Forbidden thread Version 3 (off limits to players of Mafia III)

[Queuing]

Just cause they asked.

If you ask me, that Blaster Master looks mighty scummy!

[MadTheSwine]

Originally Posted by Queuing

Just cause they asked.

If you ask me, that Blaster Master looks mighty scummy!

You call this a thread....BAH!

[Gadarene]

I kinda wish the thread that didn't have my name in the title had stayed open, but what're you gonna do?

[MadTheSwine]

CURSES!!!...you may have won this time Queuing....but the next thread will be mine!

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Gadarene

I kinda wish the thread that didn't have my name in the title had stayed open, but what're you gonna do?

That's OK; I've modified the title to make it more clear anyway.

[gonzoron]

I'll copy my post from the other thread here since it pertains to Mafia III, not II....

I hate to be a backseat hitman, but... oh wait, that's what this thread is for. I'm not an expert on this game, but in modesty I do consider myself an expert on games in general. I've been watching all three games with interest, and while the latest version has some interesting ideas, unfortunately I think there are a few flaws. Specifically the Do-Gooder and the Night Watchman. Both are excellent in flavor, but lacking in rules execution.

The problem with the Do-Gooder is that they have no power other than being un-corruptable. Thus, they don't really have a "tell" of any kind, so the Mafia is completely shooting in the dark. It's essentially a random chance that their ONE AND ONLY recruitment doesn't work. Seems a bit lacking as a "power role".

The Night Watchman is really cool in concept, but again, with no "tell," the result is a random 1 in 6 chance that the mafia kill fails as long as the NW is alive. Which is kind of disappointing for such a flavorful addition.

So, do I have a way to fix them or am I just bitching? Well, I have some suggestions. I would first of all give the Do-gooder some other power. I don't know what, but something that would encourage them to behave differently enough that the mafia has some slim chance of figuring it out. Or combine the do-gooder with another existing role. (Do-gooder detective, or Do-gooder Mason for example)

For the Night Watchman, I would make the locations matter more. Maybe make some sort of system whereby the players have to publicly declare where they will be that night, and then the Watchman has to make his choice.

Now you'd have to make sure that they don't break the system by everyone going to one place and having the watchman always protect that place. So there would have to be some limit on how many people fit in one place, which would have to be based somehow on the number of remaining players, lest the limit become obsolete when the number of players drops.

Then you have the issue that the NW just became a super-powerful doctor. So you'd have to limit his powers somehow. Maybe make him change locations every night, or only work on a limited number of nights. I'm not sure. This is a work in progress here...

You might make things even more flavorful by requiring the mafia to have at least one member on site to make the kill. That would certainly give the town a lot to analyze, and also make the mafia's choices a bit harder. But if you did that, you probably need less locations total so that the mafia isn't found immediately when 12 people are spread across 6 locations.

In the end, I don't know if the book-keeping of who is where would detract from the game, and I'm not expecting the mod to make any changes now that it's started (and certainly not recommending you use my suggestions in this half-baked form). Just making an observation and suggestion for future discussion...

Thoughts?

[Gadarene]

That's OK; I've modified the title to make it more clear anyway.

Thanks!

And gonzoron, thanks very much for your thoughts; I'm interested to see how the roles will work. I fully admit that the Do-Gooder role is entirely a balancing for the Mafia's recruitment ability, so the Mafia can't just wait until endgame and recruit someone with impunity. To that end, I don't know that the Do-Gooder needs any additional powers.

As for the Night Watchman, I put him in just for a little extra randomness...so the Mafia's not ensured of killing someone every night, and so they won't necessarily know that a failed killing was due to the protection of the Doctor. I think it adds an extra layer of Rock-Paper-Scissors Cat and Mouse, if you don't mind me mixing my metaphors horrendously, without complicating things unnecessarily. To put it another way, I'm not intending that the game be won or lost on the Mafia's ability to figure out who the Night Watchman is. Given their ability to recruit, however, it made sense to put an additional role or two in there whose presence would serve the hamper the Mafia's efforts.

Like I said, I'm interested to see how it works out. It may be that we decide that neither role should ever be repeated in future games, at least as they're currently described.

I do like your proposed twists; I think they'd make a fascinating game in their own right.

[MadTheSwine]

Originally Posted by gonzoron

For the Night Watchman, I would make the locations matter more. Maybe make some sort of system whereby the players have to publicly declare where they will be that night, and then the Watchman has to make his choice.

Now you'd have to make sure that they don't break the system by everyone going to one place and having the watchman always protect that place. So there would have to be some limit on how many people fit in one place, which would have to be based somehow on the number of remaining players, lest the limit become obsolete when the number of players drops.

Make a Fire Marshall Role

[Autolycus]

Aaaaaand she's off!

[sachertorte]

I can't believe that of all the things SDMB offers me, it is this game that finally gets me to register (subscription to occur later tonight).

Anyway, I'm glad you guys started a new game. I very much enjoy reading the game threads and watching what happens. I don't really know why, but I find the whole thing facinating.

As for this latest iteration, here are my comments (comments, not criticism!):

I like the nightwatchman. Totally random, yes, but adds nice flavor without impacting the balance too much.

I don't think I like the recruitment idea as much. I think the ability is too powerful. Clearly, the optimal use of the recruitment is to wait until the second to last mafia gets lynched, then that night the final mafia recruits. Since the mafia obviously won't recruit a dead person, delaying recruitment as long as possible essentially assures the safety of the recruit until recruited. (Did that make sense?) In otherwords, the best thing for the mafia to do is to wait as long as possible to recruit, but there is no balancing effect to push the mafia towards needing to recruit earlier. If instead the ability to recruit was tied to a specific mafia player, then there would be better balance as the mafia would need to consider the possiblity of that player not surviving to the next night. So they must consider, recruit now and possibly have the recruit lynched by the town? or delay and possibly lose the ability to recruit if the recruiter gets killed?

I also think recruitment has a large variance in the game. Presumably the game is balanced in number of mafia to account for the recruitment ability, if the mafia recruits the do-gooder, then they are pretty much screwed. If the mafia recruit a mason, the town is pretty much screwed. Very wide variance in the application of this ability. I'd hate to see the game won or lost simply by who the mafia end up targetting with recruitment.

Finally, recruitment changes the win condition of a player. I'd be annoyed if I was rooting out mafia, playing a really good game, and about to win the game only to be recruited near the end and wind up losing because of it.

I find the entire topic of this game's design and balance to be rather facinating, so please forgive the overanalysis.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. It will be interesting to see how the whole thing pans out. And I'm happy that there are no beat cops!

[chrisk]

Originally Posted by sachertorte

I don't think I like the recruitment idea as much. I think the ability is too powerful. Clearly, the optimal use of the recruitment is to wait until the second to last mafia gets lynched, then that night the final mafia recruits. Since the mafia obviously won't recruit a dead person, delaying recruitment as long as possible essentially assures the safety of the recruit until recruited. (Did that make sense?) In otherwords, the best thing for the mafia to do is to wait as long as possible to recruit, but there is no balancing effect to push the mafia towards needing to recruit earlier. If instead the ability to recruit was tied to a specific mafia player, then there would be better balance as the mafia would need to consider the possiblity of that player not surviving to the next night. So they must consider, recruit now and possibly have the recruit lynched by the town? or delay and possibly lose the ability to recruit if the recruiter gets killed?

I also think recruitment has a large variance in the game. Presumably the game is balanced in number of mafia to account for the recruitment ability, if the mafia recruits the do-gooder, then they are pretty much screwed. If the mafia recruit a mason, the town is pretty much screwed. Very wide variance in the application of this ability. I'd hate to see the game won or lost simply by who the mafia end up targetting with recruitment.

Finally, recruitment changes the win condition of a player. I'd be annoyed if I was rooting out mafia, playing a really good game, and about to win the game only to be recruited near the end and wind up losing because of it.

Good idea about only one player (the Godfather) being able to recruit. From what I understand, that is the major balance factor in vampire theme games, where recruitment is the usual night activity, instead of night kills by the scum.

You start off with a vampire king, (maybe with a few guards to start with,) and the king can turn one townsperson to the vampires each night. However, once the king is staked, the vampires cannot increase their number or harm the townspeople at night.

I do agree with your analysis about delaying recruitment, and will add another detail - the longer the mafia wait, the more opportunities there are for 'known town' of hopefully non-do-gooder status to be exposed.

Then, the family can recruit one of them, and hopefully the new convert won't be suspected much until it's too late.

[MadTheSwine]

Am I missing something or wouldn't it be best for the Mafia to recruit every time?

[Gadarene]

Thanks for the thoughts, sachertorte. And thanks for registering! Welcome aboard.

I've got to jet at the moment, so I can't respond in as detailed a manner as I'd like. I agree with you that recruitment is potentially very powerful, which is why I tried to counterbalance it at least a little bit with the Do-Gooders. And you're right that it might be unsettling for someone to get recruited and have their win condition change. Because of those and other considerations, it's certainly possible that putting recruitment into a game is, on balance, a bad idea. Which is why I'm so interested to see how this goes. I did have one question for you, though. You say:

If the mafia recruit a mason, the town is pretty much screwed.

Why is that so? It seems like it doesn't give the Mafia much of a leg up, does it? It narrows down their potential targets for power roles, I suppose, but is it that damaging to the prospects of the town?

Also, it's interesting that the posters have pretty well unanimously so far agreed that lynching nobody on the first day is a very bad idea. I don't know if I agree with that, given that statistically speaking you're far more likely to lynch a townie than a Mafia with so little information. If I was the Town in a game like this, I'd FOS a bunch of people during Day One while keeping the prospect of lynching on the table, and then ultimately lynch no one and wait to see what the Mafia does during the night. Then you've got a bunch of information out there from the Day One suspicions, but only one townie dead rather than (probably) two...and a whole 'nother day in which your initial suspicions can be validated or otherwise bear fruit. Does that make any sense, or is lynching no one really as bad a play as everyone assumes it is?

[chrisk]

Originally Posted by MadTheSwine

Am I missing something or wouldn't it be best for the Mafia to recruit every time?

They can't. It's a one-time option. If they've recruited once already in the game, (or tried to,) then they can't do it again.

[Gadarene]

MadTheSwine:

Am I missing something or wouldn't it be best for the Mafia to recruit every time?

It's a one time only shot, even if it fails.

chrisk:

I do agree with your analysis about delaying recruitment, and will add another detail - the longer the mafia wait, the more opportunities there are for 'known town' of hopefully non-do-gooder status to be exposed.

Then, the family can recruit one of them, and hopefully the new convert won't be suspected much until it's too late.

Yeah, I think that's right. Of course, if they get a bead on someone they think has a power role---specifically the Doctor or the Detective---they should recruit them as soon as possible to minimize the damage they can do.

[chrisk]

Originally Posted by Gadarene

Also, it's interesting that the posters have pretty well unanimously so far agreed that lynching nobody on the first day is a very bad idea. I don't know if I agree with that, given that statistically speaking you're far more likely to lynch a townie than a Mafia with so little information. If I was the Town in a game like this, I'd FOS a bunch of people during Day One while keeping the prospect of lynching on the table, and then ultimately lynch no one and wait to see what the Mafia does during the night. Then you've got a bunch of information out there from the Day One suspicions, but only one townie dead rather than (probably) two...and a whole 'nother day in which your initial suspicions can be validated or otherwise bear fruit. Does that make any sense, or is lynching no one really as bad a play as everyone assumes it is?

I think that the 'accepted wisdom' among mafia circles is that this sort of tactic is of limited usefulness, because getting information from the dialog and the FOS-ing is all so very subjective. Killing someone and finding out for sure what their role is is hard intel, no matter how much it costs the town to acquire.

Or that's how I understand it.

[MadTheSwine]

Originally Posted by chrisk

They can't. It's a one-time option. If they've recruited once already in the game, (or tried to,) then they can't do it again.

Ok,so I guess I was missing something then.

[chrisk]

Originally Posted by Gadarene

chrisk:


Yeah, I think that's right. Of course, if they get a bead on someone they think has a power role---specifically the Doctor or the Detective---they should recruit them as soon as possible to minimize the damage they can do.

Hmm... interesting point. Also prompts a question:

If a power role is recruited, do they lose that special status in the process of becoming 'full-fledged Mafia'? Of course, the doctor working for the mafia doesn't make much sense without a SK running around - but I love the idea of a detective using his investigations on behalf of the godfather.

Probably that'd be too unbalancing, and thus he'd lose his special role powers.

[sachertorte]

I believe (and it is only a belief) that masons are pretty much unlynchable. Masons are the easiest "living confirmed town" in the game. The only time a mason gets lynched is when there is a counter-claim. If the mafia recruits a mason, the town will not lynch the mason because the other masons will confim masonhood. Of course the town knows that the masons could have been recruited, but there is no way to know that a mason was recruited or which one. The town will be in a very difficult place if a mason gets recruited. What is worse, as we have seen in both previous games, outing a mason will happen at some point. The mafia will clearly have the opportunity to recruit a known mason, and I'm guessing that the set of masons and the set of do-gooders have a null intersection.

Oooh, that might have been a better balance, get rid of do-gooders and just make masons unrecruitable.

[Gadarene]

Probably that'd be too unbalancing, and thus he'd lose his special role powers.

If it is too unbalancing, I guess we'll find out, 'cause the way I've got it working he retains his role powers and becomes corrupt.

I think that the 'accepted wisdom' among mafia circles is that this sort of tactic is of limited usefulness, because getting information from the dialog and the FOS-ing is all so very subjective. Killing someone and finding out for sure what their role is is hard intel, no matter how much it costs the town to acquire.

True, but the information gained from the dialogue and the FOS-ing can come in real handy later, once people start getting killed. Of course, if the Mafia don't actually believe that anyone will be lynched the first day, they have no reason to say anything that's of any value anyway, so maybe that threat needs to be there regardless.

[Gadarene]

Oooh, that might have been a better balance, get rid of do-gooders and just make masons unrecruitable.

Not a bad idea, actually.

I believe (and it is only a belief) that masons are pretty much unlynchable. Masons are the easiest "living confirmed town" in the game. The only time a mason gets lynched is when there is a counter-claim. If the mafia recruits a mason, the town will not lynch the mason because the other masons will confim masonhood.

While these are excellent points, I think that masons might be more hesitant to confirm masonhood in a game like this where the masons themselves have a separate win condition. That is, let's say there are four masons and one gets outed or is forced to roleclaim...the other three have a strong-ish motivation to keep silent, in the hopes that they'll be able to outnumber the town in the end. So maybe a stealth Mafia mason isn't necessarily a disaster for the town...and the possibility of it happening breeds even more distrust and paranoia, which is always fun.

[sachertorte]

My thoughts on non-lynching:

My take is that early in the game no-lynch is bad, but later in the game it might make sense. The mafia win then the number of mafia is greater or equal to the number of townies. The game can therefore end in these ways:

1) N_TOWN = N_MAFIA + 2 and the town lynches a townie and the mafia sucessfully kill at night
2) N_TOWN = N_MAFIA + 1 and the town lynches a townie

If we ignore the possiblity that the mafia might fail to kill at night, then a town facing situation 1 could very well benefit from not lynching forcing the mafia to do their endgame kill first (thus revealing additional information) and then the town is shifted to situation 2 where they still have to lynch mafia or lose the game but have one less suspect and additional information.

Of course at that point the mafia would nightkill a confirmed townie if available, but if no one was confirmed, then it becomes a viable plan.

[sachertorte]

Originally Posted by Gadarene

I think that masons might be more hesitant to confirm masonhood in a game like this where the masons themselves have a separate win condition.

I had completely forgotten about the mason win condition. But isn't the mason win only exclusive when the masons win? That is, the mason can share a town win, but win alone with a mason win. What was your thinking in implementing that asymmetry?

I think that if the masons can win with the town, then they should do so. Going for a mason-only win is more risky and there isn't sufficient reward. If the mason and town were completely exclusive, then I'd agree that the masons would be in a weird situation.

There's so much stuff I want to see play out!

[Gadarene]

I think that if the masons can win with the town, then they should do so. Going for a mason-only win is more risky and there isn't sufficient reward. If the mason and town were completely exclusive, then I'd agree that the masons would be in a weird situation.

Hmm. That's a good point. I'm not sure why I made the masons able to share a win with the town; I guess I didn't want them to be completely anti-town as well as anti-mafia, but maybe that balance would be built in regardless. (By which I mean, the masons have an incentive to assist the town in eradicating Mafia whether or not their win condition is exclusive, because if the Mafia win everyone else loses.)

This is the one thing, upon reflection, that I'd prefer to change about the current game if I could. But it's already started (although in very early stages), so that would probably be inappropriate. Wouldn't it?

There's so much stuff I want to see play out!

Me too!

[sachertorte]

Originally Posted by Gadarene

This is the one thing, upon reflection, that I'd prefer to change about the current game if I could.

I'm not sure what you are proposing about changing the game, so I can't really comment on its merits. I suppose if you analyze the situation and find that the game is broken without a rules change, then you are justified (obligated even) in making the change, especially since it is still early in day one. By day two, you'd be pretty stuck.

I say 'obligated' because the players invest quite a bit of time into the game, so if you see something clearly broken, then you should fix it. Small changes this early in the game that don't have an effect on how a player should have been playing so far should be okay. Plus you're the mod-god.

I'm not sure if the mason thing qualifies as clearly broken though. What change would you make if you made one?

[Gadarene]

I'm not sure if the mason thing qualifies as clearly broken though. What change would you make if you made one?

Oh, I was thinking of making the mason win condition exclusive...so that the masons only win (and the town loses) if they outnumber the town once the Mafia have been eliminated. But upon reflection, I like it the way I've set it up. Doing it that way means that the town has to worry about Masons just as much as it has to worry about Mafia, and I'm not quite sure I want to go that far into setting up three competing camps just yet. So no rules change forthcoming, although I wouldn't mind trying an exclusive mason win condition in a future game.

[sachertorte]

I think your decision is a good one. While I too would like to see how a third (exclusive) win condition would affect the game, you'd really have to do some serious analysis to determine game balance. As it is will probably be fine as the masons will recognize that a town win is a win. I don't think anyone there will get greedy.

[Queuing]

FWIW, I like the rules in this game. I am glad there is no single killer out there. It seems that the beat cop role is taking a lot of flack but I don't mind the role. People just think to much about it IMO. The correctness of the beat cop only matters when it gets to the end game I think. The SK is just impossible to tell who it is. But enough of that. The night watchman idea is a very interesting one, and my favourite addition to this game. I think it sounds like a nice little change to the game, making it harder for the mafia to get a kill, but not exceptionally so.

Plus I am glad my thread won. Now I get to have started a hopefully long thread! Take that MTS!

[sachertorte]

This morning I thought about the asymmetry (Town v. Masons) and realized that the setup is nice to inspire discussion and argument. At some point, I expect the town to have a discussion about the win conditions and masons. Perhaps someone will suggest lynching a mason (I can only hope!) and then there will be a wonderful firestorm about win conditions and scummy behavior and masons and fun fun fun.

I'm liking the quirky mason win condition more and more.

[Gadarene]

I'm liking the quirky mason win condition more and more.

Excellent.

[Scuba_Ben]

This is my first time paying attention to a Werewolf / Mafia game.

It seems to me that the Masons' win condition creates a conflict: They can only win if the Mafia are eliminated, but they also have to eliminate Citizens as they go. Which means the Masons would want to lynch Citizens, without drawing excessive suspicion to themselves, or they might get counter-lynched as suspected Mafia.

But the Citizens don't gain anything by lynching Masons -- doing so helps the Mafia instead!

I'm wondering if we can give this game a try at the next Gettysdope, if there's anybody there who can GM the game.

[Gadarene]

They can only win if the Mafia are eliminated, but they also have to eliminate Citizens as they go.

I don't think they necessarily need to eliminate citizens. They just need to lie low so that they can't be identified.

[sachertorte]

I loved the pre-game discussion. Now we should get to see if our theories will play out.

What should we call the players? I'm tempted to call them hampsters, because I have this image of a group of hampsters in a cage playing mafia for me to watch and enjoy.

Seems like a pretty slow start to the game. No one wants to drive a bandwagon, and no one is willing to drive a fake bandwagon either. I think everyone is terrified of looking like scum. What do you think would be a good way for a hampster to start the game. The temptation is to just sit back and watch, some have even mentioned a wait and see attitude. I wonder what a good way to get discussion going is. They only have a few days to get their act together, and right now they aren't generating much information at all.

I think the group is falling into the same trap as game 2. They aren't willing to act without information, but they aren't really seeking out information either. Once the first bit of information falls out, they will all pounce on that one bit and feel like their job is done. maybe that's just the way day one always goes.

[Gadarene]

What do you think would be a good way for a hampster to start the game.

I think the only thing you can do (assuming you're a townie or want to appear that way) is generate discussion to try and get people to say who they suspect and, more importantly, who they don't suspect. I don't think that anything anyone says is really going to help on Day One, but it will bear fruit further down the line.

I'll tell you, too, that if I'm ever Mafia, I'm going to strongly consider voting for a fellow Mafia member during Day One in order to muddle up future analysis of voting patterns. Feel free to use that against me.

Anyone getting any scumdar hits so far?

[MadTheSwine]

Originally Posted by Queuing

Plus I am glad my thread won. Now I get to have started a hopefully long thread! Take that MTS!

I'm thinking you made Frank an offer he couldn't refuse. I will not be making your thread longer!

I will not post in this thread

I will not post in this thread

I will not post in this thread



damn


Maybe I am just anxious to play again,but doesn't a 96 hour day seem a bit long?

[Gadarene]

Maybe I am just anxious to play again,but doesn't a 96 hour day seem a bit long?

Days are 120 hours long in the second Mafia game.

[sachertorte]

I think the hardest part about this game is everyone comes in from a different point of view and worse, some players don't really understand that certain actions are very bad for the town. In game 2, I was convinced that cowgirl (first incarnation) and Winston Smith were scum based on their votes to lynch on the first day which ended the day. But they were both town! They honestly were just trying to move along the game.

I like the current discussion about random voting. One thing no one has said is that mafia votes are not random, and even if someone says they used random.org, it doesn't mean they really did.

So far, I'd say that Blaster Master is playing consistently with how he played in game 2 -- good hampster.

The ones who mentioned no lynch as an option, bad hampster.

[sachertorte]

Originally Posted by Omi no Kami

I admit to not having seen this particular rule set before, where the masons are apparently set to lose if townwins.

It looks like the town is not understanding the mason's win condition. Ha! Fun! Not only don't they not understand it, the one person (Kyrie) who seems to understand it is getting flack for talking about it!

I don't know why this amuses me so.

Of course, if I were in the game, I'd probably be getting strung up for yakking about Masons too.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by MadTheSwine

I'm thinking you made Frank an offer he couldn't refuse.

Yes, well, the large package of small unmarked bills has not arrived yet. Your thread may yet live again!

[MadTheSwine]

Originally Posted by Frank

Yes, well, the large package of small unmarked bills has not arrived yet. Your thread may yet live again!

HAHA! Take that Q-ball!



Damn

[Gadarene]

There's some hardcore analysis going on during Day One this time around! It's fun to watch. And the voting could hardly be more spread out.

[Queuing]

Originally Posted by MadTheSwine

HAHA! Take that Q-ball!



Damn

Jealousy does not become you MTS.

[Gadarene]

Any last minute predictions, now that it looks likely that percypercy will be the first lynchee?

[sachertorte]

Wow.
Quite frankly, I'm shocked.
I'm shocked that the town shifted its target from Lightin' to someone else. I was sure that the town would lock onto one suspicious person and not let go. It is good that the town has the flexibility to shift targets, but shifting the shift happened with very little time for anyone to react, respond, or think carefully about what was happening.

I'm not so shocked that percypercy is town. Not that I had a good read either way, but the reasoning for lynching percypercy seemed really thin to me.

I also think that the shift to percypercy gives the town more information than if they just lynched lightin' without further discussion. Now the town gets to look at who instigated the shift and fun stuff like that.

[Gadarene]

I will say that with one notable exception, I think the Mafia's played superbly so far.

[percypercy]

Can I get a hug please? They're so mean over there. I'm gonna hang out in the loser's lounge and watch the game unfold now.
-Lil

[Gadarene]

Hugs to percypercy.

So what're your thoughts, NAF?

[NAF1138]

Originally Posted by Gadarene

Hugs to percypercy.

So what're your thoughts, NAF?

I think Lighnin' is scum. I think Idle Thoughts is likely scum and possibly Fluiddruid as well.

I also think they missed their chance to pick me up as a recruit. I could have been a great help to them since I think my first day put me firmly on (almost) everyones town list.


Also, did I call it or what? Got killed so fast it would make your head spin.

(I told Gad when he PM'd me my role that I would be one of the fist to die, since I almost always am when I am vanilla.)

also, what's up with this thread being so inactive? Come on people, this is a good game. Lets get some sideline action going on!

[NAF1138]

Oh, and Projammer too. Totally scum.

[NAF1138]

I just went back and actually read your death scene for me Gad. Hats off to you sir, that was a fine piece of writing. I actually had to keep my self from laughing out loud at the bit about mumbling to himself about monkeys etc and calling out "the pages! the pages!"

Nicley done.