Practical Ways to Modify the Modern RPG

[TheNotoriousAMP]

So if you aren't making a low comedy game about the hilarity of accidentally calling an air strike on your own medical transport, why the fuckity fuck are you even considering this line of inquiry?

-Username17

I have played Robo-Rally (though not in a while) and I've been trying to correct this for a couple pages, but people are allowed to talk to one another. 5-whatever minutes is meant for thinking and talking. And I have considered low comedy for a setting (sort of a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy take on warfare) but that's for another day.

When you present weird and gimmicky game mechanics, they need to have some sort of payoff.

The intended payoff is the removal of arbitrary initiative rolls and the feeling of powerlessness as someone dashes around you, blows you a rasberry and then does something while you sit there and wait for your turn.

As for the wasted turn, who says a turn is going to be wasted? Lets go through this action by action. Let's say you support another player, unless you are outnumbering the enemy 5 to 1, more than likely someone is trying to get a shot off on him. So your support is aiding him. The only time it's wasted is if no one is trying to interfere with him and that can happen in any other game too. Casting a defensive buff on a player who is then not targeted can happen just as frequently, yet that's not considered a flaw in the system. If you are engaging someone than if they try to run away you are interfering with them. You may be able to hit him and if they are not supported, more than likely you can put a wrench in his plans. Or lets say they die during the turn, if they die during a turn than there is a strong chance you had to work with someone to kill them. Two people engaging one target should be worth more than two individual attack roles. As I mentioned in the start, people fleeing is just as likely to be an end result of your attack, so extra firepower should be rarely wasted.

There is the possibility for overkill, yeah, but that's just as prevalent in other games too. In a hex based game like D and D, two melee fighters moving to intercept one target is a commitment of resources, more than likely involving at least a turn of moving into position. So if one of them is enough to kill the sucker, the other person just wasted a turn moving towards someone he didn't need to kill instead of moving towards a different target. Same thing goes for combat buffs, if someone else kills the person first, is it a waste? Overkill, as well as the risk of being engaged yourself, should be a factor in decision making.

Next is movement, here, yeah it can feel like a waste, but (once again I didn't want to talk about the trees instead of the forest) with 12 seconds to play with, being interfered could just as well mean you return fire. Yeah, you get a modifier, but your not just sitting there. You might not reach your intended target, but you're closer and you're fighting back. Plus, the enemy doesn't automatically cancel your action so just because he reacts doesn't mean you can't be successful.

As for actions, this is a case where no system can avoid wasting a players turn. A failed medic roll is a failed medic roll, pure and simple.

And to return to combat and the possibility of failure, the idea behind a lengthened turn is also to give more of a granularity to the normal stark results of combat. In most systems a failure to do damage is a failure to do damage, which is, as you say, a wasted turn which frustrates the player. The idea behind nerve is that just because the blow is dodged or blocked by armor, its not like the enemy gets away scot free. He still knows he nearly got shot, his ribs are still bruised from the kevlar stopping the bullet, even if its not what the player wanted, the player still reduced the fighting ability of the enemy.

So yeah, wasted turns occur all the time and in any system and with added time, they can actually be reduced, not increased.

As for reading and resolution. Probably the honor system is best, to save time. Obviously, this can be gamed, but its what I have for now. Resolution wise, you can't cut this part of the game. People still need to roll a die and see the result. Its a necessary evil of any system.

[TheFlatline]

Simultaneous declarations are flat out faster in concept, that's why computers use them.

Flat out wrong. Computers do things completely sequentially. They just do it really, really, REALLY fast. One instruction, at a time, per core/processor/math co-processor/whatever (and surprisingly the majority of the software you see now, *especially* video games, are still single core, because optimizing for multiple cores and multi-threading is *hard* which just reinforces my point. That may change with the new generation of consoles encouraging game makers to actually program multithread instructions). It's just that in the time it takes them to do a calculation, you haven't even realized that a calculation has occurred. The computer is sitting there wasting trillions of calculation cycles waiting for your brain to catch up, and it feels like multitasking. But it isn't.

Computers are actually really, really, really good at "I go, you go".

[TheFlatline]

Okay you've brought up Space Alert more than once and I have to stop here.

Space Alert is a *terrible* example of how "simultaneous declaration" works because the entire point of Space Alert is that simultaneous declaration is a terribly difficult system, and making it real time is an even worse system.

