Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Game with no challenge removes challenges

Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
7,332
All the idiocy of these pretentious game journo hacks can be countered with one simple statement: if you cannot lose - it's not a fucking game.

Alright, Planescape: Torment, not a game according to you.

Maybe it isn't. I sure as shit never managed to get into it, tried few times.
Rest of the shit you posted is full retard. Yes, ability to reach some sort of fail state in game is integral to it being a game, otherwise there is no motivation to pay attention to game mechanics and get any better at it.

P.S. Fuck you.
 

Ranarama

Learned
Joined
Dec 7, 2016
Messages
604
Rest of the shit you posted is full retard. Yes, ability to reach some sort of fail state in game is integral to it being a game, otherwise there is no motivation to pay attention to game mechanics and get any better at it.

P.S. Fuck you.

No single player RPG has a fail state worth mentioning. I can always reload.

Literally the *only* difference between a game that restarts immediately and a "proper" game with a fail state is I have to manually hit quick load.

Nor is having motivation to get better at a game the goal of most games, even ones where the challenge makes it necessary. Fun is generally the actual goal. Does your Aspergers mean you can't ever feel fun? That would explain the butthurt.

edit: love the rating. Like all other ratings it really says more about the person rating it that the poster.

Yes, Plansescape: Torment is indeed considered less of a 'game' than a regular RPG, do you not read any threads on this site or do you just spurge your own beliefs and then log out?

Fucking Dark Souls then.
 
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
Rest of the shit you posted is full retard. Yes, ability to reach some sort of fail state in game is integral to it being a game, otherwise there is no motivation to pay attention to game mechanics and get any better at it.

P.S. Fuck you.

No single player RPG has a fail state worth mentioning. I can always reload.

Literally the *only* difference between a game that restarts immediately and a "proper" game with a fail state is I have to manually hit quick load.

Nor is having motivation to get better at a game the goal of most games, even ones where the challenge makes it necessary. Fun is generally the actual goal. Does your Aspergers mean you can't ever feel fun? That would explain the butthurt.

edit: love the rating. Like all other ratings it really says more about the person rating it that the poster.

Yes, you have to reload. Oh, the misery this must inflict on your gaming experience. Can you imagine... I mean, there you are playing mario and you fall in a lava pit, and, omg, you have to reload and TRY AGAIN WITH IMPROVED KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE! WOULDN'T MARIO BE SO MUCH MORE FUN IF YOU JUST DIDN'T HAVE TO FALL INTO THE LAVA IN THE FIRST PLACE!

NO IT WOULDN'T IT'D BE FUCKING TEDIOUS.

AND, NO, I'M NOT TELLING YOU WHAT 'FUN' IS ANY MORE THAN YOU'RE TRYING TO TELL EVERYONE ELSE WHAT 'FUN' IS...

... but I'd LOVE to hear why you think Mario without lava pits would be 'fun'...
 

spectre

Arcane
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
5,407
If only people would read the fucking manual...
Yes, it was possible to lose in Planescape Torment if you were permanently imprisoned, eaten alive and digested, burned to ashes, angered a deity, etc.

Not sure why we're having this argument anyways, here's a blurb from the wikipedo:
Games are sometimes played purely for entertainment, sometimes for achievement or reward as well. (...)
Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction.

This really is that simple, if one of the above components is totally removed, we should give a long, hard look if this shit is still a game.
 

Ranarama

Learned
Joined
Dec 7, 2016
Messages
604
Yes, you have to reload. Oh, the misery this must inflict on your gaming experience. Can you imagine... I mean, there you are playing mario and you fall in a lava pit, and, omg, you have to reload and TRY AGAIN WITH IMPROVED KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE! WOULDN'T MARIO BE SO MUCH MORE FUN IF YOU JUST DIDN'T HAVE TO FALL INTO THE LAVA IN THE FIRST PLACE!

NO IT WOULDN'T IT'D BE FUCKING TEDIOUS.


Oh dear. You've reached the fail state of not only completely missing the point, but also helping to prove my point.

