Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons

Rate this topic


Prometheus98876

Recommended Posts

Played D&D for roughly 8 years, starting with 2nd edition. I really felt like this was a big let down as far as game play. Now I feel like as was mentioned earlier that the classes are just too close to being the same thing really.

The major difference I see is what color of wrapping paper you want on you character :( . One fantastic aspect I saw was the ability to play online, getting together was always such a pain for me and my groups. I wish I could have 3.5 playable online. And what the heck is up with a wizard NEEDING a wand to do ANY magic. I AM NOT HARRY POTTER! Ahem. Sorry I feel very strongly about casters...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Yeah well, that is WOTC and their knee-jerk reactions for you. It seems they decided class power levels were not balanced relative to each other, and as usual when they try to fix things they think are problems, they go too far and break it in another way. That is JUST what they did with multiclassing in 3e, it was super broken in 2e, so they "fix" it by making it worse in many ways.

Ah well, nothing a few house rules could fix with 3e, but im not sure its worth the effort rewriting half of 4e with house rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Well, fellow role players. I have a confession to make. I picked up the entire 4th edition as a Holiday gift for the family , and it turned out to be a $113 dollar mistake! B)

For all the reasons previously mentioned , and then some, D&D the 4th is a BIG disappointment. The only possible saving grace in the entire series of books is the monster manual. The dungeon master's guide reads like an on line video game strategy magazine, and don't get Me started about the so-called players hand book. The Wizz-kids' of The Coast have knocked the proverbial birds nest to the ground, and the books are nothing but bait to get gamers to log on at ten bucks a pop. And I thought TSR was bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got my money back! :P

Went back to the book store and they credited My card. All $113 bucks. So,I logged on to Amazon and ordered 3.5 DM and Player's hand books'. Now that they totally ruined D & D I'd better get the real deal before it disappears. It just turned 09 here in NY. Happy new year everyone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Palladium Ninja Turtles games were excellent, and it is a pity they are not licensed anymore (not enough sales), but at least I managed to scavenge a complete collection of them (except for the Mayan-themed one). If you ever considering running a forum-based TMNT RP, there's this place called salroth.com that's forum-based and an excellent way to get good players. Heck, I'd join your game :)

As for White wolf... I loved their world of Darkness, but the stuff they're pumping out nowadays leaves me disgusted. Mage used to be an extremely creative game, but their latest edition is now essentially pared down to D&D:Lite and could be called "Wiccan: The Wannabe", and they've cocked-up every other one of their books to make it 'more accessible'. Ugh, I hate the lowest-common denominators.

Since you seem to like Sci-Fi, have you ever had a chance to play Traveller?

I prefer White Wolf's World of Darkness system. I'm thinking about using it to run a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles game. I've played Legend of the Five Rings in the past and I like the system. Right now my gaming group is playing Dark Heresy. It's a sci-fi/fantasy game based on Warhammer 40,000. So far we really like it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't heard of Traveler, but I'll google it when I'm done here. Our group moved on to A Game of Thrones, a D20 open system game, very much like 3.5 without magic (or very little, at least). Combat in this game is quick and dirty.

I like a lot of the settings of Palladium games (especially TMNT), but I don't like the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
Well, fellow role players. I have a confession to make. I picked up the entire 4th edition as a Holiday gift for the family , and it turned out to be a $113 dollar mistake! :dough:

For all the reasons previously mentioned , and then some, D&D the 4th is a BIG disappointment. The only possible saving grace in the entire series of books is the monster manual. The dungeon master's guide reads like an on line video game strategy magazine, and don't get Me started about the so-called players hand book. The Wizz-kids' of The Coast have knocked the proverbial birds nest to the ground, and the books are nothing but bait to get gamers to log on at ten bucks a pop. And I thought TSR was bad.

You have touched on what I believe is a [the?] main principle behind the design of 4e. Ie, to make DnD much more like a computer game. The rules certainly seem to suggest this. If this is so, it is a big mistake, good role-playing and computer gaming do not usually mix too well (this is not to say that there could not be a system in which they cannot, I just doubt WOTC have the ability), and it is roleplaying that will suffer.

