Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
measuring difficulty
23 views
Skip to first unread message
Magister
Feb 23, 2013, 2:48:47 PM2/23/13
to
A frequent request in starting up the new campaign was that it be
"challenging but not too difficult". It would seem to me that almost
nobody aims at a game that is unchallenging or too difficult, although
I suppose some hopeless situations (probably horror or post-
apocalyptic
genres) might be appropriately set up as too difficult. I took this
as at most an expectation that I would adjust the game if it proved
to be too easy or too hard.
But how does one measure difficulty? Some kind of indication that
adventure #1 is beyond the player characters but that adventure #2 is
within their abilities is needed for players to make meaningful
choices. If the player characters have no certain information, they
tend to not decide--act defensively until the GM drags them into a
situation (where they can complain if it's beyond their abilities).
I don't want to be the one deciding if something is too tough or not,
but I'm not sure what information I can consistently provide that will
leave the real decision in the players' hands.
--
Magister
"challenging but not too difficult". It would seem to me that almost
nobody aims at a game that is unchallenging or too difficult, although
I suppose some hopeless situations (probably horror or post-
apocalyptic
genres) might be appropriately set up as too difficult. I took this
as at most an expectation that I would adjust the game if it proved
to be too easy or too hard.
But how does one measure difficulty? Some kind of indication that
adventure #1 is beyond the player characters but that adventure #2 is
within their abilities is needed for players to make meaningful
choices. If the player characters have no certain information, they
tend to not decide--act defensively until the GM drags them into a
situation (where they can complain if it's beyond their abilities).
I don't want to be the one deciding if something is too tough or not,
but I'm not sure what information I can consistently provide that will
leave the real decision in the players' hands.
--
Magister
Simon Smith
Feb 26, 2013, 6:33:15 PM2/26/13
to
In message <0bb147c3-a2cc-4871...@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
I've been mulling this, and I think I'm pretty unabashed about simply
starting with some blunt metagame information on this area.
I start by defining some kind of yardstick that gives the relative power
levels of PCs and NPCs. Something like, 'for every second level character
there are five first levels, for every third level character there are five
seconds,' and so forth. From that kind of formula you can determine that the
greatest warriors in the land (pop. 5 million) are 12-15th level or
whatever-it-is, and with that pretty much pure metagame information the PCs
know roughly where they stand whether they're first, tenth or twentieth
level. In non-level-based systems producing an equivalent yardstick may be
harder, but I consider it a vital part of GMing that really has to be
decided very early on in the campaiogn.
Having done that, the various NPC factions are assigned forces of the levels
I think they ought to have without any regard whatsoever for the power level
of the PCs. Thus I never have problems with 'elite' forces that turn out all
to be first level, or groups of bunglers who turn out all to be levels 10+,
as sometimes happens in campaigns which have been custom-balanced against
the PCs' power level.
Any further information about the relative power and effectiveness of
different groups is provided via in-game information on top of the metagame
framework. The metagame framework may not be 100% accurate, but it will
usually be broadly correct. (If it's wildly wrong that may be a campaign
hook in its own right.) But in any case the combination of in-game and
metagame data, neither of which is guaranteed to be 100% accurate but is
usually of reasonable quality, is all the difficulty data my players will
get unless they go looking for more information on their own cognisance. OK,
I might warn them that they need to get more information before letting them
dive in to a particular situation, but if they dive in anyway, that's their
lookout.
You can see from this that I mainly follow a simulationist style. Pure
dramatist just doesn't work for me because I'd never have a reliable handle
on the power level of the NPCs, so I couldn't guide the players towards
sensible choices and I'd have great difficulty keeping the campaign
consistent. That would annoy or frustrate me and doubtless confuse the
players. A rough 'global rule of thumb for NPC power' helps me keep things
straight and sane and I couldn't do without it for more than about five
scenarios.
--
Simon Smith
When emailing me, please use my preferred email address, which is on my web
site at http://www.simon-smith.org
starting with some blunt metagame information on this area.