My point was that's it. That's your fail state. The fact you think it's nothing means you think current fail states are meaningless. When you don't care about failing, as you claim not to, then what kind of motivator or core driving experience is it?

I never said games would be better without failing, merely that games exist just fine without it. Because it's as worthless an attribute of a game as you say it is.

Who cares about dying in games? It doesn't actually matter.


If only people would read the fucking manual...
Yes, it was possible to lose in Planescape Torment if you were permanently imprisoned, eaten alive and digested, burned to ashes, angered a deity, etc.

minutia.

This really is that simple, if one of the above components is totally removed, we should give a long, hard look if this shit is still a game.

Try reading the actual page. It talks about simulations as games, and even mentions Wittgenstein's family definition of a game.
 
Last edited:
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
Yes, you have to reload. Oh, the misery this must inflict on your gaming experience. Can you imagine... I mean, there you are playing mario and you fall in a lava pit, and, omg, you have to reload and TRY AGAIN WITH IMPROVED KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE! WOULDN'T MARIO BE SO MUCH MORE FUN IF YOU JUST DIDN'T HAVE TO FALL INTO THE LAVA IN THE FIRST PLACE!

NO IT WOULDN'T IT'D BE FUCKING TEDIOUS.


Oh dear. You've reached the fail state of not only completely missing the point, but also helping to prove my point.

My point was that's it. That's your fail state. The fact you think it's nothing means you think current fail states are meaningless. When you don't care about failing, as you claim not to, then what kind of motivator or core driving experience is it?

I never said games would be better without failing, merely that games exist just fine without it. Because it's as worthless an attribute of a game as you say it is.

Who cares about dying in games? It doesn't actually matter.

Nothing in the entire world matters, you're a speck of dust on a planet drifting in infinity. If nothing matters is your sum-total of argument then why the fuck do you care if a game has an easy mode or not you hypocrytical prick. If a company wants to market their game as a game without an easy mode how the fuck does that effect you?
 
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
Yes, you have to reload. Oh, the misery this must inflict on your gaming experience. Can you imagine... I mean, there you are playing mario and you fall in a lava pit, and, omg, you have to reload and TRY AGAIN WITH IMPROVED KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE! WOULDN'T MARIO BE SO MUCH MORE FUN IF YOU JUST DIDN'T HAVE TO FALL INTO THE LAVA IN THE FIRST PLACE!

NO IT WOULDN'T IT'D BE FUCKING TEDIOUS.


Oh dear. You've reached the fail state of not only completely missing the point, but also helping to prove my point.

My point was that's it. That's your fail state. The fact you think it's nothing means you think current fail states are meaningless. When you don't care about failing, as you claim not to, then what kind of motivator or core driving experience is it?

I never said games would be better without failing, merely that games exist just fine without it. Because it's as worthless an attribute of a game as you say it is.

Who cares about dying in games? It doesn't actually matter.

Reply no.2, because unravelling this guy's bullshit really deserves it.

When you said "the fact you think it's nothing" you were making up a complete fabrication. A lie. You were consciously cheating. You don't give a fuck. I mean, is there any point replying to you if you're just going to lie and make another point based on some fantasy you've invented.

You're a cheat.

cheat
tʃiːt/
verb
  1. 1.
    act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage.
What more is there to say? Just sit around and break apart your next bullshit stack?

Sure, I've got all day... have you?
 
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
Yes, you have to reload. Oh, the misery this must inflict on your gaming experience. Can you imagine... I mean, there you are playing mario and you fall in a lava pit, and, omg, you have to reload and TRY AGAIN WITH IMPROVED KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE! WOULDN'T MARIO BE SO MUCH MORE FUN IF YOU JUST DIDN'T HAVE TO FALL INTO THE LAVA IN THE FIRST PLACE!

NO IT WOULDN'T IT'D BE FUCKING TEDIOUS.


Oh dear. You've reached the fail state of not only completely missing the point, but also helping to prove my point.

