|
 incoming:You're really overselling the Mighty archetype on most characters. It's extremely Feat Point intensive, which means it's most effective against swarms of lesser enemies, and low defense ones at that. You can just as easily go Skilled Trollkin to start that game with two Mighty Archetype abilities, a free version of Back Swing, and Virtuoso, which means their average damage per attack is only 2 less that a Mighty character's, and you get two higher accuracy attacks every round, plus get to save your Feat Points for more useful stuff. Mighty is really only good if you want to be a tank that isn't a trollkin.
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
ascendance posted:Isn't the game basically trying to be the wargame with a bit more crunch? But you can basically use wargame statlines as monsters, right? WIth the appropriate addition of a life spiral? Sort of. You have to add in a few more stats that don't exist in the wargame, and most will also require you to rework their life spirals. You're also going to have to apply some special abilities to keep them as threatening as a warbeast, since they lack Fury rules (for now at least). Combat-wise, the game doesn't add much more crunch than the wargame; it's more or less a direct port, which I believe is very much to its benefit. It also does lead to some annoying problems, like the game's bias towards military campaigns, and several careers that are nowhere near as fleshed out as they should be (almost all the Protectorate ones, amongst others). Most of the system's problems come in when its 3.5 roots trickle their way back into out of combat stuff, like a lack of fail forward, overly complex recovery rules, and obnoxiously unbalanced pricing on gear. There are a few balance issues and character build traps as well, though they aren't dealbreakers by a long shot.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
ascendance posted:Is there a discussion on some of the build traps and balance issues? Despite the focus on battle magic, it's not particularly good in combat, since it's both inaccurate and not particularly powerful. While mages can spend additional resources to boost (roll and extra d6) on accuracy and/or damage, they still get out-blastered by the Alchemist and out-strikered by the Rifleman, particularly a Skilled one. Where mages shine is with support magics, battlefield control, generating cover, and tossing out buffs/debuffs. The biggest problem with mages is out of combat, where RAW their magic can't really help them, and should they want to use their magic in reasonable puzzle solving ways (lifting a set of keys with a telekinesis spell, for instance), the GM is required to adjudicate the use hardly any guidelines. Adding more utility spells wouldn't even create the 3.5 problem, since mages have extremely limited spell selection anyway. Balance-wise, the biggest issues are races, archetypes, warcasters, and the arcane mechanik. The races are pretty poorly balanced at best. Outside of the fantastic Trollkin and the general-but-helpful bonuses given to Humans and Iosans, the other races are mediocre to bad. The Gifted archetype should probably allow you to take abilities from a single other archetype of choice, since it's very narrowly focused as is, and prevents some otherwise cool character concepts. The Mighty archetype is my big sticking point however, since it's mostly outclassed offensively by the Skilled archetype and mostly outclassed defensively by the Trollkin race. The big problems are a lack of any out of combat utility basically at all, and a massive glut of 'feats', abilities that require a feat point to activate. While feat point are regained by defeating enemies, all this means is that the Mighty character can't reliably activate their abilities unless the GM is sure to throw in a swarm of mooks for them to kill. That isn't to say it's completely useless: it's perfectly servicable on some builds, and is the only way to make a non-Trollkin tank. Warcasters are a sticking point for me. They're absolutely iconic to the setting, but have a strong tendency to cause problem. Basically, warcasters are already quite good (particularly for mages) on their own, thanks to their unique ability to use Bonded Weapons and Warcaster Armor, which together allow the warcaster to switch between offense and defense however (s)he pleases. The problem comes when steamjacks are introduced. In the hands of characters with the Drive skill/talents, Warjacks are just a slightly buff NPC companion that get their own cool little set of buffs, customization, and abilities, and they're very fun if you're playing an arcane mechanik or field mechanik. Problems arise when combined with a warcaster, however, since the Focus mechanics turn even a laborjack into a vicious killing machine that can outclass almost any other 'heavy' character build. Of course, most people who want to play warcasters want to lead around giant robots, since they're another icon of the setting, and might get upset if they aren't allowed to use their jacks regularly, while players of tanky character might be upset about being constantly outclassed if you do allow the jack. Arcane Mechaniks are really indicative of a bigger problem in the setting: clockwork bullshit is weirdly priced and on the whole waaaaay too expensive. In particular, mechanikal armor and weapons are massively overpriced, since making a clockwork version of an item is a straight multiplier. Arcane Mechaniks, however, can reduce this price down to about a fourth of the asking price, and thus bring it into the realm of non-GM-fiat attainability. This means that there's enormous pressure for every party to include an Arcane Mechanik. As for trap builds, the biggest one is the 'double mage', a combination of any two Gifted careers. Mage careers tend to offer very little outside of their spell list, and while double-maging expands said list, it doesn't actually allow you to choose any more spells, other than the handful of starting ones. It also leaves the character all but unable to contribute outside of their limited spell selection. Double-combat-classes has something similar going on, though not to the same extent, since most combat classes at least have a handful of useful occupational skills. The problem here is with career design; basically every combat career has everything it needs to succeed on its own, and for that most part it isn't possible to use multiple combat styles at once (though there are some very useful exceptions). e: It sounds like I'm complaining a lot about the system. It's actually quiet good, and I do recommend it. It just has a few lingering issues that GMs should be aware of. fool of sound fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
I AM THE MOON posted:Vendetta You still end up with substantially less damage than a Skilled character unless you spend tons of feat point using backswing. Vendetta just allows Mighty characters to have some semblance of usefulness against boss enemies.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
theironjef posted:The info that came out about the next big book (which will have warlocks) basically came attached to a caveat from PP of "We couldn't figure out how to not make Fury casters overpowered, so they just are. You probably shouldn't use both books in the same game." Fury casters are no doubt overpowered in the same way a Warcaster with a jack is overpowered, made worse by the fact that channelers must have at least one (and possibly two or even three) beasts in order to make full use of their casting. I'm honestly not sure how to fix it without utterly divorcing those careers from their source material.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Simple solution: Heavy use of Lesser Warbeasts, or even single members of Warbeast Packs. Just channeling Fury from some wolf or big spider is going to be a very different game from automatically starting with a pet Troll Axer. Doesn't solve the problem any more than 'only' letting a warcaster have a light laborjack does. Sure it nowhere near as powerful as a true warjack, but between power attacks, extra attacks, and purchasable boosts to both attack and damage rolls, even a light laborjack can outfight most characters given some focus every turn. Worse, even if the warcaster is pumping three focus into his/her jack every round, (s)he is still able to fight pretty well with a boostable weapon at no penalty.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Not really, unless you spend tons of money upgrading the laborjack. They will hit like a pillow, if they even hit at all, compared to just about any competent combat career without some expensive upgrades. Even with a stock laborjack without any Drives, a starting warcaster can allocate 2 Focus and cast Redline for a 10" charge leading into a boosted attack headbutt (hits 14.5 on average, does 19.5 damage on average) followed by a fist (autohit, does 18 damage average), while still allowing the warcaster to contribute to combat with a weapon of his/her own (let's call it a hand cannon: hits 14 on average, does 19 damage on average). Probably not as powerful as a truly optimized damage dealer, but this is just one career of a starting character, and warcasters have enormous potential as they improve.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Just to clarify because I still can't find my loving book, there are rules for two handed throws, not just throws (one handed) right? Yup, and most of the limitations on power attacks that are in the wargame aren't present in IKRPG.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
LornMarkus posted:Luso was the better protagonist and had the better game. That game was weird in that the plotline that felt like the central story and had the most plot-relevant missions (the foreign syndicate, I don't recall the name) wasn't the main plotline, which just sort of meandered around for most of the game.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Torg in general seems to be a terrible mess of boring and dumb. Eh, it seems to have a lot of really interesting ideas, but completely botched mechanics and subpar writing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Zereth posted:The Nile Empire, duh. Gotta find out what Dr. Mobius is up to.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Can we go back to discussing obscure/bad tabletop games rather than anime? Let's talk about Bliss Stage...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
hectorgrey posted:Finally, the book says to stop reading the rules, and to start creating characters and playing the game with the rules we already have - and that seems like an excellent suggestion. I open it up to the floor - what kinds of characters would you like to see me create as I look at the next portion of the book: The Character Burner? Bear in mind that this is a fantasy game, with the standard humans, elves and dwarves, but not much more. A dwarf trader turned merchant adventurer after eloping with a noble's daughter. He also did a tour of duty in the dwarven military. (You should do an elf or dwarf to show of their unique emotional things)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Nile Empire
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:And yes, I'd have transformation as something that only happens to Ords. I've been thinking that non-detrimental transformation for each realm might be more interesting. Like a Asyle wizard might become a Watch-Dogs-esque magic hacker in Core Earth or Marketplace, a powerful priest in the Living Lands, a pulpy superscientist in the Nile Empire, and a hacker OR a witch in the Cyberpapacy. Basically, have players choose a high concept and aspects that are realm agnostic, and have them come up with realm appropriate versions of them whenever you change locations.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Fung Shui might also be a decent fit for TORG, if you want a more action-y atmosphere. You'd need more substantial transformation-y mechanics though. Don't use Dungeonworld; it's way to restrictive by nature for something like TORG.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Also, to be honest, the trials of the gay soldier in fascist Spain are probably really heavy fare for what is mostly supposed to be a comedy game.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Wapole Languray posted:Honestly I think the problem is that if you have Wizards in your game you either go one of two ways: You make it ALL ABOUT Wizards, or you leave Wizards as NPCs. Ars Magica, the White Wolf Mage games, Unknown Armies, etc. all have amazing magic systems that generally avoid a bunch of the issues of D&D style magic such as Wizard Superemacy because they can focus most of their development time towards making a good, fun, interesting methods of translating Magic into rules. It's when you do stuff like D&D that you get issues. Spellcasters are flat out so different from other characters that you basically end up developing two different games, which leads to two different outcomes: D&D 3rd Ed style where Spellcasters are basically in a completely different power-tier than other classes, or 4e D&D where Spellcasters and Non-Magic classes are mechanically identical. Wizard Supremacy obviously causes all sorts of issues in games, but the 4e solution steals a bunch of the... well fun of magic. I disagree. The biggest problem with 3.5 magic is that casters have no theme; each class uses one of two spell lists (with only minor edits for each class), and each of those spell lists cover the spheres of 'can do anything'. So long as mages have specialties like everyone else, mixed parties aren't a problem (see IKRPG, for instance). In those situations, pre-made spell lists are preferable, since they clearly define what that mage may do.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Doresh posted:While my experience with Glorantha is currently limited to King of Dragon Pass, its mythology already oozes more personality than "This is Generic Main Dwarf God. He's everything you expect from a Generic Dwarf" Glorantha dwarves are cloned personality-less sci-fi communists. They have gunpowder and machinery in a bronze age setting.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Rand Brittain posted:When last I inquired about it, it seems like the Wall of the Faithless was originally supposed to be unique to Myrkul, the evil god of death, and its continued presence after his demise is the result of a whole bunch of author misunderstandings. I dunno, Mask of the Betrayer made a really compelling story about it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Yeah, I was just thinking that the best way to play Scion would be to adapt it to any decent superhero game and run from there. Alternatively you could run it in Nobilis, though it would feel a bit different.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
TBH Fatebinding is the only really interesting mechanic in Scion, and I wish they had more central to the game (no matter what you do as a god, a legend unfolds), rather than using it as a GM stick to hit misbehaving players with.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:Wasn't the idea with Skum in 3.5 that they were the descendants of humans turned into fishmen by Aboleths, bred to be stupid and mindlessly loyal by the above? Yes.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Or alternately, if you're playing it online you either need to be very ready to employ copious amounts of Theater of the Mind or use something like Vassal. I'm doing a play by post using roll20 that's doing very well. Though I am ignoring initiative and just doing player/enemy turns.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Zereth posted:The issue here is that the Fighter doesn't have anything like that. They have stuff that's pretty comparable until the higher levels, provided the GM is actually running multiple encounters per long rest. It's not fantastic design, but if you're working within the stated encounter framework, it's reasonable.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Or, you know, have some semblance of life in your campaign world where bad things can happen if you decide to rest 8 hours after every battle. Monsters wander around the dungeon, goblins put up new defenses in response to patrols being killed, competing adventurers show up, ect. Putting time constraints on the party isn't just a DnD thing either; most games benefit from forcing players to take risks to save time. It also means that spellcasters only get a limited number of 'gently caress this problem' buttons per game. It's not great as a balancing factor, but 5e isn't going to utterly fall apart like 3.5 does post 7th level, and it has a very different focus and tone than 4e or 13th Age. I like the latter better, but 5e isn't the absolute trash goons pretend it is. fool of sound fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
LornMarkus posted:Unfortunately the more the DM has to intervene to rein in the power of the caster, the more it's going to cause friction with the Caster's player unless they are explicitly in with being limited in that fashion. Just like the dude who goes out of their way to get a character who can fly, only to find that every puzzle and encounter conveniently has something in place to prevent (possibly via murder) them from flying, you are in no uncertain terms preventing the caster from exercising their utmost power. TBH if you have a player who is in effect demanding full heals any time they want with no opportunity cost or repercussions, you probably need to have a talk with that player about the expectations of the game. A decent 4e GM wouldn't allow characters to regain Daily Powers after every fight, why should 5e be any different? You are absolutely correct that casters have too many ways to approach problems; utility imbalance is a major sticking point for the game, and there isn't really a good way to avoid the problem other than polite spell caster players. Kai Tave posted:Most RPGs don't gate party resources behind a thing like "got 8 hours of sleep" either, that's largely a D&D dynamic. That thread is a steaming pile of poo poo, so no thanks. And specifically 8 hours of sleep? Sure, that's a DnD-ism, but almost most games and stories have some matter of time pressure that doesn't allow for unlimited prep/recovery time within a session/story. Healing times, shopping times, crafting times, ect. e: Hell, rations in DungeonWorld play the same role. fool of sound fucked around with this message at 06:59 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:"When to allow the party to rest and recover" feels a lot more organic and natural in 4E because everybody more or less reaches that point at the same time while something like Next puts a lot more emphasis on this metagame of "playing to the long rest" which I don't think is a great balancing mechanic nor does it do much to detract from the importance of spellcasters over non-casters. I absolutely agree here; my point was that 'casters have unlimited spells because 15 minute adventuring days' isn't and has never been true unless the GM is being painfully permissive.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
theironjef posted:The spell is in the game specifically and exclusively for the purpose of letting casters take long rests in dangerous areas. There's no other reason you'd need a force bubble that lasts as long as you sleep and houses your party. That means that the spell forces something I talk about a lot, the game of DM/Player Chicken. "Are you going to be an rear end in a top hat, DM? Or do I get to use the spell I spent resources on for its intended purpose?" There shouldn't be stuff in the game that puts players and DMs in that sort of adversarial position. There's just no need for it. You're missing your own point. The spell allows the party to avoid logistical problems like keeping watch, heat, cold, and exposure. It completely challenges a number of problems that a party could encounter while travelling, and is worthwhile in that regard. It does not allow the caster to demand that the party be full healed any time (s)he desires, any more than investing in craft skills in, say, Shadowrun allows the crafter to grind the plot to a halt and build as much C4 as (s)he wishes. The Gm should certainly allow players to use the capabilities they chose within reason, but that doesn't mean that you must allow player to blatantly abuse them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Part of the problem with time pressure elements in any game is that unless the players are seriously emotionally invested in the plight of whatever kingdom or NPC is in peril that their number one priority is always going to be themselves, and so when it comes down to the whole "just because a player has a spell that gives them a magical 8 hour recovery force dome doesn't mean you have to allow them to abuse it" angle, in a practical sense more often than not it's going to come down to what theironjef correctly identifies as a game of chicken where the PC party is going "no, we're not going to press on because we don't feel like throwing our characters away stupidly when we have this resource to avoid that, and if the princess dies in the meantime then oh well, we'll get a diamond and find a Cleric or something." So how is asking players to act as though their characters are invested any different that a Compel in FATE, and how is running out of powerful spells in DnD any different than losing your best spell on a bad die roll in DungeonWorld (which requires a resource to get back, no less)? For that matter, a time limitations make excellent Compels in FATE too. As for GMs adjudicating resources: that isn't an antagonistic relationship unless the GM isn't allowing the player to use the resources at all, even when it would make sense. Limits are inherent to the story/tensions/verisimilitude, even if they aren't explicitly codified in the mechanics. Even then, 5e makes it perfectly clear in the DMG that parties are supposed to go 2-4 encounters between Long Rests; it is part of the game design. If players are bullying their GM into allowing them to run roughshod over that design, that's their own fault. e: Again, not defending 5e's honor as a good game. I agree that it's flawed and pretty mediocre, but if you're want to play/your GM wants to run DnD, its serviceable. It's not really comparable to 4e; they're almost entirely different design-wise. vvvvv Said it better than I did. Tired. vvvvv fool of sound fucked around with this message at 08:00 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 07:52