Space Alert ends more often than not with everyone dying.

You know where that would work? Paranoia. Where you expect your character to die a terrible and amusing death due to miscommunication.

You know where it wouldn't work? Any game where I'd have any meaningful time invested in my character.

And removing the time constraint from Space Alert and just having "simultaneous declaration" *with* discussion means basically you're doing AD&D's old "Declare your action then roll for initiative". That's why we had weapon and casting speed and all that funky shit. And that was terrible and one of the most frequently houseruled rules.

I could *deal* with "declare and roll for init" more than I could where everyone declared in a vacuum. I probably would get sick of it and houserule it, but it might actually like last 1-2 sessions before I flipped the table over in frustration.

In regards to the space alert matter, I'm trying to avoid that by reducing the granularity of a turn. Space Alert and Paranoia become comic operas of failure because each turn represents a small amount of time and a very specific action. So an action has to be declared at nearly the exact same time for it to work. I am, however, upping the time of a turn to 10-12 seconds, meaning that its less important that any one thing happens at the exact same time. Plus, players have a longer time to make a decision, probably in the 5 minute range. As mentioned above, 12 seconds is enough time to roughly run a 100 meter dash, reload comfortably and resume firing, try a few times to hit a specific target, ect. The equivalent to Space Alert would be that the laser blast does indeed go off because thanks to abstracted communicators, the firer knows to wait an additional two seconds for the generator to come online. The GM at times can choose to ramp up the tension and increase granularity, reduce decision making time, or that abstracted player communication (for car chases and the like) but normal combat should occur with a good deal of lee way given to both the NPC and PC teams regarding timing. The other advantage of a longer "fiction time" turn is that it makes prepared actions less boring. An action that would take a minute, and thus 10-12 turns in most normal systems (the industry norm seems to be 5-6 seconds), would now take 5 turns, so it gets a bit less repetitive for the player doing the action.

And yes, I've played paranoia using simultaneous declaration (also using the write on index card system) and with laptops around hooked up to skype chat to make placing points of interference or support on people more anonymous. It's probably the most fun way to play the game. I've also done it in more serious games of Paranoia and it can really bring out the tragicomedy of the setting.

And once again, DECLARATION IS THROUGH WRITING ON AN INDEX CARD, NOT SHOUTING IT AT THE DM! Just want to make this clear, since there is still a melee over whether or not a dm can handle being yelled at by 8 people.

The turn itself would go S-E-M-A, in the order of what can interfere with what. Whoever is supporting says their action first. Support here means suppression fire or the like in a general region where the guy is going to be doing something. So you say you are supporting mark. If anyone tries to attack mark, they need to go through you first. On the other hand, if no one was trying to mess with mark then it probably is a waste. Maybe an awareness test allows you to redirect, but that's getting into technicalities before the basics are laid down. Support can interfere with enemy support and it cannot be redirected, as the person is covering the area for the whole time. Engage means engage a specific person in combat. If trying to engage a person or people being supported, support can interfere. Engagement can also be redirected, as the person may be forced to engage with the person who is suppressing him. Engaging is more lethal than supporting, so in general if you actually want to kill someone engaging is what you want to do, balancing the two.

Movement can be interfered by opposing support or engagement, so it goes next. It can be redirected by all previous things, so a person who starts off sprinting for an objective can dive for cover if he comes under heavy fire. Finally, actions can be interfered by all three of the previous things. A medic can be caught in an area of suppression fire, he can be specifically targeted by a sniper trying to engage and if he was sprinting to his intended target, maybe he drops something or fumbles around.

Everyone writes an S or an E or an M or an A, and then for S and E, they write a target, for S its a friendly and for E is an enemy. M and A are deliberately left a bit more flexible as its easier to make split second choices while moving or choosing who to heal. I might add separate S into support and overwatch, but once again, technicalities.

And yes, SEMA is not the ideal acronym, but its what I've got at the moment.

*slams head against desk* So you want to reduce combat down to 4 actions but still have combat not be completely boring, derivative, or meaningless? It's like... you set goals, which are admirable and good (albeit I'm still arguing that being a better DM gets you 90% to your design specifications), and then sprint as hard as you can in the *opposite* direction.

And how is this abstraction supposed to jive with your Dwarf Fortress level of granular detail, where seriously working out your left bicep more than your right bicep has an effect on your stats and combat?