My point was that's it. That's your fail state. The fact you think it's nothing means you think current fail states are meaningless. When you don't care about failing, as you claim not to, then what kind of motivator or core driving experience is it?

I never said games would be better without failing, merely that games exist just fine without it. Because it's as worthless an attribute of a game as you say it is.

Who cares about dying in games? It doesn't actually matter.

Reply no.3, cos, wow, this guy wants it.

No, you never said games would be better without failing, you don't actually say anything apart from gibbering on about you're own personal imagination of what 'fun' is, something that is entirely irrelevant to the conversation. You might find sitting and staring at a blank screen for 3 hours 'fun', you might be a patient at a lunatic asylum who thinks typing random words on an internet forum is a 'jolly good game', who the fuck knows, but I sure as heck know you try your damnest not to actually apply any of your points to actual games, and when you do, and get immediately shot down, your response is either to ignore the point or just type "minutia" before sperging on again a load of philosophical fantastical gibberish.

Instead of saying whether you'd prefer Mario without lava pits you choose to dodge to the question with "Who cares about dying in games?" So, is this your way of saying that, yes, you would rather play mario without lava pits? If so, why the fuck are you even a member of a gaming forum?
 

FeelTheRads

Arcane
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
13,716
Oh dear. You've reached the fail state of not only completely missing the point, but also helping to prove my point.

My point was that's it. That's your fail state. The fact you think it's nothing means you think current fail states are meaningless. When you don't care about failing, as you claim not to, then what kind of motivator or core driving experience is it?

I never said games would be better without failing, merely that games exist just fine without it. Because it's as worthless an attribute of a game as you say it is.

Who cares about dying in games? It doesn't actually matter.

So how would you make, in this example, Mario without failing?
What's the point of playing it when the whole point of the game is gitting gud and not failing?
Really, what, how and why?

Save games are irrelevant to this matter and the fact that you bring them up means you're a retard. Having to load a game is also an incentive to avoid failure. The game doesn't have to start you over from the beginning.

But it actually makes you acknowledge you failed, which is something the sensitive souls of modern "gamers" have issues with. Can't be called a cheater either, so cheats are out of the question. So what then? Skip gameplay button, of course.
 

Lahey

Laheyist
Patron
Joined
Jun 10, 2017
Messages
1,467
Grab the Codex by the pussy
https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2017/...p-buttons-and-gaming-without-challenge/41002/
It’s funny that even Ubisoft sees how overtly layered their own games have become with the “grind” and have thus resorted to the “Educational” mode as a solution in Assassin’s Creed: Origins. The mode will allow players to bypass all combat and challenges within the game, and instead play through the game as an edutainment title, simply going around exploring locations, learning about history, and going on what basically amounts to a virtual tour of Egypt.

Sites like Rock, Paper, Shotgun are not only praising Ubisoft for the “Educational” mode, but have taken that extra step to encourage other developers to implement more features that bypass actual gameplay… such as a “Boss Skip” button. Why not encourage them to bring back real cheat codes so you can skip or breeze through the boss fights at your own leisure? Anyway, John Walker from Rock, Paper, Shotgun writes; “I know an awful lot of what’s made gaming culture such a miserably toxic environment over the last few years is deeply wrapped up in subjects like this, and those who spread the toxicity are those most likely to be on the side of condemning gaming options that remove challenge, that make the hobby more accessible to the crowds. But at the same time, I’m not going to allow that sewage to pollute my opinions, and my delight in expressing those opinions, and I’ve long been arguing that gaming can be a far better place if the industry would only introduce the 'Skip Boss Fight' button".

The thing is, Rock, Paper, Shotgun’s claim that adding more ways to not play the game would somehow make gaming more inclusive is the same sort of argument we’ve seen with journalists saying adding more playable women to AAA action titles would allow publishers to reach 50% more of the consumer base. We’ve seen that such a tactic hasn’t really worked out that well for some developers, such as Agents of Mayhem or Assassin’s Creed: Syndicate. In other cases like Horizon: Zero Dawn the game hasn’t sold anymore than The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, the latter of which stars a male character. For clarity: gender swapping doesn’t instantaneously equate to “50% more sales”.

