It turns out I had unexplored realms of geekiness.
April 10, 2010 8:32 PM   Subscribe

I'm going to be running my first RPG and I need tips.

So I've come a long way from here. In the past year, gaming has become one of my major hobbies, with a great and extended group devoted to it (Almost all of us are law students or new lawyers, and almost all of us are also musical theater geeks. Some might see us as a vortex of insufferability. I see it as fucking awesome.)

Anyway, I'm going to be running my first game soon. I'm calling it a one-off, with the possibility of being a miniseries. It'll be a Vampire Sabbat game, set in New York.

I've had the players giving me their ideas for the past few weeks (we're two weeks out from the actual game, and we do a number of games weekly, but people are particularly excited about this one) and working my scenarios around them.

I think I've got the story down pretty well, and I've got a good group of people who are all familiar with Vampire and White Wolf. I've been using a take-some-leave-some philosophy towards the books and mythologies, creating my own sheets for anyone they might come across. Because it's a one-ff and I want it to be memorable, the players are all starting off with 75 XP to play with and must have some points in politics. Sabbat Status will be determined by me after I view their sheets and backstories.

What I'm most concerned about is that I don't know how this is done. I've seen many different GMs handle these things, but the nature of the GM is to have their methods necessarily hidden from view. I don't know what I need to be prepared for, or how to prepare for it.

I know a number of you have been or are GMs, and each of you must have, thus, done it for a first time. What pratfalls can I avoid? WHat am I not thinking of that I should look out for? ANy other tips you can give me.

Thanks!
posted by Navelgazer to Sports, Hobbies, & Recreation (21 answers total) 15 users marked this as a favorite
 
The first thing you need to be prepared for is that your players will not stick to the track you're planning.

I once did a really cool conspiracy-theory GURPS campaign set in our city. It was all planned out, with clues and omens. And then one of my players thought he'd figured it out an hour into the first play session, convinced the other players, and they shot the mayor. This was fairly disastrous, given that the mayor was to be their biggest ally. Complete rewrite time.
posted by Netzapper at 8:55 PM on April 10, 2010


Some disconnected thoughts:

Might first want to read this blog post from Jeff Rients which comes from a little bit of a gonzo place but should induce a 'fuck yeah'.

0. An upfront comment before the game about what style of game you run is a good idea. If you're not sure what you're style is, that is also a good thing to say up front.
1. Know when to shut up. Don't let them see behind the curtain.
2. It's always a little bit harder to be impartial and objective than you think.
3. The players give less of a shit about your story than you think.
4. Try to make what happens at the table reflect in the game world (but not always). If a PC goes to speak for the party and you do it "onscreen" (live at the table), and the player blunders horribly and can't speak in character, make the result a failure no matter what the dice say, no matter what his skill is.
5. Don't be unnecessarily hard-assed. Lots of DMs fall into this trap where a player asks if they can do X and the DM's first response is NO, then he looks backwards trying to find a reason why not. Some people describe this as, "Never say no; either say yes or roll for it."
6. Still, you have to make them work for stuff.
7. Have an NPC you can play who has opinions about the PCs and expresses them. "That Frank guy, he's a real jerk, isn't he?" It's even better if those opinions are dumb and comical. Get the players talking IC about each other's characters in snarky ways.
8. You can keep control of the narrative. If a PC goes off from the group, don't feel compelled to play through what they encounter with that player. Instead take control of the PC, silently work out what happens and how long it takes, then play through what happens to the main group. "Okay.. it's almost sunset... one of the horses cuts himself on a branch [deal with that]... night falls... Are you doing anything?" (Though note, some players might shit blood if you 'take control' of their PC..)
9. Despite the link I posted above, ultimately as DM it has to work for you. Don't be afraid to stick to your guns.
10. Like a referee in sports, you won't make the right call every time, but it's better to stick to your calls than to waffle. You can't be perfect, but try to be fair in your imperfection. Keep a mental track of karma and reward or punish later for it.
posted by fleacircus at 9:04 PM on April 10, 2010 [2 favorites]


A more practical bit of advice for White Wolf's system, at least from distant memories. Those games had exploding rolls, so that if was possible for a character to score some giant result on some very mundane task, leading to exchanges roughly like this:

Player 1: "Does it look like anyone is hiding on the roof."
DM: "Roll perception."
Player 1: "Okay.. whoa! .. Man, two 10's! Oh jeez, let's see, 31!"
Player 2: "Ha ha ha way to blow a good roll like that."
Player 3: "Is that the highest anyone's rolled in this campaign?"
Player 2: "No, I rolled a 40 last month when blah blah blah"
Player 3: "Blah blah blah"
Player 1: "My dice must rock."
Player 2: "Blah blah blah"
DM: "OKAY GUYS. Yeah okay, there are three mice and five cockroaches on the roof."
Player 2: "What kind of mice?"
posted by fleacircus at 9:23 PM on April 10, 2010 [2 favorites]


So I might as well describe what I'm planning. Final nights of the Battle for New York (in which the Camarilla take New York back from the Sabbat)

I've got six PCs:

1. Tzimisce warlord. Keeps to himself and his growing army of experiments, nominally Sabbat but disagrees with a lot of the politics. Very old.
2. Salubri anti-tribu. Came down from Montreal during the first nights of the battle. Essentially the Primogen of NY Salubri, but there's barely a few of them anyway. Powerful, but infirtile.
3. Setite warmongerer. Recently involved in a plot in New Orleans which led to Goratrix's destruction/enslavement, though she doesn't know it. Presence 5. Currently hiding in Harlem. Only Sabbat because of hatred for the Camarilla.
4. City Gangrel. Young. Very few friends or allies. Powerful and hungry. Almost without allegiance.
5. Assamite. Major player within the Black Hand.
6. Toreador anti-tribu. Combat bad-ass. Carries an 8-foot piece of rebar adorned with Vampire teeth and protean claws. Templar to the Bishop of Brooklyn.

They will start the game by being summoned to an Upper West Side house to deal with the realities of their losing battle. There, they will be clamped down by the Tremere and held for reprogramming, as he tells secrets about all of them and what they did to the Tremere. They will be saved at the last minute by Ecatarina, a badass Brujah with Presence 6, who will stake the Tremere and inform them that Polonia, the Archbishop, is gone, that the NY Sabbat needs a purging if it's going to survive at all, leads the group in Vaulerie, and instructs them to kill the three (of five) surviving) Bishops in NY, with the promise that one of them will be made Archbishop if they succeed.

She will then leave them the staked Tremere to do with as they please. (Presumably diablerie, though only one of the group may reap the spoils there)

The three targets are an extremely reclusive Lasombra with a haven bedecked completely in a maze of traps and mirrors, a Tzimisce with a lot of minions and Auspex who can try to turn my torrie character, and one who's already dead and whose haven is a battlefield between Setities and the Camarilla.

Should they survive all of this, the characters are informed to meet Ecatarina at Madison Square, where Polonia, not quite dead, will do batte with her. They can choose for themselves which side to support. If they help her to kill Ecatarina (which they probably will) then she will assign one of them to the posisiotn of Archbishop, and the other five to the five now-open Bishop positions.

And then, no matter what happens, the Tzimisce antideluvean will awaken, destroying much of the city and beginning Gahenna.
posted by Navelgazer at 9:32 PM on April 10, 2010


For your first game, I would recommend writing every SCENE that you need to happen and then an idea of where/how it might happen.

The most important thing to remember is that the where/how is probably going to change.

A quick and very dirty example:

Your characters are investigating a murder in New York. The victim is from Kyrgyblatsivania and the players are meant to follow that lead and travel to the old country so that they can meet the victims tyler-durden-crazy older brother. But instead, your players decide to latch onto some completely unrelated object at the crime scene. Say it's an ashtray.

Your players become convinced for their own opaque reasons that this ashtray is the key to the whole fucking puzzle. They want to know where the ashtray was made. You tell them that there's no way to know. So one of your players is all like "Well, I have 15 skill points in AskMetafilter, so I'm posting a picture of the ashtray and seeing what I can find out."

"Fine," you say. "The ashtray was made at some factory in Trenton, New Jersey."

And, of course, all your players hop on the train to Trenton. So now, you're asking yourself: 'How the fuck do I get this game back on track so that they can meet Tyler Durden in Kyrgyblatsivania?'

Well, you're the DM. You can change everything on the fly whenever you want. The crap-ass DM would play out a boring factory scene in Trenton and then have some event come hit the players over the head with the message: "Go to fucking Kyrgyblatsivania already!"

