The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Psychological Effects
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules -> Psychological Effects Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
Actually this is a good example of the Dark Side Point rules. Luke was completely outmatched by Vader. The only option for defeating him was with the help of the Dark Side, but the characters racks up DSPs in attacking him. Then on the verge of the death blow, the player thinks better of it because another DSP could be the one that crosses the character over to the Dark Side, and that would mean the PC becomes an NPC. The rules help the player make the moral choice because of the risk of losing the character.
Quote:
The purpose of the rules are to simulate the cinematic reality of the films for the purpose of telling stories set in the same universe.

I would argue that, for the purposes of simulating the cinematic reality, the Dark Side Point mechanic fails to measure up to the scenario described. It's square peg / round hole stuff. An accurate simulation would feature a rule for a character actually temporarily losing control, with the opportunity to regain control shortly thereafter. It's more compelling than sitting at a table saying "my character temporarily lost control. And then he got better."

And I don't see where you get that Luke was no match for Vader; he held his own on defense, then had Vader backing up both times he went on offense.

Quote:
It has always been my contention that players should roleplay their character's strengths and weaknesses realistically, and I make this expectation extremely clear up front. This is more important than any in-play rules. If a player is making choices for the PC based only on player whim of the moment, they aren't truly playing a role. The RPG experience is much more meaningful for the whole group the more the players play their characters appropriately of their own accord without being forced to by in-play rules.

And IMO, players who are capable of operating on the honor system should welcome guidelines that allow them to accurately simulate the in-universe scenario of a character temporarily losing control.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14021
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
I have played D&D and I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE the fact that characters can be compelled to take specific actions by spells and such.


So would YOU get rid of spells like charm person, fear, cause fear, domination etc, in so much as they CAN'T be used on PCs, but are there for PCs to use against everyone else?

Quote:
I would argue that, for the purposes of simulating the cinematic reality, the Dark Side Point mechanic fails to measure up to the scenario described. It's square peg / round hole stuff. An accurate simulation would feature a rule for a character actually temporarily losing control, with the opportunity to regain control shortly thereafter. It's more compelling than sitting at a table saying "my character temporarily lost control. And then he got better."

And I don't see where you get that Luke was no match for Vader; he held his own on defense, then had Vader backing up both times he went on offense.


So in said manner, he had LOST the first willpower check, and had a periodic chance to recheck willpower, and succeeded...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10286
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 3:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
And I don't see where you get that Luke was no match for Vader; he held his own on defense, then had Vader backing up both times he went on offense.

Anakin Vader was the Chosen One that had over a decade of Jedi training, Clone War experience as the Hero With No Fear, and Sith training with over 2 more decades of Jedi purge and galactic subjugation experience. Luke had less than a week of Jedi training (with no lightsaber training shown).

During the first time shown on Death Star II that Luke went on the offensive, Vader wasn't trying to kill Luke. Vader was trying to cross him over to the Dark Side. During that kind of manipulation, Vader allowed Luke to go on the offensive at times to get aggressive feeling out of him. Vader could have easily crushed him.

Luke resisted the Dark Side so Vader got in his head and threatened his sister. The second time Luke went on the offensive, he was fully enraged, filled with anger and aggression. This wasn't just kicking Vader down the stairs. This was all-out wailing on Vader with Luke clearly pressing Vader back until Vader fell and Luke cut off his hand. You could see in Luke's eyes that he was on the verge of crossing over. But Luke realizes he is becoming his father and chooses to reject the Dark Side. (The DSP rules were clearly designed with this moment in mind.)

There is absolutely nothing in any of the films to indicate that Luke ever had any chance of defeating Vader in combat before that moment he allowed the Dark Side in. If Vader and Palpatine had actually wanted Luke dead, he could have easily been killed on Cloud City or Death Star II. Luke only surrendered to them on Endor because he knew they wanted him alive, and Luke hoped he could counter-convert Vader while they were trying to convert him.

CRMcNeill wrote:
I would argue that, for the purposes of simulating the cinematic reality, the Dark Side Point mechanic fails to measure up to the scenario described.

It works for me. Anakin was born a slave and freed, but he later became enslaved by the Dark Side, losing his freedom of choice. If Luke had not stopped himself and had just killed Vader, he would have crossed over and lost his freedom of choice. In the game, this freedom of choice is playing your PC. If you cross over to the Dark Side, you lose your freedom to control your character. The Dark Side now controls your character who has become an NPC controlled by the GM.

