|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 5, 2011 20:01:57 GMT -6
I did the S&W Whitebox and thought it was a pretty good product, but it gets knocked often for not being a "true" clone of OD&D. Every once in a while (perhaps a few dozen times over the past 35 years) I will sit down and try to create my own "ultimate OD&D" style doc. And I always fail. I think that the two statements above are linked together, and I think that the ambiguity of OD&D is such that we'll never get what we all agree is a "true" clone of OD&D. I'd rather not debate whether or not it's possible to understand the game without aid, and I'd rather not debate if you need book X or not in order to play it. We've covered that ground before and I think we've hit an impasse. What I notice every time I re-read OD&D is that there are a few key places where OD&D can be interpreted more than one way, and as such we will never reach group concensus. If you try to offer a "toolbox" apporach (such as I did in Whitebox) the critisism is that gamers don't want a rulebook with guidelines instead of hard-and-fast rules. They don't want "you can try this option" rules but instead want things black and white, but the game isn't 100% black and white. For example, - I look at the level charts in Men & Magic abd see that the progressions aren't always predictable patterns. There are places where "Fighting Capability" might jump from level to level, or places where FC and HD agree while other places do not. In trying to extrapolate to higher levels the examples given often don't quite seem to fit an exact pattern and I find myself wondering why Gary picked certain numbers for certain levels.
- Then there is the LBB versus Greyhawk issue, where certain rules clearly change whether Supplement I is considered or not. If I want to mix Druids or Monks with d6 hit dice from the box there may be some issues. If I want to mix FC with non-d6 hit dice there may be some issues. What I find is that while the rules are very specific, there are enough options that I need to choose which specific rules fit together with each other and which ones do not.
- Some monsters are rated in terms of things like "heavy foot" which imply the mass-combat Chainmail tables, but other references seem to imply that the Man-to-Man 2d6 rules are the ones to use.
- Some editions (1st-4th printings) state that all clerics must choose Law or Chaos while others (5th and later) say that they only need to choose at 7th level.
- Monsters are vague in terms of encounters. If there are 30-300 orcs, how do I roll this? 30d10? 30 times 1d10? Does the treasure table apply to 30-300 orcs or is the same treasure found in a room in a dungeon with a half dozen orcs in it?
- Just determining which classes "count" is impossible. Only the ones in the LBB plus supplements? That would leave out the Ranger, which would be sad. Add in everything from Dragon and you get some odd and obscure classes that I've never played and don't know anyone who has. (I think they're in Dragon #3 or #4. Healers and such.)
- What about rules changes. Some argue that nothing can change or it's not OD&D. Others cite the Hargrove material and say that it should count since it's an expansion. Where does it end? Could we have skills instead of classes? Would that still be OD&D? I doubt that we'll ever agree on that point, either.
Overall, these issues don't bother me now and they never have in over 3 decades of playing OD&D. They don't bother me because I'm not playing for realism, but instead am playing for fun and if I use different rules each time, that's okay with me. Still makes the game understandible and readable, even if the rules ebb and flow with my mood. From a scholarly point of view, however, it's become clear to me that there is no way that our "OD&D community" will ever agree on a single canon set of OD&D rules. We'll never get a rulebook as specific as AD&D because things are too scattered, updates are too inconsistent. What do you think? Any chance we will ever "agree" to one rules set?
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Sept 5, 2011 20:28:49 GMT -6
Great points Marv, I think I can answer the "treasure question" as the treasures were all intended as lair treasures for the 30 - 300 orcs (however you get them).
But the idea of agreeing to one set of rules, or even to one set of sources for the rules - nah, that will never happen, but I think it's better to have the open debate. It gives each DM more freedom of choice when structuring the game.
