*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 02, 2014, 06:31:38 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4283 Members Latest Member: - otto Most online today: 59 - most online ever: 429 (November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Print
Author Topic: Gamism and Premise  (Read 17938 times)
Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 16490


WWW
« Reply #15 on: October 24, 2001, 08:30:00 AM »

Marco,

I think you are employing "Premise" differently. In my terms, for purposes of role-playing, your two examples have tremendously different Premises that correspond exactly to your two statements about them ("being in" vs. "writing/creating"). What they share are some of the basic listed elements of play: Situation, Setting, and Character.

Thus playing (as written) Call of Cthulhu, one gets the Simulationist approach of Exploring Situation, Setting, and Character (primarily the first). The Premise remains very sketchy and personal, just an enjoyment of those elements of Lovecraft-style material.

And playing some other game, which happens not to exist, which takes a Narrativist approach to Lovecraft, one gets the Narrativist approach of beefing up the Premise of insight = alienation, or American optimism cracking in the face of the horror of the Truth. Developing that Premise into a Theme, specific to THESE protagonists at THIS time, is the task of the role-players (GM + players alike).

The casual use of "premise" which simply describes a few of the listed elements, has all the problems of the casual use of "genre" for all the same reasons. If I'm not mistaken, you are employing "premise" in that fashion.

Best,
Ron
Logged
contracycle
Member

Posts: 2807


« Reply #16 on: October 24, 2001, 09:12:00 AM »

Quote
Quote
Logged

Impeach the bomber boys:
www.impeachblair.org
www.impeachbush.org

"He who loves practice without theory is like the sailor who boards ship without a rudder and compass and never knows where he may cast."
- Leonardo da Vinci
contracycle
Member

Posts: 2807


« Reply #17 on: October 24, 2001, 09:22:00 AM »

Quote

And playing some other game, which happens not to exist, which takes a Narrativist approach to Lovecraft, one gets the Narrativist approach of beefing up the Premise of insight = alienation, or American optimism cracking in the face of the horror of the Truth. Developing that Premise into a Theme, specific to THESE protagonists at THIS time, is the task of the role-players (GM + players alike).


Why is that specifically narratavist?  This is the part I don't get at all - players are NOT simply happy with "the hook", they don't wander about just exploring.  They need, want, some sort of direction, an emotional investment, yada yada.  I submit that the phenomenon you describe as occuring in the Narratavist approach necessarily appears in the gamist and simulationist approach too.  In fact, it MUST do - every game is about THESE protagonists at THIS time.
Logged

Impeach the bomber boys:
www.impeachblair.org
www.impeachbush.org

"He who loves practice without theory is like the sailor who boards ship without a rudder and compass and never knows where he may cast."
- Leonardo da Vinci
Marco
Member

Posts: 1741


WWW
« Reply #18 on: October 24, 2001, 09:41:00 AM »

Quote

On 2001-10-24 12:30, Ron Edwards wrote:
Marco,

I think you are employing "Premise" differently. In my terms ...


I was refering to it in Mike's terms (whose post I quoted). I believe in your terms it's *axiomatic* that narrativist premises are different from simultionist premises.

Whoever was using premise for "what makes the game worth playing" I take issue that:

What makes the game worth playing for Narrativists resembles literature and for others doesn't so much. I didn't use 'premise' unitl my last line and I regret it.

Do you believe that "what makes the game worth playing" is more similar to literature in narrativist games than sim? If so, from a writer standpoint (i.e. "I like to write literature--that's what interest me."), a reader ("I enjoy reading literature") or both? I assume you wouldn't say they're the same thing.

-Marco
Logged

---------------------------------------------
JAGS (Just Another Gaming System)
a free, high-quality, universal system at:
http://www.jagsrpg.org
Just Released: JAGS Wonderland
Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 16490


WWW
« Reply #19 on: October 24, 2001, 10:30:00 AM »

Gareth,

It is completely opaque to me why you perceive Gamist Premises as necessarily arising from mechanics. Again and again, I have said, Premises express role-players' interest in what to do. None of my listed Gamist Premises rely on a specific system being present. No Premise does.