Also, the average gunfight is over in like... 5 seconds statistically. Seriously. So abstracting out to 10-20 seconds means that combat consists of "I waste the dude... and like have a cigarette for the other 3/4 of the round."

A *long* gunfight in something like SR might take 7-10 rounds. In game, that's 30 seconds.

Sustained firefights like you see in the military occur at ranges that most RPGs can't even model very well. When was the last time you had a firefight with someone in an RPG at ranges of 300 feet or so?

[TheNotoriousAMP]

*slams head against desk* So you want to reduce combat down to 4 actions but still have combat not be completely boring, derivative, or meaningless? It's like... you set goals, which are admirable and good (albeit I'm still arguing that being a better DM gets you 90% to your design specifications), and then sprint as hard as you can in the *opposite* direction.

And how is this abstraction supposed to jive with your Dwarf Fortress level of granular detail, where seriously working out your left bicep more than your right bicep has an effect on your stats and combat?

Also, the average gunfight is over in like... 5 seconds statistically. Seriously. So abstracting out to 10-20 seconds means that combat consists of "I waste the dude... and like have a cigarette for the other 3/4 of the round."

A *long* gunfight in something like SR might take 7-10 rounds. In game, that's 30 seconds.

Sustained firefights like you see in the military occur at ranges that most RPGs can't even model very well. When was the last time you had a firefight with someone in an RPG at ranges of 300 feet or so?

Here's the problem with setting out the basic pillars of a game in progress rather than, in retrospect what I should have done, do what Heisenberg did and post a full game book, I can't answer everything without going into inane detail for everything. Like the combat options, for example. In reality, this is just a simple way of collapsing most rpg options into 4 general types, each of which is distinctive enough that a player declaring that he is doing it precludes the others. Basically "I hit someone, I help someone do something, I move, I do something myself". Within those 4 categories, there are going to be more options open to the player. Action, for example, could mean throw a grenade or plunge an adrenaline syringe into a bloke. Engage could mean engage in a firefight or duel with lightsabers. Even within firefight, it could mean, as mentioned in the nerve/speed/skill example, trying to gunslinger your way and shooting fast. Or going the sniper route and trying to be accurate. Or a balanced approach. Support could mean hosing down an area with loud machine gun fire, or scanning an area and waiting for someone to pop up. In short, there's more, its just not really that important at the moment.

As for the firefights, I'm going for a blend between cinematic and realistic. So the actual content is more cinematic, with closer distances but the process in getting there is a bit more realistic. The ideal is that the characters could make sense physically in the real world, yet they live in a far more interesting fictional one.

The granular detail you mention is less likely to give a %benefit and more likely going to be options when choosing a skill to test against. I don't have all the specifics down, but what I am looking towards is a rock paper scissors type thing where both people choose a skill to concentrate on. Once again, haven't really fleshed it out yet, it can be really hard to respond to questions which really are dealt with at a more detailed level.

As for the question about the 300 ft or so thing, why not have a system that occasionally allows you to do this? Sniper duels in Stalingrad (or fictional version of such) could be an interesting encounter. Not saying the system should be based on this as such, but its an option that it can open up.

In short, right now I'm in the principals stage, the concepts I want this game to be built around. For example, the reaction to computerization led me to drop it as a must have. I might try to do it as an ancillary, but I've given up on having it be front and center. As mentioned above, I'll post a more detailed example of one of the concepts (like a truncated set of preliminary combat rules) in about two weeks or so, once I have time to work on them.

[Zak S]

. To prove your point you claimed that you could quickly give an acceptable ruling for any random thing to PL, and you fucking failed to do that. Your ruling wasn't considered acceptable to PL, it wasn't considered acceptable by anyone in the Den save yourself. Your system was laughable (and your description of it contained literal apple-stacking).

Rulings aren't supposed to be acceptable to random people who lie on the internet, or to the GM but to the group that uses them.

So a GM could propose a rule, and like it, and it would still fail because it failed the group. But that didn't happen. Every horrible consequence of the rule Frank or anyone else pointed out was either: 1) not really there and was the result of someone making an easy-to-fix assumption (which they keep pretending didn't happen) or 2) not something that got in the way of the game the group wanted to play.

So in addition to all the other outstanding questions you're avoiding, you should address that--or just apologize for bringing it up.

[codeGlaze]

The hentai shoop had me laughing and near tears.

Well done guys, well done.

edit : Also, holy fuck walls-of-text.

...that needs to be an SoL.

[Dean]

Lets all start keeping score of how many times Zak demands apologies, cause that shit is consistently hilarious.

[TiaC]

Lets all start keeping score of how many times Zak demands apologies, cause that shit is consistently hilarious.

Better, just demand one from him for whatever you happen to dislike at that moment in every one of your posts.

Zak, I demand an apology for the lack of an appropriate emoticon for this post.

[TheNotoriousAMP]

Lets all start keeping score of how many times Zak demands apologies, cause that shit is consistently hilarious.

Better, just demand one from him for whatever you happen to dislike at that moment in every one of your posts.

Zak, I demand an apology for the lack of an appropriate emoticon for this post.

Or everyone could tone it down a notch or twenty because its just a game and there are better things to do in life? Just saying.

[Seerow]

Lets all start keeping score of how many times Zak demands apologies, cause that shit is consistently hilarious.

Better, just demand one from him for whatever you happen to dislike at that moment in every one of your posts.

Zak, I demand an apology for the lack of an appropriate emoticon for this post.

Or everyone could tone it down a notch or twenty because its just a game and there are better things to do in life? Just saying.

Where the fuck do you think you're posting at?

[codeGlaze]

Or everyone could tone it down a notch or twenty because its just a game and there are better things to do in life? Just saying.

You really need to sit back and look at the majesty of this thread.
There are so many people talking past each other in the last 3 pages with at least 4 separate conversations going on PLUS hentai-scripting images that sort of popped up out of left field.

Forget everything you've personally posted and just (quickly) skim every page from 1 until now.

It's pure internet majesty.

[Cyberzombie]

Flat out wrong. Computers do things completely sequentially. They just do it really, really, REALLY fast.

I'm aware of this. What I mean by simultaneous declaration is allowing both players to act at once. While the computers don't truly do anything simultaneously, all simultaneous means in this context is that multiple players are thinking and choosing actions at roughly the same time. There may occasionally be minimal wait time if the computer/GM is occupied, but the objective is to minimize the time that people are sitting around doing nothing.

The reason that sequential systems are used is because they provide a richer tactical experience. It has nothing to do with speed. That's the reason the new X-COM game uses sequential resolution instead of simultaneous. Sequential gives you more interesting tactical setups, because it gives people more control to set up flanks, and similar tactics. The great strategy games like chess, checkers, go, etc. are all sequential. So if you want that tactical wargamey feel to your RPG, then it makes sense to use sequential resolution. That's why 3E/4E both use sequential; it does an excellent job of allowing good teamwork and the potential for tactics. Of course, some people also find the wargame style very unimmersive because it feels extraordinarily gamey. So like anything, you have pros and cons regardless of what you pick.

[Aryxbez]

Players should be receiving limited decision time and should be under pressure. Not to mention, group planning should be before a combat event begins. Within combat, talking to each other should be a full action.

I don't know how well entirely this has been addressed so far, but here goes. The problem with that, is the Player ISN'T the character, while playing as it, doesn't necessarily have their muscles, speed, intelligence, or whatever. Thusly, the character is likely to make wise snap judgments in the heat of the moment, that the player would be unable to do, or would take substantially longer to come up with out of game. It's like expecting a Bard Player to actually come up with a riveting speech, poem, song, or even the personal ability to play a musical instrument in order to play as a Bard. So it'd hurt part of the fantasy, and quite possibly the integrity of the character that he's suddenly incompetent because of the players personal shortcomings (to error is human after all).

Also, wanting REALIZARM games, as been stated before, seems to lose the notion that the source material itself is "fantasy". In that RPG's trying to replicate what isn't supported by the source material would be doing disservice to the expectations of your audience.

On a sidenote, I liked that one of your posts mentioned Gladiators, and if your game ever became an existing product (with the dumb ideas refined/removed), you should in fact name it " blood opera" as that sounds pretty dang cool, and don't understand why it was such a big deal of a name.

Or everyone could tone it down a notch or twenty because its just a game and there are better things to do in life? Just saying.

Speaking of, it's generally quite stupid when people make this excuse or cop-out statement in discussions of "It's just a game". It's fairly poor attempt at insult, and the one making it is no better, given they too have placed themselves as part of the discussion. Point is, this is a forum to discuss Game Design, if you find that a "waste of time" then ye should probably refrain to spend time discussing it (albeit in this case, it'd be a pity, considering this thread is yours, and like to see progress made in terms of seeing to clarity the validity of your ideas).

[OgreBattle]

Or everyone could tone it down a notch or twenty because its just a game and there are better things to do in life? Just saying.

Where the fuck do you think you're posting at?

The Gaming Den

[TheNotoriousAMP]

You really need to sit back and look at the majesty of this thread.
There are so many people talking past each other in the last 3 pages with at least 4 separate conversations going on PLUS hentai-scripting images that sort of popped up out of left field.

Forget everything you've personally posted and just (quickly) skim every page from 1 until now.

It's pure internet majesty.

I've been keeping up with it for a while, and it has been pretty funny, its just that the "fuck you, fuck you" "no fuck you" bullcrap kinda got old. Just left a forum like that and really didn't want to have to wallow in it again. That being said, the Hentai stuff is goddamn hilarious.

On a sidenote, I liked that one of your posts mentioned Gladiators, and if your game ever became an existing product (with the dumb ideas refined/removed), you should in fact name it " blood opera" as that sounds pretty dang cool, and don't understand why it was such a big deal of a name.

I actually can make it even better, one of the core locations in the setting is basically a blood opera one, huge city with tons of Triad and Yakuza influence. With a healthy dose of Lovecraftian horror steadily reveal itself beneath the surface (the core of the setting is a series of different earths linked by large gates scattered throughout the worlds. The city lies on a large island surrounded by tons of them, making it a huge trading center for shipping.

"Old Gods Blood Opera" or something like that....

Speaking of, it's generally quite stupid when people make this excuse or cop-out statement in discussions of "It's just a game". It's fairly poor attempt at insult, and the one making it is no better, given they too have placed themselves as part of the discussion. Point is, this is a forum to discuss Game Design, if you find that a "waste of time" then ye should probably refrain to spend time discussing it (albeit in this case, it'd be a pity, considering this thread is yours, and like to see progress made in terms of seeing to clarity the validity of your ideas).

Its actually because I want to see discussion that I wanted things to calm down a bit. Everyone has been bringing up some good stuff and if they toned down the shitslinging and this thread could lead to some really good ideas, not just for me and my refining of my game, but for other people too. As mentioned above, its just kinda frustrating.

[Mistborn]

Rulings aren't supposed to be acceptable to random people who lie on the internet, or to the GM but to the group that uses them

Oh no you don't motherfucker, you don't get to weasel out of this one

So you're assuming, sight unseen, the rulings are bad.

You are claiming to generate a complex formal precedence based rules set based entirely on spur of the moment decisions.

You do not get to say "I just get it perfect first time every time! I dare you to prove otherwise. YOU DON'T KNOW ME!".

Because that is a stupid thing to say. Only a very very very stupid person would honestly say that.

I mean the actual competency level to even BEGIN to run a game in that manner with even MARGINAL success requires someone with sufficient intelligence to actually honestly admit that fuck it, sometimes their spur of the moment rulings are not in fact fucking perfect.

I mean holy fuck man, the first step towards wisdom and all that.

Any GM who actually believes they make perfect rulings in that manner is an exceptionally incompetent one. So incompetent that I actually don't think you ARE that bad, if for no other reason than that level of stupidity being statistically unlikely to encounter in real life. You're just blowing far too hard on an internet forum and making a fool of yourself because you don't want to admit you are wrong and maybe even rather confused.

Let's test your theory, lobster.

Ask me for a rule.

That was the gauntlet you threw down, and you fucking failed to deliver.

[Seerow]

What thread was this Zak S stuff from? I must have missed it, and it sounds entertaining.

[Mistborn]

What thread was this Zak S stuff from? I must have missed it, and it sounds entertaining.

Why Do People Fetishize MTP the PL/Zak throwdown starts on page 9

[Username17]

Its actually because I want to see discussion that I wanted things to calm down a bit. Everyone has been bringing up some good stuff and if they toned down the shitslinging and this thread could lead to some really good ideas, not just for me and my refining of my game, but for other people too. As mentioned above, its just kinda frustrating.

Shitslinging is kind of a thing we do here. One of the reasons we can say insightful things about stuff is that we don't have to pretend to be nice to people. By embracing active aggression, we eliminate much of the passive aggression that so paralyzes things on other gaming forums.

Also, you have the bad luck to have Cyberzombie, Silva, and Zak S jumping in on your thread. I'm sorry about that. They have stupid ideas and are stupid about defending them. All three of those mouth breathing cole slaw noggins hold that their opinions are right, and more importantly tautologically correct because they are their opinions. And opinions are relative and from their perspective their opinions are relatively correct for them and that's the end of it. In short:



And that's why Zak S is constantly demanding that people apologize, why Cyberzombie is constantly whining that I'm not persuaded by his arguments because I'm an egotistical megalomaniac who never admits that he's wrong, and why Silva is always bitching about how we're all just too mired in 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragons thinking to appreciate Apocalypse World and RuneQuest. The problem with this line of bullshit is that it's bullshit. Relativism is not an internally consistent doctrine to make arguments with.

If we accepted that Zak S was right to claim that his dubious rulings were always perfect because he didn't notice any problem with them, we'd have to equally accept that PhoneLobster was right to claim that his rulings were horseshit because he did. Zak S' demand for an apology is based on the idea that he is right because relativism, but if you actually accepted that then everyone else would also be right! His very basis for demanding an apology would, if accepted as a valid premise, logically lead to the conclusion that no one had to apologize for anything. Of course, we don't accept his relativistic premises, which just makes his constant repetitive bleatings for apologies moar hilarious.

Anyway: your ideas are bad and you should feel bad. You say you want to speed up play, but your suggestions are a bunch of cumbersome procedures and demanding tracking of minutiae. Those are literally and specifically the opposite of how you speed up play.

-Username17

[codeGlaze]

've been keeping up with it for a while, and it has been pretty funny, its just that the "fuck you, fuck you" "no fuck you" bullcrap kinda got old. Just left a forum like that and really didn't want to have to wallow in it again.

Well, if you've been lurking for any length of time you should know that vitriol is pretty common on The Den. ASIDE from that though, there are also highly visible members with short fuses and small amounts of patience.

Taking everything personally tends to be a bad idea here. You (general "you" as in everybody, not specifically you) really need to be able to step back from a discussion and think about who is dressing you down at the moment. THEN, if it's a person with generally good common sense, you need to process what they are saying with out getting butt-hurt.

This is a difficult process at first.
For example, being torn apart by Kaelik for posting a bad idea is difficult to take. But he generally wraps some good advice up in his fury-filled rants.

It is then a bad idea to get butt hurt, not process what is being said, and then go on some vengeance posting in order to try and recover some dignity. Because, here, dignity is fleeting.

---

@LMB, Zak and the others who are trolling each other now ...

These personal vendettas are blatant thread-shitting.

[rasmuswagner]

Shitslinging is kind of a thing we do here. One of the reasons we can say insightful things about stuff is that we don't have to pretend to be nice to people. By embracing active aggression, we eliminate much of the passive aggression that so paralyzes things on other gaming forums.

Compare RPGnet, where it's impossible to seriously discuss D&D, because you can't even discuss which writers are worthless hacks. You can't even go into motives behind the publication of certain books.

Compare the Paizo forums, where calling out someone for blatantly lying or contradicting themselves gets your post removed.

[Mistborn]

These personal vendettas are blatant thread-shitting.

As opposed to what? Subtle and refined thread-shitting?

[codeGlaze]

These personal vendettas are blatant thread-shitting.

As opposed to what? Subtle and refined thread-shitting?

Side shitting?
Thread-shitting under the pretense of staying on topic?

Point taken, though. Touche.
...and now I'm a participant. Boo.

[malak]

I actually can make it even better, one of the core locations in the setting is basically a blood opera one, huge city with tons of Triad and Yakuza influence. With a healthy dose of Lovecraftian horror steadily reveal itself beneath the surface (the core of the setting is a series of different earths linked by large gates scattered throughout the worlds. The city lies on a large island surrounded by tons of them, making it a huge trading center for shipping.

"Old Gods Blood Opera" or something like that....

Because that Lovecraftian mood which is all about unimaginable, unknowable otherness and greater beings you cannot begin to understand meshes so well with brutalo movie settings that fetishize detailed displays of explicit violence.

Hm.

[silva]

The Gaming Den

For a bunch of arrogant single-minded one-true-wayist modafackas, you guys give some pretty good laughs, you know.