• Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  

More MMO, Less RPG

This topic is 4518 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I've noticed this alot. Everyone and their mom keeps trying to come out with the next big MMORPG. The problem is that that area is over-saturated right now. Granted it IS the easiest of the MMO types to create, but the reality is that there are many other genre's out there that could benefit from the MMO styel of play. Racing, (Instanced zoned races, open races, tracks, street, pick up, individualized cars etc.) Space/Air dogfight (perhaps not to the point of persistant worlds...but still) FPS (Beyond Planetside, this could benifit most from going down the classic MMO style think MMO DOOM :) ) Sports (Each person gets control of a player, they form teams....compete in seasons/ladder tournaments) RTS (HUGE map about 100-500 players per map, try to conqure the world!) Action/Adventure (Think Zelda: TOOT styel MMO, or perhaps Double Dragon, Battle Toads etc) Poke'mon (Yes I know the game is over hyped but the general idea lends itself PERFECTLY to an MMO style setting...in fact the game/tv show basically describes the MMO style) GTA style MMO. The point is that there are alot more options out in the world than JUST another MMORPG. Granted other ones can have more of a headache technical/bandwidth wise, but still. When it does come to MMO's lets get a little more original than Fantasy...there are alot more genre's out there to play in. Gothic, SCI-FI, Horror, Wild West, Mytholigical, Pre-historic, Cyberpunk, Steam Punk, Hell there's more in just fantasy than what we see, get away from the classic "Tolkienesque" style of high fantasy. ORIGINALITY PEOPLE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Racing - Motor City Online flopped.

Space/Air dogfight - Plausible, I suppose. What would be persistant though?

FPS - Same as above.

Sports - Takes way too much coordination. No one wants to play a linebacker, everyone wants to be the quarterback or receiver. A big fantasy league is possible, but you can find some free webbrowser game for that.

RTS - A huge map with 100 - 500 players per map? What happens when you log out? You can't win a game of that size in one sitting and any AI is going to play like ass and get you killed. He who sleeps less wins.

Action/Adventure - Really what's the difference? Levels and attributes replaced by rarer items?

Pokemon - Definitely the best.

GTA MMO - Just an MMORPG in an urban environment.

As for your genres:
Gothic: What's the difference between gothic and fantasy but a darker environment?
SCI-FI: EVE Online, Anarchy Online
Horror: The hell would you do? Run away from monsters persistantly?
Wild West: Being made.
Mythological: Difference between fantasy is...?
Prehistoric: This one could be fun.
Cyberpunk: Neocron.
Steampunk: An MMO in the Thief universe? That would be pretty cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by robert4818
[...]FPS (Beyond Planetside, this could benifit most from going down the classic MMO style think MMO DOOM :) )[...]
I can see it now: "OOooohh! I just owned his face! OH! WAIT! MAYBE! Nope I lagged =-( WAIT! Nope, I defeinitely lagged *switches to chaingun and holds down fire* YEA! GOT ONE!"
At least, that's about how planetside went when I played it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree a creature fighting game with a MMO style would be sweet... But you gonna have to make something that breaks out from the idea of Pokemon or Monster Rancher its gonna have to be something unique beside being MMO... I say get some designers on it though cuz I would sure like to play that... Also avoid the childish sence of pokemon... Maybe when I got my MMO engine done Ill see if I can put my own twist on this... But I got a game already set up for the first use of that engine so... it probly be 5 years...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read the genre part after I posted that last one... I have a sequal to the game im working on now planned... And it would probly fall into the "Prehistoric" genre but it wont be like dinosaurs but yet the creatures you were fighting in the one rpg you will actually be one of those creatures...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point is just to mention that there are other things out there.

I don't have the answers, nor do I have the means. The point is that there is more out there than just what we see right now.

Yes I realize that SOME games have already been made in other genre's I didn't say they were not made. But the truth is that there needs to be alot more work put into originality.

So Sci-Fi has been done a couple of times. Sci-Fi and Fantasy are inter-twined, and there have been a large variety of stories written about them. But the worlds created by game developers tend to fall flat compared to the possibilites.

