Jump to content

Feedback on a House Rule idea - Luck


dsatow

Recommended Posts

I've been thinking of implementing a house rule which changes an existing power in HERO.  I am posting it here to hear feedback by other GMs on the idea.

 

First off, I am not a big fan of the luck power in HERO.  The power, to me, was too vague in application and really only served one function, a luck power for people like Domino, Longshot, Black Cat, etc. It's effects were kind of varied for a cost and effect RPG tool box style of game.  Over the years, I've basically avoided it or tried to give it a more defined ability like overall levels or hero points on an activation.  This hasn't made me any more happy with the power.

 

Today, I was thinking in different terms and have come up with a different view:  Luck and Unluck as a re-rolling mechanism (something not buy-able in points currently in HERO).  Each die of luck may be used to re-roll another already rolled d6.  If the new die roll is a better result, no matter how small, that luck die may not be used again in that session/adventure.  Each die of luck may only be used once per rolled d6 but the end user does not have to roll all the luck dice at once.  Unused luck dice maybe used to alter even the new luck die roll, but any luck dice taken out of commission may not be used again.  If a luck die matches, the luck die does not get taken out of commission but may not be used to modify that particular roll again.  The user may sacrifice a luck die to get some special result as if getting a 6 in the old system.  Luck may only affect the user (i.e.: the dice may not normally be used to affect someone else's luck good or bad).  If luck gets aided, the luck dice used is always the dice that have not been gained through aid first.  Luck resets at the end of the adventure or session per the GM, but should generally be after a day.

 

Example 1:  Lucky Girl has 12d6 of luck.  She is fighting Hex.  Hex fires a fireball spell at Lucky Girl.  She needs to dive for cover but rolls 6,6,4 which is greater than her 13- dex roll and her 11- target number.  She uses her Luck power to re-roll one of the d6s and gets a 4.  Because the 4 is a better result than a 6, the 4 is used instead and Lucky Girl is down to 11d6 of Luck.  A 14 is still not enough, so she uses another die of luck on the 6.  This time she rolls another 6.  Since the 6 is not any worse than the existing 6, she can keep the Luck die in reserve but can not use it again for this roll.  She is now down to 10d6 of luck that she can use for this roll.  She uses one more d6 and gets a 3.  She now has the requisite 11- and makes the dive for cover roll.  She now has 10d6 of luck for other rolls (she gains back the luck die which rolled a 6).

 

Example 2: Lucky Girl needs a break to track down Hex and asks the GM how much luck would she need to get a clue.  The GM states a minor clue would be about 1 die while a good clue would be 3 dice.  Not having much luck figuring out where Hex is, Lucky Girl sacrifices 3 dice of luck and is now down to 7d6 of luck for this adventure.  She finds a business card in the rubble of the battlefield which has the address of a magic shop.

 

5 pt = 1d6 Luck and is a special power (may not be placed in a framework).

 

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Personally, the above just isn't for me.  Instead, I'd rather see the Luck dice be what one rolls at the beginning of a session for HAP ... and then just let the total rolled on the Luck dice be the number of spendable HAP points the character has for the session ... as governed by RAW for HAP.  (This also implies that one doesn't roll for HAP unless one has purchased Luck dice ... or, possibly, that someone who has purchased Luck dice simply rolls more dice for HAP than everyone else.)

 

The foregoing just seems so much simpler and cleaner than re-rolling dice ... because re-rolling consumes table time without guaranteeing one a better result, whereas modification of an existing roll consumes less table time and DOES guarantee an improved result.  (And, hey, it's called Luck, so it should result in an improved result since someone paid points for it ... which is what was always craptastic about 4e Luck: you could purchase it and then not have any actual ... Luck.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea. I might modify it based on Surrealone's comments.

 

First off, I should come clean to the fact that I love dice pools. :-)

 

I think that you might expend your dice pool in several ways. I think I would decide beforehand if you wanted to be lucky and add a dice to a to hit roll, you could then choose the best three of four dice. Retrospectively I would allow the use of one dice in the pool to reduce the value of one dice in the to hit roll by three (minimum score 1). That should avoid the problem of taking too much table time in re-rolling.