Now, if you perceive this to be at odds with my (presumed) claim that Gamism DOES need external, formalized circumstances of competition, then I can see where the conceptual snag is. Gamism does not need these things to be present in a given system; people with Gamist inclinations will either use them if present or will simply insert them (up to and including a standard of success/win) if necessary.

These inclinations on the part of actual role-players are real. Many people LOVE to find a role-playing game and see what they can find in it which provides a good "win" issue. If they don't find it, they are then good at competing for things like "outcome control" using Drama methods, or "screen time," or anything else that may be superimposed/inserted as an indication of winning.

Also, I am convinced you are misreading the paragraph in Chapter 1 regarding the change from individual interest ("embryonic Premise") to the general, shared interest ("developed Premise"), in assuming that the latter must be Narrativist. It does not have to be. Any, all, or other of the Premises listed in the GNS chapter are where a "developed Premise" may go.

As for Egri, his notions apply ONLY to a developed Narrativist Premise, and not for one second or for any other purpose to the other sorts. I referred to him only in the context of such Premises. Egri does not provide the foundation for my FULL explanation of role-playing Premises. His book is the foundation for discussing the Narrativist sub-set of them only.

I am baffled by your claim that:
"... characters simply cannot and will not be designed and played sufficiently close to the real-premise to replicate the consistency that an author exploiting Egris techniques achieves through their limitless editorial power. Even worse, the transfer of authorial and directorial power to the players means that the very kind of central direction and "pruning" that Egri advocates becomes increasingly improbable, if not impossible."

My entire experience of role-playing, and over the last six years specifically, suggests that you are not crediting role-players enough. People who are inclined to play in this direction do so with ease, enthusiasm, and vast creativity.

To address your second post, I agree with you that role-playing is necessarily about these characters at this time, but that "developing Premise into a Theme" is specific to Narrativism. I have written at length in the past about how diversity of characters in (say) a Call of Cthulhu scenario does not represent the same impact on the outcome of play that a diversity of characters has in (say) Hero Wars. (By diversity, I do not mean among the group, but from group to group.)

You ask for references regarding Simulationist ones, and I refer you to any of the Scarlet Jester's or Seth ben-Ezra's treatment of Exploration, which is quite explicit about it ("shared daydreaming" and so on). Regarding Gamist Premises, I am confident that any rigorous discussion of organized competition would suffice.

And that brings me to more baffling claims and questions about Gamism, for instance:
"'Can my character gain more status and influence than the other player-characters in the ongoing intrigue
among vampires?' does not appear to me to be a premise at all. Where is the challenge, the provocation? Where is the emotional commitment? How does this apply to other players, or is this a 'premise' specific to an individual player? Whatb ahppens when you finish this event and want to carry on with the same character - surely, if the 'premise' above indicates a player mentality, then it will be constant in all premise-possessing stories in which this player participates."

I'm not even sure where to begin with this material. I'll try ...
1) The challenge, provocation, and emotional commitment are explicit given that competition is a source of enjoyment. These things absolutely rely on the expectation of the other players to compete regarding the same issues. If you cannot see that many people enjoy competing with one another regarding status and influence, via imaginative circumstances, then I'm afraid you are failing to see a very common, very well-acknowledged form of recreation.

2) Regarding carrying on with the same character, as time progresses during play, circumstances of that competition change. If we are playing D&D3E and this Premise happens to be extant, the competition among the players is rather different at 10th level than it is at 1st. Or, to stick with Vampire, the competition among players is similarly different when they are Princes of their territories rather than shivering newbies. It is baffling to me that you cannot perceive that many role-players will enjoy the changing circumstances of competition as the characters and events of play develop.

3) At the very end, unless I am mistaken, you imply that such a player is absolutely constrained to compete in just such a fashion under any and all circumstances. Why? I have stated clearly that a given role-player is not constrained either to a Premise nor to a whole GNS mode. This fellow we are discussing may well enjoy a hard-core Simulationist role-playing experience, with no competition at all, next week. Or perhaps he does indeed bring the player-player competitiveness to every table. Either way is permitted in the context of my points.

