|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 28, 2020 14:40:20 GMT -6
AD&D has inflated hit points and inflated damage. In OD&D, wolfs have 1HD like a war dog, but they are more likely to attack livestock than people. The only time mundane wolfs come up in play is with a "speak with animals" spell, a "potion of animal control", or as potential pets in monster lairs. You might fight dire wolfs in the "optional mountains" terrain type. Since normal wolfs have 1HD, it makes sense for prehistoric wolfs to have at least 2 HD. Fenris wolf might have 4 HD in Holmes Basic, or 12-16 HD in OD&D proper. I also think it makes sense, and creates a nice symmetry, to treat Light, Medium, and Heavy wargs as Light, Medium, and Heavy horses. This. OD&D hitpoint and damage values pre-greyhawk are the most transparent and easiest way to assess danger, adjudicate, compare difficulty, of any RPG system in existence I would argue. Because of the d6 standard. You have to be real careful with any modules and material you start seeing after 1976, since they will likely include: - HP inflations due to the introduction the d8 as standard hp and the changes to HD additions.
- AC inflations due to the addition of magic arms and armor that are greater than a +3 bonus.
- Minor AC change due to the expansion of unarmored into AC10 instead of AC9.
- Multiple attacks as a standard, regardless of whether combat is occurring between normals and supernormals.
|
|
|
Wolves
Jan 28, 2020 14:32:56 GMT -6
Post by countingwizard on Jan 28, 2020 14:32:56 GMT -6
I agree completely. "Swords & Spells" also has Wolves on level 2 (equal to Light Horses). "Chainmail" (3E) has Giant Wolves (including Dire Wolves and Wargs) equals to Light Horse; against fantastic opponents they fight as two men, so it's basically HD 2. 2+2 for "normal" wolves is far too much, especially when 1st level Fighter can have 1 (one) Hit Point. HD 1 seems OK, I would assign HD 2 to the giant ones. Full quote on Giant Wolves: So in mass combat (and possibly man-to-man if against other non-fantastic opponents) they get 1 attack as a Light Horse troop (and defend as Light Horse). If they go up against something like a dragon, a single figure will give 2 attacks on the man-to-man matrix (needing 4 hits within the same round to kill the dragon). However when attacked, the Giant Wolves will defend like a Wight and roll 2d6 to see if they are driven back or killed outright.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 28, 2020 13:26:03 GMT -6
Did you start on the bottom and work your way up or work from the top down?
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 28, 2020 8:39:20 GMT -6
They are all DIY DM screens. AustinJimm's is closest. The one directly across from it is an exact copy but constructed differently (one of the two screens I brought). I'd actually like to hear his method posted but I'm not sure he browses this forum too often. My method for screen construction is to go to the Art Shop in Austin (Jerry's Artarama) and buy black photograph/picture frame mounting board www.jerrysartarama.com/crescent-ragmat-museum-boards which come in big sheets of 32x40. I get that cut down into separate panels the size that fits normal printer-paper. Then I lay the panels out, and use black electricians tape to carefully tape the panels together on both sides, leaving just enough gap between panels (1/2mm or so) to allow the panels to bend and fold in either direction. Then I use spray glue/adhesive on heavy duty or cardstock printouts and glue the pictures/tables to the board. I started out using foam board, but switched to picture frame board because it was thin enough to fold properly at the joint without itself bending and be stored without warping the shape or depressing. I think I've probably made 7 or 8 of these things in the past 8 years? I'm still perfecting it. I haven't been cutting the panels small enough. The closer the fit the better. I've been tempted to change up the shape to be low-profile like the D&D 5e screens.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 27, 2020 21:08:39 GMT -6
Wish I could tell you, but I don't feel comfortable identifying myself online due to [no joke] the nature of my job.
I don't recall if he has a forum name, but that is Anthony Huso. He occasionally plays with Nathan's group, and has invited us over to run a game for us at least once or two.
Anthony Huso is a a level designer for video games and published author under Tor and Macmillan books. He designed levels for Dishonored, Call of Duty: World at War, and has published a few actual fantasy books. He also wrote the module "A Fabled City of Brass".