 

As for unluck? That would give the GM a pool to use against the player, adding a dice to a to hit roll and removing the best dice or, retrospectively, adding three to an individual dice.

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Doc's approach is another approach that is cleaner and consumes less table time than what was originally proposed ... while guaranteeing improvement.  I also agree that whatever is done to Luck should be done to Unluck such that the GM has a matching tool to use -against- those who take Unluck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI:  One PC in my game has a Luck spell, granting 5d6 Luck to himself and his teammates.  Since it has a time duration, he typically casts the spell at the start of a given combat.  Also, none of the PCs in my Champions game have Unluck, though a few of the bad guys do.

 

I've used Luck as the players rolling the Luck dice at the beginning of an encounter and counting BODY.  Those points can be used to reduce Skill Rolls, Attack Rolls, Characteristic Rolls, and/or PER Rolls, just like Heroic Action Points.  And every "6" rolled gives the character one complete (3d6) re-roll. 

 

I will warn that this does seem to take some of the sense of chance out of the combat (at least, the start of combat, until they've used up their Luck points). 

 

For Unluck, I roll and count "negative BODY" -- 0 for every 6, 1 for every 2-5, and 2 for every 1 rolled.  Also, for every 1 rolled there's one "forced re-roll."  During combat, if a PC is targeted and successfully hit by a villain with Unluck, they have the option of increasing his die roll by up to the points rolled in Unluck (if he has enough Unluck points to force a miss).  Alternately, if I rolled any 1's, the player can call for a complete re-roll for that attack to-hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hrmmm, I like what doc has noted and his concerns are very valid.  The one thing I want to avoid is endless using the luck power.  My concern would be that every person would soon buy a few dice of luck and use it on every power to maximize their results.  

 

Maybe some merger of the two.  Roll a separately for the luck dice.  Any of the dice you use would no longer be usable for the session/adventure.

 

I'm also concerned if people would favor luck over levels.  In my eyes, levels should always be better than luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also concerned if people would favor luck over levels.  In my eyes, levels should always be better than luck.

 

If you're considering each dice of Luck as getting used (and not reusable until a later combat), then levels will always be better than luck, because you can use the same level(s) every Phase, ad infinitum. 

 

That said, the same PC with the Luck spell also has a spell that grants 2 overall levels.  However, when given a choice the players invariable choose the luck over the overall levels, I think mainly due to a fairly decent chance (with 5d6 Luck) of getting a complete re-roll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're considering each dice of Luck as getting used (and not reusable until a later combat), then levels will always be better than luck, because you can use the same level(s) every Phase, ad infinitum. 

 

That said, the same PC with the Luck spell also has a spell that grants 2 overall levels.  However, when given a choice the players invariable choose the luck over the overall levels, I think mainly due to a fairly decent chance (with 5d6 Luck) of getting a complete re-roll.

I would consider a luck die used if they used its result over the normal die.  Thus if you crap out on the luck dice, you can still use it later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus if you crap out on the luck dice, you can still use it later.

That's where the added table time comes from -- time spent on a die roll that is not relevant.  That's also the source of my concern around lack of guarantee that the points you spent will be relevant ... in a game where you're supposed to get what you pay for.

 

Example:

  • 1/4 way into the session you want to use your luck, but crap out on the roll.  You just wasted table time making a roll that was irrelevant ... but you can re-roll later.
  • 1/2 way into the session another issue comes up where you want to use your luck ... but you crap out again.  More wasted table time, but you can re-roll.
  • 3/4 way into the session a third issue comes up where you want to use your luck ... but you're having a bad day with the dice and crap out a third time.  More wasted table time, but you can re-roll.
  • The session ends without anything coming up where you want to use your luck again.  On three different occasions you wasted 5 players' time rolling luck dice for nothing ... and, in the end, you didn't get any improvement out of what you paid for.  Worse, what transpired certainly wasn't 'lucky' ... yet you paid for 'luck' and should have had some for the CP spent.