Maybe though, what may happen is that folks will point to a few different clones as "cleaned up" versions of differen't things, the way LL is seen as a clean representation of Moldvay. So rather than one ruleset, you may see 4 or 6 that most will turn to depending on which aspects of the game they are looking to play.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2011 20:54:11 GMT -6
I did the S&W Whitebox and thought it was a pretty good product, but it gets knocked often for not being a "true" clone of OD&D. Every once in a while (perhaps a few dozen times over the past 35 years) I will sit down and try to create my own "ultimate OD&D" style doc. And I always fail. ... .... Overall, these issues don't bother me now and they never have in over 3 decades of playing OD&D. They don't bother me because I'm not playing for realism, but instead am playing for fun and if I use different rules each time, that's okay with me. Still makes the game understandible and readable, even if the rules ebb and flow with my mood.From a scholarly point of view, however, it's become clear to me that there is no way that our "OD&D community" will ever agree on a single canon set of OD&D rules. We'll never get a rulebook as specific as AD&D because things are too scattered, updates are too inconsistent. What do you think? Any chance we will ever "agree" to one rules set? No, there is no chance at all that we will ever get any two of us, let alone 51% of us, to agree on a single compilation of OD&D. We all have our personal preferences and each of our games and our campaign worlds are unique, which is as btb as you can get when you are talking OD&D. Bolded Emphasis above added by me. I agree with what you have said about 99.99%. I can put together my ultimate OD&D Rules Doc, but it would be different tomorrow or yesterday. There is only one thing that I don't like about S&W and that is before forced to include the new school AC in order to claim compatiblity. If I am going to write something and put it out there with my name on it, it will not include anything that I consider to be new school material. On that I can not and will not compromise. YMMV I have no hard feelings at all about Fin putting the requirement in there, however, much I disagee with it. I participate in upping his Karma from time to time, since that item is one of the very few places where we do disagree. Have an Exalt now! The rules in my game ebb and flow with my mood and what I am shooting for in a particular campaign. I only have one hard and fast rule and that is that I will not include anything that I consider to be a pure new school concept that for me breaks the game and makes it not old (original) school. For me that includes things like skills and spell components, again YMMV. I like the toolbox approach, it seems to me like the most legitimate way to approach it. I would love to put together and have printed a compilation that includes every thing in the various printings of OD&D, the Fantasy Rules section of Chainmail, the supplements, The Strategic Review, The Dragon, The Arduin Trilogy or least the first volume, articles in a few other early fanzines, and selected stuff created by people frequenting this board. What would really be nice is to have it in some type of database where I could check blocks and then print out a custom version that is one of several million possible. There are several different takes out their right now on OD&D and Chainmail and etc, and I like everyone of them even though I agree with all of none of them. I would love to be able to afford to go to Lulu or elsewhere and print myself a dozen hard copies of each of them. Unfortunately that is not to be anytime soon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2011 21:09:58 GMT -6
Wow. That's a lot of stuff to say. I'm hoping that this is more of a "stream of consiousness" post and not any sort of dissatisfaction with OD&D. I agree that we'll never get "one set to rule them all" for OD&D. Doesn't stop my from trying, however.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 5, 2011 21:23:19 GMT -6
Wow. That's a lot of stuff to say. I'm hoping that this is more of a "stream of consiousness" post and not any sort of dissatisfaction with OD&D. More of the first and less of the last. I have no real problem with OD&D, other than the fact that I don't think I play it the same all of the time. With AD&D I always felt like there was a "right" way and a "wrong" way, but with OD&D I go with whatever feels right at the time. One summer I set up an OD&D campaign using the mass combat rules for combat. Players were rolling piles of d6's with every combat. (Note my "Ringmail Variant" posts in the Chainmail section.) I won't say it's the "right" way to play, but we had a lot of fun with it. Some times I play LBB only with three core classes of Fighter, Wizard, and Cleric. No Rangers, Thieves, Druids, etc. Again, a different game but a fun one. Some times I use the "spell complexity" rules from Chainmail for my spellcasters. Makes things different. Actually, when I play I often have a pile of rulebooks on my table, including OD&D, C&C, the AD&D monster manual, and others that don't all "fit together" correctly. If I need a rule such as a chart or monster hit dice, I'll just grab a book more-or-less at random and use whatever I can find quickly. My players get used to the fact that the rules aren't always the same. Maybe that's what I like best about OD&D -- the fact that I can adjust it constantly and not be "wrong."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2011 21:28:41 GMT -6
Actually, when I play I often have a pile of rulebooks on my table, including OD&D, C&C, the AD&D monster manual, and others that don't all "fit together" correctly. If I need a rule such as a chart or monster hit dice, I'll just grab a book more-or-less at random and use whatever I can find quickly. My players get used to the fact that the rules aren't always the same. I never got to play with Dave Arneson, but this sounds a lot like the stories I read about the way he ran his game. Everything was fluid with his whim, even though he had a basic rules skeleton in mind. If you challenged him, he'd smack you down. Wish I could have experienced that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2011 21:35:47 GMT -6
It definitely is possible to clone the 3LBs and keep it pure, but yes once you throw the supplements into the mix you have some decisions to make, primarily whether to use the Greyhawk or Men & Magic level system, with the former being the easier option.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 5, 2011 21:38:41 GMT -6
once you throw the supplements into the mix you have some decisions to make You stated this much more exactly than I did. ;D I agree, and it's the decisions that make all of the different flavors possible instead of a single end product.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Sept 5, 2011 21:44:17 GMT -6
Nope, we won't get people to agree on a single OD&D clone. Which is why I think the goal, for those of us trying to make an OD&D clone, should be to make a clone that fits a specific OD&D niche or interpretation.
When I started my clone, there was only one game that attempted to clone OD&D specifically: S&W Whitebox. Whitebox is fine, but I wanted a clone that fit specific needs it didn't meet. As I went along, a couple other OD&D retro-clones were announced (Delving Deeper and Champions of ZED, maybe some others.) I'm sort of waiting to see these, because I may alter my own project to fit the niche or interpretation those don't. And I'm specifically aiming to make mine modular, so that if someone prefers S&W Whitebox, DD, or ZED, but wants to use one subsystem from my clone, like the treasure tables, they can just lift it out; the treasure system will try not to refer to specific interpretations of other systems, like the monster list, so that it doesn't need much change, if it needs any at all.
|
|
oldkat
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 431
|
Post by oldkat on Sept 5, 2011 21:52:24 GMT -6
I pretty much agree with the idea that "we won't get people to agree on a single OD&D clone"...now having said that, consider this: why do they need to? I mean, unless you're going to attempt to write/produce/publish this by committee, then it is almost always the single creator with a vision that goes out to the edge of the limb and reaches for the next tree. If he falls, all snicker and go about their business. If he succeeds, they will follow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2011 22:44:26 GMT -6
a couple other OD&D retro-clones were announced (Delving Deeper and Champions of ZED, maybe some others.) I'm sort of waiting to see these... Delving Deeper is now on the home straight with the formatting happening now, which will be followed by the final proofreading and then publishing. Its release will be weeks rather than months.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Sept 5, 2011 23:31:31 GMT -6
I agree, Finarvyn.
To me, the two most important and most inspiring D&D sentences pretty much serve as bookends to the 1974 rules:
1. Right after the Forward and the Introduction is a section called "Scope". Therein it states: "[T]he scope need not be restricted to the medieval; it can stretch from the prehistoric to the imagined future..."
2. In the very last paragraph of the rules is the statement, "[W]e urge you to refrain from writing for rule interpretations or the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way!"
|
|
|
Post by gloriousbattle on Sept 6, 2011 5:29:48 GMT -6
A scientist and an engineer are each placed at one end of a four foot wide room. Each is told to walk toward the center, but that each step he takes nust be half the length he has left to go.
At the end of three steps:
Scientist: Sigh. We'll never get there.
