|
The Warlord link still looks good. Still can't come up with a replacement/fix for Wolf Pack Tactics but I've also been busy working on characters/posts for actual games I'm playing, so. Here's an semi-related question for the DW experts; a lot of the fanmade playbooks seem to have some variant advanced multiclass move beyond the Multiclass Dabbler move present in the core playbooks. What's the purpose behind that decision? Is it largely a flavor thing or is there somethink hinky with Multiclass Dabbler that I'm not aware of yet?
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2013 12:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 03:50 |
|
|
Okay, that's about what I was figuring. I've been going back and forth on the Warlord as to whether I want to go with Dabbler moves or something custom. Right now I have it half-and-half and ehhhh that seems kind of inelegant and maybe dumb, I don't know.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2013 13:26
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:It would be much better for everyone if instead of being a per-playbook move thing, MCing were either part of Level Up or just a rule. Specifically, something like this: That actually does look a lot better and would cut down on the whole "every playbook has to have these two virtually identical moves somewhere in the back" thing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
Everybody wants to know where the gold at. Still plugging away at the Warlord, scrapping Wolf Pack Tactics as it stands for something else. Is this suitable for an advanced move in the 6-10 range or is it too under/overpowered, too complex, etc? quote:When you plan and execute an ambush with your allies roll +Int. On a 10+ all enemies caught in the ambush take 1d8 damage and are surprised and disorganized. On a 7-9 all enemies caught in the ambush take 1d8 damage and you choose two:
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 12:31
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:The problem I have with this on a conceptual level is roughly the same as my problem with Bend Bar, Lift Gates from the Fighter: an ambush is something everyone can do. Making a move where a partial success means not failing implies that all other ambushes not done via this move will misjudge enemy numbers, leave people exposed, etc. (basically, be generally disastrous). Okay, I get what you're saying. I'm still wrapping my head around the way DW interweaves mechanics and, for lack of a better word, narrative. I like choosing from a list of positives better than a list of prevented negatives better now that I've sort of got my head around that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 14:13
|
|
|
Okay, so with the list of names finally added to it and the changes to Wolf Pack Tactics taken care of, I'm ready to say that the Warlord playbook is ready for final revisions. Anyone who has any feedback on this version I would love to hear it because I'd like to polish this sucker off and get it in the queue for .pdf layout once I'm done. Also gnome, would you please give Lemon Curdistan co-credit for this playbook in the compiled list as he's essentially responsible for about half of this thing by now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
madadric posted:This looks pretty cool! This is a good suggestion actually, one of those "so obvious that I naturally missed it" things, so I'll go ahead and do that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:e2; unrelated: Kai Tave you forgot the best Warlord move, find space to put this in your playbook tia: Well poo poo, if I'd have known I was encouraged to That move is badass. Consider it stolen.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2013 01:23
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:Also, good god does it ever need a different name than "Psychic Warrior;" that's always been absolutely terrible. It also sort of feels like it ought to differentiate itself more from the Battlemind in concept. There's always the Soulknife  When you focus the totality of your psychic powers, roll +Int...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2013 13:48
|
|
|
Flavivirus posted:Sage just posted a big breakdown of how DW is doing in the marketplace: http://www.latorra.org/2013/04/04/dungeon-worlds-first-5-months/ My guess is that while the other things are probably part of it, this right here is the biggest factor. Lotta gamers out there will buy something if you tell them it's a D&D-alike, even if they have no intention of actually using it. It helps that DW is a good game too, of course, but it being a familiar pitch ("It's like D&D, but...") is doubtlessly helping it achieve a good word-of-mouth to purchase ratio.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2013 14:03
|
|
|
I wasn't kidding about the Soulknife either, by the way. I don't think you necessarily want to rejigger your playbook to adopt that as a new core move since you seem to be angling more for a wuxia/Jedi kind of deal, but if you're looking for advanced moves then perhaps something like a "build your own psychic weapon projection" similar to the Fighter's Signature Weapon could be something to look into. Give it a funky list of descriptors, let the player assemble it out of a couple of tags, then give it some cool properties to choose from like "targets struck by your mindblade experience nightmarish visions of their worst fears" or "enemies struck by your psychic weapon deal -1d4/1d6 damage forward" or something.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
I actually think the name Psychic Warrior is fine. To me, if you call something a Soulknife then I'm pretty much going to expect it to be all about making a mindblade around your hand and psychic shanking people.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