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 27, 2020 16:57:45 GMT -6
Anthony took a picture of the event: imgur.com/5sBaWnaIt doesn't show the rest of the players at Anthony's table, or any of the players at Tetramorph's table. We had about 25 people in attendance.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 25, 2020 22:39:40 GMT -6
Tomorrow is the big day. I've carefully prepared my own game to be as in accordance with the original D&D by the book as I can. Weight tracking, fatigue, and chainmail sequence framework and all. Only needed to make one house rule: a post-morale check table using the 2d6 reaction roll instead of the fiddly cumbersome calculation used in Chainmail.
The other referees are ready to go too. Sure hope someone takes pictures, I'll probably be too busy running the game to have a chance. I've got really neat little OSR business cards to hand out with links to odd74 and other OSR communities, as well as a list of early D&D games and their retroclone equivalent. Only lucky player at my table will get an illegal hardbound copy of the LBB pdfs all-in-one.
Some of the other referees are handing out free stuff too.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 24, 2020 15:47:17 GMT -6
The wording is confusing.
"Missile hits will be scored by using the above tables at long range and decreasing Armor Class by 1 at medium and 2 at short range."
Does short range decrease the armor class from 4 to 2, or is the decrease a penalty to the AC that moves it from 4 to 6?
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 23, 2020 11:42:17 GMT -6
I didn't just not like the new Star Wars movies, I hated them. I was pretty bitter that Disney bought them and immediately squatted all over the expanded universe...I mean, I get it, Disney makes a LOT more money when they don't have to pay some geeky old writer royalties for putting Mara Jade on a lunch box...but it's still pretty offensive. I was begrudgingly shown The Force Unleashed, and it was exactly what I was expecting: two hours of forgettable popcorn. I wouldn't say I hated it, but I couldn't tell you what the story was. Mark Hammill and the girl who plays Rey both publicly stated that they disliked the script for Episode 8, so that doesn't exactly sound encouraging to me. I'm halfway tempted to watch Solo, though, just because it was actually a George Lucas project before the sellout. Many people don't know you can find the original on DVD. It's on a special edition set from a while back that has it on a bonus disc. There are fan preservations of the actual 35mm film "out there". They did a pretty good job cleaning up ANH (including one Technicolor print), and they found a pristine copy of RotJ. ESB is a bit dirty, especially at the heads and tails, but I don't mind at all. They're working on a new scan of it as we speak. There are 16mm and 8mm preservations, too, if you really want to get oldschool. Solo is good because it very much feels like a Shadows of the Empire movie. Solo is bad because it's using Han Solo like the Star Trek reboots used the Enterprise Crew; it's just bad to rehash known characters for "character development". Are those fan preservations of the 35mm online? What would be some good search terms to use to find it?
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 23, 2020 11:36:57 GMT -6
Thank you both, I hadn't heard about that & it was fun to watch. But I wouldn't want it in the original movie any more than the other Special Edition stuff.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 23, 2020 9:25:45 GMT -6
Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out the best way to post it. I'm thinking both a picture and a link to a google drive maybe. Or maybe I'll drop it on a friend's blog host site.
I still haven't had time to make them yet because I'm still putting together a DM screen and research to run OD&D by the book.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 23, 2020 9:21:21 GMT -6
Skeletal undead. Their appearance immediately says "monster" to everyone. And there's a lot of tweaking you can do to make a nearly endless variety. That and zombies. They can both be scattered around the dungeon as literal room scenery and still pose a threat. I also like using them on high level parties by creating hordes of them and abstracting some of the mechanics so that players are under threat of being pulled down under the weight of bodies and torn apart.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 23, 2020 9:18:26 GMT -6
My favorite monster is the mind flayer, because I know when we encounter one we are in for a real treat!
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 23, 2020 8:23:56 GMT -6
I'm trying to play OD&D by the book. Without house rules. Without later supplements. I've only allowed myself to utilize that one Gygax FAQ he did in a magazine a few years later.
D&D doesn't have a combat sequence or outline of how combat is supposed to work. The only thing it has is a replacement for how to make "attacks": the alternate d20 attack and armor class system. The entire combat section of the game sits on the framework established in Chainmail, so I can't really ignore parts of it if I want to try and run it by the book.