The same logic applies to throwing in casual features like a “boss skip” button. Sure, game developers could add in that feature (and some games have already done this, like Castlevania: Lords of Shadow allowing you to skip the puzzles entirely, or Resident Evil 6 allowing you to mostly skip through the cinematic QTEs). The thing is, adding in these options don’t magically make casuals want to play the games. Sure some might, but it seems silly to harangue about the necessity of a feature to make people feel at ease with the way they want to play for something that’s inherent to the gameplay experience.

Rock, Paper, Shotgun’s argument is two-fold, though. The second half of the argument is that people should be able to play as they want. Walker writes; “In 2009 I suggested it was daft that I’m not able to just skip ahead while playing game, like I could in a film, book, or TV show“. Sure games could allow you to fast forward (and if you play emulated titles the option is there to speed up the game) but the difference between films, books, TV shows and video games is that all of the former mediums are passive media while the latter is interactive media. Movies and TV shows aren’t meant to offer a challenge other than vicariously taking your emotions along for the ride (for better or for worse). You’re a passenger, not a participant.

Games are different because you’re active. Your choices matter. Your skills matter. Without choices or skill, then the challenge is lost and games then become passive, like TV or movies. Once a game is no longer interactive, then sure you should be able to skip through them because it’s no longer a actively participatory experience but rather a passive one. The whole point of an interactive entertainment medium is the “interactive” part, and when you begin taking that away it’s no longer an interactive means of entertainment.

Ubisoft adding in the non-combat mode is a similar feature to paying not to play, but it’s more direct and free (for now). The boss skip button would work in similar fashion to the methods already available in most AAA games that have cash shop items for XP boosts, the option to max out your character’s abilities, or the option to purchase a cheat weapon to easily and quickly kill all on-screen foes, sort of like the ‘Merica Gun from Saints Row IV, which is part of a microtransaction DLC pack. It essentially removes the challenge.

This instantly brings rise to the question: why are you playing a challenging game if not for the challenge?

Walker rounds out the piece by praising the removal of said challenge in favor of something attuned for the casual player just passing by, writing; “So hooray for Ubisoft! Hooray for taking all the challenge and difficulty from a game for people who prefer games without challenges and difficulty! Hooray for skipping the boring bits to enjoy more of the fun! Hooray for people being allowed to enjoy a game in a different way from you! Hooray for the riff-raff!" It seems awfully similar to recent editorials by game journalists excoriating gamers for “fetishsizing skill” or that gamers just don’t understand how “game journalism” works, or taking digs at the “git gud” subculture of gaming.

Part of the issue is that while Walker can most certainly have his opinion about gaming, it feels like an opinion that is more anti-gaming than pro-gaming. An attempt to socially re-engineer the way games are packaged for people who don’t particularly like video games. If you head into a game with boss fights and you’re keen on skipping all the boss fights, then why play that game? Even in Walker’s own editorial he brings up how a “Boss Skip” button moots the point of even popping in a title like Dark Soulssince majority of the game is just boss fights.

Ultimately, people can vie for a “Boss Skip” button all they want, but it leaves me with this question: If the objective is to add modes that take away the challenge and interactivity of the game, then what exactly are you playing the game for?
 

flyingjohn

Arcane
Joined
May 14, 2012
Messages
2,961
I really don't see the point of anybody crying about that challenge is bad and not needed.Challenge is game play considering without it all you have is a interactive movie.
And that is exactly what modern gamers and games journalist want.
Imagine being a looser and coming home to relax by playing some vidya games.Would you want a game that kicks your ass and makes you a bigger looser or do you want the awesome button to make you feel special?
So anybody against difficulty is a looser because there is no other reason to bitch about it.

