The Tao of Gaming

Boardgames and lesser pursuits

Posts Tagged ‘game design

More thoughts about Semi-cooperative games

I listed some theories about semi-cooperative games before. In particular, I listed some ‘ideals’:

  1. The “Cooperate/Compete” decision should be a spectrum, not just binary. Sabotuer gets this right. All of the “good” dwarves want to find gold, but they don’t want to enable the next player to be the finder (then they get the least gold).
  2. Parts of the “good” group can win without the full group.
  3. Players must have strong incentives to act differently. These incentives should not be obvious to other players.

Now, those are my ideals, not a platonic ideal. Unless I’ve grasped the essence of SCGs. Really an SCG could just be a hidden team game. I’ve started thinking about an idealized SCG. Based on my thought that The Thing makes a good setting, I’ve been idly thinking about mechanics. I had another game of Battlestar last night that prompted a new player to comment “This is supposed to be hard, right?” The issue was that no cylon could have done anything for about 45 minutes. Not good.

BSG and Shadows suffer from “attention surplus.” When you make an action, it is instantly scrutinized by others looking for deceit. Players see most of your actions. Some characters have special abilities that hide a bit more (like Roslin’s picking of two event cards), but even then the outcome is fairly constrained and often immediate. Players can quickly judge you.

BSG’s skill checks are a step towards removing that surplus. It arguably doesn’t go far enough, since players track what cards you could hold.

What happens in the movie (and in any real-life situation where loyalties are uncertain) is that people can only focus on people sometime. The difficulty (for the ‘loyal’ team) is that you can’t spend too many resources hunting out traitors. The difficulty (for the ‘traitors’) is that you have to do things that endanger you without getting caught, and you know the loyal team is checking up on you. But do you know when?

To make things concrete, imagine a game where the players are all spies for MI-5. They move around Europe (or just London, say) and do spy things. They all know each other and cooperate on missions. Each spy can win (or lose) as an individual, but it’s entirely possible they can all win.
Unless there’s a mole. A mole will reveal them to the KGB (say) and get them all killed, given enough time. If the players spend too much time hunting for a mole, then they’ll fail at the spy stuff (and get killed in a mission).

But if the players are convinced there is a mole, then it’s reasonable to drop everything to hunt him down. (I assume real spy agencies work the same way … normally doing routine stuff, but then seriously escalating to deal with potential traitors).

(Now that I’ve played a dozen times, BSGs real flaw is that the players know exactly how many cylons to expect. Once teams are revealed, the tension level drops. Shadows does that right).

So, in an ideal SCG:

  • Players should not be able to make instant decisions about each other’s play.
  • However, with the expenditure of resources players should be able to discover past plays. (“Tracking down evidence.”)
  • Once teams have been ‘proven’, the game resolves quickly.

To my mind, this suggests:

  1. Simultaneous play and fast turns, for the most part. (My ideal game would be 60-90 minutes, instead of BSGs 120).
  2. Limited communication during the early part of the game, and a mechanism to limit communication to specific other players. (I’m thinking of “Gunboat” BSG or SoC).

I’m kicking around ideas, but just in my head for now…

Written by taogaming

December 30, 2008 at 9:22 pm

Hidden Goal Game Mechanics

So I was thinking about Clans. This is one of those games where scores are public, but you aren’t sure who is backing which team. Normally, 3-4 (out of five) clans score at once.

If you have four players, then you can’t make it obvious which clan you are. Normally you want to score your clan + all the others (but one) and then rotate which one you don’t score. You need to score your clan (of course), but if you score another clan each time, then you’ll probably lose when someone rotates your color out of the scoring.

But you can’t eject too many of the other clans, because if people guess your color, they’ll be sure to eject you from scoring whenever possible. Since they control 3/4 of the actions, that’s fairly easy.

Like a fair number of other games, the points escalate as the game continues. Which means even if your clan builds up an early lead, being revealed is terrible.

Clans needs a ‘twist the knife’ mechanism.

If the scores decremented towards the end game, at some point you could go “Fools! I was yellow all along!”, make a score for yellow, and have a shot at winning. I guess eventually it happens, but more because of “Hm, he’s left out everyone but yellow twice.” [Actually, given how scores inflate, it may be worth leaving out yellow as your first score …]

This is how Shadows over Camelot works, but the number of teams is much reduced. If you are revealed as a traitor, you are outgunned. Unless the situation is bleak when you are revealed, you’ll probably lose. But the traitor can often ‘twist the knife,’ so the game (somewhat) works. I’ll have to think about it more; but this may be a necessary part of designing hidden goal games.

Written by taogaming

October 1, 2008 at 8:41 pm

Posted in Ramblings

Tagged with

More on Worker Placement

Continuing on what I’ve missed ….

I did miss Leonardo da Vinci. I don’t consider Aladdin’s Dragons to be a worker placement, but more like an auction game. It does have a “walk the path” element of Caylus, but auctions happen in an order in most games. It’s a judgment call; but the correct one. I don’t remember much about Bus or Keydom, and haven’t played Tribune or AoE III.

Adding to my rules, I’ll pull:

  1. Worker placement games are fixed fun. Too many people makes it chaotic and goes against the planning element. [Thanks to Frunk].

  2. Actions should be atomic. If you place a worker it may be a good or bad move, but it shouldn’t strongly depend on future elements. [Based on Joe’s criticism of Caylus].

Chris’s point about Randomness (in Pillars vs Stone Age) and the appeal of the system are well taken, but randomness should always be interesting. Similarly, Joe’s comment about Frustration. Games shouldn’t be frustrating, even if you lose. Agricola nails this for most people. Everyone is trying to optimize their farm, and may not notice if they win or lose. For me (and not Joe and Chris), Pillars is intensely frustrating due to lack of control. The spots I need disappear according to a random scheme, not player order. I can’t feel good if I got them by drawing first (or in the middle after the first few people pass).

Agricola’s truly dizzying array of scoring means that you can always be doing something. Is the feeling of accomplishment based on reality or illusion? Either way, it’s worth noting for any serious critic. I have lost exactly one game here in San Antonio (having played 7 or 8) and everyone is still clamoring to get this to the table.

I’m off to have dinner and stare at the butterfly invasion that started earlier today. More thoughts later, perhaps.

Written by taogaming

September 10, 2008 at 6:11 pm

Posted in Ramblings

Tagged with

What makes worker placement games tick?

I figure we’ve got a fair number of worker placement games to look at: Caylus, Manga Carta, Pillars of the Earth, Stone Age and Agricola. This doesn’t count some minor games that also use the mechanism, and I’ve got a vague feeling I’m missing one or two big games I’ve played.

In any case, while I like the mechanism I’ve been pondering what makes it work and what makes it dangerous. Vague thoughts at this stage.

  1. Each player should have an equal number of workers, or each placement should have a cost. All the games get this right, to a certain extent. Extra actions are powerful. In fact, all of the games suffer slightly from a “one true path” in that getting the resources to support extra workers is the primary key to victory (money in Caylus, family growth in Agricola, etc)
  2. Player order should be tightly constrained. Caylus does this best; Agricola’s “around from the start player” is mildly unsatisfying. Pillars random order makes the game unpalatable, even with decreasing costs for going later. The heart of worker placement games are competition in the action-selection, so players should have choice. (Pillars is the “Roll and Move” of worker placement games). [Incidentally, we just saw the Agricola card that lets someone buy the start player each round (the “taste tester”, I think). Powerful, but didn’t win so I’m reserving judgement].
  3. The best games manage the number of available places well. Caylus & CMC have the number grow (as players get more money to buy extra workers) and then shrink. Agricola uses the variable setup to add spaces appropriate for the number of players, then adds the one space per round (which roughly covers the offspring). Stone Age is the weakest in this regard.
  4. So far, all of the games seem to have a variety of resources that are all required to do various things. Just happen stance, or required? Is it possible to build a good worker placement game with a single resource (like, money?) I don’t think so. Is it possible to build one with two resources? Perhaps. This says less about worker placement games than my like of complex economic systems.
  5. Are games worse if multiple workers can go in one space? I’m not sure. Stone Age is an outlier because it treats people as variable group sizes, and has size limits on most spaces. I’m tempted to say that multiples can work, assuming the limit is relatively small or costs escalate with each additional worker (an idea that has not been tried yet).

What else have I missed?

