Pojo's Duel Masters news, tips, strategies and more!

DM Home

Message Board

DM News Reports

Trading Card Game

Price Guide
Card of the Day
Duel Yammers - Fan Tips
Top 10 Lists
Tourney Reports


Featured Writers
JMatthew on DM
cecillbill's C-Notes
Hydromorph


Deck Garages
Dry’s Arsenal
Drizer's Dungeon
cecillbill's Dojo
Knives101's Lab
NFG's Garage
aka GDOG'S-VERSION


Spoilers
Base Set DM-01
Evo-Crushinators of
Doom DM-02

Rampage of the
Super Warriors DM-03

Starter Deck
Shobu's Fire Deck
Kokujo's Darkness Deck
Shadowclash Collector's Tin
Shadowclash of
Blinding Night Spoiler

Survivors of the
Megapocalypse

Disruptive Forces Decklist
Block Rockers Decklist
Duel Masters Starter Set (2)
Twin Swarm Deck
Hard Silence Deck
Promo Card List
Stomp-a-trons
Thundercharge
Epic Dragons
Fatal Brood
Shockwaves
Blastplosion
Thrash Hybrid

Video Games
Sempai Legends

Other
Staff

Magic
Yu-Gi-Oh!
Duel Masters
DBZ
Pokemon
Yu Yu Hakusho
NeoPets
HeroClix
Harry Potter
Anime
Vs. System
Megaman

Tom Rogers on Duel Masters
The Answer Addendum: Perfection in Card Gaming
 January 22, 2010

Preface

In my previous installment, I discussed the dominant archetype in Duel Masters as well as effective maneuvers when playing the game.  This time, we’re going to dive more into the heart of gaming and the infrastructure.

I must forewarn you again before you proceed to read the material. I’m providing you with some hard hitting stuff. I mean [i]hard[/i]. We’re going to be dealing with the [i]entire[/i] series of principles card games are based upon, and why they are flawed. Chances are you’re not going to like it. Resistance is inevitable. If you’re short of temper, or would rather continue to stay where you are in the mindset of card gaming, [b]do not proceed[/b].

If you’re choosing to continue, I’m going to be assuming you thoroughly read [url=http://tomrogers.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=articles&action=display&thread=416] “The Answer”[/url], which you can find in the footnotes of this text. This is the only recommended material for understanding what I’m going to describe to you, though having a basic idea of probability and permutation is certainly going to help.

The final note I’d like to make before presenting the material to you is that this is strictly from the interpretation of the Good Player.  Referencing [url=http://tomrogers.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=articles&action=display&thread=223 ]“Potential Players and Bad Players”[/url] is advised for an accurate, clear-cut definition of this term. Be sure to completely understand the conversation that takes place in this article, as well as the determined result before reading the text.

Why We Play
Card games are fun. If you didn’t find a game fun, you wouldn’t play, right?

Wrong.

There are people who play games for various reasons, some more reasonable then others. Believe it or not, there are people who play your game of choice out of spite. There are players purely in the game for personal validation. There are players in the game to [i]win[/i]. But why do they play, if the game doesn’t offer the same positive incentive as it does to most?

Today, we’re going to discuss the different kinds of negative players and how they impact the game you’re playing. Unfortunately, players of this nature [i]do[/i] have significance, and they [i]do[/i] decrease the health of the game. We’ll go into this later, but first is integral to define these kinds of players.

All card games are determined in some part by chance. If they didn’t, the best player would win every game they ever play. This is clearly not the case. Various factors pertain to winning and losing, as described in the original installment of this text.  This leads to issues with human mentality and gambling, and the psychological tendencies that come along with them.

Win Mongers


Some people are actually [i]addicted[/i] to winning. This isn’t to be confused with those who enjoy it, as we all do and shouldn’t be playing otherwise. The object of the game is to win – but where is the line?

 “Cheating is commonplace. Every single game. Every single match. Every single tournament -- National, Regional, Local, despite the location. Despite age, despite interests, despite intentions, despite platforms. Gaming has become a ruthless endeavor to brutally kick the opponent down and seize the "win" by any means possible, diluting it's value and creating an addictive nature upon which the foundation of card gaming will now forever reside. It's doomed. Nothing can fix it.