Hell i have the reflexes of a dead chicken yet can still enjoy games like contra and cuphead.Any deaths are my fault and i just continue playing the game without bitching.
And if the game is constantly kicking your ass you can always:
-Git Gud
-Use cheats in terms of lives
-Quit the game and play something else
-Move to San Fransico and make indie games while sipping herbal latte or whatever crap they drink there
 

Ranarama

Learned
Joined
Dec 7, 2016
Messages
604
Reply no.2, because unravelling this guy's bullshit really deserves it.


You actually say that, and then go REEEEEE over 3 posts about irrelevance...

I think I've triggered you or something.

It's really fucking simple.

Games don't need to have failure to be games.

The parts of games that are the bit that does failure are the uninteresting parts and can be removed. For example Prince of Persia, if you replace the rewinding with a death screen and reloading, nothing actually changes about the game. Yet, according to all you 'Games are fucking useless without failure' brigade, that minor irrelevant change turns it from a non-game to a game.

That's fucking retarded.

So how would you make, in this example, Mario without failing?

Super Mario Odyssey ditches the ‘game over’ screen completely

The goal of the game is not to 'git gud' apparently.


Save games are irrelevant to this matter and the fact that you bring them up means you're a retard.

So what do you do after game over? Do you delete the game? Kill yourself? You reload or give up.

Oh look at that! Save games **are** relevant. Turns out you were the retard all along!

Death *means* reloading. That's it. That's why save games were relevant. Because they mean that failure was never meaningful in the first place. Simply doesn't matter.
 
Last edited:

Grauken

Gourd vibes only
Patron
Joined
Mar 22, 2013
Messages
12,802
What are you arguing for, abolition of failure states or abolition of challenge, which is quite different. Lets say you have a jump over an abyss in a platformer, you fail and fall to your death. Whether you restart at the level beginning or at the beginning of the whole game or just before jumping over the abyss, you still have to perform the jump. If you're arguing for a different respawn point or an infinite number of respawns, then you still want to perform the jump. If you arguing for a button that simply lets you skip the jump, all jumps, then the question is, why play at all?
 
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
Reply no.2, because unravelling this guy's bullshit really deserves it.


You actually say that, and then go REEEEEE over 3 posts about irrelevance...

I think I've triggered you or something.

It's really fucking simple.

Games don't need to have failure to be games.

The parts of games that are the bit that does failure are the uninteresting parts and can be removed. For example Prince of Persia, if you replace the rewinding with a death screen and reloading, nothing actually changes about the game. Yet, according to all you 'Games are fucking useless without failure' brigade, that minor irrelevant change turns it from a non-game to a game.

That's fucking retarded.

So how would you make, in this example, Mario without failing?

Super Mario Odyssey ditches the ‘game over’ screen completely

The goal of the game is not to 'git gud' apparently.


Save games are irrelevant to this matter and the fact that you bring them up means you're a retard.

So what do you do after game over? Do you delete the game? Kill yourself? You reload or give up.

Oh look at that! Save games **are** relevant. Turns out you were the retard all along!

Oh look at you cherry picking one line and writing whatever you like while ignoring all other points and lying about the point you did 'choose' to reply to. Aren't you the card.

How about we repeat the question and see if you've thought up an answer yet:

So how would you make, in this example, Mario without failing?
What's the point of playing it when the whole point of the game is gitting gud and not failing?
Really, what, how and why?

Edit: he edited his post... [continuity edit]
 
Last edited:
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
What are you arguing for, abolition of failure states or abolition of challenge, which is quite different. Lets say you have a jump over an abyss in a platformer, you fail and fall to your death. Whether you restart at the level beginning or at the beginning of the whole game or just before jumping over the abyss, you still have to perform the jump. If you're arguing for a different respawn point or an infinite number of respawns, then you still want to perform the jump. If you arguing for a button that simply lets you skip the jump, all jumps, then the question is, why play at all?

Yup, this is the point he's desperate to avoid with applied gibberish and lying. Maybe if we repeat it enough he'll glitch out of existence? Or, shock, supply an answer...
 