I start by defining some kind of yardstick that gives the relative power
levels of PCs and NPCs. Something like, 'for every second level character
there are five first levels, for every third level character there are five
seconds,' and so forth. From that kind of formula you can determine that the
greatest warriors in the land (pop. 5 million) are 12-15th level or
whatever-it-is, and with that pretty much pure metagame information the PCs
know roughly where they stand whether they're first, tenth or twentieth
level. In non-level-based systems producing an equivalent yardstick may be
harder, but I consider it a vital part of GMing that really has to be
decided very early on in the campaiogn.
Having done that, the various NPC factions are assigned forces of the levels
I think they ought to have without any regard whatsoever for the power level
of the PCs. Thus I never have problems with 'elite' forces that turn out all
to be first level, or groups of bunglers who turn out all to be levels 10+,
as sometimes happens in campaigns which have been custom-balanced against
the PCs' power level.
Any further information about the relative power and effectiveness of
different groups is provided via in-game information on top of the metagame
framework. The metagame framework may not be 100% accurate, but it will
usually be broadly correct. (If it's wildly wrong that may be a campaign
hook in its own right.) But in any case the combination of in-game and
metagame data, neither of which is guaranteed to be 100% accurate but is
usually of reasonable quality, is all the difficulty data my players will
get unless they go looking for more information on their own cognisance. OK,
I might warn them that they need to get more information before letting them
dive in to a particular situation, but if they dive in anyway, that's their
lookout.
You can see from this that I mainly follow a simulationist style. Pure
dramatist just doesn't work for me because I'd never have a reliable handle
on the power level of the NPCs, so I couldn't guide the players towards
sensible choices and I'd have great difficulty keeping the campaign
consistent. That would annoy or frustrate me and doubtless confuse the
players. A rough 'global rule of thumb for NPC power' helps me keep things
straight and sane and I couldn't do without it for more than about five
scenarios.
--
Simon Smith
When emailing me, please use my preferred email address, which is on my web
site at http://www.simon-smith.org
Magister
Mar 2, 2013, 8:30:45 PM3/2/13
to
On Feb 26, 5:33 pm, Simon Smith <simon_smith_n...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <0bb147c3-a2cc-4871-8072-533640819...@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
an
adventure is, and one can hardly expect the players to know any more.
My
limited experience with non-level-based systems is that there is some
measure of character generation (like points in GURPS) or else that
the
NPCs effective level comes from only a few attributes (such as hit
points,
chance to hit, chance to defend, damage done), so with some adjustment
for
particularly useful abilities one can rank NPCs relatively.
> Having done that, the various NPC factions are assigned forces of the levels
> I think they ought to have without any regard whatsoever for the power level
> of the PCs. Thus I never have problems with 'elite' forces that turn out all
> to be first level, or groups of bunglers who turn out all to be levels 10+,
> as sometimes happens in campaigns which have been custom-balanced against
> the PCs' power level.
I think there needs to be some idea of the distribution of opponents,
not only in level but to some extent in type, at least for a non-level-
based
system; otherwise the players hardly know the relative value of
different
skills (e.g., if traps are never found, then remove traps is not a
very useful
skill).
> Any further information about the relative power and effectiveness of
> different groups is provided via in-game information on top of the metagame
> framework. The metagame framework may not be 100% accurate, but it will
> usually be broadly correct. (If it's wildly wrong that may be a campaign
> hook in its own right.) But in any case the combination of in-game and
> metagame data, neither of which is guaranteed to be 100% accurate but is
> usually of reasonable quality, is all the difficulty data my players will
> get unless they go looking for more information on their own cognisance. OK,
> I might warn them that they need to get more information before letting them
> dive in to a particular situation, but if they dive in anyway, that's their
> lookout.
This is essentially my quandary; the old fashioned dungeon where the
opponents sorted themselves by level is not what I want, but it had
the
virtue of telling the players where they were on the level yardstick.
But I don't want every adventure to start with a sign indicating that
it's "an adventure for 4-6 characters of level 6-8" or whatever.
Probably
the solution is to accept that there will be such information but
disguise
it with consistently used descriptions that would make sense to the
characters.
> You can see from this that I mainly follow a simulationist style. Pure
> dramatist just doesn't work for me because I'd never have a reliable handle
> on the power level of the NPCs, so I couldn't guide the players towards
> sensible choices and I'd have great difficulty keeping the campaign
> consistent. That would annoy or frustrate me and doubtless confuse the
> players. A rough 'global rule of thumb for NPC power' helps me keep things
> straight and sane and I couldn't do without it for more than about five
> scenarios.