So far the only thing I have deviated from is the post-melee morale check. It's a little too complicated and time-consuming given how the point values work and the unknowns for the different D&D monsters that were added. Instead I've replaced it with a 2d6 table to determine if npc's: retreat/rout (2), withdraw (3-5), stand their ground (6-8), pursue/advance (9-11), or charge (12); adjusted by bonuses/penalties such as outnumbered/superior numbers, unfatigued/fatigued, wounded, and seriously wounded/excess casualties.
In theory, a group should be able to move/split move & fire/sustain fire, normal missile fire/spells before melee, and conduct several rounds of melee until one or both sides withdraws 30' (out of melee range) to catch their breath. If one side withdraws but the other doesn't, it just means that melee continues but the withdrawing side loses ground. Both sides withdrawing results in an opportunity to conduct any of the actions that occur before melee again, including diplomatic options.
The conversions from chainmail just need to be consistent and limited to within the scope of the original mechanic:
* Attack/Defend as if one troop category higher or lower (i.e. heavy foot > armored): +/-2 to attack/AC, since this specifically applies only to attack and defense. +2 is somewhat low, since according to D&D weights leather and some chain+equipment configurations classify as light; which means a difference of something like Light AC9 >(+4/5)>Heavy AC5/4>(+2)>Armored AC3/2; so technically the bonus would be somewhere between +5 and +2.
* Figures attack with one extra dice: +1d6 to damage or make one extra attack, since kills=damage, and the potential to make 2 kills converts to the potential to deal 2 attacks worth of damage.
* Alternate rule for figures attack with one extra dice: +1 to attack and damage, since magic swords had this wording in chainmail but in OD&D the bonus is restated as applying to the attack roll and damage.
edit: My viewpoint eventually changed on how melee is conducted. 30' range is used for flying units and mass combat in D&D. Otherwise it appears that 10' is the melee range for D&D (I've got several arguments that can be made, but it boils down to either 10' or 20'). Although a loose 30' rule probably exists for being able to advance through enemy troops during the same round while making multiple attacks. Looking at that, I started thinking through the flow of the game and realized that melee only continues from round to round in Mass Combat, while in man-to-man there is nothing that can stop an opponent from simply trying to walk away from combat unhindered by "melee" status. I mean yes, they can get nailed in the back (and can't make a return blow), but aside from that, there doesn't exist strong "in-melee" status that I've seen in other versions of the game. What this means is that the combat sequence cycles back to declare spells and initiative after every melee round in D&D.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 21, 2020 15:34:19 GMT -6
This is more of a placeholder for what I'm working on than anything, unless someone can point me to someone who did the same thing.
Basically, I feel that the way that D&D plays out naturally is at odds with what the designers intended. The flow of how a magic item is determined seems to be that players need to use a spell or try out a magic item to figure out what it does, however the referee is expected roll this up and know what it does long before the players do. It's especially problematic when moving between dungeonmasters. You see where I'm going with this.
I want to build a set of tables using the same probabilities as the original, but that only determine what the magic item is when it's used.
So for example, using my tables:
1. Roll for treasure, get a magic item appearance. 2. Roll to see what magic item type it is. 3. Player writes down the magic item on their inventory until such a time as they can use it to identify it. 4. When used, roll on a subtable to identify which magic item it is of that type.
Using this rule, a magic sword would best be identified when grasped, but for all others it seems reasonable to only identify it when the player takes damage (armor), tries to zap something with it (wands/staves), puts it on (ring if condition immediate), or reads it (spell scroll).
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 21, 2020 9:03:10 GMT -6
I'd like to resurrect this thread a little by adding that if both attacker and defender are fatigued in a battle, the effects are pretty much neutralized other than the morale penalty; Attacker finds it harder to hit but defender is easier to hit. Below are the scenarios in which fatigue would actually have an affect:
1. One set of figures enters battle not having rested as much as the other. Those figures fight in melee at a disadvantage for at most 2 rounds. 3 rounds if they were caught after their 5th turn of movement. 2. Fresh figures enter the melee once other figures have been fatigued. 3. One set of figures are undead, and so eventually gain the upper hand by sheer endurance since they do not have morale checks.