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
Reply no.2, because unravelling this guy's bullshit really deserves it.


You actually say that, and then go REEEEEE over 3 posts about irrelevance...

I think I've triggered you or something.

It's really fucking simple.

Games don't need to have failure to be games.

The parts of games that are the bit that does failure are the uninteresting parts and can be removed. For example Prince of Persia, if you replace the rewinding with a death screen and reloading, nothing actually changes about the game. Yet, according to all you 'Games are fucking useless without failure' brigade, that minor irrelevant change turns it from a non-game to a game.

That's fucking retarded.

So how would you make, in this example, Mario without failing?

Super Mario Odyssey ditches the ‘game over’ screen completely

The goal of the game is not to 'git gud' apparently.


Save games are irrelevant to this matter and the fact that you bring them up means you're a retard.

So what do you do after game over? Do you delete the game? Kill yourself? You reload or give up.

Oh look at that! Save games **are** relevant. Turns out you were the retard all along!

Death *means* reloading. That's it. That's why save games were relevant. Because they mean that failure was never meaningful in the first place. Simply doesn't matter.

We're not talking about game over screens though...
 

Ranarama

Learned
Joined
Dec 7, 2016
Messages
604
What are you arguing for, abolition of failure states or abolition of challenge, which is quite different.

This being the codex, I don't need to be pro-anything.

Lets say you have a jump over an abyss in a platformer, you fail and fall to your death. Whether you restart at the level beginning or at the beginning of the whole game or just before jumping over the abyss, you still have to perform the jump. If you're arguing for a different respawn point or an infinite number of respawns, then you still want to perform the jump. If you arguing for a button that simply lets you skip the jump, all jumps, then the question is, why play at all?

Hypothetically, I imagine the RPS guy doesn't want the rest of the gameplay to be locked off behind a jump. Perhaps they want games to respect the players time.

Myself, I probably would object to a game being so linear as to require some inane challenge like a jump to cut off the entirety of the game. Why play at all? Probably would try to avoid a game like that. Linear games belong on youtube, like the movies they aspire to be.

In this thread, I only took exception to an idiot claiming things without failure shouldn't be called games.
 
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
What are you arguing for, abolition of failure states or abolition of challenge, which is quite different.

This being the codex, I don't need to be pro-anything.

Lets say you have a jump over an abyss in a platformer, you fail and fall to your death. Whether you restart at the level beginning or at the beginning of the whole game or just before jumping over the abyss, you still have to perform the jump. If you're arguing for a different respawn point or an infinite number of respawns, then you still want to perform the jump. If you arguing for a button that simply lets you skip the jump, all jumps, then the question is, why play at all?

Hypothetically, I imagine the RPS guy doesn't want the rest of the gameplay to be locked off behind a jump. Perhaps they want games to respect the players time.

Myself, I probably would object to a game being so linear as to require some inane challenge like a jump to cut off the entirety of the game. Why play at all? Probably would try to avoid a game like that. Linear games belong on youtube, like the movies they aspire to be.

In this thread, I only took exception to an idiot claiming things without failure shouldn't be called games.

some inane challenge like a jump

some inane challenge like a jump

some inane challenge like a jump

some inane challenge like a jump

 

Ranarama

Learned
Joined
Dec 7, 2016
Messages
604
Oh look at you cherry picking one line and writing whatever you like while ignoring all other points and lying about the point you did 'choose' to reply to. Aren't you the card.

Are you seriously hung up on me dismissing the obscure failure states in P:T as being irrelevant? You consider those to be the pathetic difference between it being a game and not?

Removing them would change the nature of the game?

Aren't you the tard.

As for ignoring your 3 other posts, fucking write coherently or don't get read.
 

Ranarama

Learned
Joined
Dec 7, 2016
Messages
604
No, you don't need to answer difficult questions and make your point with reasoned argument, we get you're attitude completely... bro.

Oh dear. That was an answer. To the "difficult" question.

No wonder you think challenge is everything, everything challenges you.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom