Recommend
11 
 Thumb up
 Hide
29 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Sierra Madre Games» Forums » General

Subject: Need opinions on what an Introduction to a game should include. Choose A, B, C, D, or E. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Phil Eklund
Germany
Karlsruhe
Baden Würtenberg
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
Currently writing the rules for two related Pax Game Projects: Pax Emancipation and Pax Transhumanity. Me and Matt (my co-designer & son) are struggling with the Rules Introduction, which is traditionally Part A in SMG games. Should this Intro be a dense distillation like that in Bios:Genesis, or be less rules and more context and strategy? Should it be more training oriented? Should it list its simulation value? Should it contain tips, important relationships, or other rules consequences?

So I am asking players, how important is the Introduction? Do you read it once and then never consult it again?

In Bios:Genesis, the rules begin with Part A "What's This Game About?"
This is a two-page summary of the entire game rules. Mainly it introduces and defines the game terms, which are in bold font. It also puts them in a context, listed in a Phase by Phase sequence.

So it is an executive summary, combining the processes sequentially listed in the process part of the rules, with the definitions found in the glossary. At least, that is the intent.

I have gotten feedback that this "information-dense" intro is overwhelming and should be skipped. Do others feel this way?

After receiving a complaint on rules opacity for learning Pax Transhumanity, Matt greatly expanded its summary, including many procedural details. I am afraid that it has become a huge block of text that seems to be an (unformatted) repeat of the rules that is unhelpful information overload.

I would like to hear your experience about game summaries. The basic problem is the rules are constructed for comprehensive identification of all possible game situations, indexed for easy access during play, and not for "learning the game" in mind. Here are the possible approaches for a didactic Introduction:

A. Executive Summary. The rules, nothing but rules (both processes & defined game terms), just really compact with some minor rules gone and edge cases eliminated. Bios: Genesis has this. However, the components (counts, descriptions, and anatomies) are deferred until Part B, the setup is deferred until Part C, and the SOP in outline form is deferred until Part D.

B. As she is played. This is essentially the same as A, but with some up-front emphasis on winning and some chatting about both simulation value, use of exclamation points for emphasis, and player means to goals. Paul-Michael Agapow and Martin Griffiths did a really good one for Pax Porfiriana. An example sentence: "During a Topple, extra Prestige can be had by flipping your Hacendado. This represents your player declaring for one of the two causes shown on the back of the card. But beware! Once you flip, your allegiance to this Prestige Point is permanent."

C. Context in History & Strategy. This is like B, but with the rules only obliquely referred to and adding as much of the simulation intention along with tips of what the rules mean practically. An example: "Initially you will be depending upon fundraisers for your finances, but as you build portfolios you will increasingly depend upon them for funding". This is not a rule, this is a rules consequence.

D. Hybrid, like C, but with references to the glossary (for rules terms) and to the specific rules section (for rules processes). In Part A (specifically A5) of Cole Wehrle's new game John Company, which is now available for discounted preorder for just a few weeks longer, has this example: "Most commonly, Officeholders leave the Company through Attrition (H3), which is the primary scoring mechanism in the game. Players do not have full control of this process. However, the more family members a player has in the Company the more likely it is that some will be lost to Attrition." Notice that Cole uses bold text to indicate terms in the glossary, makes references to rules sections for processes, yet uses chatty rules consequences with terms like "most commonly", "likely", "primary", and "not full control".

E. Pure Training Exercise. Only a vastly stripped down training example demonstrating just a few core processes. The theory here is the web between all the interlocked pure rules is very difficult to show or explain, but if many of the strands are eliminated, a sample run-through with just a few strands might be possible.

Using the geek to see if its feedback lets me know what real players really need when faced with a complex game.

Phil
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Goat Goatington
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmb
I found the Genesis intro overwhelming to the point that I remembered none of it while reading the rest of the rules. It was too much, too quickly and I moved on to the main rules as though the introduction wasn't there. Genesis is a little unusual compared to the others as part of the overload was the dense use of terminology I didn't know or have any reference for. I think it would have been too much even if it had been on an area I was familiar with though.

I prefer something in options C, D and E. I don't have a strong preference between them based on your examples. An overview of the game that doesn't get caught up in defining every term and provides some basic strategy and rules consequences. I never read the introduction again and so I'd prefer it focused on helping to learn the rules over being a reference. The rest of the rules are typically laid out as a reference (section B onward) and work well for looking things up during play.