But not you. You realize that the scene in Kyrgyblatsivania is just a scene, and it's not the setting that's important but the content. So when your players arrive at the factory, they find a bloodbath. Because Tyler Durden was at the crime scene before your players ever were and, for whatever reason, he latched onto the same stupid ashtray, came to Trenton and didn't like what he saw.

So now, rather than finding him in his spooky Kyrgyblatsivanian castle, they're interacting with him in front of a Jersey assembly line with an overturned forklift in the background but the scene, the scene, is the same.

So that's what you do for now.

Later, when you're old hat at this, you won't even write the scenes. You'll run entire campaigns with just a half dozen jotted down sentences on the back of a napkin.
posted by 256 at 9:44 PM on April 10, 2010 [5 favorites]


Player 1: "Does it look like anyone is hiding on the roof."
DM: "Roll perception."

Ok this is maybe a bit off topic, and I'm sure there's some contention around the issue, but I would advise not doing something like this. If instead, the DM rolls the dice secretly and then says "You don't think anyone's hiding on the roof" the player doesn't know if it's because he blew his roll or whether there actually is no one there. * (when you make mistakes in RL, you often don't know you've made them) Which, while I'm not a "realism" stickler, is as it should be in this case for reasons of heightening suspense.

* ...and if the player asks "how sure am I that there's no one there?" come right back with, "you've got x pips in perception/auspex, how confident are you that there isn't something with obfuscate 10 up there?"
posted by juv3nal at 10:31 PM on April 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


It sounds like basically the first part is going to mostly be a train ride. (The players are going exactly where the track takes them.) After the train gets to the station (your major NPC gives them an offer they can't refuse) be very careful to let the players do whatever in the hell they want after that and have it adjust things accordingly. Nothing sucks quite so much as the feeling that it doesn't matter what choices you make.

Similarly, if you type up a page or so for each player - say a half dozen to a dozen people and places they are familiar with - and hand them to them on the first night of the game, it will give them a bunch of options and do a lot to make NYC seem like a city and not the three sets that your sit come revolves around.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 11:10 PM on April 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


A friend of mine used to DM at the lunch table, with nothing but one die and his brain. It worked fine. You're telling a collaborative story... the rulebooks are just there to provide ideas and handle boring mechanics. (You can improv a monster encounter or role-play an NPC, but it's tedious to decide what happens in combat... let the rule system do that.)

Preparation: make sure you can do the mechanics smoothly. It's not much fun to watch the DM frantically looking through tables.

Keep your cool when the players try something completely unexpected and/or stupid. The war between players and DM is long and bitter, but don't be the annoying type of DM who has to have everything his own way.

If you're new to DMing and it's a one-off, keep the story simple. Your outline has at least five encounters plus plenty of conversation... it's good to have it all planned out, but expect to be about half-way through it at 3 in the morning.

(All this is based on D&D which may not apply at all to your game...)
posted by zompist at 11:29 PM on April 10, 2010


They will start the game by being summoned to an Upper West Side house to deal with the realities of their losing battle. There, they will be clamped down by the Tremere and held for reprogramming, as he tells secrets about all of them and what they did to the Tremere. They will be saved at the last minute by Ecatarina, a badass Brujah with Presence 6, who will stake the Tremere and inform them that Polonia, the Archbishop, is gone, that the NY Sabbat needs a purging if it's going to survive at all, leads the group in Vaulerie, and instructs them to kill the three (of five) surviving) Bishops in NY, with the promise that one of them will be made Archbishop if they succeed.

I'd be very hesitant about taking this much control away from the players - seems to me that you're making the players spectators for a bunch of scenes, and if that's what you want to do then fine, but it might as well just be narration. The three missions sound neat, so why not just start with the first one? Then you can drop the plot in as you go.

My experience is that players are fine with being told what their situation is at the outset, but really resent railroading - and the scenario you outline seems to assume that a bunch of things will happen, whatever the players do, which is the definition of railroading.

Also, the 'badass Brujah' who comes in and effortlessly defeats the people holding the party captive reeks of GMNPC - in other words the GM's character Who Is Cooler Than You'll Ever Be. These are pure poison, and should be avoided if at all possible.

