Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > In Nomine

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-14-2012, 06:56 PM   #231
Acolyte
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Seattle
Default Re: In Nomine Second Edition: What have we learned?

Quote:
...the issue of what IN is and isn't meant to do should be decided by the gaming group and facilitated by the rules, not the other way around.
It's necessary for every non-universalist game to make assumptions so that the game can actually be played. IN doesn't well handle a game where humans know about both angels and demons and fiery sword-wielding angels do battle with fighter jets. To play that game, you'd need to make changes to IN mechanically. Less hyperbolically, to play truly Backwards IN, you'd need to make changes to game mechanics to make that work.
Quote:
When and if a 2e ever gets written, my hope is that the core rules will be less human-antagonistic, whether or not human PCs are mentioned in the core book...
I don't think that's a bad thing at all, especially taking human PCs out of the core and making the CPG actually about playing humans instead of creating some more NPC types. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing the approach be much more like that of Ethereals in IN currently--nowhere near enough mechanics to play them without the special book, and enough disconnect between the special book and the core to make that option very distinct from the baseline. Any player wanting to play an Ethereal currently knows his character will not fit in, mechanics or fluffwise, and any GM agreeing to allow an Ethereal PC knows that he has to do some work to make sure that the player gets as much out of the experience as the players of celestial PCs.

In review, that's pretty much how I really see human PCs in IN currently (both fluff and mechanicswise), although I am aware that the core doesn't make that distinction as sharp as it is in my head. (The distinction is there, but the fluff and mechanics would have corresponded more tightly had the book said 'don't play humans or expect to play them, but here are some ideas that might help GMs who want to try it', rather than saying 'humans are subpar but you can play them if you really want to'.)
Quote:
...[the core book] assumed that all games would be what is now referred to as dark, low-contrast games.
I'm not sure if I agree with that last bit. Night Music is bright/low-contrast, and most IN games I've played or been involved with have been bright/high-contrast, without that being much of a problem. (The next most common type is, I agree, dark/low-contrast, because most demonic resonances and attunements are so blatantly exploitative that it's not particularly easy to cast them as 'good guys' or even 'plucky antiheroes'--it's much easier to drag angels down to their level.)

How many styles of play should IN support? At some point, the game designer has to draw a line (shooting missiles at angels is on the other side of that line, probably). That "gamebooks should respect and support" any type of game players can imagine is a pretty impossible requirement for any game to meet. Rather than have IN (or any RPG) change accommodate all imaginable playstyles, I'd rather it fix the problems within the narrower set of playstyles the game supports well.
Quote:
Multiple play styles should be facilitated; and a version where humans take center stage and celestials play a supporting role should be among them.
That is your opinion, much as it is my opinion that such a playstyle doesn't have to be supported to make IN a fun RPG to play. Diversity of playstyle isn't always a good thing, especially when adding support to a divergent playstyle weakens the themes and efficacy of a primary. And I am not saying or implying that would be the result of all attempts at making humans (or even human PCs) more powerful in IN. I would have to see the full rules on such to make that judgment.
Quote:
This is not a debate between mature role-players on one side and hack-and-slashers on the other; so please don't trot out the usual anti-H&S arguments.
I don't think that's what Azel meant; I took that to mean that IN has an unusual assumption among RPGs (though not unique) that that PCs don't spend the majority of their time together. Since the default IN assumption about celestial density puts only a few celestials of the same side in every non-metropolis city, and the game setting has even allied celestials focusing on tangential goals with their earthly time, the PCs tend to only operate as a group at times of crisis. Mostly the Trade angel works on revitalizing the downtown, while the Stone angel assists the downtown gang with protecting their neighborhood, all while the Fire angel immerses himself in hotspots of cruelty. They try to outmaneuver their infernal counterparts, and they pool their talents and contacts when a new demon arrives or a wild disturbance interrupts their monthly breakfast meeting. (The latter is of course IN's version of fantasy RPGs' 'you're all sitting in a tavern...'.)