I go back and forth on what my playing style is; probably more game
oriented. I think that going blindly into a possibly dangerous
situation
should be unpopular with any style, although drama oriented referees
probably have an easier time fixing things when the opponents are too
powerful or too weak.
The important thing for me is to allow the players a reasonable
chance to evaluate the danger in a situation when they still have a
chance to avoid it in ways consistent with their characters and the
game world.
--
Magister
> In message <0bb147c3-a2cc-4871-8072-533640819...@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
> Magister <mr.magis...@zoho.com> wrote:
> > But how does one measure difficulty? Some kind of indication that
> > adventure #1 is beyond the player characters but that adventure #2 is
> > within their abilities is needed for players to make meaningful
> > choices. If the player characters have no certain information, they
> > tend to not decide--act defensively until the GM drags them into a
> > situation (where they can complain if it's beyond their abilities).
> > I don't want to be the one deciding if something is too tough or not,
> > but I'm not sure what information I can consistently provide that will
> > leave the real decision in the players' hands.
>
> I've been mulling this, and I think I'm pretty unabashed about simply
> starting with some blunt metagame information on this area.
>
> I start by defining some kind of yardstick that gives the relative power
> levels of PCs and NPCs. Something like, 'for every second level character
> there are five first levels, for every third level character there are five
> seconds,' and so forth. From that kind of formula you can determine that the
> greatest warriors in the land (pop. 5 million) are 12-15th level or
> whatever-it-is, and with that pretty much pure metagame information the PCs
> know roughly where they stand whether they're first, tenth or twentieth
> level. In non-level-based systems producing an equivalent yardstick may be
> harder, but I consider it a vital part of GMing that really has to be
> decided very early on in the campaiogn.
A yardstick is essential; otherwise the GM doesn't know how difficult
> > But how does one measure difficulty? Some kind of indication that
> > adventure #1 is beyond the player characters but that adventure #2 is
> > within their abilities is needed for players to make meaningful
> > choices. If the player characters have no certain information, they
> > tend to not decide--act defensively until the GM drags them into a
> > situation (where they can complain if it's beyond their abilities).
> > I don't want to be the one deciding if something is too tough or not,
> > but I'm not sure what information I can consistently provide that will
> > leave the real decision in the players' hands.
>
> I've been mulling this, and I think I'm pretty unabashed about simply
> starting with some blunt metagame information on this area.
>
> I start by defining some kind of yardstick that gives the relative power
> levels of PCs and NPCs. Something like, 'for every second level character
> there are five first levels, for every third level character there are five
> seconds,' and so forth. From that kind of formula you can determine that the
> greatest warriors in the land (pop. 5 million) are 12-15th level or
> whatever-it-is, and with that pretty much pure metagame information the PCs
> know roughly where they stand whether they're first, tenth or twentieth
> level. In non-level-based systems producing an equivalent yardstick may be
> harder, but I consider it a vital part of GMing that really has to be
> decided very early on in the campaiogn.
an
adventure is, and one can hardly expect the players to know any more.
My
limited experience with non-level-based systems is that there is some
measure of character generation (like points in GURPS) or else that
the
NPCs effective level comes from only a few attributes (such as hit
points,
chance to hit, chance to defend, damage done), so with some adjustment
for
particularly useful abilities one can rank NPCs relatively.
> Having done that, the various NPC factions are assigned forces of the levels
> I think they ought to have without any regard whatsoever for the power level
> of the PCs. Thus I never have problems with 'elite' forces that turn out all
> to be first level, or groups of bunglers who turn out all to be levels 10+,
> as sometimes happens in campaigns which have been custom-balanced against
> the PCs' power level.
not only in level but to some extent in type, at least for a non-level-
based
system; otherwise the players hardly know the relative value of
different
skills (e.g., if traps are never found, then remove traps is not a
very useful
skill).
> Any further information about the relative power and effectiveness of
> different groups is provided via in-game information on top of the metagame
> framework. The metagame framework may not be 100% accurate, but it will
> usually be broadly correct. (If it's wildly wrong that may be a campaign
> hook in its own right.) But in any case the combination of in-game and
> metagame data, neither of which is guaranteed to be 100% accurate but is
> usually of reasonable quality, is all the difficulty data my players will
> get unless they go looking for more information on their own cognisance. OK,
> I might warn them that they need to get more information before letting them
> dive in to a particular situation, but if they dive in anyway, that's their
> lookout.
opponents sorted themselves by level is not what I want, but it had
the
virtue of telling the players where they were on the level yardstick.