Gareth, something about the way you perceive this Gamism issue is really, really hampering the discussion. I place the responsibility on you because I have just reviewed all my replies to you about it starting with "Ron's new essay" thread, and putting them together, I'm pretty much finished presenting my case. I have yet to see an argument that refutes that case. I see a lot of material that illustrates the confusions or, shall we say, skewed readings that I've tried to dissect in the above post.

Best,
Ron
Logged
Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 16490


WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 24, 2001, 10:32:00 AM »

Marco,

I am getting the impression that I keep agreeing with your central point and you are not seeing that I agree.

Yes - Simulationist experience (at least of certain kinds, when "story" is involved) is much like reading, although in a kind of "experience it directly" way.

Yes - Narrativist experience is much like writing.

I agree. I'm not sure how to be much clearer than that.

Regarding the differences in Premise, it's explicit in my essay. The Premise in Narrativism permits one to act as an author regarding issues by the setting, situation, etc.

In Simulationism, the Premise consists only of INTEREST in the setting, situation, etc, and the priority is to EXPERIENCE whatever might be happening.

These Premises could not be more different to me. Their reliance, in our present example, on the same literature is utterly trivial.

Best,
Ron

[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-10-24 14:35 ]
Logged
Mike Holmes
Acts of Evil Playtesters
Member

Posts: 10459


« Reply #21 on: October 24, 2001, 10:46:00 AM »

Quote

On 2001-10-24 13:41, Marco wrote:
I was refering to it in Mike's terms (whose post I quoted). I believe in your terms it's *axiomatic* that narrativist premises are different from simultionist premises.


But as I keep pointing out, I am trying to elucidate Ron's point. If you don't like the use of the term Premise here, replace it with something else that better fits Ron's meaning. Or define what you mean by Premise, and we'll talk about that instead. Take your pick.

Quote

Whoever was using premise for "what makes the game worth playing" I take issue that:

What makes the game worth playing for Narrativists resembles literature and for others doesn't so much. I didn't use 'premise' unitl my last line and I regret it.

Do you believe that "what makes the game worth playing" is more similar to literature in narrativist games than sim? If so, from a writer standpoint (i.e. "I like to write literature--that's what interest me."), a reader ("I enjoy reading literature") or both? I assume you wouldn't say they're the same thing.


That last part is confusing. And I feel like I should take what I said about literature back. I was just trying to employ the allusion to make a point. I'll try to be more clear:

Those things that make a Simulationist game interesting to Simulationists - what Ron would call a Simulationist Premise , but whatever - are things like "participating in Lovecraft's New England" or "participating in a world where the things that Lovecraft wrote about are real."

Those things that make a Narratitivist game interesting to Narrativists - what Ron would call a Narrative Premise - are things like "alienation" or "optimism vs. dread", which happen to be more like the Premises of literature (no surprise that this sort of premise interests people who are more interested in story).


And I'll repeat, yet again. That doesn't mean that the Narrativist game can't have verisimilitude in it, or that the Simulationist game can't lead to a story. It only means that, as written the game's mechanics tend to support one or the other.

Am I just talking in circles, or does this make sense?

Mike

(edited to say, dangit, Ron beat me to it)

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-10-24 14:53 ]
Logged

Member of Indie Netgaming
-Get your indie game fix online.
Mike Holmes
Acts of Evil Playtesters
Member

Posts: 10459


« Reply #22 on: October 24, 2001, 10:56:00 AM »

Quote

On 2001-10-24 13:22, contracycle wrote:
Why is that specifically narratavist?  This is the part I don't get at all - players are NOT simply happy with "the hook", they don't wander about just exploring.  They need, want, some sort of direction, an emotional investment, yada yada.  I submit that the phenomenon you describe as occuring in the Narratavist approach necessarily appears in the gamist and simulationist approach too.  In fact, it MUST do - every game is about THESE protagonists at THIS time.


People can't be hooked or emotionally invested by competition, problem solving, and simple simulation? Jeeze must really be wasting all that time with all those war games I play; I wonder why I do it?

Sorry. That's not right. What I mean is that Gamists do prefer these sorts of hooks, become emotionally invested in them, and are sometimes not even at all interested in the others. Sometimes. Simulationists are sometimes engaged even if no story ever presents itself (and I've got some that will really rail against using mechanics to cause story).