gnome7 posted:It's a little later than I would have liked due to art delays, but man I am so happy with the cover art I ended up with that I don't even care. That cover is pretty friggin' sweet. That's one copy you've just sold.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
This is going to sound incredibly egotistical, but if anybody ever does give my Warlord playbook a spin would you please let me know how it goes? I'm constantly on the verge of going all-in and gussying it up in pdf form and maybe even putting it up for sale, but I'd love some actual player feedback.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
Mikan posted:I think the issue is more focusing it down to something coherent. Try picking two or three core concepts and writing the playbook with those in mind. This is sort of how I approached the Warlord, though I did it more or less by accident as I attempted to take the rough outline of the 4E class and translate it into a playbook...I approached moves with two basic ideas in mind of how one might want to develop the class, the brilliant and cunning strategist with a master plan and the charismatic leader that you'd follow into hell, and then added some stuff that could work for either. DW doesn't really have "builds" the way that 4E does, of course, your starting moves are really the core of every playbook and advanced moves build from there, but it was a useful way to mentally approach "okay, now I need to come up with 20+ more of these things."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:The Inverse World classes rock on toast. All of them are just screaming to be played. You should be running every game with the Bastion soundtrack.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:Here's what I have so far for the Assassin. It is missing four 6-10 moves, so I would appreciate suggestions, but there's a catch: those can't be moves about poison, disguises or being stealthy since those are already covered by the Thief/City Thief. I have a pounding headache right now so I'm not thinking too clearly, but the first thing that popped into my head is a staple of assassin fiction; When you elect to spare a contracted target's life by faking their death, roll +Int.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
The most basic idea I can think of is to make it a "pick two from the list on a 10+, pick one on a 7-9, on a 6- something bad happens" sort of deal. So a list for something like that might look like: -The target will repay your mercy with a favor. -Your deception is flawless; no one will suspect the target yet lives. -?????? my brain is still running slow, something cool goes here.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
So I've got a question for gnome and/or Mikan, maybe it was answered earlier so I apologize if it was. In the Inverse World playbooks that you opened up to Kickstarter backers I noticed that the Mechanic has only six 6-10 advanced moves while all the rest are 2-5 moves. I know there isn't really any hard and fast rule to how many of each "block" of moves you make (except "you have to have a minimum of five" I suppose) but all the other playbooks have a more even distribution of advanced moves and I'm wondering why you opted to skew that for the Mechanic.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
Gith could be fun, I'll toss out another vote for that. Also Warforged.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
On the Slayer, which I'm really digging so far by the way, ideas for advanced moves I can think of: -Something that lets you consume a part/the heart's blood/the fleeing spirit of a monster to gain one of its moves (magical or non-magical) as your own without needing to spend Readiness (only one move at a time can be imbued in this fashion, probably a 6-10 move). -A move that lets you sacrifice a trophy to gain a point of Readiness or some other benefit. -When you Parley, you can always use an offer to slay a troublesome monster plaguing the area as leverage. -A move that lets you whip up a mob of torch-and-pitchfork wielding hirelings with the cost "Kill The Beast."
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
Boing posted:-Consuming dead monsters in particular is another archetype, I think, and when your prey can include zombies and stuff that's pretty gross. Well it doesn't have to be literally eating a bit of a monster, it could be like in Deadlands how you can "count coup" when you kill certain monsters and gain an aspect of their power or like all the Nintendo DC Castlevania games where you go around collecting monster souls like Pokemon. The reason I suggested it was due largely to the Curse background which suggests that some Slayers are a little closer to being monsters themselves. quote:Needs a Name Call it "Rip and Tear." quote:-Sacrificing a trophy is cool, I want them to be cycling in and out fairly frequently. How about something like "When you release the power contained in a Grisly Trophy, you summon forth an aspect of the monster that bore it"? I don't know what the mechanics of that would be, but it sounds cool in my head. Gain a Readiness or make use of a single magical move of that creature or gain ??? You could even make it a roll move if you wanted. quote:-Killing a troublesome monster should always be leverage, there shouldn't need to be a move for that. Eh, I feel like you could make that argument about a lot of the "you can use X for leverage" moves, but fair enough. quote:There might also be design space for a fictional move about researching and lifting curses, which fits the archetype well, but would be a very specific move that doesn't crop up often. Can anyone think of a more generalised version of that? Maybe a modification to Discern Realities? Add a question that lets you ask what creature caused an affliction/curse and what is said to cure it?