But I don't want every adventure to start with a sign indicating that
it's "an adventure for 4-6 characters of level 6-8" or whatever.
Probably
the solution is to accept that there will be such information but
disguise
it with consistently used descriptions that would make sense to the
characters.
> You can see from this that I mainly follow a simulationist style. Pure
> dramatist just doesn't work for me because I'd never have a reliable handle
> on the power level of the NPCs, so I couldn't guide the players towards
> sensible choices and I'd have great difficulty keeping the campaign
> consistent. That would annoy or frustrate me and doubtless confuse the
> players. A rough 'global rule of thumb for NPC power' helps me keep things
> straight and sane and I couldn't do without it for more than about five
> scenarios.
oriented. I think that going blindly into a possibly dangerous
situation
should be unpopular with any style, although drama oriented referees
probably have an easier time fixing things when the opponents are too
powerful or too weak.
The important thing for me is to allow the players a reasonable
chance to evaluate the danger in a situation when they still have a
chance to avoid it in ways consistent with their characters and the
game world.
--
Magister
David Lamb
Mar 3, 2013, 11:39:28 AM3/3/13
to
On 02/03/2013 8:30 PM, Magister wrote:
> This is essentially my quandary; the old fashioned dungeon where the
> opponents sorted themselves by level is not what I want, but it had
> the virtue of telling the players where they were on the level yardstick.
> But I don't want every adventure to start with a sign indicating that
> it's "an adventure for 4-6 characters of level 6-8" or whatever.
> Probably the solution is to accept that there will be such information but
> disguise it with consistently used descriptions that would make sense to the
> characters.
This ought to be the place where knowledge skills, area familarity, and
> This is essentially my quandary; the old fashioned dungeon where the
> opponents sorted themselves by level is not what I want, but it had
> the virtue of telling the players where they were on the level yardstick.
> But I don't want every adventure to start with a sign indicating that
> it's "an adventure for 4-6 characters of level 6-8" or whatever.
> Probably the solution is to accept that there will be such information but
> disguise it with consistently used descriptions that would make sense to the
> characters.
the like, shine. From a glimpse of tracks a forester should be able to
say "a small dragon -- likely too tough for us today unless we're lucky,
but with a bit more preparation we might be able to tackle it."
Magister
Mar 9, 2013, 9:03:16 AM3/9/13
to
whether they can take a given opponent; so "too tough for us today"
could translate into some number of levels higher on the level
yardstick,
which I'd like to be a somewhat objective measure based on the
opponent's
various statistics.
And different characters could have different levels of skill in
evaluating various kinds of opponents: so foresters for monsters or
animals, priests for undead or demons, wizards for monsters or magical
creatures, and so on.
--
Magister
David Lamb
Mar 9, 2013, 2:55:01 PM3/9/13
to
On 09/03/2013 9:03 AM, Magister wrote:
> On Mar 3, 10:39 am, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>>
>> This ought to be the place where knowledge skills, area familarity, and
>> the like, shine. From a glimpse of tracks a forester should be able to
>> say "a small dragon -- likely too tough for us today unless we're lucky,
>> but with a bit more preparation we might be able to tackle it."
>
> I am leaning towards this, but I don't want to make the evaluation of
> whether they can take a given opponent; so "too tough for us today"
> could translate into some number of levels higher on the level
> yardstick, which I'd like to be a somewhat objective measure based on the
> opponent's various statistics.
That's what Challenge Ratings are supposed to be for in Dungeons and
> On Mar 3, 10:39 am, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>>
>> This ought to be the place where knowledge skills, area familarity, and
>> the like, shine. From a glimpse of tracks a forester should be able to
>> say "a small dragon -- likely too tough for us today unless we're lucky,
>> but with a bit more preparation we might be able to tackle it."
>
> I am leaning towards this, but I don't want to make the evaluation of
> whether they can take a given opponent; so "too tough for us today"
> could translate into some number of levels higher on the level
> yardstick, which I'd like to be a somewhat objective measure based on the
> opponent's various statistics.