There can be alot more work put into games that are coming out to be truly original. But people are afraid to really step out of the bounds of comfort.

As for how a space/air Dog Fight game could be done check out my post Here:
http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=316883

The difference between Gothic and Fantasy...Well the darker environment is one. But Gothic can also span various ages...Vampire the Masqeruede is Modern...

The difference between Fantasy and Mythological is more style than gameplay. But hey style is one of those things that doesn't get alot of touch some times.

The difference between MMORPG and an MMO ACTION/ADVENTURE is the difference between Final Fantasy and Zelda. One relies on Character Skills, the other relies on the Players Skills.




AND NEOCRON JUST SUCKED!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by GroZZleR
Space/Air dogfight - Plausible, I suppose. What would be persistant though?


EVE-Online. Everyone shares the same universe - no sharding or anything, and the playerbase is constantly breaking records for the most amount of people online at once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In addition to what the other's have mentioned:

MMORTS: Mankind, starport, alliegance to a degree.

Space Dogfight: alliegance to a degree, starport to a degree.

Air dogfight: There's actually a bunch of small ones here.

pokemon: ala MTG online? it's pretty similar only with avatars and... fluff.



And let's not forget the MMO puzzle, and MMO mafia, and....

bleh.


Speaking of orginality, why's everything these days have to be massively full of cheaters, bots, powergamers, and griefers? I know I could really go for a good Simply Singleplayer Offline RPG right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by GroZZleR
Racing - Motor City Online flopped.

Good point. Most racing games today allow you to play online and maintain network leaderboards (especially sweet on Xbox Live); a predominantly-online, persistent world doesn't add much to the formula except subscription fees. it might work on Xbox Live, since annual access is a flat fee for all games.

Quote:
Sports - Takes way too much coordination. No one wants to play a linebacker, everyone wants to be the quarterback or receiver. A big fantasy league is possible, but you can find some free webbrowser game for that.

Ultimate Baseball Online

I think the idea has potential; it just has to be intelligently pursued. Some games (basketball, hockey - except for goalie) lend themselves better than others (football, soccer, tennis) because everyone plays, but then you have the problem of what to do with substitutes (who wants to pay to play benchwarmer?) and how to handle things like injury and spectatorship. Then again, you start out most MMORPGs as a fairly insignificant character...

Quote:
Space/Air dogfight - Plausible, I suppose. What would be persistant though?

FPS - Same as above.

RTS - A huge map with 100 - 500 players per map? What happens when you log out? You can't win a game of that size in one sitting and any AI is going to play like ass and get you killed. He who sleeps less wins.

I reordered these elements because the logical thing to do, at least initially, is to layer an MMORPG on top of an MMOFPS and MMOFlightSim. There will always be a greater need for (and higher supply of) pilots, grunts and footsoldiers than of RTSes, especially if the story gives a plausible reason for making advancement challenging. Let me flesh it out with an example.

The MMOFPS is designed as a promotion-based tactical squad shooter, where you start out under the command of another player (who may be a bot, but we never reveal this to the players if we can help it). Depending on your record, you get increasingly delegated command responsibilities and then take control of your own 4-person fireteam. Then you command a couple of fireteams. Then a whole company. Now, if you want, you can enter "officer training" and switch to the RTS or just continue racking up godlike stats as a shooter and tactical leader. Actual characters may be disposable, which breaks the "persistence" rule of MMOs, but who really cares?

The MMOFlightSim is designed as an advancement and promotions-based aerial war simulator. After obtaining your wings, you're sent out first on recon missions, then on escort and protect missions - or, if there's a sudden need for pilots, you're sent right into the thick of things to die for your country. [smile] Eventually you rack up enough kills and hours to get put in command of a squadron of fighters, after which the next step is "officer training" - or choosing to remain a flyboy, married to the sky.

The MMORTS is a wargame, where each player starts out in officer training. You don't have to go through either the FPS or Flight Sim or any other modules added on to get into officer training; it's simply a "recruitment" or "stat advance" method to open players of those games to another view on the game they've been playing all along.