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:In Eberron Alignment actually isn't that big a deal. What matters more is your political and/or religious affiliation. Based on this idea I've been thinking that for my Dungeon World Eberron hack I'd try to replace each class's Alignments with something more appropriate to the setting. For an example, Clerics would have Religion instead of Alignment, whereas Druids would have Order instead of Alignment, etc. However, beyond those two obvious cases, I haven't got anything. What sorts of not-Alignment affiliations could I use to replace, say, a Fighter's or a Thief's Alignments? Like UrbanLabyrinth said, there are drives which a lot of the DW homebrewers and self-publishers here have moved towards, but if you're looking for affiliations: Fighters - Military (with the player choosing which nation's armed forces he served as a part of during the Last War), Mercenary (again, choosing which group you worked for, such as a Dhakaani mercenary company or perhaps House Deneith), and House Guard where you're a member of a Dragonmarked House's own private soldiery (doesn't require you to have a Mark of your own, choose which House). Thief - There are several prominent criminal organizations in Eberron although not all of them are precisely world-spanning. You have the Boromar Clan which is basically the halfling mafia, you have Daask which is a criminal group comprised of "monstrous races" being backed by the fledgling nation of Droaam, there are the Tyrants which is a group of changelings that specialize in information brokerage and espionage, and of course there's House Tarkanan which is comprised of spies and assassins for hire, all of whom bear an aberrant Dragonmark. The problem is that these are pretty much all based in and around Sharn by default. But if that's cool then there you go. And you could also have an "Independent" option too for those who don't like any of those affiliations.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2013 10:30
|
|
|
Yeah, I went and took a look at Grim World based on the mention in the Kickstarter thread. It looks...okay? I don't get a "we're trying to be super-serious grimdark" vibe off the project, it seems more geared for the sort of "punch a kraken to death from the inside" kind of  stuff, and that honestly sounds kind of fun. The art also looks pretty neat too. That said the previews are in fact terrible. Like, I get not wanting to spoil everything in advance but they literally show no death moves and the rest of everything is arbitrarily spoilered with no rhyme or reason. And also the previews are images uploaded to Flickr? What the hell, who does that?Then again $15 isn't exactly a ton of money, so I'm debating pitching in for the digital tier.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2013 10:42
|
|
|
You get Fate Core writeups too if that's your thing. Inverse World is doing that too but it was a stretch goal.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2013 12:04
|
|
|
Yep, looks like I'm in for $15 on that one. Also hooray for more Inverse World stuff!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
I don't have anywhere near as in-depth an understanding of Dungeon World as Gnome does, but looking over the Templar my one immediate criticism is that the Penance/Purity balancing act is interesting in concept but in execution it doesn't seem to do much. Basically as long as your Templar is "Pure," i.e. has no Penance points, then they can use certain abilities like laying blessings on equipment or, and admittedly this is kind of neat, restoring someone's hitpoints by listening to them make confession and granting them absolution. Certain acts will make you owe Penance though, and you have to seek absolution your own self in order to get rid of it with the playbook providing a number of examples thereof (self-flagellation, holding a silent vigil, destroying the source of whatever caused you to owe penance, or let the GM offer you an option). So, here are my criticisms: 1). The dynamic as presented is fairly uninteresting. If you have no Penance then you get to use certain abilities. If you owe Penance then those abilities shut down. That's it, there's nothing that runs off of Penance, no real difference between owing 1 Penance and owing 100 beyond those abilities being locked off...it kind of feels like an opportunity is being missed here for a light side/dark side dynamic where falling out of Purity lock off certain abilities but unlocks others, giving them a choice of whether to rush towards absolution or give in to temptation...after all it's for the greater good, right? Otherwise it's basically just a weaksauce version of paladin falling, which everybody knows is boring. 2). There honestly aren't that many things that make you owe Penance in the first place. There are all of three ways I can see, one is rolling 7-9 when hearing someone's confession, one is a 2-5 move that lets you reroll your damage, and one is a 6-10 move where you use your holy authority to browbeat people into doing things that are clearly dangerous. Between this and the first criticism the whole Penance angle feels rather underdeveloped. Add to this that there's a 2-5 advance move that removes a point of Penance every time you take damage from an outside source, which further negates one of the potential angles of interest (how do you repent?) and ehhhhhhhh. There's a risk of making things too fiddly...I don't think that a Dungeon World playbook would really benefit from shuffling around pools of points and shifting moves and such, but as it stands now Penance feels kind of vestigial and underwhelming. Also it's kind of weird that listening to someone's confession can potentially cause you to owe Penance but torturing someone to death doesn't. This might be intentional (grimdark, baby!) but I feel like there are some opportunities to work the Penance angle into the playbook's interrogation moves. 