There is no "good will" or "consideration." There is no courtesy. There is no respect. There is no honesty. You will intentionally be stalled to time, given the short end of a poor ruling (god forbid you're sharked), and your opponent will proclaim this as a demonstration of their skill as the 'superior' player, gobbling down their win and scampering off into the shadows with the rest of the wretched devils who play the game of your choice.” (3)

Now I’m sure we’ve all met one of these players before. Weather your local tournament scene, regional events, or online gaming ring. They’re everywhere, and they’re coming for your terrain of choice. They [i]will[/i] end up in the same play area as you, and the disease will spread. Your game will be destroyed, along with the players around you.

There’s nothing you can do to stop them. It’s going to happen. Card gaming as a whole is on it’s deathbed. The only reason this particular faction of Duel Masters has survived for so long is the lack of a player base motivated to win (and as such wouldn’t develop into these ‘Win Mongers’), and the unrealistic dedication of some of the game’s top players and their efforts at Gates of Fate. This isn’t to glorify my own community. I implore you to look at the various remnants remaining where the game may be discussed – Pojo’s Gaming Forum, Wizards Community Forums, and the new DuelZone are the most prominent.  Each of these sites is infected with Win Mongers. Any thread posted on them is corroded with filth and bragging of conquest by these rejects, where they will clash with each other until the end over who’s truly of value to the game’s existence. We’ve even planted a few threads [i]directly[/i] from Gates of Fate, and watched as other members willingly carried the topic over to these forums, only to see it destroyed by these degenerates.

You’d think to call a moderator, but you won’t be answered. This is because either the moderators don’t pay any mind to the section of a dying game, much less one that has been resting for years. If they do, they’re probably one of the Win Mongers, lording their authority over you to maintain dominion over the entire, selfish, filthy conversation. You won’t get anywhere in these discussions, no matter how righteous and pure your intentions. Even if others on the thread agree and are willing to participate, these Win Mongers will come in hoards and repeatedly take up page upon page, smothering the value of each and every thread with shallow, pointless bickering, outweighing your important information with their “points” and “arguments” which they have the unrealistic audacity to consider valid or important.

There is no solution to the Win Monger, other than to move away from their place of occupancy. Gates of Fate is dedicated to keeping these people out while fostering the conversations we hold so valuable. It’s about the only thing we can do now – just hold on and keep the boarder strong, while continually reaching to prosper. It’s difficult to outweigh the Win Mongers in general, and even more challenging in a completed game. There isn’t any other alternative. They will not stop.

Bad Players

Unlike the Win Mongers, bad players are nothing new to the world of card gaming. There are always people who don’t want to win. They’re much happier being “right,” in their own convoluted definition of the term. Their values are drastically misplaced, often harping on the virtue of a particular aspect other than actually playing the game being of greater significance. The most common example of this would be one who insists that the building of decks equates to equal proficiency or “skill” as actually playing with the strategy.
Now, this mentality is horribly flawed. It’s been proven to be flawed for what would be eons in the card game world, and the gaming world in general. Yet these perpetrators of the game’s infrastructure still exist, no matter how much they lose or are ridiculed by Good Players and even the Win Mongers.

I’m going to take this time to point out that Win Mongers are [i]not[/i] Good Players, as they are not learning from their victories and are seizing them by means which are considered unethical by any proper player of the game. Under no circumstances should you condone cheating as proper way to play the game, and no player using these or other underhanded means should be considered proficient. They clearly need “stilts” to achieve their victories, often undeservingly, and thus the quality of winning is dramatically lower than the winning of a Good Player. One may even argue, and probably will, that the winning of a Win Monger has [i]no[/i] significance, and they are even worse than the Bad Players. This is inevitably true, and we will go into why in the next section.

Regardless, Bad Players are still a lasting and important aspect of gaming. These are not to be confused with players of little skill or of average demeanor. These players fall under the category of Potential Player, and are eagerly looking to raise their skill level to participate in the upper echelons of competitive play (2).
Like Win Mongers, Bad Players are here to stay. However, it’s much easier to separate yourself from the Bad Players . They won’t infest the gaming world, as it is against the infrastructure. This is by no means condoning the mentality of Bad Players, as they are still detrimental to the health of the game. However, they are a necessary part of the environment in a proper ratio.