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:That's where the contradiction lies. If you have a spell that makes Long Rests possible at pretty much any random junction, and then your DM goes "hey you can't do that yet", then what's the spell for? This argument is going in circles, so I'm leaving it here and going to bed, but to reiterate: ---All the extra-dimensional space spells have clear and obvious utility outside of abusing the rest system. They allow the party to avoid ambushes and scouts, plus survive heat/cold and nasty weather without ill effect. This is the stated intent of the spell, not 'unlimited rests', like several posters seem to be insisting is the case. A GM who prevents players from using it to counter the listed challenges is being adversarial; one who is disallowing the party to ignore the encounter design is not, any more than telling them that no, a cantrip illusion of a pit isn't going to fool an archmage in his own tower, at least not for long. ---The GM can draw reasonable limit from the story, drama, and verisimilitude in any system, not just ones with explicit storygame rules. The GM should also be able to expect that players respond to situation in-character, and generally be invested in the story. This means that time pressures and story consequences should be expected and are not adversarial. If the players wipe out a party of goblin scouts, then rest for eight hours, time should not stand still; the goblins might wonder where the scout party has gone, and send out patrols to look for them. This doesn't mean that you have to ambush the party as soon as they pop out of the hut, but it does mean that a new challenge has presented itself because they decided to halt the story at a dramatically inappropriate time. This is no more adversarial than "I'm compelling 'Where's the Patrol?', you get a Fate Point and goblins show up, or you give me a Fate Point and they go to sleep instead." ---Specifically for 5e, the adventuring day is given as multiple encounters. The DMG has several bits of advice for establishing urgency and limiting rests to suit this requirement. If the GM is not following these guidelines they are not running the game as designed, and any problems arising from that are not the fault of the game. Playing referee with the game rules is literally half of the GMs job. e: I'll answer PMs in the morning if anyone wants to do that. fool of sound fucked around with this message at 08:33 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
bathroomrage posted:Since System Mastery never got around to doing the Returners game, I'll see if I can make some free time to do a write-up because it is a glorious mess, but no promises. Work's been real busy lately. It's probably for the best, since Returners is really bad in a really boring way.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Honestly, resting isn't the problem. The problem is that while the spell limits on casters might deal with equivalency supremacy and possibly play experience supremacy, they do nothing for defense supremacy. In other words, while it might seem fair that the fighter can carry on hacking away when the wizard is tapped out, it only takes an enemy wizard to show up with the fly/protection from arrows combo and it's over. Guess what every sensible enemy wizard is going to have? That makes it DM-chicken again: "We have expended our spells; either you let us recover them, or engineer things so that we do not need them, or you are killing us (or forcing retreat which will just means this choice comes up again later) as a foregone conclusion." I don't really want to restart the argument, but going to issue a correction here: Almost all spell buffs are mutually exclusive in 5e. You can't have both Fly and any sort of arrow protection up at the same time. They also can all be disrupted by damage.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:I really like the asthetic of the Elven faction in Warmahordes, but they're basically the grand prize winners in the "Doing stupid poo poo that will probably doom the world because it's better than sitting on our asses waiting for oblivion" contest. The Trollbloods take that prize, actually.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Oh? How so? They're the only faction book I don't have yet. Their high war-chief unleashed the axe of the local equivalent of ragnarok, and their highest shaman not only woke the dire trolls (prophecized to bring doom), but their progenitors, the mountain kings, which were so destructive that Dhunia herself put them to sleep.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
unseenlibrarian posted:So Vlad's a vampire right? A secret vampire? I mean, it's about as blatant as it can get without waving a flag that says "VAMPIRE HERE" Nope, all Warmachine vampires are elfs and weird.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Honestly this is what keeps me off Warmachine. Every bit of art for it seems like they wanted to take all the most over-the-top designs from Warhammer and make that the whole art direction. There isn't a single score of skulls on them 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Doresh posted:I can kinda understand it with vampires as they usually look "fresh" enough, but what's the deal with sexy zombie ladies? All ladies are sexy in the Warmachine universe.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Bieeardo posted:The ones with organ-pipe smokestacks make me giggle. I can see it on the 'jacks, sure, but otherwise it's even sillier. All the (human) warcasters actually have coal powered steam engines strapped to their back powering their magitech armor, so most of them have smokestacks somewhere in their art.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:The main issue I see with Unknown Armies is a similar one to games like Wraith or On the Edge where they're fantastic settings lacking an easy campaign hook. They're heavily character driven, and require a lot of heavy lifting by the GM and the players to define the campaign. That can be really rewarding once you work it out, but it's pretty far from having adventure paths or big, obvious bad guys that need punching. The problem I had the one time I ran it was that my (all low-powered Adept and Avatar) party mostly wanted to go do their own things most of the time. I was running it as a Neil Gaiman-esque 'pub of the strange', where they mostly solved paranormal mysteries and tried to keep their heads low when high powered strangers rolled through town, and even then they constantly wanted to split up and work on other stuff. I can only imagine that gets worse at higher power levels.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 04:49
|
|