Written by taogaming

September 7, 2008 at 8:53 pm

Posted in Ramblings

Tagged with

Is everything a race? Types of Victory Conditions

I was thinking about World of Warcraft. Like Runebound, it’s really just a race against the other players to beat the badguy, but with a sudden death timer. (One variant removes that). Talisman is similar, but it’s a race to grab the sudden death timer, which kills the others. Are all fantasy games like that? Then I started thinking about the various victory conditions … and it seems like most of them are just a variation on a race. First across the line. First to do X. First to do X a certain number of times. First to connect the sides of the board.

I’m sure this has been done before, but I’m going to try and catalogue various victory conditions. Let me know what I’ve forgotten.

  • Most Stuff (Victory Points, Money, Land)
  • Race (First to cross the finish line, do X, do something X number of times)
  • Last Man Standing (Player Elimination, maybe eliminate a single piece, or have any piece)
  • Capture the Flag (subset of race?)
  • Deduction
  • “Divest” (Get rid of all your cards, race?)
  • Set Collection (subset of race?)

It could be argued that “Most stuff” is just a “farthest past the post” type of race (instead of the more typical “First to the post.”) That requires serious linguistic wrangling, but it’s only a mild stretch.

My initial wonder that almost all Fantasy RPG-esque boardgames are races doesn’t seem surprising anymore. Most games are races or “most stuff.” Perhaps the detailed taxonomy of victory conditions is just a taxonomy of races? To be sure, there’s lots of variety in the details (and quite a few games that mix in a few types).

This is the point where everyone points out the obvious categories of games I’ve forgotten. Is it really races vs most stuff, with a few logic games?

Written by taogaming

November 3, 2007 at 10:11 pm

Posted in Ramblings

Tagged with

Tichu Followup

Right now there are threads going here, on the SABG site, and on BGG. Here are the arguments I’ve seen (in various places):

Reasons for limiting straights to 5 cards:

  • It would add some hard predictability to the hand
  • It would keep people from going out on a single lucky play (or two, or three). [Really just a restatement of predictability].
  • It makes the “when to break up a straight” decision more interesting. [Full argument here.]

Reasons for the current rules:

  • It makes it easier to go out.
  • It adds tension in that anyone could go out quickly once they got the lead.
    • It makes ‘relinquishing control’ more dangerous.
    • It makes the decision to bomb more agonizing.
  • It makes the pass more interesting
  • It turns wretched hands (lots of low cards, only a single high card) into playable ones. [Also phrased by Curt Carpenter as “Adding length also adds strength, an important dimension orthogonal to rank.”]
  • You unbalance the game towards pairs/trips/fullhouses.
  • There are interesting decisions (Whether to break a seven card straight to beat a six card straight, etc).

I lean strongly towards the current rules. I find these arguments fairly compelling, particularly Curt Carpenter’s and Marks. (Note that Dennis, the person who made this suggestion, specifically agrees that the current rules make passing more interesting). About the only reason I don’t particularly subscribe to is the “It makes it easier to go out,” which was part of the complaint. (The person making that statement didn’t see the full argument).

“Bad” cards are the bane of any card game, in that you can’t do much with a bad hand. The great card games allow mechanisms to mitigate. Bridge has bidding, poker has betting. You are never going to get rid of the issue. In Tichu, “Bad” cards are low cards. The ability to put them into pairs or trips makes them better … the can’t win you the lead (except a small pair combined with a large trip during full house), but they may be able to keep it. Allowing “long” straights helps make lots of low singletons worthwhile – again, they may keep the lead.

But I see the arguments for the five card limit as reasonable. Not bad ideas, just outweighed by the other arguments (to my tastes). I’m not a raging Tichuaholic ([Homer Voice]“I’m addicted to Tichuahol!”[/Homer]), but this has been interesting.

I’m reminded of something I saw in one of the Bill James books where he said (paraphrased): Baseball is a great game, but let us not imagine that it was handed down from on high. If we think that tweaks will improve the game, we should tweak. (He was talking about rules to make games go faster).

Written by taogaming

August 8, 2007 at 5:49 pm

Posted in Ramblings, Variants

Tagged with ,

Civilization does not compress

I noticed a commenter (on my recent Geeklist for Tom’s Ludography) request “Civ in 2 hours.” [I’ve looked for that grail several times, myself], and revisited the original.

You know what? Now that I think about it, it’s a fools errand.

Civ has roughly 16 turns. Assume each turn has ~10 decisions. That’s 160 decisions. Per player. Even assuming simultaneous play, one minute for each decision pushes us to three hours (assuming a bit of book-keeping).

