Recommend
18 
 Thumb up
 Hide
90 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 

Wargames» Forums » General

Subject: How much of Historical play falls on the Players and not the Design? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
John Middleton
United States
Laramie
Wyoming
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've noticed that many of the complaints, and following variants for games focus on some mechanism in the game allowing for ahistorical play.

In cases like this, I think the onus is on the players to play the game historically if it is important to them rather than on the design forcing a narrow scope of play.

I'm not talking about errors on maps or OOBs here. I'm talking about special rules, either as variants or official, that are used to push a game into historical outcomes or play.

Some examples might help.

In a Battles # 9 article about It Never Snows, a suggested improvement rule adds restrictions to placing DZs in towns and cities. This seems reasonable, until you consider that it is the players themselves who are playing ahistorically by utilizing the DZ placement rules in such a way. So the variant is just adding a rule to force historical play. The variants on bridging and bridge blowing are similar.

If historical play is important to the gamers playing, then they likely shouldn't be using such tactics in the first place.

To gamers who are more into competition and experimentation, likely won't see an issue.


Another example, is the old "too many skirmishers" complaint for Wellington's Victory: Battle of Waterloo Game – June 18th, 1815. If you play historically, then you don't deploy skirmishers in an unrealistic fashion.


Some games like Case Yellow, 1940: The German Blitzkrieg in the West lay so many restrictions on the players and have such a rigid VP structure, that historic play is completely forced, with any variation almost guaranteeing a loss. This game also feels pretty dull after a couple of plays because of this rigidness.

Variants and historical play are all up to each group, but I would argue that even the strictest historical game relies on the players playing historically much more than the game forcing it upon them.


Anyways, just some observations, and I'm sure there will be some differing opinions.


18 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John McD
Scotland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's an interesting topic, and I really struggle to understand 'ahistorical outcome' as a source of complaint. If you want a historical outcome then I'd think reading a book is more fulfilling. Obviously that's not the case for these players but I struggle to understand the mind set.

The complaint I really don't understand, that I've sometimes seen, is that something that doesn't result in a historical outcome is a poor simulation. Simulations of complex topics will have lots of possible outcomes, some may be more likely, but sometimes the historical outcome was probably extremely unlikely.

A football game on the 2015/2016 English Premier League should have an ahistorical outcome if it's much use as a simulation - Leicester did win the league but that was staggeringly unlikely. Measuring the quality of a simulation by how it delivers outcomes that match a single historic outcome seems flawed, that's just a system to explore a script - like watching people talk on TV rather than having a conversation.

9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nicholas Hjelmberg
Sweden
Saltsjö-Boo
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Isn't one intriguing thing about wargames the challenge to change history and perform better than the real commanders?

My opinion is that a good wargame should allow counterfactual events as long as they are realistic.

One of my most memorable wargame sessions was offered by Napoleon at Leipzig (retold in The Battle of Nations - a solitary Grand Tactical Game), where the French were much more aggressive than in the real battle and would have won if the historically insignificant English rocket unit hadn't turned the battle in the very last moment.

Another memorable moment, although from a lighter game, comes from Britannia, where I was completely knocked back by an ahistorical Brigante attack into Wales, paving the way for a Saxon/Irish dominance in the the entire Southern Britannia.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bob Zurunkel
United States
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Good topic. In many instances, the problem is with rules that don't show the real life consequences of certain actions.

As in your DZ rule example, there were good reasons (pretty obvious ones) for not dropping paratroopers into a city. The easy way out for a designer is simply to forbid it. A better way might be to allow it, and by the way 3/4 of your paratroopers are eliminated if you do.

Similarly with skirmishers. There were reasons why Napoleonic armies didn't use that many of them. The game should show you why, by simulating the adverse effects of doing so.

Games should allow possible outcomes, even improbable ones, so long as the risks and benefits of your choices are simulated accurately.
32 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pelle Nilsson
Sweden
Linköping
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In some cases I think a house-rule is in order to fix something that just seems too weird/unrealistic/unhistoric. I do not like one-off exceptions, players just (not) doing something because it feels more historic because then we might end up sometimes allowing something and sometimes not just for no good reason and it becomes no game just pushing cardboard toys on a map and rolling dice for no reason.