Lots of good advice in the thread so far though - my general points would be, first, that "plot is nothing, characters are everything" (in other words, the PCs will care way less about the fate of the Sabbat in NY in the abstract than they will about killing some fucker who's messed them round, so use characters to embody the plot).

Second, never assume that things will go a particular way - what if the PCs fight the Tremere? What if the Brujah loses? What if the PCs refuse to even meet the Tremere? What if the PCs try and team up with the dudes they've been told to whack? Etc.

In summary, having just finished a year-long city-based campaign in D&D 4e: Rather than decide What's Going to Happen, instead decide what you want to do for the next session (ie, your three missions) and also an idea of what the forces in the city want and how they're going to try and achieve that.

Make sure those goals threaten things the players care about.

Wind up, release.
posted by Sebmojo at 12:07 AM on April 11, 2010 [3 favorites]


Ok this is maybe a bit off topic, and I'm sure there's some contention around the issue, but I would advise not doing something like this.

Me either, but that's the way it was :-/

I don't recommend letting a player roll anything where the character won't really the success of the action or not. Unfortunately, in the case of group rolls (like perception), the DM can't really roll a bunch of rolls, once for each person in the party, and shouldn't have to anyway. I don't think any game system has a great solution here, though, FWIW.
posted by fleacircus at 12:12 AM on April 11, 2010


Unfortunately, in the case of group rolls (like perception), the DM can't really roll a bunch of rolls, once for each person in the party

One way to get around this is to have a piece of paper typed up with a grid full of pre-done rolls. It's okay then to even let the players see the piece of paper because they don't know which position you're reading (or which direction you're progressing across the grid), and you have the advantage of not having to make a roll of the dice so that players don't get to know that there was ever anything they could have succeeded/failed at rolling for.

It takes a bit of effort to make up the sheet of paper, but it's essentially reusable unless your players are really clever at figuring out which number you're looking at (out of potentially hundreds, I mean how many d10 results can you fit on a sheet of 8.5 by 11? lots). There's no need to actually roll all those of course. Excel, for instance, can generate numbers for you and there's countless other ways if you've a bit of programming know-how.
posted by juv3nal at 2:55 AM on April 11, 2010


This old Usenet post by S. John Ross is the best advice I've ever read on running a game. Basically, create lists of possibilities -- people the PCs could meet, places they could go, things that could happen. You can then shuffle these things around as the players do the unexpected (which they will inevitably do).
posted by maurice at 3:58 AM on April 11, 2010 [2 favorites]


Ah, Sabbat in New York. I was running that in, oh, call it August 2001. Rotten timing. Never got to the end of it. I'm currently running a non-canon Australian game, with my players playing both a sabbat and a camarilla character in alternating sessions.

The trick to running Sabbat, especially with the group of PCs that you're only going to be running for once, is keeping the bastards on track and together. You didn't mention which one of the PCs, if any, is the party's ductus or their priest, or if they're an existing pack. An NPC priest is a great way to keep an eye on the party without turning into Hand of God - you can suggest things to them in character, and have them assess it in character. Priests operate as a guide, not as the boss, so they work out well to subtly steer your game.

I'd also suggest starting the game with the Vaudlerie. Get yourself a wine glass or big bowl and a bottle of something red and make it an interactive thing. I've done this a few times, and my players have loved it, and given that you're playing with thespians it'll give them something to ham up. It also means you'll then have a Vinculum rating you can use to keep everyone together and to help make that group of very different leeches you have there working for one another, not wondering if they'll get flayed for eating their packmates. It will also be a good excuse to get all the pcs in the same place at the same time.

I'd second keeping Ecaterina out of the picture. You get much more satisfaction out of escaping a matched antagonist than being rescued by something bigger than you are. The best thing you can do as a GM is put the PCs in situations where they can succeed if they work their asses off. The plot you've laid out there is solid, but it's pretty heavy on passive stuff that doesn't actually require them to do anything. The first half is described suggests that they get sent here, sent there, picked up there - even the reward of diablerie is a present left that they didn't have to work for, and that battle at the end is going to be you talking a lot, given how many actions a pop elders have. Frankly I'd just drop her altogether. Right now it reads very much like the Ecaterina Story, with supporting cast. Really, you could pare it right down and just have them given the missions by Polonia as the war breaks out, claiming that the bishops are turncoats or infernalists and need to be eradicated. It makes the plot about them, not about some broken jawed old Dutch bint.

You also have a whooooooooole lot of game planned for this one session. Each of those bishops could be a session in their own rights, depending on how much detail you go into. and how much is played out in character rather than just rolled.

As has been mentioned already, assume that your players will go off in a totally different direction than you had planned. Completely. If you want to use the NY By Night book, read that fucker over and over and bookmark the npcs. You only get to write half the plot - the players come up with the rest. I had a sabbat pack drive from Brisbane to Adelaide over the desert full of werewolves and sunshine to avoid just the sort of orders you are planning to give your players - and it was frikkin awesome. Sebmojo's advice to keep the feel of the scene even if you have to change the details is sound.

Finally, you have a great weapon in the White Wolf System, in the way the system encourages social things to be played out in character, and the way it pretty much allows for paring back of the rolling end of things. A group with 6 characters is a big one, and it'll be hard to allow everyone time to be the centre of attention if you're rolling a lot. The automatic success systems are going to be helpful, and often you can assume knowledges without having the player roll. If your players are good, you can get through a game only rolling for combat. My players visibly wince when I reach for the dice now, because it means the shit has hit the fan.

I have been running Vampire for like, ten years now, and it's incredibly rewarding. It's a lot of work, but it's hella fun even when you fuck it up. The tl;dr version is to just go for it, make sure the players are telling the story as much as you are and be prepared for them to surprise you.
posted by Jilder at 4:06 AM on April 11, 2010


Concerning the "player rolls perception" material above, something that is worth doing in any system is keeping track of PCs stats and abilities and just handing out clues. The guy with the highest Perception+Auspex (for Vampire -- as I recall, it has been a long time since I used this system) will get the "you notice this" clue, unless there's a PI- or cop-type character, and it's a PI- or cop-type clue. Or a mad scientist- or occultist-type clue. If a clue is necessary to move the characters on to the next scene, there should be no roll. To keep things interesting, you can salt the "set" with other clues and treats and make the players declare actions and spend time to get them. So makes some notes like:

Scene XX: The Murder Victim's Haven

Description: a moderately squalid two room space in a decaying artist's warehouse. Once an attractive building, the artists have either fallen prey to the MV's powers or left. The rooms are, predictably, sealed against light. They PCs have keys, but they need to disarm the security system [Perception+Skill vs 1 to notice, Wits+Skill vs 3 to disarm) or they will have to deal with building security and/or the police however they like.

Ted's character, the ex-cop, will find the bag with the travel information/supplies, including a map. This leads to Scene XX+1.

Mary's character, the kleptomaniac will find the key to the storage locker while digging through MV's stuff for little things to steal. This leads to Scene XXa: The Storage Locker

[Perception+Auspex] vs 2 will reveal traces of the incense that surrounds Mid-Level Villain.

[Wits+Security vs 3] will reveal a hidden panel in one wall. Strength+Potency vs 3] tears it open. Inside are Useful Item, Useful Item, and some evidence on NPC W, who might be bribed or balckmailed with it in a later story (or try and kill the PCs for it). None of these are necessary to the story.

The remaining tenants of the building have been so thoroughly predated that they are incapable of giving useful information. One of the PCs could try and take over the building later, adding one dot to Herd.

And so on. You can make the description as detailed or as skimpy as you like, depending on how confident you are of your ability to ad lib. Of course, be prepared for players to suggest other skill rolls, maybe give them some minor treat for trying.

I got some of the ideas for this reading through The Trail of Cthulhu rulebook, based on the Gumshoe system.
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:05 AM on April 11, 2010


I love the phrase "Roll some dice." It doesn't tell the player what he/she is rolling for but it does indicate that something is happening. If you use it even when you don't need to it really maintains suspense, making PCs think they are barely succeeding instead of walking a predetermined path. Also, if your dice piss you off feel free to ignore them. Don't be afraid to mislead your players. Lies and intentional misunderstandings can be a great way to keep things moving. Above all, have fun. Players will put up with a lot if they're having fun.
posted by irisclara at 9:08 AM on April 11, 2010


Oh God, you want to do all that in one session? Cripes. Not a chance. I'd say a brief intro, one mission and maybe getting set up for the next one, max.