Now, one of the hallmarks of Civ (and other good games) is a complex, “brushy” decision tree. Lots of branches, and complicated interactions. Suppose you want to maximize your score. If your decision is “Pick some number of points, take them” then you don’t have to look ahead … you just take as many points as possible. If your decision is “Take some points, and take some currency, and population, but the total has to be less than X” and you get to invest currency (or population) and earn VP later from them … well, then you have to look ahead. These are the type of decisions (and systems) that make games interesting. Even if you don’t look too deeply and use intuition for your decisions, these things take time.

Now, that’s not to say that Civilization won’t compress. The first few turns are fairly simple. You could lose them. However, they are so simple they take almost no time, and serve as a ‘warm up’ to help new players acclimate. They also allow for “butterfly effects” as small changes can effect the game. (Ursuppe is like that, too).

But there’s a core amount of decisions in Civilization (and other large games). If you compress a file (using WinZip, or whatever) you don’t gain by compressing it again. There’s a core amount of information you can’t remove. To make it smaller, you have to actually make the basic file smaller.

Trimming to two hours means reducing the decision space. Now, plenty of games have ‘null decisions’ (or book-keeping, which doesn’t have decisions at all], and those can (and should) be stripped out. But you can’t keep everything and get it down to two hours.

In hindsight, this is obvious.

Perhaps four hours is a better goal.

The other option is to aim or two hours and just ruthlessly get rid of subsystems that don’t interest you. Nothing wrong with that either.

Update: Just to be clear, I was mainly interested in the “compression” aspect more than the Civilization side. (Note Not that I’m against Tom designing said games, but it was really just the comment that got me thinking).

Written by taogaming

July 31, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Posted in Ramblings

Tagged with , ,

Glory to Rome — Thoughts on design

Glory to Rome is my enigma from last week. After a play (or less) of most games there, I had a decision, and an opinion. I’m now five plays into Glory, and I still can’t decide if I like it.

Doug Orleans provided a pointer where the designer said that Glory to Rome was inspired by San Juan:

My complaint was that you had only one resource to develop — card drawing advantage — so that in two-player whoever got the lead via select buildings could press it and extend the lead.

I love San Juan, but that strikes me as true [if somewhat reductive. Card advantage is multi-dimensional in San Juan]. I’ve compared this to San Juan already, how does it stand on its own?

I’m going to play more, but right now Glory to Rome looks like an ambitious failure ( Update — Let’s change that to “clunky success.” ) Probably due to lack of development. Right now my set has errata for several cards in the rules; the cards have already been revised once or twice — and there’s another revision of the rules & cards coming in a few months. For all I know the new version of the rules will address my every complaint, and I’m hoping it does — lack of development can be fixed.

A quick summary — in Glory to Rome each card has one of six colors, which determines its role (Patron, Laborer, Craftsman, Architect, Merchant, Legionary) and building material/VP value. Each card is also a building, with a specific ability you get once built. One each turn, the start player plays a role from hand and each player can follow (if they have the right card, or a wild, or three of a kind). Players who don’t follow can ‘think’ (refill their hand, or pick up a wild if one is available). After taking the actions, all cards played as roles are put into the pool in the middle of the table. Roles let you start buildings, or add to them (buildings take 1-3 matching materials to complete, which usually takes several role selections), or move cards from the pool to your stockpile. Apart from buildings, you can also graft some building materials (moving them from stockpile to your vault via the Merchant), which provides direct VP, and a bonus 3VP for the player who steals the most of each building material.

Most of the mental complexity comes from keeping track of which roles move cards in which ways, although the summary card (your ‘camp’) does an admirable job of summarizing the rules. [Tom Vasel’s review goes into more details]. (One significant difference I have with Tom … I found the 45 minute time estimate accurate for first time players, I can’t imagine a game taking much longer without significant slow play).