I would think fatigue is tracked per figure than per unit, although movement certainly could be tracked this way. There are trade-offs to early fatigue too. A charge move grants a bonus to attack for any heavy or armored troops if running across flat even surfaces.
In D&D, I think fatigue is a little easier to track because of the structure of encounters.
1. Track group movement anyways, because they all have to rest on the 6th turn. 2. When a wandering monster is encountered, roll an additional d6 to see how many turns they have already moved. 3. Each turn, the referee marks off more movement/combat until one or both sides are fatigued; no rest is allowed unless both sides withdraw temporarily.
Alternatively players could be allowed to track their fatigue individually in combat, with a turn of inaction counting as rest. As a referee I wouldn't want to track monster fatigue individually because there would be a mix of monsters who are able to engage in combat and those who aren't. It makes more sense to me, and seems like better gameplay to abstract fatigue to the level of the "team" and encourage an interval of temporary withdrawal from battle if players are evenly matched. It could lead to some interesting negotiations, and open the battle up for additional rounds of spells and missile attacks.
How to handle movement while fatigued is something to discuss too. If a player or monster group is fatigued, should they move at half speed or full speed? No set rule for this exists, but I would probably house rule that any fatigued figures move at half their chosen speed. Given that there are three modes of movement given in the rules (more could be house-ruled): normal, charge, & flight/pursuit; I think it should work out like this:
1. Normal movement at half-speed while fatigued. Normal turn of rest as soon as able. 2. Charge movement disallowed. 3. Flight/pursuit movement at half-speed (so normal movement speed). Two turns of rest as soon as able.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 16, 2020 12:24:58 GMT -6
So it branches off from 3rd edition in an OSR direction, similar to how pathfinder branches off to become a super expanded version of 3.5?
It sounds like it still runs like a tactical tabletop miniatures battle game with RPG elements. I like some of the simplifications though. I'll have to browse the quick start to see if it interests me.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 16, 2020 8:51:58 GMT -6
What are the biggest difference between C&C and D&D (both in rules and substance)? I keep seeing material for this game, but I rarely buy anything published later than 1983.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 9, 2020 10:56:16 GMT -6
I've been studying chainmail for awhile and ran a few games with large groups. I'm currently looking over the rules again to help myself run an OD&D by the book game using the d20 charts. The alternate combat system still seems to heavily rely on movement and combat sequence written out in Chainmail. I really do agree with your view that spells belong in the artillery phase since so many of their effects are similar to artillery. One thing I noticed in your video, is that you skipped pass-through fire (also didn't use split-move and fire for the elves), and put the normal missile fire phase before the artillery fire phase. Another thing is that your morale failures removed figures from the board instead of having them move towards the board edge (when this movement happens I am uncertain). From what I can understand of the rules and the context clues given here and there, this is how I view the Chainmail Combat Sequence for use in D&D (it doesn't cover the complex post-melee morale rules):
1. DECLARE SPELLS 2. ROLL TEAM INITIATIVE 3. MOVE SEQUENTIALLY
Move or Charge.Split-move and Fire.Pass-through Fire Sustained.
4. REFUSE MELEE COMBAT 5. SIMULTANEOUS ARTILLERY FIRE & SPELLS
Magic-Users are interrupted if they took damage during the move phase.Magic-Users are interrupted and Artillery are disallowed from firing if engaged in melee from a charge unless they have initiative.Magic-Users & Artillery are disallowed from casting spells or firing if still engaged in a melee from prior round.Roll enemy attacks and damage.Resolve enemy spells.Roll player attacks and damage.Resolve player spells.
6. SIMULTANEOUS MISSILE FIRE
Missile-Users disallowed from firing if engaged in melee from a charge unless they have initiative.Missile-Users disallowed from firing if still engaged in a melee from prior round or if charging.Roll enemy attacks and damage.Roll player attacks and damage.