I would never demand that my opponent do (not do) something because it is (not) historic, if the rulebook allows them to (not) do it. It is better to keep playing and discuss house-rules for such issues afterwards. Also sometimes something that is a design-for-effect by the designer is not at first obvious and it can turn out that not allowing some move will break the games in other ways that might be more subtle. Better trust that the designer knew what they were doing, unless proved beyond doubt that they were not.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doug Mann
United States
Corpus Christi
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My favorite example is the "artillery charge" of Terrible Swift Sword. The gamer I knew in the late '70s who would try such things would say, "I'm the one playing by the rules, you're the one trying to cheat." For allowing artillery to advance to canister range without being subject to rifle fire, I would have to blame Richard H. Berg. He did fix it later.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pelle Nilsson
Sweden
Linköping
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Units moving in tactical games usually has a lot of edge-cases. Supply-rules in higher-level games are similar. I rather just play the game as written (and laugh a bit at say both sides using the same bridge to trace supply at the same time) and write it off as design-for effect or just not within the realms of stuff simulated to that level of detail by that particular game.

I expect most designers to include a lot of things in a game that are not quite historic, but good enough, and perhaps better than adding a lot of special cases, and that perhaps solves other things that would otherwise be unrealistic. Games can have very complex rules interacting in ways that are not obvious to players unless they have spent many hours playing. Being allowed to move a gun within range might have other indirect effects that solves some worst issue (obviously not in this case though!).

Usually playing wargames work best, in my experience, when simply disallowing reality-arguments around the table. If anyone has complaints about realism it is better to look into possibly house-ruling something between sessions instead. Arguing about rules as written is ok to some extent because at least there is usually some right or wrong answer to be find by looking in the rulebook, but reality-arguments are always too subjective, and also far too often argued from the side of the person that is at the disadvantage from something they consider unhistoric.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Middleton
United States
Laramie
Wyoming
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pelni wrote:
Units moving in tactical games usually has a lot of edge-cases. Supply-rules in higher-level games are similar. I rather just play the game as written (and laugh a bit at say both sides using the same bridge to trace supply at the same time) and write it off as design-for effect or just not within the realms of stuff simulated to that level of detail by that particular game.

I expect most designers to include a lot of things in a game that are not quite historic, but good enough, and perhaps better than adding a lot of special cases, and that perhaps solves other things that would otherwise be unrealistic. Games can have very complex rules interacting in ways that are not obvious to players unless they have spent many hours playing. Being allowed to move a gun within range might have other indirect effects that solves some worst issue (obviously not in this case though!).

Usually playing wargames work best, in my experience, when simply disallowing reality-arguments around the table. If anyone has complaints about realism it is better to look into possibly house-ruling something between sessions instead. Arguing about rules as written is ok to some extent because at least there is usually some right or wrong answer to be find by looking in the rulebook, but reality-arguments are always too subjective, and also far too often argued from the side of the person that is at the disadvantage from something they consider unhistoric.


Mostly true.

But what I am talking about is where the two players want a historical game and are not as interested in winning at all costs.

In that case playing historically, obviously based more or less on how much they know about the game topic outside of the game itself, becomes better than tons of special rules designed just to force the outcome. Otherwise this will just devolve into another "design for effect" argument.

Or to put it another way....

Insisting on historical accuracy in a game, and then claiming it is flawed when you play in an ahistorical manner seems off.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pelle Nilsson
Sweden
Linköping
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't want to force the outcome or follow the historic events by some script or lots of special rules. If the game diverges from history, in a historic way, is the ideal.

If you dislike design-for-effect I can see why we have different opinions here. I expect certain events to occur because of design-for-effect. And as I said above I also acknowledge that the game splits time and space into artificial bits, messes with the order of events (things happening simultaneous in reality but in sequence in the game) etc means that I can accept things sometimes looking a bit weird if taking the situation on the table as being a too literal representation of the simulated reality.

EDIT: But, yes, I expect some reasonable degree of historic outcome despite of all this. I am fine with the designer to allow me to pull off some weird moves when invading France so that a reasonable time-schedule can be achieved that works with the overall game. I would also be fine with a design that makes it impossible to capture France in a historic time, if the rules means that almost everything else in the game can go on time-table. Basically if the designer did their job I expect to be able to play by the rules and having everything work out 90 % or so correct, and unless proven otherwise I also expect that if I try to improvise and not follow the rules on a whim the overall result will be worse even if some detail looked better. Of course if some house rule or errata can take it from 90 % to 95 % that is great, but I expect fixes like that to take a lot of effort to fix and playtest to not accidentally ruining something else. Maybe if I just fudge some rule to make it possible to conquer France in time I just broke the Eastern front because the game was balanced with the too-slow capture of France in mind, and so on. Impossible to know without playing a game many times (as I expect the designers and playtesters already did).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M St
Australia
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
DegenerateElite wrote:
I've noticed that many of the complaints, and following variants for games focus on some mechanism in the game allowing for ahistorical play.