3). As a general criticism, a number of the advanced moves are pretty boring. You can lay one additional blessing, you gain one additional Inquisitorial Weaponry (which doesn't actually exist, I think this is meant to be Facets of Inquisition, the playbook's version of race picks), you double the results of certain blessings (there are two separate 6-10 moves that are literally just "You double the effects of [BLESSING]"). Not all of them, some are clever...you can literally smell the guilt on people like it was a stench, you have prophetic dreams when you sleep that give you bonuses to Defy Danger...while others are workmanlike but still decent...when you heal someone by absolving them they deal +1d4 damage forward, you gain bonus damage while Pure, when you make camp and hold vigil you can heal yourself or remove a debility. Still, a lot of these moves seem kind of boring compared to other playbooks out there. I think this playbook could benefit from a brainstorming session or two.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2013 05:44
|
|
|
I'm waiting to hear Gnome's thoughts on the Templar, then I was planning to e-mail them my thoughts. Gnome's better at this than I am since he's, y'know, elbow deep in Dungeon World whereas I'm mostly a dabbler. I don't want to be the guy sending in feedback who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Oh, there is one thing that's actually really nice about the Grim War playbooks; all of the multiclass moves usually say something like "you gain a move from [PLAYBOOK]," and if one of the PCs is using that playbook then it straight-up says that PC is somehow involved in you obtaining that move or otherwise benefits in some fashion when you use it. So for instance the Slayer can take the Fighter's signature weapon as a 6-10 move, but if there's a Fighter in the party then that PC has a stake in it, helping the Slayer forge the weapon or otherwise showing the Slayer how to obtain it, while the Battlemaster can take the Thief's Backstab or the Ranger's Called Shot, and if either of those classes are in the party they can coordinate an ambush with the Battlemaster to get his +Int as a damage bonus on their first attack. Kai Tave fucked around with this message at 10:02 on Aug 22, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2013 09:53
|
|
|
I am really, really tempted to go for one of the personalized hardcopies but between the Deck of Legends and Grim World I think I might have to be lame and responsible and not spend too much money on Kickstarter stuff. I dunno, I need to see what my next paycheck looks like.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2013 08:26
|
|
|
Gnome should e-mail his playbook breakdowns to the Grim World folks and then go back to bugging Mikan to finish his stuff so I can get my hands on Inverse World.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2013 13:29
|
|
|
Also death moves generally tend to have a significant and/or lasting impact not just on the immediate session but potentially on the world. A Wizard unleashing a Wish spell, a Thief stealing something from Death's domain, the Grim War Channeler exploding into a permanent vortex to the elemental planes, stuff like that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
I am not Lemon Curdistan and thus my advice will probably be less useful in Dungeon World related matters, but here's some feedback based on the latest draft of the Samurai. I think a better approach to the Take a Stance move's 7-9 outcome would be "you adopt the stance but there is a flaw in it." It isn't really any more detailed than "you expose yourself to danger," but to me it seems like it's more flavorful for a playbook build around stances in a chanbara sort of way. Also the move has no 6- outcome. Even if the result of a failure is "you fail to adopt the stance" this should be spelled out. Perhaps something like, "on a 6- your spirit is unbalanced. You can no longer enter the chosen stance until you have spent several hours in practice and meditation." On the stances themselves, the starting two seem a little clunky to me. On the Fire Stance I wonder if it would be better to simply say "attacks against you gain Piercing 2" rather than the way you currently have it. Meanwhile Earth Stance just seems kind of fiddly...the +1 Defend is fine but the Defy Danger using Con is rather specific. I think it might be better to replace that with "gain 2 Armor" or "ignore the Forceful tag" but that's just me. I'm neutral on the stance dropping your damage die to a d4, I don't feel like that's bad per se, just kind of unusual. Maybe "all damage you deal is halved" instead? That said, they also seem a little flavorless. I know this is a draft and still a work in progress but I remember Gnome talking about working on IW playbooks and how he realized that moves that did things like "your attacks do +1d4 damage" are good moves in the sense that they are a useful, beneficial thing that some players will definitely want, but that they're also just sort of bland and there, y'know? So to help with this he added some additional fiction to them in order to both give players and GMs more of an idea of how the move slots into the fiction as well as just to make them more flavorful in general. So taking Fire Stance for example, you could say something like When you attack with the reckless, destructive passion of fire, your attacks deal extra damage equal to your Dex bonus, etc. etc. I admit I'm not entirely sure how For Your Own Good fits in with the whole samurai theme. Like, hitting someone for their own good isn't one of the first things my mind leaps to when I think "samurai." Y'know what this playbook needs as a starting move? A way to initiate duels with someone. That is a very samurai thing, and it would also give you another way to play with the honor/dishonor mechanic. Hmmmm... When you challenge a notable foe to face you in honorable combat, roll +Cha. Take +1 to the roll if you are Honorable, -1 if you are Dishonored. On a hit your opponent readily agrees to face you in single combat. Take +1 ongoing to moves made against or in response to that enemy until one of you is defeated but if you attack anyone else until that occurs you become Dishonored. On a 10+ other enemies respect the duel as well. On a 7-9 other enemies aren't so swayed by notions of honorable combat and may attempt to interfere. On a 6- your opponent scorns you, and you may not use this move again for the rest of the fight.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 08:55