Now, you don't have to play IN like this, but that is certainly the default expressed in the opening vignettes and with NPCs such as those in Night Music--and by default, I mean default campaign. A one-shot (or multiple session minicampaign with a planned arc) is much more likely to be "your Superior assigns you to this group and you are tasked with this mission", where you would have all the PCs spending all their time together (like the PCs' role in Night Music--this is of course more analogous to an adventuring party, but it doesn't have to convey implications of hack'en'slashery, because the mission could just as easily be one of espionage or politics). And again, it's certainly not the only campaign model that the rules or even the fiction support (a Triad of Judgment is a solid campaign setup and they spend all their time together), but it is the default.

One advantage of that default is that the "spotlight time" "play balance" you mention (which is, I agree, very important even in any RPG) is easier for the GM to handle. While I have no experience GMing human PCs in IN, more than a few PCs have had human Servants, and creating plots in the more episodic model to showcase those humans was not too difficult (and was important--creating encounters and plots where the servant was useful pleased the player who had spent all-to-rare CP on the servant, giving that player more spotlight time even if it wasn't his PC who was being most useful). And I am talking about times when the humans' rolls came into play, too, not just this-is-how-it-works-on-Earth scenarios. For example, one game had three angel PCs, one of whom had a full Soldier (statted normally for a starting Soldier) as a Servant. Because the angel who had the servant was a Seraph who (RPwise) had a very hard time dealing with humans, the servant got about one-half of the Seraph player's spotlight time, something the player was very happy with (the two characters had a sort of nobleman/valet relationship). It was not difficult to construct an episodic, assumed-downtime, default IN campaign that showcased the servant mechanically one-sixth of the time.

Quote:
...the main issue I have is the severity of their inferiority, to the extent that you have to hack the rules or largely dispense with them in order for humans to be viable. And I'm especially bothered by people not even bothering to look at the issue, because they're "only humans" and thus not worth the effort.
I don't see bringing human PCs up to celestial PCs in power as an important or interesting goal for my enjoyment of IN, the same as I feel about Undead PCs, Ethereal PCs, Remnant PCs, Reliever PCs, and Demonling PCs. I don't think that the way I play IN is the only way to play the game, but I do see the potential for diminishment of the game down that road--simply adding more Forces dramatically changes how humans respond to resonances (it would get even more difficult to play a Kyriotate, for example, and nearly all demons would have a harder time on Earth), how they behave in their own dreamscapes (the Marches, even within the Vale of Dreams, just got a lot dicier), the feasibility of the War remaining a secret (no more Ofanim spiraling across the world at will, because the average human's Perception just jumped), changes the default for what an Agility of 6 or a Precision of 4 mean (with average humans having higher numbers for each stat), makes Songs more accessible to humanity (which could be a good thing if that's what you want, but that cuts into celestial uniqueness), and so on.

If you say that only PC humans get more Forces (thus sidestepping some of the sweeping implications), you 1) aren't addressing the underlying concern that RAW humans simply don't work, so those problems remain for NPCs, and 2) are butting in on the "different than the average person" appeal of playing a celestial in the first place. No, these high-Force human PCs can't get killed and buy a new Vessel to return to Earth, and they don't have resonances, but they are superpowered people, and IN already has supers--they're called celestials.

It's not that I'm not bothering to pay attention to the fact of human weakness, it's that I haven't yet seen a significant reason to overhaul IN to address it, when the quick fixes work well enough for NPCs and the focus for PCs is placed firmly on celestials.
__________________
“The world is going to Hell in a hand-basket, but I’ve got Good News: I saved my soul by switching to Heaven.”
—Baruel, former Djinn of the Media, now Cherub of Destiny and the Angel of Good News
Acolyte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2012, 07:03 PM   #232
Acolyte
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Seattle
Default Re: In Nomine Second Edition: What have we learned?