In cases like this, I think the onus is on the players to play the game historically if it is important to them rather than on the design forcing a narrow scope of play.

That sounds bizarre to me - it blames the victim rather than addressing the problem. And I don't see why historical constraints automatically imply "a narrow scope of play". You might as well complain about the "narrow scope of play" imposed by historical movement factors or combat strengths on the units. The only "onus" that a game can place on the player is to play by the rules. If the rules reward historically absurd behaviour that is the game's fault, not the players.

Quote:

I'm not talking about errors on maps or OOBs here. I'm talking about special rules, either as variants or official, that are used to push a game into historical outcomes or play.

But these two are not the same thing, and should not be mixed together.

Rewarding historical play means that cavalry should generally be able to ride down skirmishers in the open, or that tanks that enter villages without infantry support are at high risk from infantry. That's not the same as "enforcing" a historical outcome, although of course if a game that makes tanks in villages invulnerable to infantry will likely have ahistorical outcomes. However, why would one play such a game in the first place? Is it just about pushing around counters with military designations and making rat-tat-tat sounds? For me it seems that the range of outcomes should be reasonable in historical terms, and that's what I mean by 'historical play'. It does not mean at all that the historical side would win every time. (It is the job of the designer to pick situations where the outcome is close enough so that such a one-sided outcome is unlikely.)

Quote:

In a Battles # 9 article about It Never Snows, a suggested improvement rule adds restrictions to placing DZs in towns and cities. This seems reasonable, until you consider that it is the players themselves who are playing ahistorically by utilizing the DZ placement rules in such a way. So the variant is just adding a rule to force historical play. The variants on bridging and bridge blowing are similar.

I do not understand the comment. This seems reasonable exactly because it is the players who put DZ's anywhere. It's the designer's job to set up the game so that players play in a historical fashion. That obviously has nothing to do with forcing a historical outcome - it[/q's still up to you in which town you place your DZ, and where you move from there.

The other option of course is not to strictly enforce such locations but make the game provide the reasons why these locations were chosen historically, so that players get to choose the historical option or run the same risks that their historical counterparts would have run if they chose differently. It seems the game as written is missing them if play consistently ignores historical practice.

Quote:

If historical play is important to the gamers playing, then they likely shouldn't be using such tactics in the first place.

I find it bizarre to place the onus for this on the players - it's the designer's job to produce a design that rewards historical tactics. If historical play is important to gamers playing, then it seems the first reasonable option is exactly what these people are doing - lay down what they consider reasonable behaviour in a house rule. The second one is to throw out the game and find a different game that is not broken in historical terms.

Quote:

Another example, is the old "too many skirmishers" complaint for Wellington's Victory: Battle of Waterloo Game – June 18th, 1815. If you play historically, then you don't deploy skirmishers in an unrealistic fashion.

If you insist on playing a broken design in suboptimal fashion, that's entirely your prerogative. But it doesn't fix the game, and in fact it defeats the notion of a game, because it expects both players to pussyfoot around moves that the rules make optimal. In effect they are no longer playing the original game but a new game with silently agreed upon rules. The variants you describe and decry do nothing but turn the game back into a normal working game by making the rules explicit and checkable.

Quote:

Some games like Case Yellow, 1940: The German Blitzkrieg in the West lay so many restrictions on the players and have such a rigid VP structure, that historic play is completely forced, with any variation almost guaranteeing a loss. This game also feels pretty dull after a couple of plays because of this rigidness.

This seems to be comparing apples and oranges, because clearly the restrictions in this game are of a completely different nature than the ones in Wellington's Victory, which are all about rewarding the proper tactics and not about "who goes where first". The constraints in Case Yellow are about operational choices and hindsight.

So this is not about rewarding historical play, it is about enforcing historical outcomes.
15 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Middleton
United States
Laramie
Wyoming
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Many of the designs I mentioned don't reward the historical tactics.

They provide lists of no to steer play.

There's a huge difference there.


List of no = forbidden actions lists
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pelle Nilsson
Sweden
Linköping
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DegenerateElite wrote:
Many of the designs I mentioned don't reward the historical tactics.