I don't see much value in A or B. When I'm using rules as reference I already 'know' the game to an extent and want to clarify a specific action or phase. The introduction of Genesis doesn't help me do this because it's too vague, but it's also too detailed and focused on mechanical processes to provide an overview that helps me learn the rules.

I liked section A in Renaissance, which provided some basic thematic grounding, an incredibly simplified overview of the actions and a couple of lines about the ending and winning conditions. Again, I didn't look back at this as a reference but it helped me understand what followed. I think it helped that the fundamentals of being a European banker are much more generally understood than Genesis. However, I also have no problem with the extended version from Porfiriana or section A of the posted John Company rules.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorik
Netherlands
Utrecht
Utrecht
flag msg tools
badge
How sticky is your ZOC?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My preference is for C as it gives an overview for what you should be doing in the context of the game as opposed to what you are doing mechanically.

I think the biggest hurdle with Bios Genesis was that block of text in a relatively tiny font (because of the small rulebook) that was very hard to parse.

most games make the intro text less about the mechanical rules of the game and more what you are doing in a loose context and I guess that is what most gamers expect.

The relative succes of B:G is partly due to a few playtesters being very enthusiastic about it as a solitaire game and a lot of other solo gamers ordered it because of that reccomendation and then being confronted with the hard to grasp first paragraph may have been a little to much for those of us who never had seen on of your games before.

the biggest problem in B:G is that it is very hard to know what to do if you are a the amino acids. what does an amino acid do? as a banker you know you want ways to make money and gain control of assets, but it is much easier to grasp that even though they might mechanically be the same in the game.
(you touched on this in several threads I think but it is worth remembering)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
United Kingdom
Farnham
Surrey
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mb
In the small box series I own Bios:Genesis, Neanderthal and Pax Porfiriana. I found the first two pages of Bios:Genesis to be the best opening overview and useful in setting the scene for the rest of the rulebook.

Of the above examples, I think E is the more useful, followed by D. Examples should also be highlighted in the relevant section in text boxes so they don't interfere with later rules referencing. I especially found this useful when first learning High Frontier (2nd Ed) in which there was an example of flying to Luna and back.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fabian
Switzerland
Bern
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Out of all these options, just don't go with A and try to be a little bit redundant. Repetition helps when learning.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Mesa
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
phileklund wrote:
D. Hybrid, like C, but with references to the glossary (for rules terms) and to the specific rules section (for rules processes). In Part A (specifically A5) of Cole Wehrle's new game John Company, which is now available for discounted preorder for just a few weeks longer, has this example: "Most commonly, Officeholders leave the Company through Attrition (H3), which is the primary scoring mechanism in the game. Players do not have full control of this process. However, the more family members a player has in the Company the more likely it is that some will be lost to Attrition." Notice that Cole uses bold text to indicate terms in the glossary, makes references to rules sections for processes, yet uses chatty rules consequences with terms like "most commonly", "likely", "primary", and "not full control".

John Company's rulebook does not contain a glossary. This was discussed and decided against for reasons I'm sure you're already aware of. I think you should look at John Company's rulebook long and hard, because it's one of the best rulebooks I've ever read and I think it's exactly what you should be aiming towards.

Leaving Earth's rulebook is also great in this regard.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
United Kingdom
Farnham
Surrey
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mb
Andy Mesa wrote:
Leaving Earth's rulebook is also great in this regard.

Leaving Earth is much, much simpler than any Sierra Madre Game. I look forward to reading John Company's rules though.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Travis Hill
United States
Dallas
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
phileklund wrote:
D. Hybrid, like C, but with references to the glossary (for rules terms) and to the specific rules section (for rules processes). In Part A (specifically A5) of Cole Wehrle's new game John Company, which is now available for discounted preorder for just a few weeks longer, has this example: "Most commonly, Officeholders leave the Company through Attrition (H3), which is the primary scoring mechanism in the game. Players do not have full control of this process. However, the more family members a player has in the Company the more likely it is that some will be lost to Attrition." Notice that Cole uses bold text to indicate terms in the glossary, makes references to rules sections for processes, yet uses chatty rules consequences with terms like "most commonly", "likely", "primary", and "not full control".


We worked very diligently on the John Company ruleset to try and branch out from past SMG models, while also maintaining the "feel" of the SMG rulebook. And it was tough. We had all played and/or worked on, in various capacities, rules and games for SMG, so what the rules looked like and felt like were entrenched in us. We knew it would be tough to parse, but ultimately worth it in the end. Therefore, when Cole approached us to work on a rulebook for a game embedded deeply in negotiation, cooperation, and manipulation, we knew that it had to be different.

