of these (L5R, RQ[whatever], Pendragon) are actual simulations. They're broad-brush. And RQ is the narrowest of the brushes. L5R, to my recollection (the books for 1ed are in storage) doesn't even have hit locations, and I know Pendragon doesn't.

Get away from thinking that a round in RQ between two sword-and-board fighters consists of two swings of sword and two attempts to interpose the shield, and you'll be happier; there's a lot more going on, below the abstraction layer.

Says the chap who's trying to figure out how to introduce a melee range system and get away from rounds completely in his house rules.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, womble said:

Says the chap who's trying to figure out how to introduce a melee range system and get away from rounds completely in his house rules.

Lol i was thinking the same, kicking it around in the head actually. More of a rolling combat round... well no round, but rolling/continuing once it starts i mean. The SRs continue and no round reset. (Again, just another thought that went thru my mind as i lay awake at 3am.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, 10baseT said:

Lol i was thinking the same, kicking it around in the head actually. More of a rolling combat round... well no round, but rolling/continuing once it starts i mean. The SRs continue and no round reset. (Again, just another thought that went thru my mind as i lay awake at 3am.)

Check out Ringworld. There characters had an Action Rank, based on DEX, and they got to act every time thier AR came around. For instance if you had a AR of 6, could act on impulse 6, 12, 18 and so forth. Someone with AR 5 would act on impulse 5, 10, 15, 20 etc. 

I works but can be a bookkeeping headache on a long fight. Plus Ringworld didn't factor in for Weapon or character size. 

  • Like 1

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, womble said:

Of course, all this discussion is ignoring the fact that the '12s round' with 'one' melee attack in it is an abstraction of a 12s round with a pair of combatants throwing combos at each other and the 'successful'  attack roll representing the sequence that actually 'came to something',

Not ignoring it, just addressing the fact that some missile weapons have an advantage because they are exempt from it. A high DEX character with a low melee SR gets his attack off early in the round, but a high DEX archer not only acts earlier, but might even be able to get off a second attack in the same round.  And how that would work out if someone used shorter MRs. 30 sword swings in a minute is certainly possible, but 30 arrow shots is superhuman.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Not ignoring it, just addressing the fact that some missile weapons have an advantage because they are exempt from it. A high DEX character with a low melee SR gets his attack off early in the round, but a high DEX archer not only acts earlier, but might even be able to get off a second attack in the same round.  And how that would work out if someone used shorter MRs. 30 sword swings in a minute is certainly possible, but 30 arrow shots is superhuman.

I get what you're saying, but the shorter Melee round suggestions are made because people fall into the trap of thinking that every roll of the dice is a cut or a thrust: ignoring the abstraction inherent in the system. Leaving the round at 12s, you've got pretty much a hard maximum of 2 shots per round (10 per minute), and I've seen 18 shots in a minute, myself, with my own eyes, by a re-enactor who's not even a professional archer. The abstraction in melee means that, while you may get off many  attacks in the same round (I'd reckon a dominant fighter could probably put in at least 8 potentially-telling blows in 12s), only one of those actually matters: the one that does significant damage. Better skill is far more important than simple coordination in determining how often you hit in melee. The combination of DEX SR and skill rolls means that, over the minute, your weapon skill Master might fell several foes. Archery and other missile fire is very much more directly represented, though you'll not get extra attacks because of over-100 skill very much, if your DEX is good enough to get 2 shots a round (the delay between split attacks would probably push your second shot into the next round).

I'm not saying it's perfect. Far from it. I've been trying (on a more off than on basis) for 30 years to think of a way of having 'continuous time' for everyone, melee, caster and missile included, and haven't yet found a way of parsing it so that it retains the themes and feel of combat as well as RQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, womble said:

I get what you're saying, but the shorter Melee round suggestions are made because people fall into the trap of thinking that every roll of the dice is a cut or a thrust: ignoring the abstraction inherent in the system. 

Yup. But altering that level of abstraction isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's just a different way of doing things.

3 hours ago, womble said:

I'm not saying it's perfect. Far from it. I've been trying (on a more off than on basis) for 30 years to think of a way of having 'continuous time' for everyone, melee, caster and missile included, and haven't yet found a way of parsing it so that it retains the themes and feel of combat as well as RQ.

There is the continuous system used in Ringworld. It wouldn't be hard to add in modifiers for SIZ and weapon length.  But it also has it's drawbacks. In normal Ringworld play keeping track on the current Action Rank can become a chore in a long battle with lots of combatants. Add in RQ delays for things like pepping an arrow or MPs expended in a spell, and it could become a nightmare> If I were going to attempt it I'd probably have the character start his action on his normal AR, and then be doing it until the AR where the action would be resolved. IMO it would be easier to run that way. So on AR 5 Marty fires an arrow, then spends 9 ARs reading a second arrow and then aims and shoots again on AR 19. But I don't know if I would want to go through the bother. 

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with keeping the system as it is and also that people misunderstand how it works.

Having 20 years of martial arts experience, I would describe the mechanism like this (perhaps not exactly cannon but it is an easy way to look at it):

During sparring I spend a lot of time trying to create an opening.  This may be as simple as moving sideways or inwards, hoping to catch my opponent off balance, or it could involve an "attack" which is not intended to strike, but to force my opponent to move part of their body (such as dropping their hands to block a low attack) .  Every so often this will succeed and an opening will be created that I think I can exploit.  Then I attack for real.

Sometimes that real attack will succeed, other times I have misjudged how fast my opponent is (or how slow I am) and they successfully block or dodge my attack.

All that maneuvering and feints aren't really what we are rolling for.  The rolls are for the real attacks that eventuate from such efforts.  Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 12:49 AM, Zozotroll said:

I play cyberpunk which uses 2.5 second turns.  But that is not really my point.

 

On the range I can just about empty my .357 in 3 seconds.  At the game table I cannot roll the dice six times and read them in less than a minute or two.  No crack, no recoil.  I got the middle knuckle on my left hand broken on a successful parry.  Hit me right in the middle of the shield ad the shock cracked my knuckle.  Dude was 6'5" and 350 LB.  Like fighting a dark troll.  No tabletop game is ever going to capture the really feeling of any of those things.It is always going to be an abstraction o matter what you turn length.That doesnt mean it isnt fun, or something I like to do a lot.  Look at how  much time I spend here blathering away about it.  But I am never going to confuse a RQ melee round of whatever length with getting knocked to the ground by a near monster with a huge ax.

I don't disagree with anything you said and in actual fact you may be arguing a point I was not making but that's cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 7:10 AM, womble said:

Resolving every swing, riposte, counter, stop hit and timed/broken sequence would require a much, much more detailed treatment of skills and weapon ranges (the main reason I was on 'full defense' in my line fighting example was that I was being held at range by a polearm block - fighting distance is a crucial element in a fight, and a system that doesn't address range in the same detail as speed or damage inflicted (and I've not seen any system yet that would sit at a Role Playing game table which achieves that balance) will generate results that feel 'off'.


GURPS does that very well when you turn all (many) dials on specifically from GURPS Martial Arts. But that's not really what I expect from RQG. Ehen I want to play GURPS, I play GURPS (one of my favorite games for the record)

Edited by DreadDomain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 7:59 AM, womble said:

Given that Pendragon posits about a round's gap between lance charges, there is no way it's 2 or 3 seconds per round.

Which is why they have an elastic, undefined duration. Combat in Pendragon, and generally every aspects of Pendragon's rules, are defined in broad stokes. This is ow it works and it's bloody excellent that way (another of my favorite games)!

On ‎9‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 7:59 AM, womble said:

But none of these (L5R, RQ[whatever], Pendragon) are actual simulations. They're broad-brush. And RQ is the narrowest of the brushes. L5R, to my recollection (the books for 1ed are in storage) doesn't even have hit locations, and I know Pendragon doesn't.

And here lies my frustration with combat in RQG. RQG is detailed. Character creation is detailed. Skills are detailed. It is not as detailed as other games but it is detailed to acertain degree that, as you noted, is higher than say Pendragon or HeroQuest (I don't know L5R so can't comment). There is a lot of crunchy goodness in RQG; SR, weapon length, Armour/Hit Points and weapon breakage, phalanx and chariot combat, encumbrance, shot by shot missile combat, etc. The level of detail in melee combat, more specifically taking actions and making tactical decisions in melee combat is simply inconsistent with the rest. When one shoots arrow, they will play out every arrow draw and every shots individually. Why is it not blow by blow in melee?

On ‎9‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 7:59 AM, womble said:

Get away from thinking that a round in RQ between two sword-and-board fighters consists of two swings of sword and two attempts to interpose the shield, and you'll be happier; there's a lot more going on, below the abstraction layer.

No I won't :). When it comes to taking actions in melee combat, the level of abstraction is simply too high compared to the rest of the game. I do not expect RQG to go down to the minutae of GURPS Martial Arts but I would have hoped it would have been internally consistent. Just a simple example to illustrate my meaning.

A professional archer (DEX 13, DEX SR 2, bow 90%) is sneaking against three opponents. She moves into position for 9 meters while readying her composite bow and an arrow (movement and readying combined for 5 SR). She shoots the closest opponent (+2 SR) and as he drops, ready a second arrow (+5 SR). On the next MR, she will be able to shoot another opponent on SR 2 and could potentially ready another arrow (+5 SR) and shoot another opponent on SR 9. But it will depend on what the opponents do... 

A professional swordsman (DEX 13, SIZ 15, MSR 5, Broadsword 90%) is pitted against three opponents. He moves into position for 9 meters while readying his broadsword (movement and readying combined for 5 SR). He strikes the closest opponent (+5 SR). On the next MR, (of course assuming he could parry and/or survive his opponent retaliations) he is in a position to strike another opponent on SR 5... but that's it. While both attacks (1 in MR 1 and 1 in MR 2) can be abstracted to feint, footwork, all out attack (which I have no problem with), the professional swordsman is simply unable to attempt to strike two opponents in 12 seconds. He cannot even try, the rules simply do not allow it.

It is this inconsistence that I simply cannot buy. Mind you, for me the solution is easy and it is simply to resolve melee combat exactly like missile combat (in other words resolve melee activities as per Multiple Activities Outside of Melee on page 195 and ignore Multiplie Activities Within Melee). This is pretty much what BRP does for the optional Strike Rank system (BGB p.199).

Edited by DreadDomain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if I am trying to argue at all.  Every game group needs to find what suits them.  Ever play Tractics?  Probably not, it is known in wargames circles as the ultimate in over detail.  But I liked it when I was young, as long as you had forever to play.  I have not played it in 30 years, nobody has the time or inclination.

 

GURPS is OK, but nobody I know plays it any more.  I hope to energize everybody with RQG, but we will see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

Because combat would take five times as long.

That's only true if you change the way hits are resolved and/or the chances to hit of characters.

If you still need 5 hits on average to end a fight, fights will take almost the same time to resolve in "real life time", even though the "in game" fight will be much faster.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

11 minutes ago, Mugen said:
1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

Because combat would take five times as long.

That's only true if you change the way hits are resolved and/or the chances to hit of characters.

If you still need 5 hits on average to end a fight, fights will take almost the same time to resolve in "real life time", even though the "in game" fight will be much faster.

That would dramatically change the balance of melee vs missile/magic. If you want to go into more detail, then just doing the same level of detail but with more hits in a 10 second period is not going to do it. What I thought we were talking about modeling psychology, feints, bruising, non-weapon attacks, etc. in a way that ends up with a similar DPS to a single abstracted attack roll per melee round. Compressing the abstracted rolls to just do more damage in the same time? I don't see why anyone would want that.

Edited by PhilHibbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Because combat would take five times as long.

Wait a minute, Phil.

This statement – or at least one of the ways you can read this statement – is unfounded, and in some ways disproven by evidence witnessed at the game table.

The venerable Strike Rank system which Steve Perrin and Ray Turney designed In the 70s, and which certainly brings to our minds fond memories of countless hours of Maximum Game Fun, is based on a carefully pondered, intentionally high level of abstraction, and on Steve’s field experience in the SCA. It works well, and it “gives the feeling” of fighting hand to hand against your opponent. Despite its age, it is still a fun experience to play it.

Nevertheless, it is still just one way of modeling hand to hand combat, not the only one. Blow-by-blow emulation is certainly possible in a roleplaying melee. To implement such a level of detail is a conscious design choice that game authors have the responsibility of making, based on their preferences and those of the players they are specifically addressing with those rules. Not everyone likes to take into account that much “crunch”. However, stating that improving the level of detail would make combat longer and sluggish is a big non sequitur.

Anyone who has played games that use more detail in melee than RQ2/3/G can tell you that if everyone is comfortable with that level of detail, combat does not take longer. It forces you to focus on tactical thinking (not everyone’s cup of tea), but it does NOT take longer. GURPS is certainly a good example, and you cannot imagine the time I have spent in the 90s with GURPS advocates claiming that its hyper-tacticism was detrimental for the speed of play, only to have to concede that it was not, because of the hard evidence that people who like and know GURPS can play a melee with it as fast as any of us would with classic RuneQuest. Facts trump statements of principles. Always.

Now, after 2010, it has been proven that you can adopt a level of detail approaching blow-by-blow simulation in a d100 game, while keeping combat fun and fast paced. Not everyone feels that it is necessary or enjoyable, but it does not slow down battles. Evidence at the game table tells it.

So, to summarize: DreadDomain has a point in claiming that there is an inconsistence in classic RQ between the ways melee and ranged attacks are modeled. This does not make the classic Strike Rank system bad, unfun or unrealistic, and you are perfectly correct if you say “many gamers would not appreciate that additional crunch”. But you cannot dismiss the observation with a claim that it would not work or that it would slow down combat. The existence of an entire family of D100 games that emulate melee with a blow-by-blow combat model (there are at least four of them in print at the moment) clearly says otherwise.

  • Like 1

Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

Wait a minute, Phil.

This statement – or at least one of the ways you can read this statement – is unfounded, and in some ways disproven by evidence witnessed at the game table.

