Jump to content

Have isometric rpgs lost its way? Is there hope PoE3 will have remedy for that?


Recommended Posts

Last few days I've been thinking about why I actually dislike Deadfire overall.

I got into some balance, mechanics discussions in Deadfire and about why Deadfire sales were not so good and I'm coming to somewhat simple conclusion that isometric rpgs, especially nowadays stopped being RPGs at its core. So what are they you ask me. Well they are dumbed down combat games. Let me expand on that statement by talking about classes design.

We got all sorts of generic classes like rogues, fighters, barbarians, priests, paladins etc. All of these classes, multiclass or not are homogenised to be combat viable, all have some sort of damage, cc, single target, aoe, some sort of healing, damage mitigation, some have higher mobility than others (thats probably the biggest factor that differentiates classes). But all of these classes have no class unique soft skills nor ways to be rewarded for them in game. What I mean why that? When Im thinking about my idea of approach to isometric RPG and its classes I'd focus on RPG element of the class and invent ways to reward player for roleplaying his class. Let's say you're a priest? Ok. How about we throw some cursed items into the world so that when someone from party touches them they have some nasty debuff and only priest can help to remedy that, or bless some items. Or if you enter some area devoted to some deity, your party isn't very well off with that God and you get insanely debuffed and some fight breaks out in that place. As a priest you can actively pray/profane (as a channeled ability) to chosen deity to shield rest of the party from negative effects - this way you both roleplay a priest, he's doing something useful for combat, even tho its not strictly combat oriented ability like a buff,debuff and your party have to actively protect you from interruptions, otherwise you loose your protection and opposing deity throws balance into enemy favor. Such simple idea but for some reason void in nowadays rpgs. A priest in PoE, Deadfire and few other games that came out last few years is just a mage with spells that have more of sunshine animations. 

This could play into another class lets say rogue... you got this nasty place watched by a God you're not on good terms with, well you have a rogues and give lockpicking, sneaking, pickpocketing to them as unique class skills. Then have him open that secret passage that bypasses that room or sneak him in to steal Idol of the God and then profane, bless it with priest to loose its power. Examples multiply...

Wizards - give them teleport spells etc

Basicly whole game is about simple combat that is closer to hack'n'slash number crunching than RPG, the only RPG element is dialog which doesn't even have that much importance in the game - I mean the only time dialog options actually have any meaningful impact in the game is if you're paladin/priest and you have to follow your disposition, but even then it matters only for combat as it gives you some numeric advantage - you are not stripped of your beneficial powers as paladin for comitting crime against your god, you're not hunted down as a false priest. Dialog boils down to flavour and sometimes offers a way to grab XP without fighting and that would be fine if you had to be diplomat char with high charisma but no - you don't really need diplomacy to avoid combat most of the time. Actually most soft skills in Deadfire, Intimidation, Diplomacy, Religion, Arcane, Metaphysics function as placeholder dialog activators for non-violent quest resolutions and as a steroid for items. 

I'm wondering if PoE3 if it ever comes will find its way to be real RPG. PoE1 wasn't much better when it comes to the above but it was a first release and at that it actually had some atmosphere to it, dark catacombs that felt vile, cruel lord that hanged people on trees, some really dark quests. I always thought sequel to PoE1 would expand on RPG elements for combat like examples above, instead it tried to be more complex character builder, combat sandbox but ended up as a game without much RPG substance. In a way I'm glad it failed because maybe they will revise and turn into more oldschool RPG oriented ideas for next game. 

What do You think folks?

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's all somewhat correct, but the biggest problem is that most players will play a RPgame once - and if they even finish it that's unusual. So if you introduce elements like you suggested then there is the real danger that players form a party that doesn't work in some situatios. This might lead to frustration. 

Giving every class some form of single target dmg, AoE etc. and balancing all classes makes this less likely. So that's good for one-time players. But it's also good for players who replay often because you can build a class in many different ways that are still viable. 

What might be lacking is uniqueness and distinction then. I personally don't think that's a problem in Deadfire but it surely is the case that you can play the game successfully with any party composition. Which might feel more... mishmashy (is that even a word?).