There is always a question about how low level of details you can simulate in a way that looks perfectly accurate on the board and what has to be ignored for the sake of making the overall higher-level flow (and tactics) of the game more historical. Players moving and then firing cannister in an ahistoric way can be the most historic thing to have in a game (or at least the most historic solution the designer and playtesters have been able to find on the level of abstraction and complexity that they are aiming for).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
DegenerateElite wrote:
They provide lists of no to steer play.

Is this sentence mistyped? I have no idea what you're saying. :/
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thierry Michel
France
Paris
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
If playing in an historically inappropriate way is a winning strategy, then the design is at fault.

5 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
THE MAVERICK
United States
Roseville
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mb
russ wrote:
DegenerateElite wrote:
They provide lists of no to steer play.

Is this sentence mistyped? I have no idea what you're saying. :/

I think what he meant was:

They provide lists of "noes" to steer play.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carl Paradis
Canada
montreal
Québec
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ThierryM wrote:
If playing in an historically inappropriate way is a winning strategy, then the design is at fault.



I would say the the fault lies in the unimaginative generals court who "played" the game for real historically...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Rinella
United States
New York
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You have alternative history, historical simulation, and historical reenactment.

Some players want it all available to them. Germans conquer Poland, and then invade the USSR - in the winter of 1939! France and England can eat it!

Some players want the basic parameters, but some options open to them. Germans can invade the USSR, pursue some kind of Mediterranean strategy, or try to invade England in 1941.

Some players want the historical parameters and the options are simply operational. Germans must invade the USSR in 1941 but can choose how to fight the campaign differently.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Summerville
South Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
DegenerateElite wrote:
But what I am talking about is where the two players want a historical game and are not as interested in winning at all costs.


Please clarify this. Are you saying that gamers who play by the rules-as-written are the "winning at all costs" wargamers?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James D. Williams
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I remember playing with toy soldiers... No rules! ...Unless FTF.
I'd do it now, but I'm sure the fun would wear off in three minutes.

Anyway, miniatures toys are essentially meeting engagements...
One can play the Grand Strategic role in war games. Delusions of Grandeur!

Avalon hill promised [more or less] on the box cover that "now you can control the actual units in the actual campaign!"

...which might permit one to 'act differently'... different from 'historical' tactical doctrine...

And then, there is 'historical' rigor... 'certain ways' you may not act.

Variable Weather? ...at Gettysburg 1863?? or Russia 1941??
I suppose one can know too much.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Owen
United States
Norwich
Connecticut
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the historical outcome should be a replicable outcome in any wargame the purports to be a simulation. That doesn't mean that a wargame can't be fun, otherwise, but I think the simulation horse has left the barn if History isn't a possible game course.

A good, obvious example is the classic Napoleon at Waterloo. Hougoumont will alway fall on turn 1 with no other possible result. It may be a good game, but it ain't Waterloo.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James D. Williams
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
wargamer55 wrote:
I think the historical outcome should be a replicable outcome in any wargame the purports to be a simulation. That doesn't mean that a wargame can't be fun, otherwise, but I think the simulation horse has left the barn if History isn't a possible game course.

A good, obvious example is the classic Napoleon at Waterloo. Hougoumont will always fall on turn 1 with no other possible result. It may be a good game, but it ain't Waterloo.


I agree...I couldn't deal with the fact that the Russians never recovered strategically, ever, in TRC.
But then, who knows what an opponent might do to screw-up or re-iterate a historical outcome?
Can players be expected to be as 'dense' as the original actors?

That set up for Napoleon at Waterloo (1971), imaged here on
BGG:https://boardgamegeek.com/image/1348495/napoleon-waterloo
...Is hard to explain away...even with 'hour' turns. It "may" indicate someone 'historically' failed to to commit sufficient force at Hougomont.
IMHO, the French seem very far forward to begin with. A "pre-turn" might permit Hougoumont to be reinforced.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick Wade
Australia
Melbourne
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Paul Q wrote:
DegenerateElite wrote:
But what I am talking about is where the two players want a historical game and are not as interested in winning at all costs.


Please clarify this. Are you saying that gamers who play by the rules-as-written are the "winning at all costs" wargamers?


In an historical game where the rules allow something completely unhistorical and a player chooses to take advantage of that then I think they are that type of wargamer. To me that sort of defeats the purpose of playing, but everyone has different perspectives.