Gareth, I'd venture to say that you are like me and many other players what I like to call Tri-Modal. You like bits of each. Wouldn't want to play without considering all three. But there are others who are exclusionists, as well. The point is that Gamist mechanics will satisfy the Gamist in you. Same for Sim and Narr.

Not really all that far out, is it?

Mike
(edited to ameliorate effects of snarky comment)

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-10-24 15:42 ]
Logged

Member of Indie Netgaming
-Get your indie game fix online.
Marco
Member

Posts: 1741


WWW
« Reply #23 on: October 24, 2001, 11:01:00 AM »

Hi, Ron,

That's really clear :smile: My post was about "that thing which makes you want to play" being 'more like literature in narrativist games' (my pharaprhase) I read your post as saying "but that isn't exactly what I mean by Premise--" which I knew.

It was all about:

"For a Narrativist game, these things happen to resemble (to a certain extent only superficially) the Premises of literature. The others don't very much."

As I said, I wished I hadn't used the term because I *wasn't* using premise as you've defined it.

I, of course, agree with you about the different approach (authorial vs. experiencing--which I'm calling reading as a lit-analogy). Mike, I think, tied "that thing which makes you want to play" to "resembling Premises literature." If his use of capital 'P' means *writing* literature, I've got no problem then. If it doesn't, I disagree with him.

But if that's true then what he said in effect was:

"Writing literature is like writing literature and reading it isn't very much like writing it."

Which I'd find a strange thing to be asserting (true as it is).

Take care,
-Marco

Logged

---------------------------------------------
JAGS (Just Another Gaming System)
a free, high-quality, universal system at:
http://www.jagsrpg.org
Just Released: JAGS Wonderland
Mike Holmes
Acts of Evil Playtesters
Member

Posts: 10459


« Reply #24 on: October 24, 2001, 11:56:00 AM »

Marco, your logic is off.

A tree needs water.
I need water.
Therefore I am a tree.

You know that I was not trying to assert anything like what you said. I'm just making some statements.

All games have a premise (defined here by Ron as thing that makes ya wanna play). Simulationist premises (in this context) are about participation in a simulation. Narrativist premises are statements that resemble the premises of literature as described by Egri.

Now, which part do you disagree with?

Mike
Logged

Member of Indie Netgaming
-Get your indie game fix online.
Marco
Member

Posts: 1741


WWW
« Reply #25 on: October 24, 2001, 12:37:00 PM »

Hi Mike,

What I took issue with was NOT

Simulatist Premises == that which interests Simulationists. As I said, that's pretty unarguable.

It was:
Quote

Those things that make a Narratitivist game interesting to Narrativists - what Ron would call a Narrative Premise - are things like "alienation" or "optimism vs. dread", which happen to be more like the Premises of literature (no surprise that this sort of premise interests people who are more interested in story).


I'm not using the word 'Premise' here at all. I *am* talking about "that which makes the game worth playing."

The thing that makes me want to play Call of Cthulhu was the same thing that made me want to read the books. It isn't the act of getting to 'be' a CoC progagonist (that wouldn't actually be any fun, would it?) and I don't like the term Exploration since I think if I said "I want to find out what happens at the end" it'd be seen as exploratory but, going to a play and watching King Lear and wanting to "stay until the end to see what happens" would be described by few as 'exploratory.'

I think:

Quote

" ...this sort of premise interests people who are more interested in story ..."


under the heading of Narrativists Premises may be what I find misleading. A better way of saying it might be:

"Those people that are interested in literary themes in their gaming (literary being a terrible word--but I can't think of a better one) will like scenarios which employ those themes."

--Aside--
It seems to me that how you want to experience those themes (be it 'writing' or 'reading') determines whether or not you're Sim or Nar--not the theme itself.

As someone who is 'more interested in story' and in, say, Lovecraft's themes, I'm unsure of the value of directoral power (a key point of Narrativisim over Simulationism, no?) in experiencing/exploring those themes.