Could be fair, I accept, but I find it hard to imagine how a single die roll (possibly two, opposed) could be replaced by something with significantly more detail without taking longer. In fact I would have thought that the whole point was to spend more time on the detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PhilHibbs said:

Could be fair, I accept, but I find it hard to imagine how a single die roll (possibly two, opposed) could be replaced by something with significantly more detail without taking longer. In fact I would have thought that the whole point was to spend more time on the detail.

The answer is quite simple,

  1. First of all, Try it at the table. As I said, the core of the question is that experience trumps principles. It works for others, so even if you find it hard to believe, it must be true.
  2. Just to save you time in case you have little opportunities to try it in practice, a short example. Eliminating non-significant rolls is one of the design techniques you can use to do the trick. For instance, in Revolution D100 advanced combat, once you roll the dice something always happens. At the very least you drop your opponent's chance to make the next roll, or improve yours, building momentum until someone misses a crucial roll. The famous attack/parry/attack/parry... sequence that can happen between two high skill combatants in classic RQ can no longer happen. The result is that the number of rolls required to "take down" an opponent remains the same, and so does the time spent at the table. You just have a bigger amount of detail (and control) per roll, rather than abstractions and hit point attrition.

Now, that does not mean that after trying it in practice you will find it more satisfactory. Many people who have tried both models say "I prefer simpler, **** the detail". And the attack/parry/attack/parry... sequence has been called "a feature, not a bug".

But time is definitely not a factor. More abstraction does not mean "faster".

  • Like 1

Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RosenMcStern I think you nailed it in your longer statement.   If.  I have played a lot of different RPGs Wargames, other stuff.  Including a number that I have been told are slow and clunky.  I have found that most of the time, IF, (that word again) all the players in the group re prepared, knowledgeable and ready to play Things can go quite quickly.  But they almost never do.  For me. almost all games I have played are a social activity.  People talk about non-game things.  Or past games.  Or the seahawks.  All this slows things down tremendously.  And yes that can happen to any game at all.  But, and again just what I have seen, detailed systems invite it more, because there is almost always somebody there who is not into that sort of thing.  My current group will no longer play rolemaster because on person just cant get into it.  No stress I like lots of games.  

 

So, I am not disagreeing with you.  Just pointing out that for many folks, simpler is better.  And you did say that.  I guess I am just bringing out that point a bit more.

( And please take no account of this odd font I am typing in, no idea how that happened.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

 

Anyone who has played games that use more detail in melee than RQ2/3/G can tell you that if everyone is comfortable with that level of detail, combat does not take longer. It forces you to focus on tactical thinking (not everyone’s cup of tea), but it does NOT take longer. GURPS is certainly a good example, and you cannot imagine the time I have spent in the 90s with GURPS advocates claiming that its hyper-tacticism was detrimental for the speed of play, only to have to concede that it was not, because of the hard evidence that people who like and know GURPS can play a melee with it as fast as any of us would with classic RuneQuest. Facts trump statements of principles. Always.

Yes, exactly. On a similar note, back in the 80s most of the local gamers were convinced that RQ was more complicated and slower than AD&D! Now, I think most people here would consider RQ to be simpler and more streamlined than AD&D (a game system in which combat, magic, climbing a tree, lifting an object, blacksmithing, listening at a door (virtually everything) had it's own special rule.

The reason why AD&D seemed easier to most of the people I was gaming with was that they were very familiar with AD&D. Everybody owned a copy of the books, and had generated hundreds of characters over the years, and could do chargen, work out hit points, spells, weapon proficiencies, armor class, and weapon damages without having to crack open a rulebook. With RQ, it was all new and unfamiliar, with only one copy of the rulebook at the table, so everything took longer and the game seemed more complicated and slower. But when players got more familiar with RQ it got faster and easier.  Eventually we were able to run fights with over 50 characters in RQ faster than it would have played out in AD&D. 

 

It really boils down to how familiar people (especially the GM) are with the rules, and what the emphasis is during play. If the GM knows the rules, and wants to run it fast, then a game, even one like GURPS, can be run fast. I suspect that even applies to some of the stuff from Leading Edge Games, with their tenth of a second combat rounds. 

 

 

 

Edited by Atgxtg

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

It really boils down to how familiar people (especially the GM) are with the rules, and what the emphasis is during play.

This is exactly why one of my fixed rules for GMing is that if you don’t know a rule, and can’t find it inside a minute or so, then make a ruling.  My experience is that an incorrect ruling derails a game a lot less than waiting 10 minutes while the GM pages through the rules.

Also, if anyone wants to see how smooth detailed blow-by-blow combat can be, I’d recommend a look at The Riddle of Steel RPG.  It’s not perfect, but it does have an even more visceral feel than RuneQuest.  Also several things in common, such as creatures that don’t bleed or suffer shock (like skeletons and zombies) being a lot more dangerous than they seem...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...