During officer training a branch of service is selected and the successful graduate (training is basically a How To Play sequence, so everyone graduates successfully after a short while) is then assigned to an assistant command position with some company. By having a chain of command in place and including a promotion system on which other, higher-ranking players get to vote, you not only have military challenge by social networking and so forth. Certain parts of the promotions process should probably be automated (such as recommending a soldier for promotion based on performance) so as to limit the amount of tampering possible, but in such a way as to cooperate with players (such as requiring a set number of human players to support a promotion recommendation for it to come before a panel for review).

The supply chain or Military-Industrial Complex is part abstracted such that soldiers are never required to mine for resources (unless the game is set on an alien planet or something and that's part of the fundamental premise). Instead, depending on economic factors, unit performance and the overall dictums of the Department of Defense/War Office due to the perceived requirements of the war, resources are allocated and reallocated by strategic players at different levels - giving tactical/action players further down additional incentive to be productive.

I'm sure you can flesh this design out a whole lot better than I can.

Quote:
Pokemon - Definitely the best.

Actually, on this I disagree. Pokémon is just like racing in this regard: the ability to play competitively online and maintain a rankings leaderboard seems to be all that's necessary. I can't quite wrap my head around what would persist in this game - unless you're talking about basing the MMO on the cartoons/films/novelizations (I assume there are novelizations, given the franchising wonder Pokémon is).

Finally, I think genre is completely orthogonal to the structural requirements of an MMO. Take the military MMO RTS/FPS/Flight Sim hybrid I described above: it could be set in the Wild West (with no Flight Sim component, but a much expanded infantry as well as the considerations of the emerging railroad system), either of the World Wars, a sci-fi future on a distant planet involving "strange, unfamiliar races," an alternate steampunk reality, a fantasy realm...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While my network programming skills are extemely primitive, I think the limiting factor in MMO game design is dealing with lag. Since you've got to verify everything with zillions of players on your big server, the game can't really rely on instantaneous response and update times for all players in the game world. This rules out any game that relies on twitch reflexes, so all action games are out.

So this leaves game designs where either lag doesn't matter so much, or a simple A.I. layer can deal with lag issues. RPGs are well suited to this, as they don't need to have to deal with commands as soon as they are issued, and can have low level scripting A.I. to deal with lag issues. However I think RTS games could work as well, as long as they weren't too twitch-happy. Anything with a turn based system (even if the turns have a very short time limit) would also work.

And I also agree that the Pokemon francise is screaming out to be made MMO. While I don't play MMO games (due to a crappy internet connect, lack of time, lack of interest, and a general disregard to play games where I have to deal with the unwashed masses of socially beligerent adolescent gamers out there), if there was a MMO Pokemon game with updated A.I and strategy (something like the T.V. show, where the moves can be used creatively with the environment, and the pokemon have individual personalities which depend on the care of the trainer and influence their fighting style), then I would be extremely tempted to join up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by MENTAL
Quote:
Original post by GroZZleR
Space/Air dogfight - Plausible, I suppose. What would be persistant though?


EVE-Online. Everyone shares the same universe - no sharding or anything, and the playerbase is constantly breaking records for the most amount of people online at once.


I play EVE Online and it's certainly not dogfighting in my books. Dogfighting in games means instant response, instant control. Basically a FPS in the air / space... something like TIE Fighter.

Quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
Quote:
Sports - Takes way too much coordination. No one wants to play a linebacker, everyone wants to be the quarterback or receiver. A big fantasy league is possible, but you can find some free webbrowser game for that.

Ultimate Baseball Online

I think the idea has potential; it just has to be intelligently pursued. Some games (basketball, hockey - except for goalie) lend themselves better than others (football, soccer, tennis) because everyone plays, but then you have the problem of what to do with substitutes (who wants to pay to play benchwarmer?) and how to handle things like injury and spectatorship. Then again, you start out most MMORPGs as a fairly insignificant character...