Because it was an aside above and because I ran out of characters in that post (if there is a Discord that makes you fail at concision, I have it):

Quote:
There is not a great deal of fluff reason why I can't spend all my points on Class 6 Level 1 Shedim servants for a demon or sorcerer.
...there's an excellent fluff reason for why that doesn't happen--no Demon Prince is going to let a pack of chaotic, destructive, unsubtle, reveal-us-to-humans-if-we're-not-careful Shedim up onto the Corporeal Plane under the supervision of a PC with only a tenuous (Level 1) control of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dataweaver View Post
As I mentioned in the other topic, there are some nice ideas in there. In particular, I really like the notion of decoupling Resources from Forces.
That is an idea I could, provisionally, get behind (sorry for the double post, I didn't see this post while writing my monstrous one above). Equal CP wouldn't make humans power equivalent to celestials (lack of access to Ethereal and Celestial Songs, as well as most attunements, means that humans would be spending much more on average than a celestial on Skills, which would maintain the humans-understand-the-world, celestials-can-be-clueless-about-simple-machines schtick that is a mainstay of IN; also humans would have lower attributes with their still lower number of Forces, reducing the change boosting human CPs would have on fluff assumptions about the gameworld). Certainly something to think about!
__________________
“The world is going to Hell in a hand-basket, but I’ve got Good News: I saved my soul by switching to Heaven.”
—Baruel, former Djinn of the Media, now Cherub of Destiny and the Angel of Good News
Acolyte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2012, 09:26 PM   #233
dataweaver
 
dataweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: the frozen wastelands of Southern California
Default Re: In Nomine Second Edition: What have we learned?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acolyte View Post
It's necessary for every non-universalist game to make assumptions so that the game can actually be played. IN doesn't well handle a game where humans know about both angels and demons and fiery sword-wielding angels do battle with fighter jets. To play that game, you'd need to make changes to IN mechanically. Less hyperbolically, to play truly Backwards IN, you'd need to make changes to game mechanics to make that work.
Yeah; I knew I shouldn't have tried to be concise. I was, of course, meaning that statement as an ideal to strive for rather than a mandate that must be taken to it's extreme. Heck, not even so-called universal games can avoid making assumptions for playability. But they do demonstrate that you can provide a lot more accommodation of different play styles than the IN core book allows for. (And no, I'm not asking for IN to be turned into a "do anything" game.)