Ulteriors

The last kind of player which has a negative impact on the health of a game is the Ulterior – one who has a motive due to their opinion of what is best for the game, or often the world of gaming. They will go out of their way to ‘prove’ this concept and devote their entire existence within the game to doing so.
For example, an Ulterior may believe one game is superior to another. They join the game they deem ‘inferior’ and learn to play, then attempt to become successful within that game.  Should they win in this game, the Ulterior plans to proclaim the virtues of the other game and how it requires much more “skill” or some other demeanor than the inferior game. Thus, the ulterior motive through playing this game is to ‘prove’ the significance of the other.

Although they have become a rarity in the card game world, Ulteriors are a damaging component to the gaming community. They fuel both of the other species and increase their reliability rate, which is detrimental to the sportsmanship and win value of the game.

Game Health

There are various factors which contribute to the overall health of the game. As mentioned, the ratio of negative impacting player types is an important and affects the game’s overall health. Other factors that affect game health are the consistency of tiers and emphasis on the skill gap.


Negative Impact Ratio


The Negative Impact Ratio can completely destroy a game. If there are too many negative player types to stay away from, the game may be completely consumed and devoid of worth in victory (thus making it pointless) or utterly destroy it by driving out the larger player base.

Win Mongers


Win Mongers are the most substantial problem, because most Win Mongers do win at the game they’re playing. They may not do so fairly, but they are winning at the end of the day. This is a problem because the object of the game is to win, so they can often be misconceived as Good Players. This is incredibly dangerous because onlooking Potential Players will note that these players are successful and may imitate the underhanded means Win Mongers are using to obtain their status. Thus, the Potential Player influenced by the Win Monger will devote their willingness to learn on how to cheat, how to improperly benefit from a ruling situation (sharking), or anything else to give them an upper hand. They will eventually be unable to understand the game without these negative connotations and will ruthlessly employ them to continue winning. They will [i]become[/i] Win Mongers, because the victories will serve as reinforcement for their inappropriate actions. This means there will be more Win Mongers, and the influx of new players will be continually polluted. As you can see, this can completely take over a game and rot it from the inside out. This is why it’s important to isolate Win Mongers, especially from competitive play.

 The tournament policies for most games try to do this as best as possible with a series of deterrents for unfair circumstances generated by players. For example, a player caught cheating may be disqualified, suspended, or even banned from events. The degree and consistency at which these policies are enforced determine the amount of Win Mongers that exist within the game. A zero tolerance policy would have very little to no Win Mongers at a competitive level, as they would want to continue playing and as such would have to adhere to the rules, whereas a lenient policy would increase the ratio of Win Mongers, as they could play unfairly and suffer minimal penalties for doing so.

When Win Mongers are at the top of the food chain, the value of winning is practically nonexistent. Anything can be done to win and condoned, because ‘winning is winning.’ This decreases the sportsmanship of the game as it condones negative actions such as cheating, sharking, or other outside influences to gain an upper hand. The relationship between these two variables is completely parallel.

Bad Players


Bad Players are the only kind of negative impact players to positively impact the state of the game, and this is only through one way: they are walking deterrents for Potential Players. Potential Players may be undecided about a particular aspect concerning the game and looking to observe others to gain perspective. Seeing a player who is Good enforcing this aspect will condone it’s use, but this is often more difficult to affirm because of Win Mongers. Potential Players may not be sure if the aspect is beneficial because the player is Good, or because the Win Monger is cheating. After all, if you’re not playing by the rules, how can it be determined the procedures you [i]are[/i] adhering to significantly contribute to your victory? There are also different styles of play benefitted by particular aspects, of which Good players can be different parts of. For example, a particular card choice may be beneficial to Good Players who play in a very aggressive fashion. This same card may not be helpful in the hands of a Good Player who plays conservatively. If both players are of similar skill level, the Potential Player may have a hard time distinguishing if the card in question is a good idea or not. Often it is not easy to tell for somebody at this stage in the game whether or not a card choice is helpful in general or due to preference.

Seeing a Bad Player use the same card would reinforce the notion that the card is simply not a good idea, rather than a matter of preference or benefit to a particular circumstance. If the player who is not winning is sharing the same mentality as the player the card is working for, it may not necessarily be the best route for you to take. The Good Player using the card may be experiencing a good deal of luck where the card appears successful, or simply have made a bad card choice. As a Good Player, they will eventually notice and correct this, but the Potential Player scouting games from the sidelines may not and continue to attempt to find hidden significance in the card’s use.
For the mostpart, though, Bad Players are bad for the game. They steer the Potential Players in the wrong direction, and if the game doesn’t have enough tier consistency or skill gap,  they may be drifted to the losing side under the impression that the thought processes are condonable.

It’s important that a game has enough Bad Players to display the ineffectiveness of particular circumstances or mentalities, while not so much as to convince a new player that these ideas are commonplace and desirable.

Ulteriors


Ulteriors are bad for the game because they coincide with other negative player types to increase their influence over the Potential Players. A Bad Player may agree with an Ulterior on a different game requiring more “skill” or insist that it’s “easy” to do something important in the current game. This often tends to be the common combination, as Bad Players look for any excuse possible to insist they are “right,” and often complain about the ‘unfairness’ of a game to justify their shortcomings. Ulteriors also join with Win Mongers, or can possibly become Win Mongers.

Win Mongers may have appreciation for a concept, let’s say an easier time gaining victory in another game they also play, which they share interest for with the Ulterior due to their insatiable thirst for winning. Ulteriors may be so desperate to ‘prove’ their concept that they take up underhanded means of doing so, becoming Win Mongers with the motive of proving our example of the other game requiring ‘more skill,’ since they can in appearance “effortlessly” or “easily” win in this game. The only way to reduce the way of Ulterior players is to increase the potential for enjoyment of the game. If the game is fun, and the players are content, why would they need to prove another game is better?

Ulteriors also coerce Potential Players into the concepts they are promoting in a way which damages the game. In the example we’ve been using, the Potential Player may mistakenly agree with the Ulterior and jump ships to the other game. This lowers the player base, which unbalances the ratio of player types.
Desirably, there are [i]no[/i] Ulteriors in your game of choice, just like Win Mongers. However, they [i]will[/i] exist, so the methods of deterring such behaviors should be emphasized as much as possible without interfering with sportsmanship. For example, an absolute zero tolerance policy with maximum penalties on anything that can possibly be considered cheating may deter players who clumsily drop a card and are disqualified from an event. This would set off a wave of deterrence to other players who feel they may befall the same fate, while actually promoting a tool for the Win Mongers to abuse and gain dominance without having to cheat.

Consistency of Tiers

Originality is bad for card games.

If  you’ve read the above statement and feel any sort of hostility, perhaps you should have heeded the warning in the Preface instead of continuing to read. It’s absolutely, undeniably true. Originality increases two major factors we don’t want in card games – bad sportsmanship and luck. However, some degree of originality is required for the game to not be completely boring, but too much will offset the skill gap which is the fairness gauge relied on for enjoyment of the game.

General Application


Certain elements of luck are unavoidable – for example, if we’re playing with cards, there is always going to be “luck of the draw.” However, there are various mechanics within the game which can increase or decrease the power of such an element. For example, a game with no resource system will maximize the luck of a draw, since it can be used at the drop of a hat with little to no consequences. Universal Fighting System has a process by which you flip the top card of your deck and compare it’s cost to the cost of the card you’re playing. If the flipped card has a cost lower than the cost of the played card, your effect will not resolve. This is an absurd “luck of the draw” factor in which your planned-out and calculated play may not resolve simply because another card was in a particular place at that precise time. One may argue that probability and permutation should have a role in determining the outcome of your effects, but there is always a luck factor involved with cards so the calculations may not always determine the card’s placement. This is one more instance in the game where you can “crapshoot” simply because certain things existed in certain places (‘luck of the draw’).

Universal Fighting System and World of Warcraft also have resources which provide abilities other than resource generation or menial effects (such as most of those used in Magic: The Gathering). There are entire combinations and strategy themes which can be created purely out of or dramatically reinforced simply by the resources used.  This creates another “luck of the draw” factor, in which the very resources used to play cards need to be in certain places, at certain times, in certain combinations, as well as certain intervals. This is also unhealthy for positioning within the game, as it’s no longer as important because comebacks are potentialized simply by resources (which are necessary for the game to be played) of a particular nature exist at certain points in time.

Other luck factors which decrease the Skill Gap are the battle rewards system in Naruto and the shields system in Duel Masters, which both almost completely rely on luck and carry tremendous influence on the game. These are both ‘life’ systems in their respective games, making the luck factor even more powerful on gameplay. In Naruto, you are awarded one “battle reward” for a successful attack of low to moderate damage…from the top of the opponent’s deck, placed face down. That’s right – if you let an attack go through, you can lose an integral part of your strategy for absolutely no reason. Throw probability and permutation out the window folks, your cards can just be stripped away by the general mechanic of attacking – and you usually won’t even know which ones they are until after the game. In Duel Masters, the first five cards of your shuffled deck are placed face-down as shields and returned to your hand when successfully attacked. Because of the timing involved in the game, the right card being added to your hand at the right time can make all the difference. There are also cards with “shield trigger” which allow them to be casted for no cost – these are the [i]only[/i] type of cards that can be played during the opponent’s turn in the Trading Card Game, and [i]only[/i] when used under this circumstance. Once again, probability and permutation hardly matter – the order of the opponent’s attacks, the specific shield they are targeting, [i]when[/i] they are attacking, and the exact card that comes up are all way too important. I can expect two shield triggers a game by calculation, but one of them can be a card that doesn’t help, single-handedly wins me the game, or doesn’t even come up at all. This is all determined completely at random, influenced by undeterminable points of action during the game. You can obviously predict when particular strategies are going to conduct attacks, but you don’t choose your shields. There will be points where you get the wrong shield at the wrong time, or lose the wrong battle reward seconds before you needed it to win.

Needless to say, when the game is based on luck, the rate of bad sportsmanship and cheating will increase. It’s frustrating to lose for no reason, and if you can win for no reason, people will exploit this – especially the Win Mongers, who will gain advantage through being able to influence the game’s unpredictable nature. Forcing the opponent to crapshoot, resolving effects at likely times, hitting the right battle reward, or having the right shield all make huge differences in the game.

Tier 0 and Game Health


A game at it’s optimal health has a Tier Zero. This means there is one dominant deck which consistently defeats all others in the field of play. Why is that a good thing? Wouldn’t you want a large spectrum of unique, original decks with creative forms of victory? Isn’t that the “point” of the game?

Well that’s all [i]nice[/i], but you might as well stick that pacifier back in your mouth and ride your unicorn back to Candyland if you honestly believe having that many decks is good for the game. The problem with too many powerful decks is that the types of strategies used and their matchups against each other begin to outweigh the skill of the players. Games are more likely to be decided by who draws what specific cards against the specific deck they’re playing against at that specific time, in a specific situation, in a crucial moment of play. A game with any deck being completely competitive is a game in utter chaos – as such, it inspires cheating and thus an influx of Win Mongers. Win Mongers destroy games, therefore a completely diverse game is doomed to internal destruction.

Small hints of originality to provide flavor and unique experiences is wonderful, and about as much as the game can do without overemphasizing luck. This usually comes in the form of “tech” options, cards players use to benefit their specific patterns of play or grant them an edge against a particular strategy (or element of a strategy) they have trouble dealing with. Notice that if the game is too diverse, the tech will be based on particular matchups and become a dead card in others, creating more luck as to when the card comes up against random opponents influencing circumstances of victory. However, in a game with a Tier Zero, the tech may be used to implement a certain function and deepen the complication of game state, forcing both players to think harder and maneuver more skillfully to win.

Tier Zero isn’t always attainable, so the next best thing is a highly-selective field of Tier 1 decks. Usually, this is a maximum of three strategies which can possibly win a competitive event. Any more than this begins to skew what is at the top and the bottom of the tier, there are too many specific cards which are dead against some and help against the others, and we’re tossed back into the realm of luck of the draw. Three is even pushing it, depending on the particular game and the nature of the cards used in the strategies, but for argument’s sake we’ll say it’s the next best thing to Tier Zero. In this case, we would want the lowest deck in the first tier to defeat any anti-meta strategies which would condemn the other two, but have a difficult match against them itself. This reduces the amount of deck-based matchups for the other Tier 1 decks and benefits the players with higher degrees of skill. Ideally, the top or favorable tied Tier 1 deck will have a problem with this deck, but have an advantage against rogue strategies bordering tournament contention. The secondary Tier 1 deck would then ideally have a slight advantage over the Tier 1 deck, but have difficulty handling rogue strategies or antimeta.

Essentially, this creates a triangle between the Tier 1 decks at which anything which is not Tier 1 is eliminated, and variance and skill is the primary determinant of matches between decks of this tier. You can see how the less number of decks, the less emphasis on the deck being used and the more emphasis on actual play. This is what we want, as the skill gap should ideally determine the winner of the game. Having a Tier Zero does this as closely as possible, because the games become more about what you can do that others can’t and your knowledge of the strategy and game itself.

The Skill Gap

The Skill Gap is the most important aspect of the game. Ideally, it should enforce the concept that the better player will win as often as possible. This obviously has flaws due to the nature of card games, as we discussed, but emphasizing the gap should be a priority in all games. Luck obviously matters, but that doesn’t mean we should promote luck-based mechanics in the game. There are inherent decks which attest to the power of the skill gap, all phasing in and out of competition.

For example, there are anti-meta decks which are built with the objective to defeat the top tier deck. They are obviously more focused in a Tier Zero metagame, but tend to center on the favorable Tier 1 deck or a particular trait the Tier 1 decks share in common when in a Tier 1 metagame. These decks are often inconsistent and lose to anything that is not the Tier 0/1 deck, and should lose to that deck more often than not due to the Skill Gap. If the Tier 0 or Tier 1 player is superior in terms of skill, they should not lose simply because their opponent happens to have cards which create a difficult situation for them. There should be a greater percentage that the Tier player is victorious, as they are the better player and the better player will win as often as possible. Obviously the anti-meta deck will defeat the Tier deck at some points, which is why they are inherently weaker to rogue decks or lower-level strategies due to their overfocus on defeating a particular set of cards or strategy. Thus, the anti-meta player compromises a superior skill edge in each matchup for an advantage in a particular deck matchup, and this is why they inherently do not win as often.

Combination decks also attest to the Tier system, as they can fluctuate in Tier depending on the combination and circumstantial nature of stringing the cards together. These are often “rogue” decks because they cannot consistently place the cards together needed to defeat Tier decks on a regular basis. If a combination deck becomes the Tier deck, there tends to be an anti-meta combination breaker (reducing it’s overall effectiveness in the competitive scene) or a banning which stops the use of or significantly hinders the combination. The latter option is of course with the assumption that the combination is reliant on drawing the right cards at the right time, and not the application or timing of cards as it would be in Tier Zero contention. This means the combination would have to result in victory whenever successfully conducted, or have a high chance of doing so before any action should be taken.

Ideally, control decks should be the Tier Zero or Tier 1 of competitive play environments, for reasons discussed in the original text. This has proven to be the most balanced environment for card gaming since it’s conception, and aggressive decks or gimmick decks should usually be Tier 2 or lower depending on their circumstantial nature and how they fare against the top tier. Anti-meta decks should ideally be Tier 3 or the bottom of Tier 2, where they can compete with the top tier but be significantly endangered by facing against the second tier (keeping the top tier at the top, and the games based more on play decisions than matchups, contributing to the health of the game).

Optimal Game Health and the Value of Winning


When the issues of deckbuilding and matchups are at a minimum, the skill gap shines and increases the value of winning. Winning is more rewarding because it’s out of outplaying the opponent or making crucial in-game decisions, rather than simply being placed across the table from the right guy or drawing the proper cards at the proper time. The emphasis of the better player winning at a consistent rate is more rewarding to the competitive player than the pot-luck metagame of diversity, which is full of frustration and encourages negative aspects of gaming.

When the skilled players win reliably, newer players capable of becoming Good are likely to join the game. This also increases the likelihood of Potential Players to become Good Players, as they are around better influences than in a negative play environment full of Win Mongers, Bad Players, and/or Ulteriors. The Ulteriors hardly exist in this type of game, as the players are content with the outcome. Players aren’t as enticed to become Win Mongers and play through unfair means because they can train and be rewarded with victory for their efforts. Bad Players won’t gain uneven footing over the Potential Players, because the Good Players will still be noticeably higher on the food chain. This encourages Potential Players to increase their skill level, enriching the quality of the game, rather than sit back with the Bad Players and make excuses. However, a small amount of Bad Players must exist to deter the Potential Players from refusing to learn.

The key, therefore, in a successful card game is to breed as many Good Players as possible. The question as to how to train a large amount of proficient players has been unanswered for a long time, but I believe we’re doing the right thing at Gates of Fate by providing the new players and players looking to improve their skills with the tools to do so, and encouraging them to follow through whole-heartedly.


 


Copyright© 1998-2007 pojo.com
This site is not sponsored, endorsed, or otherwise affiliated with any of the companies or products featured on this site. This is not an Official Site.