Certainly it is up to the designer to create a game where historical tactics and strategies are rewarded, and not straitjacketed, but I have a lot of sympathy with the OP, these are historical simulations after all.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Middleton
United States
Laramie
Wyoming
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ok. Lots of people not getting what I'm trying to say here.


A game may allow you to perform something in a matter that is not consistent with reality or with history. In many cases this can be a deliberate design choice or something that was overlooked, and an error in the design.


A game design can steer towards historical results in several ways, usually through the incorporation of special rules or rules exceptions.

1 - A list of forbidden actions

2 - A small benefit to playing in a certain way - say combined arms rules or height advantage

3 - A small penalty for playing a certain way - say combat penalties for being in the wrong formation in a Napoleonic game

4 - The design itself incorporates elements that steer the results - say victory point locations

There are tons more, to be sure, this is just a few examples.


In It Never Snows, to take an example I used earlier:

1.)Airborne drop zones can be placed in cities according to the rules.

2.)The reason for doing that, on the player side, is that the units defend much better in a city hex.

3.)This is, obviously, not a historical DZ deployment, and not a tactic that the invasion planners would have used.

4.) The Battles #9 article discusses this, and proposes one of two changes.
--- Outright ban on the tactic ----- This is the forbidden rule method
--- Higher step loss chance if used --- This is the small penalty method


The thing I am questioning, is why would you need a special rule at all, either originally or as a variant?

If two players are playing a game to be as historical as possible, wouldn't it make sense for them NOT to play using tactics or rule holes that are not historic?

Of course, it's always better if a set of rules in tight and historical, but if it isn't - does the game require errata or variants, or should the player's change their play style if a historical outcome and authenticity are their goals. Is a game actually broken and ahistorical because the players insist on playing using the rule hole?


Many on here claim that anything allowed in the rules is fair game, which is true IF historicity is NOT your primary goal. If you play the rules as written, while using ahistorical tactics, it hardly seems like you have any grounds to complain when the simple solution is "Don't Do That."
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Middleton
United States
Laramie
Wyoming
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hattusilis_III wrote:
In an historical game where the rules allow something completely unhistorical and a player chooses to take advantage of that then I think they are that type of wargamer. To me that sort of defeats the purpose of playing, but everyone has different perspectives.

Certainly it is up to the designer to create a game where historical tactics and strategies are rewarded, and not straitjacketed, but I have a lot of sympathy with the OP, these are historical simulations after all.


This is exactly what I'm talking about, Nick!!

If the players want a historical game, then play that way.

The alternative is a huge set of special rules to nudge or force you into the historical outcome.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pelle Nilsson
Sweden
Linköping
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DegenerateElite wrote:

Many on here claim that anything allowed in the rules is fair game, which is true IF historicity is not your goal. If you paly the rules as written, while using ahistorical tactics, it hardly seems like you have any grounds to complain when the simple solution is "Don't Do That."


No, no. Perhaps my previous ramblings were not clear enough, so I must try again.

The reason I got into long rants above about design-for-effects and such is that, until proven guilty, I assume that the designer did their job, and that there is some meaning behind a rule being in a game or not. It might look weird to be allowed to put my LZ in a city, but if the designer after what I have to assume was a long and difficult period of playtesting and tuning still decided that it was the way to go, I am going to think that there is a reason they still allow it, and I will not hesitate to put my LZ in a city. Not all the little details will always look perfect on the board and it might be a representation of something else, or a small tactical detail that the designer thought was better than breaking something more important in the game.

The LZ in the city hex can be the best way to represent a landing near the city a few hexes away while setting up the unit HQ in the city, that might have otherwise required more complex rules to allow the allies to pull off because if you do not allow that the Germans can always stop them in an ahistoric way on a larger scale? Or maybe hexes are big enough (on some games) that it would in reality always be a mix of open ground and actual built-up areas in all or almost all city-hexes, that would be too fiddly to simulate in detail. Without a lot of playtesting it is difficult to find all the things that get worse by fixing something, and so I am not going to say right away that the design is ahistoric simply because some technical little detail like that might look a bit weird.

Taking the exact locations of markers (at some point in time) too literally will just mean that every game ever is horribly ahistoric if you look close enough, so you would end up ignoring the rules all the time if you were serious about not allowing so-called ahistoric moves.

Of course multiple plays of a game, or future official errata, or convincing arguments from a more experienced player, can convince me that something is indeed just a bad thing and should be patched with a house-rule.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.