Clearer?
-Marco





[ This Message was edited by: Marco on 2001-10-24 16:58 ]
Logged

---------------------------------------------
JAGS (Just Another Gaming System)
a free, high-quality, universal system at:
http://www.jagsrpg.org
Just Released: JAGS Wonderland
Mike Holmes
Acts of Evil Playtesters
Member

Posts: 10459


« Reply #26 on: October 24, 2001, 01:07:00 PM »

Quote

On 2001-10-24 16:37, Marco wrote:
What I took issue with was NOT

Simulatist Premises == that which interests Simulationists. As I said, that's pretty unarguable.

It was:
Quote

Those things that make a Narratitivist game interesting to Narrativists - what Ron would call a Narrative Premise - are things like "alienation" or "optimism vs. dread", which happen to be more like the Premises of literature (no surprise that this sort of premise interests people who are more interested in story).


I'm not using the word 'Premise' here at all. I *am* talking about "that which makes the game worth playing."

The thing that makes me want to play Call of Cthulhu was the same thing that made me want to read the books. It isn't the act of getting to 'be' a CoC progagonist (that wouldn't actually be any fun, would it?) and I don't like the term Exploration since I think if I said "I want to find out what happens at the end" it'd be seen as exploratory but, going to a play and watching King Lear and wanting to "stay until the end to see what happens" would be described by few as 'exploratory.'


Would you be more satisfied with Experience than Exploratory? Sure you want to see the end. But do you care more about it being a "realistic" portrayal of Cthulhuania or should it be more of a Lovecraft story? CoC does the first, not the second.


Quote

I think:

Quote

" ...this sort of premise interests people who are more interested in story ..."


under the heading of Narrativists Premises may be what I find misleading. A better way of saying it might be:

"Those people that are interested in literary themes in their gaming (literary being a terrible word--but I can't use a better one) will like scenarios which employ those themes."


Uh, sure, if it makes you feel better.

Quote

--Aside--
It seems to me that how you want to experience those themes (be it 'writing' or 'reading') determines whether or not you're Sim or Nar--not the theme itself.


Never said anything about theme, personally. And that, too, unfortunately has a loaded meaning around here. But if you mean setting here, you're absolutely right. But we're not talking about the setting. We're talking about the mechanics.

Quote

As someone who is 'more interested in story' and in, say, Lovecraft's themes, I'm unsure of the value of directoral power (a key point of Narrativisim over Simulationism, no?) in experiencing/exploring those themes.


A couple of things. First, I think that you are less concerned with story than you are with the simulation being good, which is why you don't like Director Power and other Narrativist trappings. Or, maybe I'm wrong and you really do prefer to push story. But if you do, then I can only suggest that you try Director power. What is the downside of Director Power? The only answer I've ever heard is that it kills SOD. If you prioritize SOD over the story, then by definition you're a Simulationist.

I'd suggest that you are just like me and Mike Sullivan in that you like story but want a good amount of SOD as well. Well, to the extent that you want this SOD and reject Narrativist methods, I'd say that you are a Simulationist. But that hardly matters. What matters here is that CoC has a Simulationist Premise (Ron's def. for Premise) of "Playing a part in a Lovcraftian Plot". Whereas the theoretical Narrativist game would have the exact same Setting, but a Premise of Optimism vs. Loathing. The difference? The mechanics would be vastly different including, potentially, such stuff as Author and Director Powers, and other Narrativist stuff.

Still circling?

Mike
Logged

Member of Indie Netgaming
-Get your indie game fix online.
Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 16490


WWW
« Reply #27 on: October 24, 2001, 02:31:00 PM »

Hey,

If I'm reading correctly, Marco is now spot-on. He was right to spot that Mike should have said WRITING or CREATING literature as the Narrativist premise, which is one little weeny word difference in what Mike said, not worth posts and posts of debate.

I'm pretty sure Mike, I, and Marco are all saying the same thing now. I suggest we back up, look over the whole thread, and see if we can call it done. There's been a bit too much narrow-focus on one-little-word per thread - we haven't realized that we're all agreeing.

Best,
Ron

Logged
contracycle
Member

Posts: 2807


« Reply #28 on: October 25, 2001, 04:47:00 AM »

Quote

It is completely opaque to me why you perceive Gamist Premises as necessarily arising from mechanics. Again and


I have said repeatedly that I find the notion absurd.

Quote

conceptual snag is. Gamism does not need these things to be present in a given system; people with Gamist inclinations will either use them if present or will simply insert them (up to and including a standard of success/win) if necessary.


And as I have mentioned previously, I find your imposition of a competitive motive innapropriate.

Quote

These inclinations on the part of actual role-players are real. Many people LOVE to find a role-playing game and see what they can find in it which provides a good "win" issue.


I fully accept such people exist.  How do you cater for non-competitive gamists?  You perstitenly avoid answerring this question, becuase you keep identifying gamism with competition.

Quote

As for Egri, his notions apply ONLY to a developed Narrativist Premise, and not for one second or for any other purpose to the other sorts. I referred to him only in


Why?  This is a central part of my objection to the scheme as it exists in your essay.

Quote

Premises. His book is the foundation for discussing the Narrativist sub-set of them only.


Just to be explicit, why only that subset?

Quote

My entire experience of role-playing, and over the last six years specifically, suggests that you are not crediting role-players enough. People who are inclined to play in this direction do so with ease, enthusiasm, and vast creativity.


I find the idea that 5 people are able to exert authorial consistency with coherency indistinguishable from the coherency exerted by a single author very strange.  Is there any supporting evidence?

Quote

To address your second post, I agree with you that role-playing is necessarily about these characters at this time, but that "developing Premise into a Theme" is specific to Narrativism. I have written at length in the past about how


Fair enough, this distinction is clarifying some of our conifusion.  Why do you believe this to be the case?

Quote

("shared daydreaming" and so on). Regarding Gamist Premises, I am confident that any rigorous discussion of organized competition would suffice.


I am quite confident it would necessarily fail, as competition is not IMO a significant part of the appeal for gamists who have, with malice aforethought, selected a cooperative hobby.

Quote

1) The challenge, provocation, and emotional commitment are explicit given that competition is a source of enjoyment.


As I have poibnted out at great length, that is not a give.  I repeat the question: whats the hook?

Quote

circumstances, then I'm afraid you are failing to see a very common, very well-acknowledged form of recreation.


And as you also pointed out, most of them left when MtG came out.  Can we address RPGers now, please?

Quote

2) Regarding carrying on with the same character, as time progresses during play, circumstances of that competition change. If we are playing D&D3E and this Premise happens to be extant, the competition among the players is rather different at 10th level than it is at 1st. Or, to stick with Vampire, the competition among players is similarly different when they are Princes of their territories rather than shivering newbies. It is baffling to me that you
cannot perceive that many role-players will enjoy the changing circumstances of competition as the characters and events of play develop.


It is not baffling to me at all.  It strikes me that this implies that one single premise (competition in your view) operates at all periods of the characters existance.  Which suggests that such a premise is embodied in the mechanics, as previously discussed, or in the style.  Which is merely to say that gamists don't really have premise - which I object to.

Quote

3) At the very end, unless I am mistaken, you imply that such a player is absolutely constrained to compete in just such a fashion under any and all circumstances. Why? I have


That is the inference I draw from premise located in the mechanics, which as I point out, I disagree with.

Quote

stated clearly that a given role-player is not constrained either to a Premise nor to a whole GNS mode. This fellow we are discussing may well enjoy a hard-core Simulationist role-playing experience, with no competition at all, next


Exactly.  So then why above do you construct a scenario in which a single form of competitive premise is persistent?

Quote

thread, and putting them together, I'm pretty much finished presenting my case. I have yet to see an argument that refutes that case. I see a lot of material that illustrates the confusions or, shall we say, skewed readings that I've tried to dissect in the above post.


This is because you keep imposing interpetations on my words.  Where I talk about gamism, you read competition, frex.  I did not propose that premise were located in the mechanics, I have been objecting to the idea, and yet you have attributed it to me.  This is not helping.
Logged

Impeach the bomber boys:
www.impeachblair.org
www.impeachbush.org

"He who loves practice without theory is like the sailor who boards ship without a rudder and compass and never knows where he may cast."
- Leonardo da Vinci
Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 16490


WWW
« Reply #29 on: October 25, 2001, 08:48:00 AM »

 This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-10-25 13:05 ]
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!