Thanks for the link, I haven't seen that one before. I think we can agree that baseball is an exception to the rule, in this case. The batting order is strictly enforced, as is positioning. Everyone's going to get a chance to bat which will, by default, remove the issue of ball / puck hogging and a lack of cooperation on the offencive team.

Quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
Quote:
Space/Air dogfight - Plausible, I suppose. What would be persistant though?

FPS - Same as above.

RTS - A huge map with 100 - 500 players per map? What happens when you log out? You can't win a game of that size in one sitting and any AI is going to play like ass and get you killed. He who sleeps less wins.


... MMORTS example...


A squad based RPG could be considered a strategy game, but it's more or less the same game with extra avatars to control. It would still definitely work, however.

When you start adding commanders to issue orders, that's where the game will break down. We've all played Counter-Strike on a public server:
"Rush A, I've got a flashbang to lead. Someone follow it up with a smoke grenade and we'll win." What usually happens? They'll usually rush B, just to be dickheads.

I could see navy commanders launching cruise missiles at their own troops - or perhaps even a field lieutenant painting an artillery marker in the path of a teammate lieutenant's troops. You can't have players coordinating together on a massive scale and not expect things to go horribly, horribly wrong. Perhaps I'm too pessimistic.

Quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
Quote:
Pokemon - Definitely the best.

Actually, on this I disagree. Pokémon is just like racing in this regard: the ability to play competitively online and maintain a rankings leaderboard seems to be all that's necessary. I can't quite wrap my head around what would persist in this game - unless you're talking about basing the MMO on the cartoons/films/novelizations (I assume there are novelizations, given the franchising wonder Pokémon is).


I see this one being the easiest to branch out into because it's fairly similar to any other MMO. You would raise and train your pet(s) much like you advanced yourself in any other MMO. PvP would take the form of pet duels. You could setup an economy for pet supplies and services (grooming? kennels?). There really wouldn't be much of a difference between a fantasy MMO and a pokemon MMO, just the focus on your pets instead of on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Generally speaking I don't necisarrily mean Poke'mon the franchise...

I call it Poke'mon because when its mentioned everyone has an instant idea of what you're talking about. Just like Kleenex, or Q-tips.

I personally would prefer a much more robust Monster Trainer game.

You level up your pet, choose which attacks/abilities it learns, and by doing certain things you can then choose to mutate specific portions of it to change it even more. There is alot of potential to this idea, but it specifically IS NOT the franchise Pokemon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Things like the FPS idea, and the dogfighter idea, are things that would be used in the multiplayer section of thoses types of games.

However thoses types of games could have their multiplayer re worked so it felt more MMORPGish. You could get money from winning matches, and buy extra stuff fro your plane, or new armour, or new guns etc, and get paint jobs etc to customize your plane etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey I'm all for more RPG.

I won't tell you how pissed I am that FF12 is going to be more MMO-ish than previous games (not counting 11).

Gone are the random encounters and turned based system.

Now its going to be something more akin to MMO's where the monsters roam the countryside and you have to fight them or sneak past them.



But I also love MMO style games. The complaint is that the games coming out are cookie cutter. I want to see some more variety in the area...

Its like when systems first launch and it seems like 80% of the first string titles are nothing but sports games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by superpig
Am I the only person who'd rather see more RPG and less MMO? [sad]


No. I'm for more Role Playing Games and less Roll Playing Games.

Quote:
Original post by robert4818
I won't tell you how pissed I am that FF12 is going to be more MMO-ish than previous games (not counting 11).


I haven't been keeping up with the press releases. How is it going to be MMOish without being MMO? I'm confused...

Quote:

Gone are the random encounters...

Huzzah! I hated the random encounters in Final Fantasy. I guess you can say it isn't the same game without them, but maybe now I'll actually enjoy walking around on the world map.

Quote:

...and turned based system.

Depends what they replace it with before I cheer again.

Quote:

Now its going to be something more akin to MMO's where the monsters roam the countryside and you have to fight them or sneak past them.

Like in Chrono Trigger? No more random encounters, huzzah! [grin]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No more like the monsters in Final fantasy 11, EQ, EQ2, etc.