A few thoughts on what John Company did differently, successfully or otherwise:
1. Index vs. Glossary: In the final weeks of the JoCo process, Cole approached us with an idea, "So I was thinking about having a table of contents and then an index." For the length of the process, Cole mentioned we wanted all of the rules, definitions, and more embedded into the actual rules. Normally, this is perfectly fine, but referencing those rules can be a nightmare, especially in the SMG line. A glossary might typically be put in place for ease of reference, but also to help pare down definitions in the primary rulebook.

Creating an index was the answer for JoCo. This way, rules are referenced up front on page two of the rules, listed with 1) the defined location while also referencing 2) first or primary instances they appear in the rules. This was important because Cole was able to drastically pare down the intro section, only referencing what needed to be referenced. Bios: Genesis had such a comprehensive introduction, the terms were so embedded in the opening narrative, that a quick reference of what the terms were (and most importantly what they meant or stood for in the game) was a difficult process. Did it create an outstanding and powerful opening? Most definitely. Was it good for players to find what they needed in an appropriate manner? Eh, maybe.

2. Creating a style sheet: Cole created a hierarchy of section, sub-section via small caps and bolded terms. Being able to implement only a few of these in the introduction helped speed the reading process along for the learner, while also emphasizing the importance of these terms. People knew they were important, and they were even defined to a degree right then and there. But also, and most importantly, in section A2, we wrote how to learn the game, emphasizing and describing what the typographical choices meant.

3. Not defining everything up front: More often than not, most, if not all, SMG terms are defined in the introduction. For games as dense as SMG can put out, this can be cumbersome. Finding the balance of what to put into the introduction vs what to keep out is tricky. As technical people, we gravitate to having all of the information up front. But through proper utilization of an index, terms could be spread through the rulebook in an appropriate manner, defined where they appeared, and then indexed for ease. What occurs in a game like Bios: Genesis is that all of the information is given up front, out of the gate, so while readers are trying to parse out what the game is about thematically, they also have to memorize key terms that are utilized throughout the entire game. And know how they interact with one another. It's a tough process.

For me, a well-written introduction explains the history of the setting, how to learn, the basic format of game components and what they mean, a couple of crucial aspects that tie into the gameplay setting, while also pointing out how this game might be a bit different than others you might have played. In John Company specifically, Cole wanted me (typically a wargame editor), who had never played John Company (his desire), to edit the rules. Through his tireless effort and the multitude of playtesters, I feel they came out great.

Thanks for asking, Phil. I hope this helped.
8 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geoff Speare
United States
Bedford
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
tee hee, that tickles!!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For me the most valuable use of the introduction is to give the player context - a framework which helps internalize the actual rules as they are learned. This looks most like option C to me.

IMO this is one of the reasons SMG rulebooks are hard to grok. The rules are all there but the framework is not, so it's hard to keep everything straight until you play a couple times and see how it fits together.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
TonyKR
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
The only one of the options that actually seems to fit the concept of an Introduction (your word choice) is C.

An Executive Summary is not an introduction — it is a summary. By definition it is almost the exact opposite of an introduction. It assumes familiarity with the subject matter at hand.

In my opinion, an Introduction should present as concisely as possible: the setting of the game, the general object of the game, and the victory conditions for the game. That's it. Introduce the game to them. It's okay to include a few key terms here. But keep them limited.

And by all means, DO NOT veer off into strategy tips or historical musings in the Introduction. That type of information is best presented in sidebars near the relevant portion of the rules text (but where they also won't interfere with the rules themselves). And finally, please don't bury rules in footnotes or asides.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rex Stites
United States
Lawrence
Kansas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Zlarp wrote:
Out of all these options, just don't go with A and try to be a little bit redundant. Repetition helps when learning.


On the other hand, repeating rules opens the door for contradictions and uncertainty.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brett Burleigh II
United States
Columbus
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Bless the Maker and His water... Bless the coming and going of Him... May His passage cleanse the world...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hey Phil,

Some thoughts from my brain:

Genesis' opening was really helpful to determining the turn structure while I was playtesting - and I've used the intro as a way to see how other SMG designs resolve procedures in turns. That's very helpful to have the outline. The trade-off is the first time player encounters this RIGHT off the bat, and it can be an information overload.
Perhaps a little note that the outline summarizes the whole game - it's a huge thought, and it is not completely necessary to understand every concept on your first read of the outline.
I almost feel like reading the outline, then the rules, then the outline is the best format. It's akin to a teacher's lesson plan. Overwhelm them with info > info broken down into minutia > Recap of the overview to lock it all in.