7. SIMULTANEOUS MELEE
Roll enemy attacks and damage.Roll player attacks and damage.Return to Step 1: Declare Spells
A couple of things about the combat sequence:
Morale is checked any time the casualty threshold is surpassed due to kills.It doesn't say anywhere that Artillery or Missile-Users are disrupted by melee, but it makes sense considering interruption rules and the "no firing into melee" rule.There is no mention of whether movement locks down an opposing unit in melee range. If melee lock doesn't occur this means that one player may move into melee distance, followed by their opponent moving out of melee distance, and melees are only conducted where there is still 3" of contact.Uncertainty about when casualties from missile fire and artillery fire occur. The book both lists out the missile fire and artillery fire phases as separate sequences but also says something which can be interpreted in two ways with: "[something about fire during movement phase]...All other fire, both artillery and missile, is considered to simultaneously take effect just prior to melee resolution." This can either mean that artillery and missile damage occurs simultaneously with each other, or that each sides' artillery fire occurs simultaneously and so does the missile fire but in sequence.Uncertainty about when a unit is considered to be in melee, and when the Refuse Melee Combat option can be used. It doesn't seem to make sense that a unit can fire at a charging group during the normal missile phase, and then withdraw behind their front ranks before the charge hits when that is what pass-through fire is for. The flow of battle only seems to look right if a charge takes pass-through fire and the archers refuse melee, or if the archers get a last volley off in the last second before the enemy reaches them in melee and then they must fight.Speaking to the point above, the biggest context clue is that certain types of archers can fire twice per round if they don't move. I assume this rule also means that these missile-users can only fire once during each of the opportunity phases; i.e. once to inflict pass-through fire, and once during the normal simultaneous fire phase.Some of the things that make sense at mass-combat scale make less sense to do at man-to-man D&D scale. One of these things is how movement is handled. The rules for simultaneous and sequential movement both take into effect the delay in giving orders to a group, by having them run into each other in unexpected ways. For sequential, it means that the first player can't move through where the 2nd player is standing, and the 2nd player can't move through where the 1st player has moved to. For simultaneous it means that orders are issued blindly, without knowing what the opponent will do. For man-to-man scale it makes more sense to use simultaneous sequential movement, where one player moves and the other player reacts with both moves occurring simultaneously. This seems to make the most sense for withdrawing and running away from combat, especially with evasion rules and "catching" the evader from turn to turn.
Also, in mass combat, it's uncertain which figures of a unit can attack. Only the ones within 30' of an enemy figure? Or is it the entire unit that can attack? It looks like there is a move up phase just after the first round of combat for nearby units and those engaged in the melee can move up to half their normal movement to flank and get into more contact with the enemy. And does man-to-man use fatigue rules? What is the effect of fatigue using the alternative d20 chart? -3 penalty to attacks, saves, and AC?
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 3, 2020 10:56:49 GMT -6
Touching back on this idea, I would also say that an OD&D Star Wars experience should focus more on something like treasure hunters, bounty hunters, or space adventurers within the Star Wars setting, rather than trying to run characters through a planned storyline. Star Wars OD&D should feel like a wild west space adventure game.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Dec 31, 2019 11:35:51 GMT -6
Well if you put it that way leave it here.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Dec 30, 2019 10:07:28 GMT -6
I would have preferred to have posted this in general discussion to get as many eyeballs on it as possible; but I guess them's the rules. I'm organizing an OSR D&D event to celebrate the birth of our lord and savior Dungeons & Dragons 1974 edition, technically (or approximately) published on 1/26/1974. I've arranged for 8 master referees to run their preferred original edition of the game, including OD&D, AD&D 1e, B/X, BECMI, House Ruled Versions, and Retro-clone OSR equivalents. I've reserved space for up to 50 people for the event at Emerald Tavern, from 12pm to 5pm. www.meetup.com/dnd-823/events/266466232/Sign up or walk-in.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Dec 18, 2019 8:41:27 GMT -6
Lord Beezle Bub make me high priest of Demons & Devils.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Dec 16, 2019 9:39:48 GMT -6
I thought it meant the 3 Laws of Bilbo Baggins.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Nov 18, 2019 9:40:17 GMT -6
Hello everyone! Long time lurker. Have never played OD&D before, but have read the rules and about everything I can find on it. So I have now run my first OD&D session and everyone had a lot of fun!! Sticking to the first 3 books with some minor house rules. I have the PDF's, but printed the Greyharp/Il Male Single Volume Edition for play. Good times ahead for you. I feel like I learn something new every month from those three books; not always better, but definitely something new that I hadn't seen in it before. Just remember that the 3 LBBs also came with Reference Sheets in the whitebox. Those reference sheets were used for making dungeonmaster screens and offer some clarification and insights as well.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Nov 14, 2019 7:25:12 GMT -6
I've let my players use time travel powers before due to a wish, and it doesn't work very well. The entire game turns into, "enter room > do thing > undo bad things > redo thing but right".
I think time travel works better over longer distances of time, so that players aren't able to directly interact with themselves. You have to have a setting that's much more thought out though. I don't think I'd be able to do it without running something like Greyhawk or Planet Eris, just because of the amount of detail involved.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Nov 12, 2019 15:11:57 GMT -6
I don't understand how any nordic country wouldn't have an OSR community. I've considered moving to the region several times simply because people are forced to stay inside and play games for chunks of the year. I mean I thought the swedes go bonkers for wargaming and RPGs in general.
Also, because I rarely get to speak on the topic, Sweden has amazing progressive rock that straight up time traveled from the 1970's to bring the world more Hobbits and Techno-wizards.
Old School Swedish:
Bo Hansson
Ragnarök (not the metal band)
Kebnekaise
Twenty-teens Swedish:
Hällas
Wobbler (Norwegian, but same deal)
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Nov 12, 2019 15:04:15 GMT -6
I look at OD&D as more of an adventure game with some roleplay thrown in for entertainment. If a player wants to roleplay, that's fine as long as it doesn't annoy the group or punish the group. A low int score would imply inability to read or write as a hard-rule mechanic, and a low wisdom would mean the same thing if the player was a cleric, but otherwise have no mechanical effect unless there was a specific ability check (which is possible during play, but not frequent).
Mostly, negative stats are just a way for players to riff and make jokes; as they should be. Players shouldn't feel so punished that they want to discard the character.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Nov 5, 2019 11:51:25 GMT -6
What would you say the monster encounter to room ratio was in Tegel Manor? It is very hard to say, since empty rooms are unlabeled on the room key/descriptions, and because nearly every room has unexplained paranormal phenomena. Some of the level drain and deadliness of the dungeon is exaggerated, some isn't. Wandering monsters are mostly one-at-a-time appearances of undead family members; a great many of them are monsters that do not level drain. Also, the 10 HD ghosts that populate the mansion do not level drain, they age a person touched by 10-40 years. I would say the labeled rooms of the manor (ground level) have a 50% chance of containing a monster, and that the dungeon levels have a 70% chance of containing a monster.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Nov 5, 2019 11:19:31 GMT -6
I ran Ghostbusters for a middle school group, and they got a surprising amount of the manor explored within 2 hours. I let them split the group and it wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be. I also put them out in front of the manor and let them start busting without any backstory. I'll probably do that every time I run it now. Funny to think about the difference in editions. I'm so used to 5E groups that get a couple of rooms explored per hour; back in the day OD&D folks could get a decent-sized dungeon level done in a couple of hours. Tegel Manor is pretty large, so your groups must have been pretty fast and efficient. It was a weird mix. Basically the part of the party that split went out and explored room after room after room trying to map the whole place rather than interact. The other group interacted with and searched the great hall; one person from that group fell into a teleport trap and found himself in a rat nest but was able to orient himself by finding the way out and then looking out a window. Another person in that group was the psychic, and decided to use all his PKE to summon a friendly class III ghost, and use levitate and dance in the air while his ghost danced around him. The saddest and most soul crushing part of the game was that no one had ever seen the original two ghostbuster movies or cartoons. The reason so many kids were at my table was because I have a reputation as being an awesome referee and I was going to be running a game for the first time this school year. I've been avoiding it since their club is so large now (40+ kids) that last semester I couldn't get anyone to join my games because they all wanted to run their own games.
|
|