As to the rolling in front of the players thing... eh. You're depriving the players of the potential for making an awesome roll which is one of the small pleasures of the pastime (RPGs are essentially a very fancy version of Bingo). Also, it forces you to deal with their wacky ideas directly (ie if they make a great, or terrible, roll, you need to be creative in recognising that) which is useful discipline. Personally I default to public rolling, using secret rolls for more plot critical stuff (ie 'is the quest giver lying to us?') but it's a pretty minor issue in comparison to the other ones people have been raising.

A tangential point on NPCs: most of the time you only need a name, and a few descriptive (looks and manner of speaking) or plot facts about each one. Nearly everything else will be wasted prep and should instead come out in play.

So 'Jimmy Carrot, street punk, orange hair, nasal voice, owes El Diablo money' is a perfectly workable NPC. He may vanish, or become a key part of the plot - if the former you've not wasted any time on him, if the latter then he can have some backstory grafted on as necessary (connection with another vampire? knows plot information? has a family who are looking for him?).

A classic mistake is to have a page of elaborate history, which mainly comes out in enigmatic silence. This is particularly irritating when the NPC is also Awesome (TM).
posted by Sebmojo at 2:22 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


Thanks for all your help so far. I realize that I won't get all of what I want out in one game, I'm just prepared with a number of scenarios so that - after the intro - they can go do a number of things, and that I already have ideas in mind for a lot of those. This group is actually pretty good about not straying too far from the story. Though this group also divided into to 3.5 games running simultaneously with the same GM, and the groups ended up switching the storylines the GM had planned for us. So you never know.

I set it in the Battle of New York so that there would always be something happening that I could cling onto. I also really like the idea of using Ecatarina as the "Real" quest-giver, and then in the end game allowing the players the choice to either assist her or try to take her down, and having either choice lead to a balls-out tough battle.

I also want to keep "Genie," the Tremere, as the fake quest-giver at the beginning, both to serve as an appropriately dark way of introducing the characters to one another, and to have an opening battle sooner than the players probably expect. I guess the characters can battle him into torpor and then Ecatarina can come in and stake him as he does some sort of horror-movie not-quite-dead-yet scare. My theme is going to be "working together vs. serving one's own interests," and so I like the idea of the characters performing the vaulderie while a low-gen diablerie gift is staked to a chair and only one of them can receive it.
posted by Navelgazer at 6:02 PM on April 11, 2010


If you haven't already seen it, you should probably check this thread.

Also, Brilliant Gameologists is great (albeit currently distracted b/c of intra-cast spawning,) and the offical D&D podcasts (the ones that feature actual gaming, anyway (weirdly difficult to find an overview link. Start here)) are surprisingly insightful, and entertaining if you've ever played.)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:09 PM on April 11, 2010


What you describe could work but... honestly, you’ve given yourself, and your players, a tough job insisting on a Plot. It’s do-able if it all comes off well, but chances are you’d have a much easier time of it, and more likely fun for your players, if you don’t hook your characters into goals of your devising but let them find their own. The players-as-spectators at the beginning is where flags go up for me, because unless your players are most unusual, they’re not going to want to take a back seat to NPCs, and how will you stop them from doing whatever wacky stuff they want to do in the moment? (that's a rhetorical question -- DO NOT STOP THEM)

My take is this: DMing is 5% preparation and 95% sleight-of-hand. You’re telling the most entertaining story possible, not the one you’ve got scribbled down on some paper somewhere, so flow with it. When I was reading the comment above about “scenes” being important I was all no-no-no until I got what he was actually saying – and it’s the same sleight of hand. This is why DMing is opaque – not because of secret die rolls, but because that guy you met in the alley was supposed to be a bad guy – but now it serves the plot better if he’s someone completely different, so he is. Simple as that. Nail down as little as possible – be utterly consistent with what is, because the players need consistency to take control in your game world – but rejig anything unexplored (or semi-explored) as it best suits the story. The one the players are creating.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:14 AM on April 12, 2010 [3 favorites]


WHAT DURN BRONZEFIST SAID PLUS HE IS CALLED DURN BRONZEFIST YOU SHOULD LISTEN TO HIM BECAUSE OF THAT
posted by Sebmojo at 7:39 PM on April 12, 2010


Previously
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 6:20 PM on April 16, 2010


« Older Fancy documents on the fly?   |   I finally got my act together and started... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.