Dragons, and character point totals in GURPS, but they're very rough
measures.
> And different characters could have different levels of skill in
> evaluating various kinds of opponents: so foresters for monsters or
> animals, priests for undead or demons, wizards for monsters or magical
> creatures, and so on.
monsters with specific skills, rather than with character types /
archetypes / roles / classes. So Knowledge(Nature),
Knowledge(supernatural), and Knowledge(Preternatural) might cover the
things you listed.
Magister
Mar 9, 2013, 4:23:31 PM3/9/13
to
On Mar 9, 1:55 pm, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
> On 09/03/2013 9:03 AM, Magister wrote:
> > I am leaning towards this, but I don't want to make the evaluation of
> > whether they can take a given opponent; so "too tough for us today"
> > could translate into some number of levels higher on the level
> > yardstick, which I'd like to be a somewhat objective measure based on the
> > opponent's various statistics.
>
> That's what Challenge Ratings are supposed to be for in Dungeons and
> Dragons, and character point totals in GURPS, but they're very rough
> measures.
Character points cover a lot of other stuff not relevant to the
> On 09/03/2013 9:03 AM, Magister wrote:
> > I am leaning towards this, but I don't want to make the evaluation of
> > whether they can take a given opponent; so "too tough for us today"
> > could translate into some number of levels higher on the level
> > yardstick, which I'd like to be a somewhat objective measure based on the
> > opponent's various statistics.
>
> That's what Challenge Ratings are supposed to be for in Dungeons and
> Dragons, and character point totals in GURPS, but they're very rough
> measures.
difficulty
of an opponent, since it pays for a lot of other aspects that don't
affect
difficulty, but perhaps if you count only the relevant skills; I would
presume
then it would give something like Challenge Rating, and I think that
is
the sort of yardstick I mean.
> > And different characters could have different levels of skill in
> > evaluating various kinds of opponents: so foresters for monsters or
> > animals, priests for undead or demons, wizards for monsters or magical
> > creatures, and so on.
>
> It would be more objective if you associated the ability to evaluate
> monsters with specific skills, rather than with character types /
> archetypes / roles / classes. So Knowledge(Nature),
> Knowledge(supernatural), and Knowledge(Preternatural) might cover the
> things you listed.
adjusting the costs of skills than about specific skills, so it should
work
out that way, except that I have not listed knowledge skills
separately
(so Knowledge(Nature) would be implicit in Tracking or Survival, etc).
I think I really should create separate knowledge skills.
--
Magister
David Lamb
Mar 9, 2013, 4:59:40 PM3/9/13
to
On 09/03/2013 4:23 PM, Magister wrote:
> (so Knowledge(Nature) would be implicit in Tracking or Survival, etc).
> I think I really should create separate knowledge skills.
I don't think there's anything wrong with having a skill supply
> (so Knowledge(Nature) would be implicit in Tracking or Survival, etc).
> I think I really should create separate knowledge skills.
knowledge even when that's not in the skill name. So Survival could
double as Knowledge in whatever environment the Survival applied to (can
I presume it applies to specific environments, rather than universally?)
Magister
Mar 9, 2013, 9:05:47 PM3/9/13
to
On Mar 9, 3:59 pm, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
> I don't think there's anything wrong with having a skill supply
> knowledge even when that's not in the skill name. So Survival could
> double as Knowledge in whatever environment the Survival applied to (can
> I presume it applies to specific environments, rather than universally?)
If I want the players to always have the benefit of some idea of the
> I don't think there's anything wrong with having a skill supply
> knowledge even when that's not in the skill name. So Survival could
> double as Knowledge in whatever environment the Survival applied to (can
> I presume it applies to specific environments, rather than universally?)
danger/difficulty, then I either want the knowledge skills to be cheap
enough that the party will have one, or else always give them that
information. Without information, they'll tend not to act because of
uncertainty, or will spend their time trying to read me rather than
the
game world (knowing the players in question).