In particular, I don't see the gap between what you're describing as IN's "default" play style and one where human PCs aren't broken on the back of the mechanics to be big enough that you'd need separate mechanics for each.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acolyte View Post
I don't think that's a bad thing at all, especially taking human PCs out of the core and making the CPG actually about playing humans instead of creating some more NPC types.
This much, I'd be OK with — though I probably wouldn't play that version of IN until the new CPG comes out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acolyte View Post
In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing the approach be much more like that of Ethereals in IN currently--nowhere near enough mechanics to play them without the special book, and enough disconnect between the special book and the core to make that option very distinct from the baseline.
Ugh. I can live with the "nowhere enough mechanics to play them" bit, if for no other reason than there's only so much that you can fit in the pages of a single book. But the disconnect between the core and the EPG is something else that I'd like to see remedied in a 2e: consistency is another ideal to aim for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acolyte View Post
How many styles of play should IN support? At some point, the game designer has to draw a line (shooting missiles at angels is on the other side of that line, probably). That "gamebooks should respect and support" any type of game players can imagine is a pretty impossible requirement for any game to meet. Rather than have IN (or any RPG) change accommodate all imaginable playstyles, I'd rather it fix the problems within the narrower set of playstyles the game supports well.
there are two aspects to what "the game "supports well": mechanical support, and thematic support. Your example of "divine superheroes" fails to be well-supported in either sense. Conversely, IN does thematically support games where humans are among the protagonists; it just fails to do so mechanically. And when you're talking about a new edition, the failure of the first edition to provide adequate mechanical support for something that is very much thematically appropriate isn't an indication that the first edition's mechanical quirks should be enshrined.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acolyte View Post
That is your opinion, much as it is my opinion that such a playstyle doesn't have to be supported to make IN a fun RPG to play. Diversity of playstyle isn't always a good thing, especially when adding support to a divergent playstyle weakens the themes and efficacy of a primary.
But providing better support for human PCs doesn't weaken the themes or efficacy of the so-called primary play style to any appreciable extent — not unless you consider "humans are utterly powerless compared to celestials" (as opposed to "humans are weaker than celestials") to be a central theme of In Nomine (as opposed to being a secondary theme).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acolyte View Post
And I am not saying or implying that would be the result of all attempts at making humans (or even human PCs) more powerful in IN. I would have to see the full rules on such to make that judgment.
True enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acolyte View Post
I don't see bringing human PCs up to celestial PCs in power as an important or interesting goal for my enjoyment of IN, the same as I feel about Undead PCs, Ethereal PCs, Remnant PCs, Reliever PCs, and Demonling PCs.
As I said, I can live with humans not being as powerful as starting celestials, though I don't really agree that it needs to be so. And while I think it would be nice if angels were merely different from humans instead of better than them, that's not what I'm talking about here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acolyte View Post
I don't think that the way I play IN is the only way to play the game, but I do see the potential for diminishment of the game down that road--simply adding more Forces dramatically changes how humans respond to resonances (it would get even more difficult to play a Kyriotate, for example, and nearly all demons would have a harder time on Earth), how they behave in their own dreamscapes (the Marches, even within the Vale of Dreams, just got a lot dicier), the feasibility of the War remaining a secret (no more Ofanim spiraling across the world at will, because the average human's Perception just jumped), changes the default for what an Agility of 6 or a Precision of 4 mean (with average humans having higher numbers for each stat), makes Songs more accessible to humanity (which could be a good thing if that's what you want, but that cuts into celestial uniqueness), and so on.
I don't see those as diminshments; I see them as acknowledgments that humans aren't incompetent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acolyte
That is an idea I could, provisionally, get behind. Equal CP wouldn't make humans power equivalent to celestials (lack of access to Ethereal and Celestial Songs, as well as most attunements, means that humans would be spending much more on average than a celestial on Skills, which would maintain the humans-understand-the-world, celestials-can-be-clueless-about-simple-machines schtick that is a mainstay of IN; also humans would have lower attributes with their still lower number of Forces, reducing the change boosting human CPs would have on fluff assumptions about the gameworld). Certainly something to think about!
Yeah; this is the sort of thing that I'm looking for. What I really like about it is that it isn't really about the disparity between humans and celestials; that's jus a useful side effect.
dataweaver is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2012, 07:56 AM   #234
Elberon
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Default Re: In Nomine Second Edition: What have we learned?

a thought that I had was to allow non aware humans the fight to choose the order of their d666 roll to get maximum benefit. allow them one roll per force which only gets refreshed when an intervention is rolled [either kind]. once they are aware they can no longer do this.
Possibly even allow after the roll
Elberon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2012, 08:36 AM   #235
Rocket Man
Petitioner: Word of IN Filk
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Longmont, CO
Default Re: In Nomine Second Edition: What have we learned?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elberon View Post
a thought that I had was to allow non aware humans the fight to choose the order of their d666 roll to get maximum benefit. allow them one roll per force which only gets refreshed when an intervention is rolled [either kind]. once they are aware they can no longer do this.
Possibly even allow after the roll
Intriguing! Would you want that in addition to or instead of the mortal "Essence burst?" It's certainly an interesting way of showing humans as part of the Symphony instead of apart from it.
__________________
“It's not railroading if you offer the PCs tickets and they stampede to the box office, waving their money. Metaphorically speaking”
--Elizabeth McCoy, In Nomine Line Editor

Author: "What Doesn't Kill Me Makes Me Stronger"
Rocket Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2012, 04:31 PM   #236
Elberon
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Default Re: In Nomine Second Edition: What have we learned?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Man View Post
Intriguing! Would you want that in addition to or instead of the mortal "Essence burst?" It's certainly an interesting way of showing humans as part of the Symphony instead of apart from it.
PCs and important NPCs it would be both as it could be a long time between recharges - though you wouldn't be able to do both for the same roll.