Yes, you might point out that roleplaying is easier under 4e, but I seriously doubt that. Simplified rules can aid roleplaying if they reduce gameplay aspects into more digestible, manageable units. However seemingly arbitrary rules that do not seem to make much sense in many cases, must severely hinder roleplaying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funny thing is, I still think the best D&D-to-video game ports were the old gold-box games using 2nd ed, which on its face was totally unsuited to video game-hood. I think there were two primary reasons it worked so well: they dumped EVERYTHING that can't be done easily and well in a video game, and they KEPT the turn-based combat. Nowadays, of course, you can't make a video game with turn-based combat unless you want to be laughed out of the country (especially since Western developers don't seem to grasp the idea of making the NPC actions all cycle REALLY quickly, which makes their slow turn-based combat about as much fun as watching snails nap).

Video games and tabletop games just don't inhabit the same structural universe. Video games are about action, visuals, music--it's a very sensory experience and should be focused around the sensory aspects and feedback. Tabletop games are *abstract*, full of strategy and lateral thinking and using your imagination. These are not realms that can be easily smooged together. Computers don't "think" abstractly so it's basically impossible to make a truly abstract and responsive computer game. Likewise it's difficult to make tabletop games active and sensory because the human mind can't handle that many concretes all at once. (It's hard enough in 3.5 tracking things like who got how many opportunity attacks.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've recently started actively playing 4th Edition. I played 1st Edition for years in the late 80's early 90's. I never got into 2nd edition, and only played 3.0 briefly.

The points about D&D 4e becoming more homogenized are valid. WOTC has made the game system more standard across the classes. Everyone has powers and abilities that work basically the same way, with different effects.

I don't think that's a bad thing, though. It means that once you learn the core mechanics, its largely a question of choosing your flavor. This makes the game more accessible to new players.

I, for one, am enjoying 4th Edition tremendously. In no small part because I'm finally back into D&D, which I have missed more than I realized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Megan, there are two video games on the series. The first one was pretty clunky , the sequel fixed most of the mistakes and made it much more entertaining. Which one did you play?

My only exposure to Traveler was via the ancient video game, and it was not at all fun. I've heard that the system is awkward and at times tedious, but I haven't played it myself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've recently started actively playing 4th Edition. I played 1st Edition for years in the late 80's early 90's. I never got into 2nd edition, and only played 3.0 briefly.

The points about D&D 4e becoming more homogenized are valid. WOTC has made the game system more standard across the classes. Everyone has powers and abilities that work basically the same way, with different effects.

I dont think makihng them more homogenized is an issue in and of itself. It is mostly the way WOTC choose to do so that seems silly/wrong to me. Such as the fact that everyone would seem to have magic. OK, this might not be the official claim, but a lot of the "powers" (or whatever they are called) would seem to be magical. I suppose we are to beleive that everyone has the ability to use magic now perhaps? As far as I can tell this raises some serious issues.

I dont know if I have made the point of doing this yet: But I will grant that 4e does seem easier to learn and "more accessible to new players".

I agree with Megans comments along the lines of "Video games and tabletop games just don't inhabit the same structural universe" and the following comments. That is why I have an issue with WOTCs apparent (and I could be wrong about this ) attempts to make it more like a computer game. I certaintly hope that this is an unfair assessment. If this is true though perhaps 4e based computer games will be better than some of the frankly stupid DnD based games of the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think makihng them more homogenized is an issue in and of itself. It is mostly the way WOTC choose to do so that seems silly/wrong to me. Such as the fact that everyone would seem to have magic. OK, this might not be the official claim, but a lot of the "powers" (or whatever they are called) would seem to be magical. I suppose we are to beleive that everyone has the ability to use magic now perhaps? As far as I can tell this raises some serious issues.

Powers do not have to be magical. Fighter powers are based on weapon and/or shield usage, and equate to complex combat maneuvers that one masters as the art of becoming a fighter. The fighter powers use the same game mechanic as the magical powers - in that they are either at-will, encounter or daily powers, and they are either free, minor or standard actions. The nature of the effects, however, are based on melee attacks and have results based on such.