On slightly more reflection, I think the latter is better for my
purpose; simply provide an estimate with a known error range, and
reduce the error range if there are any relevant skills supplying
specific knowledge. So anyone can see that something big tore through
and guess at its rating plus or minus 3; a forester could pin it down
to an actual rating (bearing in mind that the ratings would be
consistent
but not necessarily perfectly predictive) and further detail (e.g.,
that
it's a dragon). (If the rating were very much higher than the party,
either character might only get a lower bound.)
The survival skills apply by terrain, but can be used in similar
terrain with less effectiveness.
--
Magister
Warren J. Dew
Apr 5, 2013, 10:59:07 PM4/5/13
to
I measure difficulty as follows: if the players are never failing, things are not sufficiently challenging; if there are total party kills, things are too difficult.
Warren J. Dew
Apr 5, 2013, 11:07:50 PM4/5/13
to
That provides a power level for the world. With the world defined, though, the question becomes how to allow the players to have challenges that are not too difficult, given the characters they are playing.
If one isn't adjusting the world to the player characters, information is important, as pointed out in later posts. Also important, though, is the ability to pick which challenges to face. It does little good to know that an encounter is going to be unchallengingly boring or excessively difficult if you can do nothing to avoid it.
As with others in the thread, my campaign uses terrain related knowledge skills to good effect here. However, the skills are at least as beneficial because they allow the player characters to avoid encounters they don't want to face as because they allow the player characters to assess the danger of any given encounter.
If one isn't adjusting the world to the player characters, information is important, as pointed out in later posts. Also important, though, is the ability to pick which challenges to face. It does little good to know that an encounter is going to be unchallengingly boring or excessively difficult if you can do nothing to avoid it.
As with others in the thread, my campaign uses terrain related knowledge skills to good effect here. However, the skills are at least as beneficial because they allow the player characters to avoid encounters they don't want to face as because they allow the player characters to assess the danger of any given encounter.
tussock
Apr 23, 2013, 2:21:45 AM4/23/13
to
Magister wrote:
> A frequent request in starting up the new campaign was that it be
> "challenging but not too difficult".
Note that this could mean challenging puzzles and clue trails,
> A frequent request in starting up the new campaign was that it be
> "challenging but not too difficult".
challenging combat opponents, nitpicky conditional requirements, challenging
a character's morality ....
"Too difficult" can be puzzles you can't solve, clues you don't
recognise, necessary combats you can't win, spells or equipment you didn't
expect to need, or repugnant decisions to make.
"Not challenging" can be puzzles that you can iterate or dice through
without cost, endless clues all pointing the same way, fights without
consequence, no need to prepare anything at all, and not a single character
developing scene in the whole game.
> It would seem to me that almost nobody aims at a game that is
> unchallenging or too difficult, although I suppose some hopeless
> appropriately set up as too difficult.
Games for younger kids basically have to be unchallenging. There's a few
games that have /no/ possible challenge and the idea is simply to explore
/how/ the party succeeds.
Where most games still carry a threat of failure or refusal by the PCs.
> I took this as at most an expectation that I would adjust the game
> if it proved to be too easy or too hard.
cruising, provide an obstacle. You've got to do this at least some times to
move the game along, because IME some players will get stuck on a problem
and refuse to give up. Also, people can lose interest if there's no need to
pay attention, drift off.
> But how does one measure difficulty? Some kind of indication that
> adventure #1 is beyond the player characters but that adventure #2 is
> within their abilities is needed for players to make meaningful
> choices.
games have crazy-complex probability curves. For something like d20 you can
just eyeball the DCs and make sure players can make them, check maximum
damage and other nasty effects for monsters (think if players can handle
that happening to the PCs).
> If the player characters have no certain information, they tend to not
> decide--act defensively until the GM drags them into a situation (where
> they can complain if it's beyond their abilities).
the map into tiers and make it clear what size army is required to venture
into which parts. Sewers? Don't go don't there on your own. Docks at night?
The patrols won't go there. Old forest road? Even the biggest caravans won't
travel it now. Bleak mountain? Not even the biggest army.
> I don't want to be the one deciding if something is too tough or not,
> but I'm not sure what information I can consistently provide that will
> leave the real decision in the players' hands.
spiders and frogs have bright markings, tigers and lions growl, dragons
glide far overhead, and great demons and elder undead twist and distort the
local environment so the trees bleed, the sun flickers, animals are long
gone, and the stench of sulfur and death is everywhere.
--
tussock
0 new messages