For mooks I'm not too sure, perhaps leaving it as declared before roll for them and giving them a reduced essence pool available so not too grimm for the celestials...

Chris
Elberon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2012, 12:21 AM   #237
dataweaver
 
dataweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: the frozen wastelands of Southern California
Default Re: In Nomine Second Edition: What have we learned?

A radical revision to the characteristics that I've toyed with in the past, and that I personally wouldn't mind seeing in IN2e (emphasis on "radical"; I fully expect it to be too drastic of a change for many people):

Characters get six Characteristics and three Aptitudes. Characteristics are determined by your Forces as they always have been: you get 4 Characteristic Points per Realm Force to divide between two Characteristics in that Realm. The difference is what those Characteristics are: the Corporeal Characteristics are Strength and Body; the Ethereal Characteristics are Intelligence and Mind; and the Celestial Characteristics are Will and Soul.

Agility, Precision, and Perception become Aptitudes. Aptitudes are determined by dividing a pool of 18 points between the three Realms: Agility is the Corporeal Aptitude, Precision is the Ethereal Aptitude, and Perception is the Celestial Aptitude. Note: I said "18 points", not "2 x Forces": Aptitude ratings would be largely independent of Forces. I could see varying the total, but not directly proportional to your Forces; and in particular, your Aptitude in a given Realm should be unrelated to the number of Forces assigned to that Realm. Maybe it's tied to the Force caps: Celestials can have up to six Forces in each Realm, so they get 6+6+6=18 Aptitude points; humans can have up to five Forces in each Realm, so they get 5+5+5=15 Aptitude points. And an immature or decrepit character (in human terms, old or young) might not get his full allotment of Aptitude points.

• Strength, Intelligence, and Will no longer determine how likely you are to succeed in combat; they "only" determine how much damage you do if you do hit. They're also used to determine how much of a presence you have in the respective Realm: Strength lets you move large masses, Intelligence lets you process and recall a lot of information, and Will gives you a "force of personality" that's very useful when trying to intimidate or inspire people.
• Body, Mind, and Soul are used to determine their respective Realms' Hits, and are also used any time that a "resistance save" would be called for: Body is your physical stamina and constitution, Mind is your mental stability (low-Mind characters are prone to mental breakdowns), and Soul is your spiritual integrity.
• Agility, Precision, and Perception take over for both attack and defense in all combat; they also act as the basis for all skills and for "avoidance saves".

Each Aptitude deals primarily with the Realm in question, but not exclusively so: Perception is primarily about seeing into a person's soul, but it can also be used to spot hidden objects (Corporeal) and/or single out significant facts (Ethereal); Precision is primarily about disciplined thought (i.e., "reason"), but it's also used for manual dexterity (Corporeal) and for manipulating peoples' reactions (Celestial); and Agility is primarily about physically adjusting quickly to changing circumstances, but can also be used in a similar way in cerebral (Ethereal) and emotional (Celestial) situations. Use these guidelines when assigning Aptitudes to Skills: if the skill is about revealing secrets, it's Perception-based; if it's about carefully manipulating something, it's Precision-based; if it's about adapting to rapidly changing circumstances, it's Agility-based. Skills might even be decoupled from Aptitudes, with the Aptitude/Skill pair being decided on a task-by-task basis.
dataweaver is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2012, 07:23 AM   #238
dataweaver
 
dataweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: the frozen wastelands of Southern California
Default Re: In Nomine Second Edition: What have we learned?

Some commentary on my last post:

Agility undergoes the most radical conceptual revision: as currently written, it's assumed to be exclusively about Corporeal matters, whereas Precision and Perception have always had cross-Realm applicability. I've also attempted to provide a clearer definition of what Intellect is; and by all rights, similarly clear definitions of Body, Mind, and Soul should be provided.