Now, the specific complaints:

The ‘clientele’ and Patron mechanism. If you play a Patron, then each player can take a card from the pool (discards) and place it in their clientele. Whenever that role is selected, you can draw cards and still use the role or (if you play a matching card in hand) use the role multiple times. The issue is that you are limited to having clients less than (or equal) to your influence. A few issues:

  • Talk about card advantage (if you have a patron, you don’t have to play a card, but get to draw cards and still take advantage). That’s not a problem, by itself, but early on you are limited by cards in the pool (and two clients only, until your first building is complete). If most of the other players get Role X, and you don’t, Role X will likely be called fairly often, to your detriment. And the last player (on an initial Patron opening) will have no choice. [This is an ‘implicit collusion’ aspect].
  • You can only have a number of cards equal to your influence, which starts at two. The player who gets a first building will not only get that buildings advantage, but can often call Patron before anyone else will. Now that player will get a 3rd role where they get card advantage (or else double up on an important role). Rich get Richer.
  • Several of the building roles specifically ramp up the Patron. Ludus Magna lets you treat all Merchants in your clientele as wild. Coliseum kills opponents’ clients (BGG has a whole thread about this card). Another lets you treat all your cards as a craftsman as well as their own role. Any of these buildings can accelerate the leader quite quickly. [Our last game saw one player with the first building … whenever anyone selected a role, he’d often get two actions to our one, or else just get a handful of cards and still get an action]. This let him complete buildings faster, which increased his clientele limit further.
  • In fairness, everyone should rush to grab a quick building for the extra inluence (as this strategy guide recommends) but that just delays when the limit hits. So the ‘rich get richer’ becomes a mid-game issue …

The ‘influence’ limit also applies to the vault (where you convert cards to VPs, but are limited to the 2+ the value of your completed buildings). Increasing building limit lets you add more cards to your vault, which directly helps VPs as well as helping grab the “most of a type” 3 VP chip.

I’m sure there’s a rationale behind limiting vault and clientele to a player’s influence, but it mainly constrains those who got off to a slow start. It feels like a compounding economy. Those are fine, but when you have limited control of role selection (and the ‘patronage squeeze’) a player can get behind the 8-ball.

The rules specifically give an option to have everyone just concede, which we basically did in the last game.

So many of the game issues stem from Patronage (and Clientele), and the card flow problems, that I’m wondering if axing the whole system (or at least removing the influence limit) might be better. [You’d have to modify all cards that deal with those parts, as well]. Without patronage, players would be much more likely to have similar (if not exactly equivalent) numbers of actions per round. And given my initial thought was “Too many notes,” this fits as well.

The Legionary role lets you show a card from hand to make each neighboring opponent (and the pool) give you a card, which you place in your stockpile. The last player gets hit by two opponents, and can often wind up without a useful card to show (since either of those opponents may have one or more Legionary clients, as well. But last player doesn’t have to do anything to set it up. Worse yet, a player not wanting (or unable) to play the Legionary from hand doesn’t always benefit from thinking, because these cards will be taken away. During my first game, I asked “Can I just pass?” because there were no Wilds to take (which can only be used as roles, not as building materials, so can’t be taken away). [One possible rules change is that all cards demanded are played and revealed simultaneously, but resolved in order. Then (at least) the last player can at least play the role and execute it].

Another issue — each building requires a foundation. (There are six foundation types, one of each color, the number of each foundations equals number of players). While some buildings let you mix and match foundation and building types, that means that players can get locked out of building because all their cards have run out of foundations. The foundation mechanism does trigger the game end (which I like). And you’ve got a nice ‘chicken’ mechanism going where you need to finish buildings (to get influence and special abilities) as well as start them (to get foundations), but once 3 or so foundations are gone, you can refill your hand and then find yourself unable to start anything new, simply because you’ve got the wrong materials. I’ve spent several turns “locked” in a game where three foundations were available. This can just as easily hit a trailing player as a leader (and leaders, because of expanding role selections, will often have additional actions to start their next building before a lock).

Finally, the abruptness of the endgame. The rules clearly end the game immediately on several conditions, instead of finishing the round. This allows from some trickery which I need to explore further, but it has also led to some weird situations. (Using a building that lets you take a number of build actions once upon completion, then starting or finishing a building to trigger the end of the game). I’m not sure this is a flaw, but it feels odd.

I do like the multiple ending conditions, which keep the game dynamic, even though I dislike how the foundations work (and running out of foundations is one end condition). I do like the “Forum” which provides an alternative victory condition (ignoring VPs) for the owner. That’s a good idea I wish more games had. So far, Martin Wallace is the designer most noted for using this. Buildings have interesting abilities and aren’t just the ‘discount/rebate.’ Some significantly impact timing issues, and drastically change game feel.