More little gimmicks that value unique aspects of the different classes would have been welcome though. Like getting rid of that cursed item without having to search a priest but have one yourself and whatnot 

Also giving parts of the game which are not combat more room and more interesting mechanics would be awesome. I personally don't like puzzles too much, but a few more could be nice in general I would assume. Deadfire (and PoE) don't seem to provide a nice "framework" for those out-of-combat things which you do in TTRPGs mostly (where only a small part is combat usually).

Edited by Boeroer

Deadfire Community Patch: Nexus Mods

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Boeroer said:

What might be lacking is uniqueness and distinction then. I personally don't think that's a problem in Deadfire but it surely is the case that you can play the game successfully with any party composition. Which might feel more... mishmashy (is that even a word?).

I'm not entirely sure about this, but I'm guessing that you could actually play Aloth as a fighter, even though he is a wizard. Simply ignore all his spells and use him in melee, or as a ranged fighter. Give him excellent armor and weapons, and he'll work as a fighter. He won't have the fighter abilities, but he can survive without, except perhaps on PotD.

That's how "overly balanced" the game is. I like the game a lot, but I think something was lost a little bit when they went so far down the balancing road.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why DnD video games have fixed parties that you can't alter until later or have the correct party members show up first (such as rogues). I agree that the classes are all more or less the same. Their stat growth is almost the same, their ability to be as good at everything skill wise is more or less the same. Thing is that mid to end game it doesn't really matter what class you picked as all of them will be able to take a greatsword and bash an enemies head in. I also dislike that about this game. A lot. It's exactly what xzar_monty said and I've brought this up multiple times. A wizard with his nose in the books has the same ability as a fighter to pick up a sword and shield and go to town on a group of enemies. sure he's not going to have the fighter abilities, but his base stats are nearly identical. It's just stupid and makes choosing a class kind of trivial unless you want to power build. Which is what most people don't do. Classes 100% lack uniqueness. I never wanted to say it because of how many different abilities a class gets, but in truth classes aren't that different stat wise. That, plus the fact that Might = Strength and Magic Power still annoys me to this day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole idea behind the stats system was to allow builds to be versatile. It's flat wrong to say "Classes 100% lack uniqueness" - that would mean they're literally identical, which obviously isn't the case. I much prefer PoE's approach to DnD's. It's great that any class can use any weapon and that all stats are relevant to all classes - it reduces some of the frankly tedious complexity of building a character while enabling flexibility. 

Edited by Rooksx
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rooksx said:

The whole idea behind the stats system was to allow builds to be versatile. It's flat wrong to say "Classes 100% lack uniqueness" - that would mean they're literally identical, which obviously isn't the case. I much prefer PoE's approach to DnD's. It's great that any class can use any weapon and that all stats are relevant to all classes - it reduces some of the frankly tedious complexity of building a character while enabling flexibility. 

I see that my use of 100% confused you. I didn't mean they were identical I meant to say they weren't unique and emphasize that.

I'm not sure how much of the class systems quirks has affected sales. I'm thinking it hasn't. But introducing classes that in the end aren't that much different from eachother kind of ruins the fact that you picked a specific class because in the end your play style is much the same. You can auto attack your enemies to death no matter what the class. Of course if you play PotD this isn't the case, but most people don't play PotD.

I never liked stat growth and generalistic classes in PoE. It makes my characters class choice feel trivial. And I don't want it to be trivial. I want the class I choose to mean something. Especially if I intend to play multiple times I would like to have a unique experience. With PoE this is really not the case unless you go into specific builds that no casual gamer would ever find out.

The fact that a mage that has spent his/her time in books al their lives is just as able to wield a sword as effectively as a fighter that trained all his/her life and walk around in armor without hindrance is just stupid. No other word I can use to describe that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Players who also know other, maybe even classless systems will like PoE's approach a lot more than players who got imprinted with D&D's restricted class system and didn't try much else.

If your characters in PoE are not unique then it's due to lack of imagination, not lack of potential. At the same time D&D rogues are very different from D&D wizards, sure, but all D&D Rogues are very similar to each other while all D&D wizard are similar. In PoE a wizard may be a bit less distinguishable from a fighter (because less retrictions) but two wizards may be a lot more different from each other than in D&D.

It's a matter of preference and those can be influenced by gaming experience.

Usually a broader experience qualifies for a more informed judgement. But taste is taste and not really argueable.

Edited by Boeroer
  • Like 2

Deadfire Community Patch: Nexus Mods

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I quite like both, while being mindful of the weaknesses of both. Like, there are no boy-I've-got-to-get-this items in Deadfire, whereas there tend to be a few in all DD-related games. Both have strengths and weaknesses. DD classes are very different from each other -- but each of them is very limited in some particular ways.

I don't see any reason to engage in the debate about which system is better, since I have been quite happy to play both. Given the inherent limitations of computer RPGs, I'm not sure if it's realistic to expect a system that could combine the strengths of both and avoid the weaknesses of both.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you use a classless system and give a much bigger choice of abilities and ability-upgrades or even trees (also more passive ones and those which influence stats more) -  I think you could achieve both. 

Deadfire Community Patch: Nexus Mods

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boeroer said:

Players who also know other, maybe even classless systems will like PoE's approach a lot more than players who got imprinted with D&D's restricted class system and didn't try much else.

If your characters in PoE are not unique then it's due to lack of imagination, not lack of potential. At the same time D&D rogues are very different from D&D wizards, sure, but all D&D Rogues are very similar to each other while all D&D wizard are similar. In PoE a wizard may be a bit less distinguishable from a fighter (because less retrictions) but two wizards may be a lot more different from each other than in D&D.

It's a matter of preference and those can be influenced by gaming experience.

Usually a broader experience qualifies for a more informed judgement. But taste is taste and not really argueable.

I think I have a decent amount of experience with RPG games. Probably more so than most here. Professing your opinion by saying people lack imagination is below the belt and not a valid argument. I disagree with your statements on Wizards. In DnD you have far more options to develop a wizard or any other class than you have with the options you have in PoE. Especially if you include prestige classes and so forth.

But let's not go down that road. The issue with PoE is that it has stat growth equally for all classes and a limited amount of stats to make them different from eachother. Every character can more or less do what any other character can do. Some might be a bit better at something than someone else, but every character can cast spells just as effective as a wizard can and any character can wield a weapon just as effective as a fighter can. Sure you have some unique abilities, that will make them more effective. Especially if you know the game as good as you do.

I've had this complaint as well for PoE1 that I really disliked the fact that there's hardly any difference between classes in terms of combat effectiveness. Of course you have games from developers like Bethesda with Skyrim and Fallout 4, but also Mass Effect Andromeda who milk this even further where you have absolutely no restriction to class anymore and you can basically do whatever you want. When I play a game like that I shrug and accept it, but I have certain expectations about games like PoE and in this it just did not deliver for me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, AeonsLegend said:

I think I have a decent amount of experience with RPG games. Probably more so than most here.

At this juncture I would kindly point out that you are making rather heavy assumptions here, on this forum, and I am not at all sure whether they are well-founded. For instance, in another thread, just today, you said to @SchroedsCat that "And early thirties is still young and much more influenced by modern media than you might initially think", which is possibly intended to sound like a piece of wisdom coming from an experienced person but which is actually unfounded, somewhat myopic and a gross generalization, to such an extent that it decreases the overall credibility of the person making it. Let's face it: you are not aware of the extent to which other people on this forum are influenced by -- or even exposed to -- modern media, and it is decidedly unhelpful to make comments about other people's worlds (or level of RPG game experience) when in fact you are only talking about your personal impression of it. Projection does not benefit discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boeroer said:

If you use a classless system and give a much bigger choice of abilities and ability-upgrades or even trees (also more passive ones and those which influence stats more) -  I think you could achieve both. 

Yes, this is quite possible. I agree. Is there any game, in any genre, that attempts this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

At this juncture I would kindly point out that you are making rather heavy assumptions here, on this forum, and I am not at all sure whether they are well-founded. For instance, in another thread, just today, you said to @SchroedsCat that "And early thirties is still young and much more influenced by modern media than you might initially think", which is possibly intended to sound like a piece of wisdom coming from an experienced person but which is actually unfounded, somewhat myopic and a gross generalization, to such an extent that it decreases the overall credibility of the person making it. Let's face it: you are not aware of the extent to which other people on this forum are influenced by -- or even exposed to -- modern media, and it is decidedly unhelpful to make comments about other people's worlds (or level of RPG game experience) when in fact you are only talking about your personal impression of it. Projection does not benefit discussion.

I'm well aware that it is an assumption, where did I make you believe otherwise? I use the word "probably" to denote just that. You can do whatever you want with that piece of information.

And my comment on SchroedsCat was not to point out that everyone in their thirties is influenced by modern media as such, but to counter the assumption that being in your thirties excludes you from that group. I thought that was obvious. Seems to me that it is not me, but you who is filling in the gaps of my meaning to form your own personal opinion. Which is fair as this is a public forum, but don't put words in my mouth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2020 at 10:16 PM, Phyriel said:

Wizards - give them teleport spells etc

This is a potential design nightmare. Baldur's Gate had it; BG2 did not; at least not for PCs.  Teleport —sounds— great, until you realize that you lose the ability to predict the location of the player; and depending upon how you implement it, you cannot be certain of where it's possible (or impossible) to use it.

Edited by Gizmo
Link to post
Share on other sites

@AeonsLegend I think the problems you're highlighting really stem from PoE2 generally being too easy. It's understandable that the classes can feel a bit same-y if the game doesn't punish you for sending your frail wizard with his puny dagger into melee. I'm just not convinced that the DnD approach is necessarily better. I find versatile builds that have multiple options in combat the most fun, but building such a character in the DnD-based games is a matter of:

  • detailed planning and meta-knowledge;  and/or 
  • getting to high levels where you have the capacity to have three different classes and loads of abilities. By this point the game's mechanics are falling apart. 

In contrast Deadfire's system is well-geared towards versatility. Its implementation of multiclassing is the best I've seen in a CRPG; it permits creativity and versatility without the confusing complexity of something like 3rd edition DnD or Pathfinder, and makes it fairly easy to avoid creating a weak build. Making all stats relevant to all classes is vital to that multiclass system. Yes it's still possible to build game-breaking characters, but it must be extremely difficult to avoid that in an RPG of grand size and depth. 

Edited by Rooksx
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

This is a potential design nightmare. Baldur's Gate had it; BG2 did not; at least not for PCs.  Teleport —sounds— great, until you realize that you lose the ability to predict the location of the player; and depending upon how you implement it, you cannot be certain of where it's possible (or impossible) to use it.

Precisely. Given the inherent limitations in all cRPGs, teleportation is fairly likely to ruin a game or, at the very least, lead to some nasty and unintended consequences. You do have teleport in P:K, but its use is strictly limited, i.e. you can create teleportation hubs and move between them. Teleport at will and anywhere you like is not possible. I think this is a good thing.

As you say, teleportation sounds great, but it's almost certainly not worth it, and it can end up being just terrible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rooksx said:

@AeonsLegend I think the problems you're highlighting really stem from PoE2 generally being too easy. It's understandable that the classes can feel a bit same-y if the game doesn't punish you for sending your frail wizard with his puny dagger into melee. I'm just not convinced that the DnD approach is necessarily better. I find versatile builds that have multiple options in combat the most fun, but building such a character in the DnD-based games is a matter of:

  • detailed planning and meta-knowledge;  and/or 
  • getting to high levels where you have the capacity to have three different classes and loads of abilities. By this point the game's mechanics are falling apart. 

In contrast Deadfire's system is well-geared towards versatility. Its implementation of multiclassing is the best I've seen in a CRPG; it permits creativity and versatility without the confusing complexity of something like 3rd edition DnD or Pathfinder, and makes it fairly easy to avoid creating a weak build. Yes it's still possible to build game-breaking characters, but it must be extremely difficult to avoid that. 

Hm, maybe. Although this depends on the campaign. Multiclassing isn't mandatory in DnD and yes you can spend the better part of your life theorycrafting multiclasses in DnD as there are so many options. But single classes are just as viable depending on the campaign and those don't really require a lot of meta knowledge overall, just knowledge of your class. But I think that's the case however you play. If you don't know anything about the abilities in Andromeda you're not going to get anything out of it either. Mixing them up or separating them between classes doesn't change that. In the light of single class characters DnD like other older RPGs (particularly JRPGs with fixed classes and class progression) they are much more distinguishable. If I feel like I ask myself the question: "but then why did I pick this class?" if in the end it didn't matter then it kind of weighs on the experience. Like others said before it, it's to do with personal preference as well. I personally like it to have a class in and of itself to be unique in progression. A rogue or rogue-like character can use particular skills to that class and cross class skills aren't as good. So I can't have a fighter that picks locks or whatever unless I sacrifice something else. In Deadfire it doesn't matter what class you pick, you can lock-pick with anyone. Perhaps this is done to feed solo players? Not sure. kind of feels like it was done on purpose so people could play this game solo. It's also why some things don't feel as balanced, because you can play this game with 1 character and with 5 without much difference in effectiveness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the PoE system was designed as a deliberate step away from the DD model, which it clearly is. I think it works, although your criticism is justified and to an extent I agree with it. However, I also think that criticism of similar severity can be aimed at the DD system, which has its own flaws. In the end I'm happy with both.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

Yes, this is quite possible. I agree. Is there any game, in any genre, that attempts this?

Most TTRPG systems that are classless try it I would assume. I don't know a ton of CRPGs with a classless system, but quite a few TTRPG ones.

Classless CRPGs I know: Arcanum, Avernum, Darklands, Skyrim, D:OS 2... Aren't the Ultima games classless? Can't say if any of them has enough abilities etc. to truly achieve what I described, but you can see where the advantages are. TTRPG rulesets often contain a lot more content when it comes to abilites etc. so I guess it's easier for them to make good use of a classless approach.

For example the Dark Eye v. 4 and 5 are quasi-classless. You have professions like Fighter, Gladiator, Wizard of Academy X or Y and whatnot - but it's more of a background thing mostly. The Pillars TTRPG is classless, too. GURPS, Traveller... They are designed so that you can build the idea you have in your head while providing a balanced ruleset. 

I would argue that those systems provide a much bigger variety and "uniqueness" than a class based system. Classes can make it easier to identify your role, but they really limit you if you want to play something that's more "outside the box". The Dark Eye started as class based system and slowly transendet into classless. And I played all of the iterations from childhood to adulthood. The classless approach is much better for uniqueness of characters than classes. I mean obviously. Classes enforce more difference from one another but inside a class there's not much difference. Stuff like Prestige classes are just a crutch - or a way to break the mold. Same as dual- and multiclassing. If you think multiclassing further you end with a classless system. 

The only prerequisite: the classless system needs to have at least the same amount of abilites as all classes in the class based system have, if not more.

Since stats have a rel. minor impact on the performance of classes in Deadfire it's not that much of a defining feature for "uniqueness". Arguing that rel. similar stat progression (apart from attributes which don't increase at all) makes all classes feel same-y just ignores this. What makes the classes distinguishable are the abilities, not the stats. 

2 hours ago, AeonsLegend said:

I think I have a decent amount of experience with RPG games. Probably more so than most here. Professing your opinion by saying people lack imagination is below the belt and not a valid argument.

I wasn't talking about you but about players in general. Again: sombody who only knows D&D will most likely like classless systems less than sombody how knows more systems, including classless ones. Pretty obvious observation - but feel free to disagree and make the counterargument that people who only played D&D are more inclined to like classless systems... 🤷‍♂️

Giving classes the potential to develop in all kinds of direction leads to more uniqueness of every build because there are more possibilities. That's only logical. Thus if all your characters end up the same it's not a lack of potential but of imagination (in this special case and game - not in general) or the lack of eagerness to experiment. Maybe also a lack of time or the willingness to dive deep into the system. All fair enough. Don't know what of that statement is so outrageous that you feel it's below the belt though.

Edited by Boeroer

Deadfire Community Patch: Nexus Mods

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, AeonsLegend said:

@Boeroer I understand that, it's not the issue that they end up the same, it's that in basis they can be.

So in theory some classes can feely less distinguishable - for example if you play a Wizard with plate armor and a Great Sword and a Fighter with plate armor and a Great Sword - that's your problem?

But at the same time the Wizard in robes with the staff is a lot different from the Wizard in plate with the Great Sword.

Ergo: There is no loss of options or uniqueness of the individual character.

What you lament is basically a removal of boundaries. 

If cats can only be white and dogs only be black then they are very distinguishable. But there are not a lot of options. All cats are the same, all dogs are the same.
If both animals can be white or black then there are more options and the individual animal is "more unique" (let's just role with that somewhat nonsensical expression). But there will now be the chance that you'll see a black cat and a black dog - and they'll look more similar than before. That doesn't mean that the potential of being more unique is smaller. It's still bigger.

Edited by Boeroer

Deadfire Community Patch: Nexus Mods

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Boeroer said:

So in theory some classes can feely less distinguishable - for example if you play a Wizard with plate armor and a Great Sword and a Fighter with plate armor and a Great Sword - that's your problem?

But at the same time the Wizard in robes with the staff is a lot different from the Wizard in plate with the Great Sword.

Ergo: There is no loss of options or uniqueness of the individual character.

What you lament is basically a removal of boundaries. 

Good question. I don't think it's the removal of boundaries per se, but more the lack of effect of choice. If I choose to be a wizard, but can the next day pick up a greatsword and chop a guys head off without any training then why would I pick fighter and train myself? It feels like I'm not choosing really. In real life that is not the case. I'm not saying that the game needs to be lifelike. I'm saying more that the identifyable part of the aspect of choice is missing. I kind of dislike that for these types of games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, I know this is off-topic but in my view, a stronger criticism (than classes and characters) that can be leveled at Obsidian is the company's fixation with factions. Due to the corona, I decided to give Tyranny a try, and the bloody factions are there, too. In PoE, you must support one of the factions, at least to a certain extent. And then, towards the end, you are strongly suggested to "join" one of the gods, although you don't have to. In Deadfire, the factions vie for your attention and co-operation. And now, in Tyranny, I notice right at the start that factions are just about the most important thing.

I don't like this. Surely there are plenty of other ways to further a narrative.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

Btw, I know this is off-topic but in my view, a stronger criticism (than classes and characters) that can be leveled at Obsidian is the company's fixation with factions. Due to the corona, I decided to give Tyranny a try, and the bloody factions are there, too. In PoE, you must support one of the factions, at least to a certain extent. And then, towards the end, you are strongly suggested to "join" one of the gods, although you don't have to. In Deadfire, the factions vie for your attention and co-operation. And now, in Tyranny, I notice right at the start that factions are just about the most important thing.

I don't like this. Surely there are plenty of other ways to further a narrative.

I agree. It's even worse that 4 of the companions are tied to factions. At least that wasn't the case with PoE1 and the factions weren't really tied to the main quest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also don't get that affinity for factions. Could totally do without those. Maybe it's all supposed to create some "choice and consequences" stuff - but I still don't find it very appealing.

I'm not against boundaries per se. It can help to have some clear limits. Like if you know you want to play a sneaky pickpocket/lockpick guy you can play a rogue and be sure that your fighter buddy will never learn that and make you dispensable.

But I still don't think that PoE/Deadfire leads to samey characters - if you don't want to.

By the way: besides the fact that stats don't have a massive impact on your character - the classes' stats don't really progress the same. At least not all (only accuracy and defenses). And most start at a different level (defenses, health, endurance). The differences are not huge though.
 

 

Deadfire Community Patch: Nexus Mods

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...