Humans fare better under this setup than they do in the 1e model: while they're still weak (5 Forces instead of 9 Forces, for an average Characteristic of 3⅓ instead of 6), they're not inherently incompetent (15 Aptitude points instead of 18, for an average Aptitude of 5 instead of 6). This also preserves the "humans are 5s, celestials are 6s" brainfeel that Beth has mentioned in the past. But despite my earlier advocacy for more capable humans, this was not my primary motivation for coming up with this model; rather, it has always bothered me that Forces conflate quality and quantity. This model makes Forces all about quantity, while the Aptitudes embody quality. It also means that you don't need to worry about cats being inherently clumsy or elephants being inherently nimble, because having a lot of Corporeal Forces doesn't give you more points to spend on Agility.

One thing that sort of gets lost in this is the direct juxtaposition of demonic Will vs. angelic Perception. I say "sort of" because angels and demons still consider the Celestial Realm to be the most important of the three, and angels still prefer quality over quantity while demons still prefer quantity over quality; and taking these things together, the result in that angels will still tend to prize Perception (celestial quality) above all else while demons will likewise favor Will and a strong Soul (celestial quantity).

Still, the lack of a direct opposition between Perception and Will is a bit of a problem. As well, the reason why the "clumsy cats and nimble elephants" is a problem is that common experience implies that the relationship should be the other way around: the smaller you are, the more nimble you tend to be, and the larger you are, the more likely you are to be slow and clumsy. This could probably be addressed by allowing characters to trade Forces for Aptitude and vice versa, but this opens a can of worms.

This setup, combined with the recent suggestion to decouple Character Points from Characteristic Points, gives us three "currencies" in character creation: Forces, Aptitude Points, and Resource Points. This is up two from the current system where everything is based on Forces, and it does add some complexity to the system. I suppose you could try lumping them all together into one currency system; but doing so would lose a lot of what makes the In Nomine system special. And the "three currencies" model has a certain aesthetic feel to it that I like: much like the Corporeal/Ethereal/Celestial division aligns with the concepts of "body", "mind", and "soul", these three currencies roughly parallel the concepts of "to be" (Forces), "to do" (Aptitudes), and "to have" (Resources).
dataweaver is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 12:57 AM   #239
Acolyte
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Seattle
Default Re: In Nomine Second Edition: What have we learned?

While I am not a huge fan of that from reasons of complexity, there's some that I like. I really like the inclusion of an attribute that measures power apart from resiliency on the Corporeal (and other planes). Also,

Quote:
Skills might even be decoupled from Aptitudes, with the Aptitude/Skill pair being decided on a task-by-task basis.
A game in many ways similar mechanically to IN (in that it uses Attribute+Skill pairings to arrange target numbers, although it uses a d20 and a "roll high as but not over the TN") is Fading Suns (a far future, dark-ages-in-space game that is something like a mashup of Dune, Stargate, and the Warhammer 40k setting). Fading Suns totally decouples skills from Attributes, and although it suggests the most typical pairings it encourages creativity as well. This works out REALLY WELL. Some of the best FS gaming moments come from unusual but apropos skill pairings (a priest rolling Endurance+Oratory to browbeat a peasant with a guilty conscience into giving a confession, an ex-black ops guy rolling Perception+Warfare/Demolitions to know a good place to hide a bomb and thus to hide a bug for a surveillance op, etc). IN could benefit from this approach as well (and it's something I certainly already houserule into IN).
__________________
“The world is going to Hell in a hand-basket, but I’ve got Good News: I saved my soul by switching to Heaven.”
—Baruel, former Djinn of the Media, now Cherub of Destiny and the Angel of Good News
Acolyte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 06:49 AM   #240
dataweaver
 
dataweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: the frozen wastelands of Southern California
Default Re: In Nomine Second Edition: What have we learned?

To me, the key feature of the idea is the breakup of the close pairings of Strength/Agility, Intellect/Precision, and Will/Perception: the idea that there's any sort of parallel between how strong you are and how nimble you are rubs me the wrong way, and creates technical difficulties such as agile characters tending to have more Body Hits than clumsy ones (because you need more Corporeal Forces in order to be agile).
dataweaver is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
meta, rules

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.