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:Since you're making a fantasy honourable warrior and not a real member of the Japanese feudal nobility, why does your warrior have to follow the actual Bushido code? Why not have Bushido (or call it Way of the Warrior or whatever) be a move about building your own warrior's code and getting a small bonus for following it ("as long as you do not violate the tenets of your code, [benefit goes here]")? The Warrior from the first Grim Portents has something like this...you pick between two and four part of your code and that becomes the maximum amount of Fury you can hold at a time. If you break your code you can't hold Fury until you undertake a quest for redemption.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 11:37
|
|
|
Well the thing to bear in mind about Inverse World is A). the sun is also a god and B). that god is basically hiding in penitence/shame/nobody quite knows, though it also desires to help people. Oh, and also rain carries messages from the sun's cloud-children to the gods and back again. So what happens when you mix angsty deific solar energy with water infused with the correspondence between divinities in your steam engine? I'm sure more than one mechanic has tried this and I'm sure the results have been memorable every time, though perhaps not always for the reasons they'd hoped.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
After the brief digression into Warlord chat I just wanna throw it out there that if anyone wants to steal any of the stuff I wrote for that playbook and turn it into something else (i.e. something better) then feel free to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2013 07:39
|
|
|
That font choice is inspired.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
gnome7 posted:The main thing holding it up now is a couple of art pieces I really want done. I have literally had two artists' machinery explode on me during this project and it is awful. (One lost her tablet, the other lost her entire hard drive). How would you prefer those people with semi-final pdf copies to contact you regarding typos/unclear passages?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2013 10:02
|
|
|
So as I'm going through the book I have what may be a dumb but non-typo related question. The Walker's advanced move No Trespassing lets the player gain and spend hold to do sneaky, ambush-y things to someone moving through an area they've prepared before hand, but on results of 9- the GM also gains hold. What does the GM spend this on? The same things as the player? The move is a little unclear unless there's something in the Dungeon World book about GMs spending hold that I just don't remember.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Something else that caught my eye that didn't exactly seem like a typo but I thought I might bring to your attention anyway is that when I was looking over the section on vehicle weapons it seemed to me that ballistae would actually be better at causing Stress to things like ships than cannons even though the flavor text for both entries seems to suggest that cannons are the premiere anti-ship weapons and that ballistae can be dangerous to ships but only if the operator is very skilled. The ballista does 1d10 damage and has piercing 4. If I'm remembering the rules correctly that piercing 4 means the ballista only needs to roll a 6 or better in order to inflict a point of Stress as piercing reduces the amount of damage you need to reach that threshold (yep, as per the rules on page 199). That means that a ballista has a 50% chance (rolling 6 or better on 1d10) of inflicting Stress on a vehicle. Cannons do 2d6 with no piercing, so they have to roll a 10 or better in order to inflict Stress. Now I am admittedly very, very bad at running probabilities much to my chagrin but if I have my math right (and someone please correct me if I am wrong) the odds of rolling a 10+ on 2d6 with no modifiers is a little over 16%, which basically means less than one cannon volley in five will be enough to knock some Stress out of a ship as opposed to the ballista's one shot in two. Something about that seems rather off to me. I know *World isn't a super math-oriented game but it struck me as the sort of thing that you guys might be interested in looking into.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 03:50 |
|
|
That looks good. You probably wouldn't want to up the cannons' base damage because the two options Captains have for raising the damage put the odds of dealing stress around 62-64 percent, so making them too much more powerful would run the risk of making them too strong. I would perhaps consider knocking the ballista down to piercing 3 as well...that leaves you with a 40% chance to inflict stress which is still pretty solid but a 60% chance to simply bounce and do nothing, so it's more of a weighted choice whether you want to take the chance or not in a battle. Greater odds of inflicting stress than a single cannon, but greater odds of nothing happening at all. Making this change means that there's the prospect of ships flying around with more penalties than Stress taken. You can repair this sort of "minor damage" using Jury-Rig, but if you're going to do this you might want to consider adding somewhere (perhaps under the Jury-Rig move itself) that a ship that docks at a port and undergoes repairs can pay [X] coin per penalty to have them fixed directly, the same way you can repair Stress for 50 coin a pop. ( Kai Tave fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Jan 2, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2014 02:22
|
|