I've had PCs in similar scenarios that have gone both ways. I've had players start down the Dark Path but atone by playing their PC more appropriate for a good Jedi. I've had a player who argued that he shouldn't get another DSP but he did, he crossed over, I ripped up the character sheet in front of his face and I never played with him again (the player was only 15 at the time). I've had another player playing a Jedi PC who realized he couldn't get away with stuff he's hoped he could, decide that playing the Jedi wasn't as fun as he thought it would be, and intentionally cross over to the Dark Side in a dramatic way to make a good story, knowing that I would take the character and let him make a new non-Force-sensitive PC. His previous character returned as a villain to complicate his new PC's life, so the player's new PC still suffered difficulties for the choices he had made for a previous character.

I don't know about you, but I don't need rules to simulate PCs losing control of their temper because in my experience the players do that on their own and consider making choices out of those feelings. For an action that would warrant the first DSP I follow RAW and warn them that would earn a DSP, giving them a chance to change their mind. They almost always do. In my experience the DSP rules are needed to keep player tempers and morals in check, not make them loose their cool. I don't play Dark Side redemption stories like Anakin, so those return to the light rules are not used in my game. If my players don't want their PCs to become villain NPCs, they avoid DSPs. I haven't had a PC turn to the Dark Side in a very long time - The DSP rules have worked well for me.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
In such cases, I have always seen RPing bear this out without need for a roll. As with all things, YMMV.


My problem with that is that you then get into player fiat. For example, compare Luke and Leia, as of the Battle of Yavin. Luke has a 2D knowledge and no improvement in Willpower. Leia has a 4D Knowledge, and a 6D+1 Willpower. By the stats, Leia should be resolute where Luke is relatively malleable... and I think that's shown on screen.

But when faced with something that calls for a Willpower roll... Intimidation, Persuasion... if there's no mechanical effect to having a high Willpower, then the person who spent resources on them wasted those resources. If Willpower doesn't help you resist Intimidation, then why spend on Willpower? If you can say "I am not convinced, and neither is Luke" to overcome Persuasion, why spend on Willpower?
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
Naaman wrote:
I have played D&D and I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE the fact that characters can be compelled to take specific actions by spells and such.


So would YOU get rid of spells like charm person, fear, cause fear, domination etc, in so much as they CAN'T be used on PCs, but are there for PCs to use against everyone else?



Charm person is different than a "psychological effect." Spells that attempt to manipulate psychology go too far, IMO, because they take only the will save into account. In a game like D&D (unlike in D6, but not entirely--see below), the most fearless characters ironically have the lowest will saves. Since fear effects rely on the target's will save, this creates a situation where the results are silly: a person who's livelihood depends upon managing fear should not be so easily taken out of combat by a fear effect. On the other hand, you've got characters like a bard or sorcerer who shrug of fear like a fighter shrugs off a bee sting. I can see a spell caster shrugging off magical fear with no problem; that makes some sense to me.

However, since magical fear is attempting to leverage the character's existing psychology, it should be NO MORE effective than an actual threat that the fear is meant to simulate.

In any case, characters like "the fighter" typically have to constantly manage their emotions (of course, the individual characters should be handled on a case-by-case basis for specific player groups and campaigns, etc... I'm just speaking in general, here). As a result, emotional manipulation that compels them to flee the fight, while all the other "wimpy" characters stare down the threat with iron resolve makes no sense to me.

Remember: the fighter is the "tank," the "bodyguard," the "protector" etc. He should be among the most difficult characters to scare off (just below the paladin).

As it pertains to D6, I often hear GMs say things like, "well, if you want such and such, your background better account for it," even if there is no written rule that would preclude the character from just having/being whatever it is that the player has presented.

This ought to be a two-way street: a character with the appropriate background might be worthy of a bonus on a willpower roll "just because" for resisting certain kinds of emotional manipulation, even if the character hasn't yet raised his willpower skill. In this regard, I do not see much distinction between SWD6 and a d20-based class system: at least with the class system, your willpower goes up automatically with your levels. But in D6 there is no accounting for the character who has seen the same trick over and over again growing wise to it, unless he "raises the appropriate skill" (con, willpower, bargain, etc).

This is where I would apply a Whill- or Bren-esque technique: just give a modifier when appropriate. Characters whose lifestyle facilitates emotional discipline get a story-based bonus against emotional manipulation, even if they are otherwise weak-willed.

On the other hand, a character who has raised the willpower skill has an all around strong will, but could still receive the same bonuses all other things being equal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
CRMcNeill wrote:
I would argue that, for the purposes of simulating the cinematic reality, the Dark Side Point mechanic fails to measure up to the scenario described. It's square peg / round hole stuff. An accurate simulation would feature a rule for a character actually temporarily losing control, with the opportunity to regain control shortly thereafter. It's more compelling than sitting at a table saying "my character temporarily lost control. And then he got better."


So in said manner, he had LOST the first willpower check, and had a periodic chance to recheck willpower, and succeeded...

Correct. In fact, I would stipulate that 1) a character will always get an additional Willpower check (with some reduction in Difficulty) before they commit a DSP-worthy act, and 2) a character can spend CP or FP as appropriate to tip the result if they so desire.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
I don't know about you, but I don't need rules to simulate PCs losing control of their temper because in my experience the players do that on their own and consider making choices out of those feelings. For an action that would warrant the first DSP I follow RAW and warn them that would earn a DSP, giving them a chance to change their mind. They almost always do. In my experience the DSP rules are needed to keep player tempers and morals in check, not make them loose their cool. I don't play Dark Side redemption stories like Anakin, so those return to the light rules are not used in my game. If my players don't want their PCs to become villain NPCs, they avoid DSPs. I haven't had a PC turn to the Dark Side in a very long time - The DSP rules have worked well for me.

My problem with this is that it smacks of metagaming, wherein the extra-universe influence is that the decisions are based on the player's maturity and emotional state, and not the character's. The entire scenario is dependent on a player being honest and unbiased with regard to the character's emotional state. We already have a structure in place to allow players to influence the results of their character's skill rolls, first by putting CP into increasing the appropriate reaction skill, and second by allowing the spending of CP and FP to shift a result where appropriate. This rule is nothing more than a fair, uniform application of that, and frankly, I do not consider "I don't like that I don't have complete control of my character" to be a compelling argument.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MrNexx wrote:
My problem with that is that you then get into player fiat. For example, compare Luke and Leia, as of the Battle of Yavin. Luke has a 2D knowledge and no improvement in Willpower. Leia has a 4D Knowledge, and a 6D+1 Willpower. By the stats, Leia should be resolute where Luke is relatively malleable... and I think that's shown on screen.

But when faced with something that calls for a Willpower roll... Intimidation, Persuasion... if there's no mechanical effect to having a high Willpower, then the person who spent resources on them wasted those resources. If Willpower doesn't help you resist Intimidation, then why spend on Willpower? If you can say "I am not convinced, and neither is Luke" to overcome Persuasion, why spend on Willpower?

Agreed. In fact, I could easily see a successful Intimidation roll causing the Fear effect (or even Panic) on a high enough roll, preventing an enemy from approaching or attacking you.

As far as player fiat, I feel it should be minimized as much as possible. It has always been my contention that in-game results should be based solely on how well the character rolls, not how well the player ad libs. And having a pivotal moment in the story hinge on a dice roll is far more compelling and exciting than a player deciding "this happens".
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
This is where I would apply a Whill- or Bren-esque technique: just give a modifier when appropriate. Characters whose lifestyle facilitates emotional discipline get a story-based bonus against emotional manipulation, even if they are otherwise weak-willed.

On the other hand, a character who has raised the willpower skill has an all around strong will, but could still receive the same bonuses all other things being equal.

That's fair. In the past, I proposed an additional attribute called Cool, which signified a character's ability to keep control in emotionally charged situations. I was talked out of it (it wasn't a particularly good idea to begin with), but perhaps Cool would be appropriate for a Specialization of Willpower, focusing specifically on keeping one's cool during combat, and not succumbing to Fear or Panic results.

By making it a specialization, it would, for instance, make sense for a Stormtrooper to have a relatively high Willpower: Cool to keep their wits about them in a blaster fight, while still being "weak minded" in other respects.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14021
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MrNexx wrote:
Naaman wrote:
In such cases, I have always seen RPing bear this out without need for a roll. As with all things, YMMV.


My problem with that is that you then get into player fiat. For example, compare Luke and Leia, as of the Battle of Yavin. Luke has a 2D knowledge and no improvement in Willpower. Leia has a 4D Knowledge, and a 6D+1 Willpower. By the stats, Leia should be resolute where Luke is relatively malleable... and I think that's shown on screen.

But when faced with something that calls for a Willpower roll... Intimidation, Persuasion... if there's no mechanical effect to having a high Willpower, then the person who spent resources on them wasted those resources. If Willpower doesn't help you resist Intimidation, then why spend on Willpower? If you can say "I am not convinced, and neither is Luke" to overcome Persuasion, why spend on Willpower?


Its kind of the same with con/persuasion/bargaining etc.. Do you let their stats decide, or RP decide how skilled they are at convincing others.

Naman wrote:
Charm person is different than a "psychological effect." Spells that attempt to manipulate psychology go too far, IMO, because they take only the will save into account. In a game like D&D (unlike in D6, but not entirely--see below), the most fearless characters ironically have the lowest will saves. Since fear effects rely on the target's will save, this creates a situation where the results are silly: a person who's livelihood depends upon managing fear should not be so easily taken out of combat by a fear effect. On the other hand, you've got characters like a bard or sorcerer who shrug of fear like a fighter shrugs off a bee sting. I can see a spell caster shrugging off magical fear with no problem; that makes some sense to me.


That's part of the issue though, the game was designed to make Broad strokes in saves, all spells under one, all X under another, rather than go all granular in making each spell (or grouping) have different things...

Naaman wrote:
This ought to be a two-way street: a character with the appropriate background might be worthy of a bonus on a willpower roll "just because" for resisting certain kinds of emotional manipulation, even if the character hasn't yet raised his willpower skill. In this regard, I do not see much distinction between SWD6 and a d20-based class system: at least with the class system, your willpower goes up automatically with your levels. But in D6 there is no accounting for the character who has seen the same trick over and over again growing wise to it, unless he "raises the appropriate skill" (con, willpower, bargain, etc).


But if jus merely selecting 'appropriate backrounds, give mechanical benefits', why wouldn't everyone select them?

Quote:
Correct. In fact, I would stipulate that 1) a character will always get an additional Willpower check (with some reduction in Difficulty) before they commit a DSP-worthy act, and 2) a character can spend CP or FP as appropriate to tip the result if they so desire.


Why would a 2nd or other will check ONCE THE power is active on you, be easier to BREAK than the power initially was to get activated on you? To me if anything it should be Harder to break it once its on.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
But if just merely selecting 'appropriate backgrounds, give mechanical benefits', why wouldn't everyone select them?

Because some backgrounds just aren't going to be suited to having a combat background, like the Kid, Young Senatorial, etc.

It's also possible to structure it as a balanced rule, where a bonus to maintain one's cool in combat is contrasted with penalties for non-combat social situations.

Quote:
Why would a 2nd or other will check ONCE THE power is active on you, be easier to BREAK than the power initially was to get activated on you? To me if anything it should be Harder to break it once its on.

I'm not really looking at this from just a standpoint of being caused by a Force power; it's designed to cover pretty much any situation where a character is pushed to their emotional breaking point, whether caused by a Force power or not.

Mostly, I put it there as a final tripwire, to give a PC one last chance to pull back before tipping over the edge into DSP territory. If you fail both Willpower rolls at that point, your options are to either spend CPs / FPs to overturn the result or ride it out and roleplay the aftermath appropriately.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14021
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:

Mostly, I put it there as a final tripwire, to give a PC one last chance to pull back before tipping over the edge into DSP territory. If you fail both Willpower rolls at that point, your options are to either spend CPs / FPs to overturn the result or ride it out and roleplay the aftermath appropriately.


And i can see there being a 'final trip wire' like re-roll, but what i was on about, i why would THAT roll be easier to succeed at than the initial roll the person had, to try and avoid having his mind 'messed with'??
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
CRMcNeill wrote:

Mostly, I put it there as a final tripwire, to give a PC one last chance to pull back before tipping over the edge into DSP territory. If you fail both Willpower rolls at that point, your options are to either spend CPs / FPs to overturn the result or ride it out and roleplay the aftermath appropriately.


And i can see there being a 'final trip wire' like re-roll, but what i was on about, i why would THAT roll be easier to succeed at than the initial roll the person had, to try and avoid having his mind 'messed with'??

Mostly to placate the people who can't handle the idea of the dice controlling their character instead of them.

But then, I get the distinct impression we are sufficiently divided on the subject that nothing I do to soften the blow would make this house rule easier to stomach for those who are already inclined against it.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also, g, this is something of a noteworthy moment: you and me agreeing on a concept that most everyone else disagrees with...

Twisted Evil
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That is kinda scary....
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 7 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0