 

Now, it's not a tremendous amount of time wasted, but it's still time ... something more valuable than money to most people beyond a certain age because they've become wise enough to understand that one can always make more money but they only have a finite amount of time in this world (and no one seems to know how much of it they get).  Thus, a waste of time is a waste of something precious to many people.  Clearly, if one is enjoying how one is spending one's time, it's not wasted ... but do you think the above example would be enjoyable for a player to whom it happens?  Probably not.  Translation: Time wasted ... on something frustrating.

 

​CP spent on luck shouldn't have the potential to be frustrating, IMHO.  Nor should it waste people's time.  The way you solve both problems at once is to guarantee improvement ... because it's luck (not unluck).  IMHO, the only players who should experience a degradation or frustration based on luck-related die rolls are those who take unluck ... but with the original proposal, that's just not the case.

 

Peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's where the added table time comes from -- time spent on a die roll that is not relevant.  That's also the source of my concern around lack of guarantee that the points you spent will be relevant ... in a game where you're supposed to get what you pay for.

 

Example:

  • 1/4 way into the session you want to use your luck, but crap out on the roll.  You just wasted table time making a roll that was irrelevant ... but you can re-roll later.
  • 1/2 way into the session another issue comes up where you want to use your luck ... but you crap out again.  More wasted table time, but you can re-roll.
  • 3/4 way into the session a third issue comes up where you want to use your luck ... but you're having a bad day with the dice and crap out a third time.  More wasted table time, but you can re-roll.
  • The session ends without anything coming up where you want to use your luck again.  On three different occasions you wasted 5 players' time rolling luck dice for nothing ... and, in the end, you didn't get any improvement out of what you paid for.  Worse, what transpired certainly wasn't 'lucky' ... yet you paid for 'luck' and should have had some for the CP spent.

 

Now, it's not a tremendous amount of time wasted, but it's still time ... something more valuable than money to most people beyond a certain age because they've become wise enough to understand that one can always make more money but they only have a finite amount of time in this world (and no one seems to know how much of it they get).  Thus, a waste of time is a waste of something precious to many people.  Clearly, if one is enjoying how one is spending one's time, it's not wasted ... but do you think the above example would be enjoyable for a player to whom it happens?  Probably not.  Translation: Time wasted ... on something frustrating.

 

​CP spent on luck shouldn't have the potential to be frustrating, IMHO.  Nor should it waste people's time.  The way you solve both problems at once is to guarantee improvement ... because it's luck (not unluck).  IMHO, the only players who should experience a degradation or frustration based on luck-related die rolls are those who take unluck ... but with the original proposal, that's just not the case.

 

Peace.

 

In games where there is a re-roll mechanism I don't think its that bad if this is rolled all at once.  Take this for example.

 

Player A needs to roll 11- on 3d6.  He rolls a 16.  he has 10d6 of luck.  He rolls all 10d6 and takes two of the dice to drop the luck to 8d6.

Later Player A rolls an attack.  He throws a 12d6 punch but rolls fairly low.  He rolls the 8d6 of luck and uses five of the dice.  He now has only 3d6.

 

Eventually, he'll whittle down his luck to where he won't have any left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm with you on a single roll for the pool (rather than re-rolls), as you've traded time for book work (i.e. recording the rolls ... then scratching them out as used to replace other die rolls) ... in a game where book work is expected.  That's workable from a time management perspective ... but it still doesn't guarantee improvement.

 

Your example used a big luck dice pool -- where some improvement is probable.  But take a typically sized luck dice pool of 1d6, 2d6, or 3d6.  How do you guarantee improvement, there -- to ensure the character gets what was paid for (i.e. improvement ... a la luck)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, I am not a big fan of the luck power in HERO.  The power, to me, was too vague in application and really only served one function, a luck power for people like Domino, Longshot, Black Cat, etc. It's effects were kind of varied for a cost and effect RPG tool box style of game.  Over the years, I've basically avoided it or tried to give it a more defined ability like overall levels or hero points on an activation.  This hasn't made me any more happy with the power.

 

It is vague because it is a means for the GM to insert random happenings that affect that one character. Same with Unluck. Just differs in that one is supposed to be beneficial and the other detrimental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care for it.  This doesn't feel like luck to me.  It's just improving normal dice rolls.  We already have ways to do that - skill levels.

 

IMO, Luck is for truly lucky things to happen.  Things beyond the characters' direct actions.  Things like this:

 

An unforeseen traffic accident blocks off the bad guy's escape route.

A sudden change in weather dilutes or disperses the poison gas cloud.

A bird or other small animal trips the trap before Our Lucky Hero happens to step into it.

Henchman suddenly has to go to the bathroom and leaves his post.

etc.

 

Luck that manipulates game-mechanical dice feels more like roll-playing than role-playing, and reminds me of that other game system.

 

What do the characters, in character, say within the game world about the lucky thing that happened?

 

"I sure was lucky that that big truck came by, or I would've been hit by that Death Ray!"

 

or

 

"I sure was lucky that I could force Harmful Man to reroll his attack dice, thus turning the 6 into an 12!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I go on, I'd like to thank everyone for being a sound board on this idea.  Its really been helpful.

 

One the question of smaller dice pools,

For a small pool, this is more likely to affect a person's 3d6 rolls on to hit or more importantly skills.  3 dice of luck could possibly change three different die rolls to a positive effect.

 

On keeping track of how many dice of luck a player has and hasn't used

The easiest way would be to use a different color or size of die at the start of the session.  I don't know about everyone, but I have a lot of d6s over the years.  At least 10 lbs worth.  During play, the dice would go back into the bag.  If the luck doesn't reset after a session, it shouldn't be any harder to record than END or STUN.

 

Luck as a non-mechanic for serendipitous events

I'd still have the ability where you can sacrifice a die of luck in a session to get a single '6' on the old chart.  This would yield more control as a benefit for the player rather than as GM, I'm asking them to roll their luck when I think their character should be lucky.  Still to be be backwards compatible, the old luck abilities could still be used, requiring a roll of a 6 on the die to get something usable but not losing the die during the session.

 

Luck as a mechanic

This is just a mechanic.  The special effect of the re-rolls can be anything.  Yes the mechanic is changing a 6 to hit into a 12.  The special effect is that a piece of the crumbling wall just happens to fall at that time and alter the blast to miss.  Or a bug flies into the face of the attacker and makes him miss.  But this makes it a more defined power mechanic the player can use for the character.  Just like the special effect of a blast could be a luck based hex whereby a person gets hit by debris.  But the mechanic could also be used for other effects like precognition, super skills without the ability to be better than an MIT scientist.  Say you want a high school teacher to be really go at what they teach,  Giving the teacher levels would effectively mean that the teacher could be as good as a professor at MIT.  But with this power and limiting it with say a -1 limitation only for physics rolls would allow you to differentiate say a good physics student from a high school teacher to a college professor to Tony Stark to Mr Fantastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I go on, I'd like to thank everyone for being a sound board on this idea.  Its really been helpful.

 

One the question of smaller dice pools,

For a small pool, this is more likely to affect a person's 3d6 rolls on to hit or more importantly skills.  3 dice of luck could possibly change three different die rolls to a positive effect.

Shouldn't 1d6 of luck have the same likelihood of affecting various game aspects regardless of whether it's sitting next to 9 other d6's of luck?

 

i.e. Why is a small pool more likely to affect a particular set of things than a large pool?  To me, that would seem to be a flaw in the pool system -- one requiring attention such that 1d6 of luck is 1d6s of luck ... capable of affecting (and equally likely to affect) a well-defined set of things ... regardless of luck pool size.

 

The 1d6 luck usable a la HAP approach solves this -- because the total rolled on the dice are all usable by the player for the exact same (well-defined set of) things ... whether 1d6, 2d6, or 10d6 of are rolled.  But in your system, the person who buys more luck gets wider or more likely options than the person who buys some, but less?

 

I'm struggling with this one.  Have I misunderstood what you meant?

 

 

 

 

On keeping track of how many dice of luck a player has and hasn't used

The easiest way would be to use a different color or size of die at the start of the session.  I don't know about everyone, but I have a lot of d6s over the years.  At least 10 lbs worth.  During play, the dice would go back into the bag.  If the luck doesn't reset after a session, it shouldn't be any harder to record than END or STUN.

 

 

Or just record them and scratch them off (i.e. bookwork).  I mention this because if someone running an online game likes and adopts your approach once you refine and finalize it, here ... physical dice and bags obviously won't work when the dice are being rolled online using something like MapTool, Roll20, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kinda like it, I guess (scratches head). For myself, when a character has Luck, I factor that in subtlety during gameplay. 

 

Buying 1d6 Luck will get a character a little bonus, such as if someone asks if they need to make a roll and tell them they make their roll automatically (also helps make sure there isn't a hiccup in an episode)

Buying 2d6 Luck might get you a miss instead of a hit by a villain's attack.

Buying 3+d6 Luck will help during a critical time (such as the playing rolling an 18 but the 18 doesn't affect them for some lucky reason.

 

It really varies for me and I don't have a set way to handle it yet. However, if I want heroes to make a roll, I ask who has Luck and whoever has it auto makes the roll. Again, makes life easier for the GM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't 1d6 of luck have the same likelihood of affecting various game aspects regardless of whether it's sitting next to 9 other d6's of luck?

 

i.e. Why is a small pool more likely to affect a particular set of things than a large pool?  To me, that would seem to be a flaw in the pool system -- one requiring attention such that 1d6 of luck is 1d6s of luck ... capable of affecting (and equally likely to affect) a well-defined set of things ... regardless of luck pool size.

 

The 1d6 luck usable a la HAP approach solves this -- because the total rolled on the dice are all usable by the player for the exact same (well-defined set of) things ... whether 1d6, 2d6, or 10d6 of are rolled.  But in your system, the person who buys more luck gets wider or more likely options than the person who buys some, but less?

 

I'm struggling with this one.  Have I misunderstood what you meant?

 

Having more luck should affect you in a better way than less, much in the same way as 10d6 of blast is better than 3d6 of blast.  Again, I am viewing this as a power and not just a lucky heroic person and as a power it should scale and be worth the same as any other 60 active point power.

 

Lets compare the various luck implementations.

 

First if luck gives you action points per body.  This really isn't unbalancing and will give you an expected 3 luck points for 3 dice.

Second if luck gives you action points per stun.  This can be really unbalancing.  In fact, in heroic level games I would probably buy at least 3d6 if not more just for the altering effects.

Third, luck as current.  This make luck really dependent on the GM and the question comes how is the luck better for a person who rolls 6d6 of luck vs 12d6 of luck if both roll 3 6s.  the fact is only that the 12d6 luck person should "hit" more but beyond that for only the character luck stays the same.

Fourth, is the version where you replace dice with the lucky dice.

 

For 3d6 rolls, one HAP lowers the roll by 1.  Assuming a player got an average roll (6,4,1) and needed at 8-, they would need to blow 3 HAPs to lower the roll.  In the first version, thats the end of your luck.  In the second you have HAPs to spare.  The third, depends on how much the GM thinks its worth with decreasing chances the higher they want the need for luck.  In the fourth, on the average, one of 3 dice of luck will be a 1 or 2.  In the scenario devised, that will drop the 11 to a 6 or 7 but probably use up one die.  In fact, this suggested system works best on 3d6 where you roll lousy as the luck will have a greater effect for less cost.  If the roll were (6,5,4), and all your luck dice rolled a 3, this will still get the roll down to a 12,10, or 9 depending on whether you want to spend the dice.

 

For normal dice of damage, HAP can increase stun by 1 per HAP.  That's pretty ineffective.  One 12d6 roll at +3 stun would be feel sad.  The same is true for body with a 1 per 1 HAP ratio.  In the fourth method, it would depend on the roll.  Assuming a normal roll, your probably gaining about 3 stun and 1 body per dice sacrificed.  So one die of luck would equal about 4 HAPs.  

 

For killing dice, HAP take place after the roll and are not adjusted by the stun mod.  Thus 1 HAP equals one extra body or stun added after the calculation for stun and body is done after the roll.  In the fourth version, if the luck die is effective, you would get at least 1 extra body (you wouldn't be able to use the luck dice on the stun mod which is a half die unless your GM allows it) and probably 2 stun.  A unique thing about HAP is the ability to exceed the damage of the attack.  If you have a 4d6K and roll a 24 (congrats), you can then use HAPs to increase the amount of body even higher.  With the fourth version, this isn't possible.

 

Most other uses of HAP are the same, so the luck dice will be in the norm, a better value.  The exceptions are PRE where they suggest 1 HAP might be worth 2 or 3 PRE attack.  The would probably make the two about equal.

 

Now after making all those cost comparisons, my big thing in the fourth version of luck is the fact that its less about how the GM is feeling and more about a defined dynamic which can actually affect the way a luck roll affects the game.  

 

The question I now ask the people against, is it because the new dynamic would be too powerful or is it because its a new dynamic that you don't like it?  For example, I was all against the new 6th dynamic of removing figured characteristics, but I gave it a chance and found it wasn't bad (still hate the higher levels of growth though).  If its the new dynamic, I'd ask you try it in one of your games for a bit and see if it works or not.  That is what I am going to do to my players at the end of the month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I think I've got my head wrapped around it.  But to be sure, please double-check my understanding:

 

When you said:

 

One the question of smaller dice pools,

For a small pool, this is more likely to affect a person's 3d6 rolls on to hit or more importantly skills.  3 dice of luck could possibly change three different die rolls to a positive effect.

 

You didn't actual mean the probability (a la it being 'more likely') would change with regard to luck impacting a person's 3d6 rolls for 'to hit' or skill checks.  Instead, you were saying this would probably be where people would be most inclined to use their luck?

 

Is that correct?  I'm asking because your lengthy explanation seems to bear out that the probability of influencing particular game elements is net neutral regardless of approach ... but when I read what's quoted, above, I mentally went 'Huh?!' because you indicated an increased likelihood/probability of luck applying to certain game elements ('to hit' and/or skills) ... and it just wasn't clicking with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I think I've got my head wrapped around it.  But to be sure, please double-check my understanding:

 

When you said:

 

 

You didn't actual mean the probability (a la it being 'more likely') would change with regard to luck impacting a person's 3d6 rolls for 'to hit' or skill checks.  Instead, you were saying this would probably be where people would be most inclined to use their luck?

 

Is that correct?  I'm asking because your lengthy explanation seems to bear out that the probability of influencing particular game elements is net neutral regardless of approach ... but when I read what's quoted, above, I mentally went 'Huh?!' because you indicated an increased likelihood/probability of luck applying to certain game elements ('to hit' and/or skills) ... and it just wasn't clicking with me.

yes that is correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought a big flaw with Luck is the PLAYER has to be lucky to make good use of it. Anything that changes this gets my viote

 

If you want reliable luck powers, buy reliable powers with luck as the special effect. I once built an NPC character (Lady Luck) whose entire schtick was that no matter what was thrown at her, she'd walk through it unscathed. Bullets would miss, guns would jam, falling objects would hit something on the way down and be deflected just enough, etc.  

 

But the Luck power/skill/perk was always designed as something you *shouldn't* rely on - likewise for Unluck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want reliable luck powers, buy reliable powers with luck as the special effect. I once built an NPC character (Lady Luck) whose entire schtick was that no matter what was thrown at her, she'd walk through it unscathed. Bullets would miss, guns would jam, falling objects would hit something on the way down and be deflected just enough, etc.  

 

But the Luck power/skill/perk was always designed as something you *shouldn't* rely on - likewise for Unluck.

In a game where you're supposed to get what you pay for, if you pay for luck, you should always have -some- of it.  That's really the problem with past implementations of Luck -- you could pay for something that might yield absolutely zero benefit, in which case, you didn't get what you paid for.

 

I (and others) seem to desire certainty of -some- improvement ... but are good with the -amount- of improvement being left to chance.  And that's part of the ground this discussion has covered...

Link to comment
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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...