Timothy Martin's Greenland: As She is Played is really great, and the inclusion of Mr. Martin's Pax Profiriana: As She is Played in the Deluxe edition is such a great addition to the rulebook!


Although I fizzled on BMF2 - I could take a peek at the works in progress of the rules as they stabilize and offer advice again.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul D
Australia
Carnegie
Victoria
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
I don't think any of the options (A-E) are correct.


As I understand it, and how its commonly used in boardgames, an Introduction here should include:
- A short paragraph summarizing the exciting nature of the theme
- A short paragraph summarizing the gameplay
- A short paragraph summarizing the endgame trigger and player goals
- A short paragraph summarizing the layout of the rulebook.

When I say a short paragraph, I mean: 2-4 short sentences.


IMHO, you're doing it wrong if you've got a info-dense 2 page summary of any sort. You're just making the rulebook longer.


A lot of the GMT games do Introductions "right". Sekigahara & Labyrinth: War on Terror are two examples which come to mind, even though neither conform exactly to the structure I outline above.



5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bitchy Little Boy
Romania
Bucharest
Sector 3
flag msg tools
... or I won't bear with you!
badge
Phil Eklund's games are like a bar of gold from a complete stranger.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The relevant quality of a rulebook is to be unambiguous and complete. However, by necessity, the rulebook of a game is also a learning tool. Short of a manual (which may be an overkill and be cumbersome and confusing by increasing too much the reading burden), what Paul D said is the best option.

In fact, a good compromise between rigour and learning friendliness is the template recommended (for teaching!) by the How to Play Podcast.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geoff Speare
United States
Bedford
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
tee hee, that tickles!!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The John Company rules are a huge move in the right direction. Section A1 concisely lays out the high level game flow; the rest of section A builds on that to communicate the main systems of the game in a way that seems very effective. By the time I get to the core rules I feel like I already understand what is generally going on. Very nice!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Morten K
Denmark
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
C and then B. I think both are needed to understand the rules better.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phil Eklund
Germany
Karlsruhe
Baden Würtenberg
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
Thank you for the submissions. I used them to complete a draft of the introduction for Pax Emancipation, which you can view here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZGa3gu_ptZYGCxRbFJVdTqB9...

I went with the majority opinion and chose Option C. Which is to say: an introduction that contains no rules (other than metarules, such as the rules layout, and the golden rule), no references (for instance no "H3"), no defined processes (for instance all the actions and ops are mentioned but not defined), no defined game terms, and no examples. In other words, something that players will read once and never again.

I note, with some trepidation, that this is the opposite of Option D, the hybrid option such as the layout in the upcoming game John Company. The Part A of John Company contains many rules and metarules, many rules citation references, many game definitions including both term and process definitions, game charts, card anatomies, "learning the game", and also stuff that happens in multiple places in the game (cash flow, negotiations, exhaustion). In other words, fully integrated into the rules, as a rules section for rules that don't fit in the SOP. In Pax Emancipation, I put all of this material in the glossary.

I don't know which approach is the better, and I will listen to those who favor Option D, but please try to keep your suggestions specific. If you use the provided link, use the googledocs "insert comment" function.

Here is how I structured the Pax Emancipation introduction. It unfortunately is rather long for containing no rules. Hopefully this stuff removed from the actual rules will leave the latter relatively free of clutter:

A1. A long 4-paragraph "thesis of the game" essay giving the historical context in a "you are there" format.

A2. Lists the player roles, with some vague mention of the advantage for each one. Flows naturally from A1.

A3. Completely switching gears, this lists the table of contents, and the general rules layout, rules hierarchy (what takes precedence), and a problematic bullet about the use of pronouns which I did not know where to place.

A4. Lists the 4 arenas of play, which gives a nice overview from 10,000 meters altitude. Undecided as to if the finance board constitutes a 5th arena.

A5.Contains the overview of a game round. This mentions everything that happens in the game, including a list of the actions and ops, each with a brief description of about a dozen words.

A game round contains individual turns for each player, and so this section is a brief SOP for a game round. A detailed SOP for a player turn is deferred until Section D.