Engineer, tapping the scientist in the chest: What do you mean? We're there already.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 6, 2011 7:34:42 GMT -6
a couple other OD&D retro-clones were announced (Delving Deeper and Champions of ZED, maybe some others.) I'm sort of waiting to see these... Delving Deeper is now on the home straight with the formatting happening now, which will be followed by the final proofreading and then publishing. Its release will be weeks rather than months. Good point about Delving Deeper. For some reason I forgot about that one and honestly haven't been following it closely at all. DD should be a great game and I wonder how they plan to handle some of the decision making. Knowing Brave Halfling, however, I anticipate a good product. Not sure if it can be a true clone or not (see my first post for the rant), but it'll be a great product!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2011 7:46:13 GMT -6
DD is a true clone to the same degree that OSRIC and LL is for their respective versions of D&D. DD clones the 3LB and not material from the supplements, which means we didn't have some of the problems you have spelled out in your original post Marv.
|
|
arcadayn
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 236
|
Post by arcadayn on Sept 6, 2011 8:31:01 GMT -6
I think the best presentation of OD&D that we have is the re-edited version of the single volume reformat (if that makes sense). The only thing missing from that are better guidelines for Chainmail, which I think is being addressed in the next release. Of course, its not really a clone, so its kind of cheating. The problem with the clones is that they seem to have a legal obligation to make things different, so they will never quite be spot on.
Personally, I find myself using bits and pieces out of OD&D, B/X, AD&D, LL, AEC, S&W, and LOTFP. If I had to nail down the core of my rules these days, it would probably be B/X. To me, B/X feels like what OD&D would have been if Gary would have taken the time to work Greyhawk into the original release.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Sept 6, 2011 11:30:29 GMT -6
Delving Deeper is now on the home straight with the formatting happening now, which will be followed by the final proofreading and then publishing. Its release will be weeks rather than months. Good point about Delving Deeper. For some reason I forgot about that one and honestly haven't been following it closely at all. DD should be a great game and I wonder how they plan to handle some of the decision making. Knowing Brave Halfling, however, I anticipate a good product. Not sure if it can be a true clone or not (see my first post for the rant), but it'll be a great product! Yeah, CoZ is certainly not a true clone in the manner of DD, but rather a "re-edit" in the manner of Holmes but weaving in much of the neglected material from Arneson and Chainmail combat. So as a re-edit, changes for legal reasons don't screw the pooch, as long as the overall effects and results are the same game. So I had more options to work with. Even so, there were a couple areas where I would like to have expanded a bit more (like adding the oil throwing rules from Holmes) but didn't because it was too far beyond the scope of the source material. And that is another problem that OD&D cloners face. There are occasionally situations (encumbrance comes to mind) for which OD&D really needs some expansion or better explanation - the sort of things that as Marv mentions, we often turn to AD&D or some other game for but have to leave as is in a "true" clone. Fortunetly, the approach I took with CoZ usually allowed me to draw on Gygax or Arneson for such clarifications or expansions, but true cloners don't have that option.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2011 11:36:21 GMT -6
Wow. That's a lot of stuff to say. I'm hoping that this is more of a "stream of consiousness" post and not any sort of dissatisfaction with OD&D. I agree that we'll never get "one set to rule them all" for OD&D. Doesn't stop my from trying, however. I'm not sure if you are referring to me or Fin or both, but speaking for myself, I am not dissatisfied with OD&D at all. To me there is a true OD&D and it is different everyday for me and my true OD&D is unlikely to be yours. I don't see that as a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Sean Michael Kelly on Sept 6, 2011 17:35:20 GMT -6
DD is a true clone to the same degree that OSRIC and LL is for their respective versions of D&D. DD clones the 3LB and not material from the supplements, which means we didn't have some of the problems you have spelled out in your original post Marv. ...and I'm SO glad I prepaid for a box set! :-D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2011 18:42:37 GMT -6
I think a clone of OD&D (3 book only) can be a 99% replica of the rules. The 1% that is ambiguous is going to be less different than the simple variance in most campaigns. The goal of a clone isn't to make everyone play the same way, it's to make the document available for people to easily use at a gaming table as the core to work with. A document that is 99% the same as the original books definitely fulfills that role. Of course if WoTC would get their heads out of their behinds then we could just order the books print on demand and game on like it was 1974. lol
|
|
Lord Kjeran
Level 2 Seer
Order of the Six Severed Hands
Posts: 26
|
Post by Lord Kjeran on Sept 7, 2011 20:24:20 GMT -6
Chello!
Of course, we won't. That's what AD&D is for. How many times do people like Jim Ward, Steve Marsh, Rob Kuntz, etc., have to say that the intention with the LBB was to create a tool kit that people could use and house rule to their heart's content.
AD&D was created to give us "tournament rules."
That's just my take on the issue.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 7, 2011 20:52:13 GMT -6
I don't really see that it matters, one way or the other.
It isn't as though the appearance of a "perfect" OD&D clone would change the way we play. Nor would the non-appearance of the same have much of an impact on most of us.
I acknowledge the higher purpose of such a clone would be to enable people to produce and distribute supporting materials and so on. But... isn't that pretty much what we are all doing without it?
I think it's more important to simply get on with playing your own game than it is to worry about whether its true OD&D or whatever.
If you're doing it, it is.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Sept 8, 2011 2:16:26 GMT -6
I think we already had one.
It was called the Original Collector's Edition, aka the sixth print.
And even it was different from the original (Tolkien creature references removed, etc.)
If even TSR couldn't do it, what hope do we have?
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 8, 2011 4:49:49 GMT -6
I think the best presentation of OD&D that we have is the re-edited version of the single volume reformat (if that makes sense). Yeah, but that doesn't count because it's not a "clone" but a re-edit, if it's the one I'm thinking of. OSRIC, for example, is a product totally out there for free and a clone of AD&D. Anyone can download and it's above board. The re-edits of OD&D aren't for open download or for sale anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Sept 8, 2011 9:49:01 GMT -6
I don't really see that it matters, one way or the other. It isn't as though the appearance of a "perfect" OD&D clone would change the way we play. Nor would the non-appearance of the same have much of an impact on most of us. I acknowledge the higher purpose of such a clone would be to enable people to produce and distribute supporting materials and so on. But... isn't that pretty much what we are all doing without it? I think it's more important to simply get on with playing your own game than it is to worry about whether its true OD&D or whatever. If you're doing it, it is. Agreeing if you add "to us". Where it matters is to the loads of gamers who might well pick up a copy of a legally made and in print game sitting on a store self or being sold on the internet, but haven't the time, interest or patients to try to wade through the 3lBBs or search out and download fan creations of dubious legal standing. I'll bet dollars to donuts there are boatloads of people who would be attracted to such were they to learn of it. While S&W Whitebox has basically filled that roll, its (ahem) not exactly S&W's flagship product or priority, so additional gateway rulesets matter to the growth of our niche of the hobby.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2011 10:20:01 GMT -6
I think we already had one. It was called the Original Collector's Edition, aka the sixth print. And even it was different from the original (Tolkien creature references removed, etc.) If even TSR couldn't do it, what hope do we have? On top of that, it is not at all rare, but it sells for more than a 5th print, just because it says Original Collector's Edition on the cover of the box.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2011 11:55:16 GMT -6
I don't really see that it matters, one way or the other. It isn't as though the appearance of a "perfect" OD&D clone would change the way we play. Nor would the non-appearance of the same have much of an impact on most of us. I acknowledge the higher purpose of such a clone would be to enable people to produce and distribute supporting materials and so on. But... isn't that pretty much what we are all doing without it? I think it's more important to simply get on with playing your own game than it is to worry about whether its true OD&D or whatever. If you're doing it, it is. Agreeing if you add "to us". Where it matters is to the loads of gamers who might well pick up a copy of a legally made and in print game sitting on a store self or being sold on the internet, but haven't the time, interest or patients to try to wade through the 3lBBs or search out and download fan creations of dubious legal standing. I'll bet dollars to donuts there are boatloads of people who would be attracted to such were they to learn of it. While S&W Whitebox has basically filled that roll, its (ahem) not exactly S&W's flagship product or priority, so additional gateway rulesets matter to the growth of our niche of the hobby. I agree with Aldarron and hope to provide a view from a group of gamers who haven't been playing D&D for 35+ years (i'm still a newbie, only been playing since 1987). I've been DMing a weekly game of S&W complete(no monks!) for a group of players who have had no experience with od&d. We have one guy who started with 1st ed. AD&D, one with 2nd ed., three with 3.5 and one new player. My first game was mentzers red box. Our game has lasted around four months so far and has been alot of fun, and is still going strong. That said, I would NEVER have been able to convince them to try out OD&D as written. Handing them a S&W book is a much easier sell than asking them to decipher the mess (glorious mess, but still a mess) that is Men & Magic. Now that we've been playing for some time I have no doubt that our next campaign will use S&W white box, which I prefer over complete. To sum it up, we have a regular group of six people who are playing 'OD&D' for the first time and loving it because of Swords and Wizardry. Perhaps many of the original D&D players are happy with their little brown books, but those books alone do a poor job of bringing in new players.
|
|
|
Post by gloriousbattle on Sept 8, 2011 14:40:02 GMT -6
I would NEVER have been able to convince them to try out OD&D as written. Handing them a S&W book is a much easier sell than asking them to decipher the mess (glorious mess, but still a mess) that is Men & Magic. Now that we've been playing for some time I have no doubt that our next campaign will use S&W white box, which I prefer over complete. To sum it up, we have a regular group of six people who are playing 'OD&D' for the first time and loving it because of Swords and Wizardry. Perhaps many of the original D&D players are happy with their little brown books, but those books alone do a poor job of bringing in new players. You are absolutely right, and it brings up an interesting point. I can understand why some people want to play Oed, 1ed, ...4ed, as each gives a different take on the game. The older systems tended to be simpler, more political, less expensive, and incorporated a lot of areas the new rules missed, like war, hiring retainers, ruling a kingdom, the high seas, etc. The newer sets were more complicated, and focused more on character individualization, and the complexities of combat, as well as power-gaming. I prefer the older stuff, but to each his own, and I can certainly see the arguments for 3.5 and 4e. What I don't understand is the argument within the 0ed-1ed crowd. The LBBs are just... well... full of mistakes and badly written. They were the fountainhead game, and I respect them as such. But why would anybody want something full of mistakes when a cleaned up and corrected copy is available? It would be fun to possess the original draft of Hamlet, full of whatever errors Bill had in them (To be or to be something else? Nah. To be therefore I am? Nah... d**n it. If I just calm down it'll come to me...) but would you really want to present a play with one, as opposed to using a 2011 published version? Please note the following: THIS IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO START A FIGHT. THIS IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO START A FIGHT. THIS IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO START A FIGHT. THIS IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO START A FIGHT. THIS IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO START A FIGHT. I am simply expressing my opinion on this topic. Please, nobody get all bent out of shape over it. Tell me I'm wrong if you want, but no more flame wars.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Sept 8, 2011 15:45:26 GMT -6
Besides spelling errors, what kind of mistakes are in the LLB's?
|
|
|
Post by gloriousbattle on Sept 8, 2011 16:50:32 GMT -6
Besides spelling errors, what kind of mistakes are in the LLB's? Please, let's not. That way lies madness. If, for a few examples, I say "% Liar for % Lair" which spawned some really weird misinterpretations, even in such worthies as Hargrave, you will simply say it was a spelling error. If I point out that monsters exist on the encounter tables that don't exist in the rules, you will say it was stylistic, or perhaps that the author should not have to do all the work for me. If I point out that some of the spell and magic item descriptions are hopelessly vague, I will hear that these were not mistakes at all, merely leaving them open to interpretation, etc. Thus, this is an argument I absolutely cannot win, and so don't care to undertake. Again, though, THIS IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO START A FIGHT. If we cannot agree on something this basic, we cannot really discuss it, only fight about it, so I'll grant you the point and move on to someone with whom I have more common ground. No offense of any type is intended.
|
|