I agree with Megans comments along the lines of "Video games and tabletop games just don't inhabit the same structural universe" and the following comments. That is why I have an issue with WOTCs apparent (and I could be wrong about this ) attempts to make it more like a computer game. I certaintly hope that this is an unfair assessment. If this is true though perhaps 4e based computer games will be better than some of the frankly stupid DnD based games of the past.

Standardizing the mechanics is hardly a "computer game only" trait. The differences between sitting around a table using one's imagination with a group of friends, in person, laughing, talking, coming up with impossible scenarios and imagining how they might be beaten is so vastly different from the experience of sitting in front of a screen in a dark room mashing keyboard and mouse buttons without a word (unless you use ventrillo or the like), with only the ability to react to what the computer throws at you are so vast it makes me wonder...

Is it possible that the negative reaction to 4e is more of an inherent resistance to change than anything else?

I'm sure if I were coming from 3.5 with the time investment many other players had into it, I'd feel somewhat reticent to switch. And yet, there are increasing numbers of people who apparently thought the same of 4e at first, who after giving it a shot, are quite enthusiastic about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Powers do not have to be magical.

And how does a "healing surge" (which ALL CHARACTERS POSSESS) derive from using a sword and shield or combat maneuvers?

Standardizing the mechanics is hardly a "computer game only" trait.

It is not the standardization per se, it is the NATURE of that standardization. 3.0 dramatically standardized the mechanics of D&D and 3.5 is a LOT better in that respect than 4e--try to come up with a valid mechanic for playing a centaur monk in 4e. In 3.5 you can DO that, and do it quite well, because they made standardized rules for "gain creature HD" that mesh with the "gain character level" rules. You can't do that in 4e because there's no bridge between how "monster" races work and how "PC" races work.

If they'd done the really difficult task of tying EVERYTHING together into ONE system (class abilities, monster specials, spell-like abilities, spells, feats) so that you could really pick-and-mix and get a good approximation of how powerful/dominating a given ability was going to be without extensive playtesting, THEN I would have been impressed. Instead, they threw out the past 10 years of hard work and gradual development in that line to create an entirely new system that is embarrassingly simplistic. My friends were enthusiastic about 4e when it came out, and then they played it and pretty much all had the same reaction: "meh". So they picked up Pathfinder instead.

4e is to D&D what Portal was to Magic the Gathering: dungeon crawl, the board game. Hardcore gamers who actually like mechanical complexity usually aren't impressed because that complexity is there for a reason--they want to simulate real life as closely as it is possible to do so. 4e just doesn't cut that mustard.

For my hardcore friends, the ideal system is one which is VERY COMPLEX in creation (in the sense of having lots and lots and lots of options) but very simple in application so that the human GM can easily track what's going on. Thus far, the best system I've found for that is Mutants and Masterminds. I pick at my own system periodically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Megan, I'm not dissing 3.5. No need to get as worked up over it as your post appears...

And how does a "healing surge" (which ALL CHARACTERS POSSESS) derive from using a sword and shield or combat maneuvers?

I think the healing surges were intended to allow Clerics and the like to stop being party band-aids and start being involved in combat more actively.

It is not the standardization per se, it is the NATURE of that standardization. 3.0 dramatically standardized the mechanics of D&D and 3.5 is a LOT better in that respect than 4e--try to come up with a valid mechanic for playing a centaur monk in 4e. In 3.5 you can DO that, and do it quite well, because they made standardized rules for "gain creature HD" that mesh with the "gain character level" rules. You can't do that in 4e because there's no bridge between how "monster" races work and how "PC" races work.

It sounds like you're comparing late model 3.5, which has evolved over several years, to 4.0, which is what, 8 months old, and still publishing a lot of 2nd tier core rule books. What happens when you filter 3.5 back to 3.0 in its first year - what kind of bridges existed then? Serious question cause I don't know the intimate history of 3.x.

4e is to D&D what Portal was to Magic the Gathering: dungeon crawl, the board game. Hardcore gamers who actually like mechanical complexity usually aren't impressed because that complexity is there for a reason--they want to simulate real life as closely as it is possible to do so. 4e just doesn't cut that mustard.

And for hardcore gamers there is certainly no lack of hardcore games available to play. Thank you for validating my earlier point: "[4e] makes the game more accessible to new players."

My wife, for one, would *never* have given D&D 3.5, 2.0 or 1.0 a shot --- too complicated. 4e is still complicated, but the core functions are easy enough that she's willing to try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the healing surges were intended to allow Clerics and the like to stop being party band-aids and start being involved in combat more actively.

I know *why* they were included. What I'm saying is, how is this modeled? What's the real-life rationale for having this ability? Can a fighter really go stand in the corner and grunt for a few seconds and be healed and ready to continue the fight? Is it a magical power that all characters mysteriously possess? Is hit point loss physical damage or a more abstract system for covering physical hurts, increasing tiredness, demoralization, confusion, etc.?

These are important questions to most gamers because they are not gaming in order to solve an abstract puzzle or beat a board game. It doesn't matter to them whether the rules are internally consistent, what matters is whether they have some sort of clear and understandable (if idealized and stylized) link with "real life" so they can model the sorts of things they'd like to try and do in real life. And all of this was completely ignored in 4e.

It sounds like you're comparing late model 3.5, which has evolved over several years, to 4.0, which is what, 8 months old, and still publishing a lot of 2nd tier core rule books. What happens when you filter 3.5 back to 3.0 in its first year - what kind of bridges existed then? Serious question cause I don't know the intimate history of 3.x.

THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. Instead of making use of everything they learned from the slow evolution of 3.0 to 3.5 and so on, they THREW IT ALL OUT. So, YES, the new system is going to SUCK by comparison--because they went back to square one when they didn't have to! It's really depressing.

And for hardcore gamers there is certainly no lack of hardcore games available to play. Thank you for validating my earlier point: "[4e] makes the game more accessible to new players."

My wife, for one, would *never* have given D&D 3.5, 2.0 or 1.0 a shot --- too complicated. 4e is still complicated, but the core functions are easy enough that she's willing to try.

Why should the hardcore gamers who were the original players of D&D be happy that their system has been destroyed in order to appeal to newbies? This is like having your favorite restaurant get rid of every single menu item you liked so they could reach out to a new market that only exists in theory. You do not make money by dissing your loyal customers in favor of johnny-come-latelies. They could have made it easier for the newbies while still retaining the stuff that the oldbies liked. And if you wanted to introduce your wife to gaming, why didn't you start her out with something like Bubblegum Crisis (ONE STAT!) or, even better, Mutants and Masterminds? Then she could have graduated to D&D or World of Darkness or any of the mature systems out there.

4e doesn't make "the game" more accessible to newbies--because they aren't PLAYING "the game". They're playing something completely different and I doubt that any 4e newbies will ever make the jump to playing the mature systems. Of course, that may be the point: vendor lock-in. I'd been thinking of 4e as turning XP into Vista. But it's really more like turning a PC into a Mac. And I've never seen anyone who started with a Mac graduate to using a PC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know *why* they were included. What I'm saying is, how is this modeled? What's the real-life rationale for having this ability?

The same real life rationale that exists for Elves to be able to cast Magic Missile.

Now if we want to talk about Heroic Fantasy, then yes, there is ample support material...

Can a fighter really go stand in the corner and grunt for a few seconds and be healed and ready to continue the fight?

I think the answer to that objection phrased as a question is contained in the description of the power. The player is getting one's "second wind". We see it in movies all the time. The battered and bruised would-be hero falls to the ground, and gets an intent look on his face. He slowly stands while the evil villain laughs at his pending demise. The hero rises up and, against all odds, takes another couple of punches that a moment ago would have taken him down, but now he strikes back with a vengeance.

Is it a magical power that all characters mysteriously possess? Is hit point loss physical damage or a more abstract system for covering physical hurts, increasing tiredness, demoralization, confusion, etc.?

Hit points and healing surges represent more than just physical damage in 4e, yes.

These are important questions to most gamers because they are not gaming in order to solve an abstract puzzle or beat a board game. It doesn't matter to them whether the rules are internally consistent, what matters is whether they have some sort of clear and understandable (if idealized and stylized) link with "real life" so they can model the sorts of things they'd like to try and do in real life. And all of this was completely ignored in 4e.

You make the final claim based on what insider evidence?

THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. Instead of making use of everything they learned from the slow evolution of 3.0 to 3.5 and so on, they THREW IT ALL OUT. So, YES, the new system is going to SUCK by comparison--because they went back to square one when they didn't have to! It's really depressing.

Yeah, they did it from 1.0 to 2.0 and 2.0 to 3.0 too. It's a new system.

Why should the hardcore gamers who were the original players of D&D be happy that their system has been destroyed in order to appeal to newbies?

I started in 1.0. The 1.0 system still exists. Some people still play it. So does the 2.0 system. Some people still play that. You can still play 3.0/3.5. Nothing is stopping you.

This is like having your favorite restaurant get rid of every single menu item you liked so they could reach out to a new market that only exists in theory.

No, they've frozen the Thai menu and have now added Italian. This is not analogous to food. Your books are not consumed after each play.

As for the remainder, you've done little but persuade me that this is really just an "I don't like change" rant. I think I've adequately addressed the only actual complaint about the 4e mechanics you've presented. Your claim that newbies aren't playing the game is false, as well. I have several new players joining my campaign who are new to D&D *in its entirety*.

Edited by Greebo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the remainder, you've done little but persuade me that this is really just an "I don't like change" rant. I think I've adequately addressed the only actual complaint about the 4e mechanics you've presented. Your claim that newbies aren't playing the game is false, as well. I have several new players joining my campaign who are new to D&D *in its entirety*.

They aren't playing the same type of game that other gamers have been playing for years. I love change, I try new systems all the time. I've probably played more different systems than any gamer on this board--some of them I like, some of them I hate. (I dislike World of Darkness, for instance, but I love Deadlands.) I wasn't too thrilled with 3.0 when it came out but it won me over completely the first time I played it. I am NOT happy that WotC decided to throw out so very much of their incredibly valuable material in order to build a new system. 2nd ed was a mess, not even a "system" in any real sense of the word, there was no core of fundamental rules that made the add-ons consistent. Thus a ground-up revision to make 3.0 was both advisable and necessary to make it a WotC product instead of a TSR product. Taking something that was quite well along toward full development and systematization and throwing that all OUT is insanity.

There will still be more 3.5 stuff from licensed developers, but there won't be any "canon" development or improvement of the core of 3.5, something it could still use. Instead, I predict that there will gradually be an exodus of hardcore gamers away from D&D and into systems like Pathfinder or M&M or Savage Worlds. Heck, I don't have to predict--this is actually what's happening. Instead of 4e being the new Main Game for all the dedicated D&D players I know, it's become a throwaway system. They give it a shot, shrug, put it down, and go play something else.

WotC shot themselves in the foot. The 4e newbies they acquired will play for a couple of years at most then move onto something else. They won't still be gamers (and if they are, they won't be playing D&D) in 10 years and form the core of the new generation game developers/GM's/customers. Now, WotC may still salvage this situation by putting out a 5th ed that pulls back in the hardcore direction. This is Nintendo's long-term strategy for the Wii, after all. Pull in a bunch of non-gamers into becoming "casual" gamers, then gradually bring out more and more complex games until all those newbie gamers become hardcore. From everything I've heard about WotC's current situation, however, this is not a good prospect. The infrastructure they needed to have in place for 4e hasn't gotten done. D&D Insider is still not fully up and running, so the online capability that I thought would be VERY useful hasn't materialized. I don't know if WotC will recover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heck, I don't have to predict--this is actually what's happening. Instead of 4e being the new Main Game for all the dedicated D&D players I know, it's become a throwaway system. They give it a shot, shrug, put it down, and go play something else.

Allegory is not statistical. In my return to D&D, I've joined the RPGA and am attending sessions weekly at a gaming shop that says a few months ago they started out with 2 tables. Now they have 3-4x the people showing up weekly that they started with.

The infrastructure they needed to have in place for 4e hasn't gotten done. D&D Insider is still not fully up and running, so the online capability that I thought would be VERY useful hasn't materialized.

AFAIK the only item not done yet is the virtual table top. The character creator is immensely useful and fully functioning - today's update pushes live last weeks release of "Arcane Power". The compendium is kept up to date as well. Dungeon magazine is running an extremely successful adventure path, Scales of War, designed to take players the full range of levels, and to go back to allegory, the rpga group I'm in is now looking at starting a revolving campaign based on same.

4e is definitely not 3.5. I grant you that. It's not "hardcore". I grant you that either.

But I couldn't agree less over how that bodes for WotC. A system that is easy to use (and 4e is) takes the work out of the game and allows the imagination to kick in.

Time will tell, I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAIK the only item not done yet is the virtual table top.

Yeah--the only feature I have any interest in using, because I do all my gaming with online friends scattered across the country. It needed to be finished at launch. It's still not done. Big problem. My main online group is using MapTool at present.

Obsidian Portal has roughly twice as many 4e campaigns as 3.5. That's okay, but not great, esp. since 4e launched shortly after Obsidian Portal started up so you'd expect it to be even more predominate than it is. It has *18 times* as many 3.5 campaigns as 3.0, and once again about twice as many 3.0 as 2nd. (For reference, the next-most-popular system on OP after D&D 3.5 is World of Darkness, with 1/10th the numbers of 3.5.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Powers do not have to be magical. Fighter powers are based on weapon and/or shield usage, and equate to complex combat maneuvers that one masters as the art of becoming a fighter. The fighter powers use the same game mechanic as the magical powers - in that they are either at-will, encounter or daily powers, and they are either free, minor or standard actions. The nature of the effects, however, are based on melee attacks and have results based on such.

Well, the rules/campaign setting might not claim that they are magical, they might actually claim that they are not. However I consider that when it comes t4o stuff like "healing surges" (to use Megans example) and some other other stuff I have heard about, what other "explanations" can you provide?

Of course, DnD has never really defined "magic" or said much about how it works anyway, which can make this sort of judgement more difficult. But as DnD is "offically" Forgotten Realms now, we have a bit more of a clue. If you know your Realmslore, you would probably conclude that stuff like "healing surges" uses a form of magic. Except not magic as it used to be in the Realms (through the "Weave" which required you to be a sorcerer or a wizard or such, or to tap into divine power), but "raw, wild magic". I beleive it has been established that it is not too difficult to tap into the raw magic which is said to permutate Abeir-Toril now....which would suggest that apparently almost anyone could use a little magic without too much training etc.

But I think this is sort of silly.

Edited by Prometheus98876
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

There will still be more 3.5 stuff from licensed developers, but there won't be any "canon" development or improvement of the core of 3.5, something it could still use. Instead, I predict that there will gradually be an exodus of hardcore gamers away from D&D and into systems like Pathfinder or M&M or Savage Worlds. Heck, I don't have to predict--this is actually what's happening. Instead of 4e being the new Main Game for all the dedicated D&D players I know, it's become a throwaway system. They give it a shot, shrug, put it down, and go play something else.

...

Not too long ago I might have disagreed with this, however the facts would seem to be supporting you.

What worries me is that a lot of the DnD replacement products do not seem to be gaining as much ground as one might expect that they require, nor do they seem to be improvements so far. Pathfinder for one seems to be a step in the wrong direction. Granted it has some interesting options, but it seems much more catered towards power-gamers, even though it seems to imply its trying not to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

To resurrect a dead topic : I fail to see what is so ideawl about "VERY COMPLEX" character creation. This seems kind of pointless unless it is complex due to having a lot of options to choose from with very little in the way of clear cut choices to match ones notion of what sort of character they want in terms of flavour. Which sounds like a VERY bad thing. Offering lots of options is fine, but at the same time it should be easy to select from them if one has a clear character concept.

Also there should not be SO MANY options that it takes a lot of complex work to pick them. If character creation is complicated because one has to fill pages of mechanical detail : Then the character rules are probalby too complicated. Ideally a character has detailed stats, but not to the point of having so many details / things to keep track of that it gets tricky.

So perhaps you would care to explain why "VERY COMPLEX" creation is so ideal?

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.

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.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...