A6. Lists the game objective, in very abstract terms. However, for the first time it is specified that the game can be played cooperatively or competitively. Since (I hope) these 2 modes only differ in the game objectives, I feel this is the right place for this. I used to say something about how the game ends, but it required too much game terminology, so I removed it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geoff Speare
United States
Bedford
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
tee hee, that tickles!!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hm, perhaps there was a misunderstanding. I considered us to be talking about section A1 in John Company rather than all of section A. Given your comment, I would have voted for option D.

A quick look at the Google doc confirms this:

A1: seems like it could be shorter. Also, asking the reader to identify themselves in a role which is different from the role played in the actual game seems problematic.

A3: starts to go a bit off the rails as you introduce a list of processes which are not yet defined.

Overall this seems like an incremental improvement - very glad to see this!

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phil Eklund
Germany
Karlsruhe
Baden Würtenberg
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
Hello Geoff,

A1. You have a good point, that I ask the reader to imagine himself first as a serf, and second as a budding abolitionist. It is only the second role that the players actually assume. Should I eliminate the first paragraph, do you think? That would certainly make it shorter.

The first paragraph was added somewhat late, and for two reasons: (1) to introduce the ideas of economic and intellectual enslavement, which are repeated throughout the game, and (2) to show the point of view of the typical victims to be emancipated. I have a ton of historical notes, but precious little that actually describes graphic horrors common under slavery, how many humans can be packed into a slave ship, for instance.

That said, the first paragraph could be dropped.

A3. You are correct, I introduce the actions and ops as a list, and a few vague words saying what they will do. They are undefined until the actions and ops segments respectively. This was done because several emphasized the need for repetition, and to introduce the player options without yet defining them. However, I have the suspicion that it is not so useful. I may delete the whole thing if it is not really value-added.

One possible use of A3 is that it parses the information in a way that is not done elsewhere. It is a summary of an entire game round, whereas elsewhere only player turns are defined.

Another possibility, given your preference for D, is to drop the descriptions from the listed processes, and list the rules citation where it is defined, as is done in John Company. I could also add game terms and definitions for those terms, also as is done in John Company.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Morris
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
A6 and M. Victory Condition. Am I reading this right?

In order for anyone to win, slavery must be abolished.

In order for anyone to win, they must have positive victory points.

If everyone has negative VPs, no one wins.

In competitive, if slavery was abolished the player with the highest VPs wins.

In cooperative/solo, the team/individual wins if slavery was abolished and they have positive VPs.

I think both the explanation of victory conditions and how to calculate victory points could be clarified. Both sections explain part of the story. I think end game scoring can be more detailed in section M, but A6 could use a brief overview of how scoring will work. Both sections could also be more concise in my opinion. This however might not agree with the rule style you have established. My suggestion comes from a game teaching point of view. Meaning if end game scoring was briefly explained in A6, that section can now act as a guideline for when to briefly cover how roughly (or exactly) end game scoring will work.

I tried to comment on the google doc, but didn't see an option to add a comment. Do I need to request edit access?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phil Eklund
Germany
Karlsruhe
Baden Würtenberg
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
TriticusLev wrote:
I tried to comment on the google doc, but didn't see an option to add a comment. Do I need to request edit access?


I am not an expert, but in my case there is a top menu which includes "Insert". The drop down includes "comment".

This is supposed to work since the setting is set to "anyone with a link can comment". But if it doesn't work, let me know.

I rewrote both A6 and Part M, which were poorly written, to try to answer your confusions here. In A6, it is only introductory glimpse of the path to victory, while in Part M the comprehensive details are offered.

Thank you for your comments, most helpful, and keep them coming. Let me know if you cant comment on the Living Document itself.

Phil
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Morris
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have both this rule book and Pax Ren up, I can comment in Pax Ren but not this one. Seems like the permissions need to be adjusted. I believe they're set to "view only" currently.

If you click share in the upper right, then click "get sharable link" there's a dropdown menu that lets you create a link where we can comment.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phil Eklund
Germany
Karlsruhe
Baden Würtenberg
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
TriticusLev wrote:
I have both this rule book and Pax Ren up, I can comment in Pax Ren but not this one. Seems like the permissions need to be adjusted. I believe they're set to "view only" currently.

If you click share in the upper right, then click "get sharable link" there's a dropdown menu that lets you create a link where we can comment.


Apparently only the owner can make this change. I have asked Philipp Klarmann, but he is on a ferry to Greece as part of his vacation, and won't be able to make the change until a day or two. But we will get it done.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philipp Klarmann
Germany
Bad Schönborn
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Should work now, let me know
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Morris
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Working now! Thank you.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  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.