For all my complaints (and I do have plenty), I still find myself wanting to play again, and I want to see what the next version of development does to the cards. There are several good points reflected in the complaints above … because of the ramp up effects, most of the buildings that require three materials are strong, as it should be. [Although I think the partition, which makes you immune to Legionarys, should cost two or more].

Judging this game against the designers intent (quoted above), I think it’s successful. All the extra parts probably do provide a lot more paths to victory than San Juan, but I think that card flow still dominates.

I’m sure I’ll be pulling this out for a while … because its intriguing despite everything above. We’ll see if my thoughts waver or solidify. I’ve got about three months.

Update (5/28/07): I’ve now played Glory to Rome 20 times (see post chain). So I changed ‘ambitious failure’ to ‘clunky success’ above. I should also clarify that I don’t think the Patron role advantage is as big as I thought. The influence limit means that leaders will often wind up losing a step or two when they hit it, which is a good catch up mechanism. That being said, runaway wins still happen from time to time.

Written by taogaming

April 14, 2007 at 9:56 pm

Posted in Ramblings

Tagged with ,

Category Trivia vs. Trivia

Last night I played another game of Smarty Party using the expansion. That game came tantalizingly close to realizing the potential. I have a quibble with one answer not included; but it’s not something that can be easily proven wrong.

But the final category looked like the following: “Main characters in a semi-obscure series (3); Main characters in another semi-obscure series (3); and a backup category you probably know half of (6).”

Now, if a Trivia game (Stage II, Jeopardy, Trivial Pursuit) asks for something and you know it (or don’t), then that’s one thing. Questions are the smallest denomination in the game. But Smarty Party only has a handful of categories in each game … if you hit one where you don’t know it (never read either series) that’s it.

It’s a granularity issue. If you get bad cards in a single hand of (poker, bridge, etc), you shrug. But if you only dealt the cards once and then had to play that bad hand over and over … it would get frustrating. If a trivia game asks “When was the thirty years war?” You either know it or you don’t. But if the game says “Name the major personalities in the 30 years war” you’re in for a long session.

For “category” trivia games, the categories should be things where you know some answers, but not all. Obviously knowledge plays a major role; ideally there should be a granularity. Most of the expansion categories do get this right, the “good card” rate improved greatly. (Too many of the base cards could be quickly run with no misses, which I don’t think has happened in the sequel).

I think that Stage II suffers a bit from this … some categories can’t be deduced by our group, no matter how much time we’re given. [Partially this is the game’s age showing].

“Category Trivia” is for party games, so a good mix of categories is important. Players should be heard saying “I knew that” or “I should have thought of that.”

Written by taogaming

February 3, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Posted in Ramblings

Tagged with ,

What makes a good party game?

Fun mainly, but what’s fun. I recently played a slew of party/trivia games, so I’ve been thinking about this.

I was going to say “No down time,” but it occurs to me that Time’s Up (and other good games) break the rules. So let’s say “Enjoyable downtime.” Smarty Party has you thinking during down time … everyone is involved, as the answers move around the table. In Time’s Up, you are trying to figure out what’s going on, and laughing. In Stage II, everyone can answer or guess the theme. Compare with Trivial Pursuit, where you get to sit and watch most of the time.

Many games succeed simply because they force a ‘performance’ out of the other players. Look at Taboo, Pictionary, etc. This makes downtime fun! It’s showtime!

For the trivia games, one issue is how to balance knowledge. Some games (like Stage II) really don’t have an answer. [I enjoy Stage II because it’s obscure, but that can be taken too far. Ubi, anyone?]. Perhaps lumping “trivia” with party games is a mistake, but I’m doing it.

Games like You must be an idiot! put a real penalty on being a “Know it all,” since any mistaken answer is met with suspicion. Players start bluffing, which turns the game away from pure knowledge. Wits & Wagers reduces knowledge by making many of the answers items that don’t require trivia as much as estimation, and making the payout for correct answer only part of the scoring. Of course, a player who always gets it right and has the confidence to bet on himself will win, but it only takes a mistake or two to let others back in.

So, I’d say:

  • Minimal (or interesting) downtime
  • Requires multiple strengths
  • Fun

Written by taogaming

September 24, 2006 at 11:37 am

Posted in Ramblings

Tagged with ,