If it was like chrono trigger I would be all Huzzah!, but it seems more like the MMO combat system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by robert4818
No more like the monsters in Final fantasy 11, EQ, EQ2, etc.

If it was like chrono trigger I would be all Huzzah!, but it seems more like the MMO combat system.


Sorry, I'm a bit confused since I don't play MMORPGs; exactly what is the MMO combat system like, and why is that a bad thing? From what I've read, the main thing I'd hate about MMORPG combat is that the battles have little meaning other than levelling up your character or getting new loot, but in a single player RPG that wouldn't be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Trapper Zoid
Quote:
Original post by robert4818
No more like the monsters in Final fantasy 11, EQ, EQ2, etc.

If it was like chrono trigger I would be all Huzzah!, but it seems more like the MMO combat system.


Sorry, I'm a bit confused since I don't play MMORPGs; exactly what is the MMO combat system like, and why is that a bad thing? From what I've read, the main thing I'd hate about MMORPG combat is that the battles have little meaning other than levelling up your character or getting new loot, but in a single player RPG that wouldn't be the case.


Not that I've played 11 or EQ, but I'm wondering how it's impossible to have 'battles have little meaning other than levelling up your character or getting new loot' in a single player RPG?

And from the MMORPGs [and what I assume are games with MMORPG like combat] I've played, I'm rather wondering how they're going to work multiple characters into the [realtime] combat...

Sounds disappointing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason that the market is saturated with MMORPGs is that an MMO by definition always has the main aspects of an RPG. Lemme give you an example by using one of the suggestions in your post.

Racing Game- This would probably involve your racing other cars and earning cash to buy upgrades to your car. You could race the computer or challenge other players. Perhaps as you won more you as a driver would improve statiscally. Once you got enough cash you could buy a new car entirely.

To me, this sounds like an MMORPG with racing as its main gameplay instead of combat.

To clarify:
-Persistant characters that improve with continued play
-Cash that can be used to give your character new stuff
-Player vs. Player competition as an alternative to racing

Essentially, any MMO game you make will be an RPG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Ultimaking
Essentially, any MMO game you make will be an RPG.

Essentially, any game you make, viewed from an abstract enough vantage, will be an RPG. I mean, you play a role - race car driver, hardened space marine, (aspiring) pirate, glorious commander of the Armies of the North; you have an objective or quest (with mini-/side-questions liberally interspersed) - win the races and own all the cars, survive and kill all the slimy aliens/demons, become a pirate and plunder the sea-faring ships fer booty while avoiding Davy Jones' Locker, crush all would-be empires that oppose your forces; you typically experience enhancements or stat progressions - faster, more powerful cars, bigger and badder guns, better insults, more resources and more effective military units as a consequence; and you have a set number of means of interaction.

But that has nothing to do with what people mean when they say "RPG." There are a host of genre conventions and assumptions implicit in the term, as there are in "MMORPG." Yeah, the terminology is horrendously imprecise: this would be the reason for the Game Design Patterns project and The 400 Project. In the interim, we make do the best we can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by GroZZleR
Space/Air dogfight - Plausible, I suppose. What would be persistant though?

Been done. I can't remember the name though
Quote:

FPS - Same as above.

Planetside

Quote:

RTS

Shattered Galaxy

Quote:

Horror: The hell would you do? Run away from monsters persistantly?

Funcom is making one, apparently. :)
Quote:

Prehistoric: This one could be fun.

Being made :)

And by Gothic and Mythological, I think he mainly just meant something that isn't littered with damn dragons and elves and orcs. That's how they're different from fantasy. [wink]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Telastyn
Speaking of orginality, why's everything these days have to be massively full of cheaters, bots, powergamers, and griefers? I know I could really go for a good Simply Singleplayer Offline RPG right now.

Hehe yeah, it's surprising how many people suddenly think singleplayer games can't be fun. I've played enough MMO's to know that they can never hope to offer the same things that a singleplayer game can. They do hold a lot of promise, but they can't replace singleplayer games for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah I like the idea of massively multiplayer games with less of an RPG element to them. To be honest, the RPG element puts me off to an extent. I like games that I can play without having to take them too seriously, and the stats element of RPGs just puts me off.

I'd love to see a war game that was massively multiplayer, combining elements of different genres. I'm thinking, a game that combines the class-based teamwork of Team Fortress, or Enemy Territory: Quake wars, with the vehicles of games like Halo, with perhaps, elements of real time strategy.

How great would it be to plan a raid on an enemy outpost? With some of your team in helicopters, with tanks and troops on the ground. You could also have leaders ordering air-strikes or laser attacks form satellites, a-la Command and Conquer, which don't require players in vehicles to carry out the action.

I think a lot of fun gameplay could come from the interaction of individual people in a persistent environment, when they're a part of one of two warring factions. You could have spies that infiltrate enemy towns/outposts, befriending the players there, performing a cruicial task in the town, all the while sending information back to their side, and sabotaging the operations of the town, spreading paranoia and mistrust.

You could seperate the world into small towns, or outposts, with elected leaders. Leaders would be in charge of the spending of resources, the creation of new buildings, real time strategy style (although obviously you'd need to have some kind of limit on how many buildings could be built, due to technical limitations). If you had command and conquer style resource managment, then the leader could be the one who decides where automated resource harvesters go to get their resources. You'd also have to protect your leader, as the death of the leader would leave the town at a big disadvantage during an attack. Being a leader would give the player a lot of power, but it would also have the disadvantage of requiring protection from your town-members wherever you go.

This idea might not be feasible though. I don't know how you'd force players to play along with the war-game element of it. What's to stop someone from stealing a plane and deciding to bomb friendly outposts for example? What's forcing players from either side to fight each other, rather than creating guilds and fighting amongst each other? How could you make sure that each town had enough of the right player classes, without forcing people to play a class that they don't enjoy?

What would stop individual outposts from breaking away from their faction, and fighting their own side for resources? I think you'd need some kind of big incentive for people to stay within their faction. If a town collectively decides to break away from the faction, it should be a calculated move with risks and rewards, rather than something they do just because they can.

I realise this really isn't feasible, but I think it'd make a great game.

Quote:
Original post by robert4818
GTA style MMO.


There's a company in my town that's actually working on a game called APB that's apparently going to be like GTA online. I'd give my left arm to work there.. Then again, maybe not, as programming would be rather difficult with one hand :)

The head of the company is actually the same guy that founded DMA design, the company that made the original Grand Theft Auto.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/apb/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
Quote:
Original post by Ultimaking
Essentially, any MMO game you make will be an RPG.

Essentially, any game you make, viewed from an abstract enough vantage, will be an RPG. I mean, you play a role - race car driver, hardened space marine, (aspiring) pirate, glorious commander of the Armies of the North; you have an objective or quest (with mini-/side-questions liberally interspersed) - win the races and own all the cars, survive and kill all the slimy aliens/demons, become a pirate and plunder the sea-faring ships fer booty while avoiding Davy Jones' Locker, crush all would-be empires that oppose your forces; you typically experience enhancements or stat progressions - faster, more powerful cars, bigger and badder guns, better insults, more resources and more effective military units as a consequence; and you have a set number of means of interaction.

But that has nothing to do with what people mean when they say "RPG." There are a host of genre conventions and assumptions implicit in the term, as there are in "MMORPG." Yeah, the terminology is horrendously imprecise: this would be the reason for the Game Design Patterns project and The 400 Project. In the interim, we make do the best we can.


I would be inclined to agree with you, except that I am NOT using the word "RPG" in the broadest sense possible. RPG in the broadest sense possible would be the player playing a role. Nothing more.

I am referring to the fact that the most common genre conventions of RPG's and MMORPG's, such as gaining experience, getting new items and cash, competing with other players in "PvP", an open ended enviroment in which players can interact with other players etcetera, etcetera, will apply to practically any MMO you make.
I don't know about you, but these are the things I think of when I hear RPG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement