How much power does the GM have in Powered by the Apocalypse games?

2»

Comments

  • Yep :)
    Sorry for the hermetism.
  • Sounds like my "more plot" player might like Urban Shadows!
  • Returning from the threadjack:
    Someone has probably done this before, but I tried to figure out some levels of GM power/player democracy in games. It's a work in progress (and possibly useless).

    1) Carefully democratic: No one has read the game text before the session, and the players read it together and figure out the whole game on the spot. Alternately, all players have roughly equal amounts of material only they are privy to before the game. I don't know any examples that demand this, but some games are designed to accomodate it.

    2) Prep power: No GM, but the facilitator of the session is familiar with the game and is typically the final authority on rules. Most GM-less games are played like this, I imagine.

    3) Rule-bound GM: The GM is technically bound by rules just like the players are. Burning Wheel is like this, I understand.

    4) Unlimited GM: The GM is in charge of the game, and the rules are just a toolbox. Trad RPGs are typically like this.

    I think there's a lot of drifting and uncertainty going on in between 3) and 4). Often I feel like PbtA (and indie) games are written to work as rule-bound, but end up being compromised or unlimited in practice, maybe because players are so used to the unlimited model, and it's an easy way out for the GM.
    I think this is a good breakdown.

    I agree that there's some weirdness between 3 and 4. In my experience, it's mostly that the group hasn't explicitly signed up for 4, so 4 has to masquerade as 3. Trouble arises when differences between 3 and 4 show up -- some sessions suffer from breaking the rules, and others suffer from playing by them.

    As for 2, I think what you describe is common, but there's a nuance that might be important. The owner of the game tends to be the rules "authority" in the sense of the group's resource and guide to the rules, but they aren't some sort of decider. This might be a different sort of "power" than in the other examples?
  • 2) would be "Benevolent unconscious domination" ? ;)

  • Then comes along DW that fucks up a lot of things right here, in this already nebulous area of the game system. Maybe "fuck up" is not the right term, but it surely made a bunch of steps back towards the direction of Trad prep and plot handling.
    The Principles and their explanation read almost the same, but the overall structure is much friendlier to prep-heavy play.
    This in and of itself is a problem, as people think they are playing "PbtA style" (as if it ws the same thing across the board of PbtA games) and instead end up doing stuff that in AW would never fly.

    It's no wonder there are "dungeon starters" for DW but there is no such thing for AW :astonished:
    I don't quite agree with this. In fact, Adam Koebel is known for hating any kind of prep. And I don't remember the rules substantially favouring prep over improvisation. What is it specifically that makes you see DW that way?
  • @Hasimir - "US" == "Urban Shadows"?
    Yes.
  • Returning from the threadjack:I think this is a good breakdown.

    I agree that there's some weirdness between 3 and 4. In my experience, it's mostly that the group hasn't explicitly signed up for 4, so 4 has to masquerade as 3. Trouble arises when differences between 3 and 4 show up -- some sessions suffer from breaking the rules, and others suffer from playing by them.

    As for 2, I think what you describe is common, but there's a nuance that might be important. The owner of the game tends to be the rules "authority" in the sense of the group's resource and guide to the rules, but they aren't some sort of decider. This might be a different sort of "power" than in the other examples?
    Thanks for feedback! I admit the breakdown is not very nuanced.
  • edited November 2017
    Sorry @Peter_Perry for the long delay.
    I'll try to answer you as best I can.

    First of all, a premise.
    I will express concepts such as a game being played "wrong".
    What I mean is:

    Of course what you do at your table with your friends is legit. Whatever it is, if you are all having a good time, this is plain and simple "right". It's right for you, and nothing else really matters. There is no game-police, nor it should be.

    But. As a designer. As the author of a game. The whole point of crafting a game system is to transmit to the reader YOUR vision of the game. To put into words and mechanics HOW YOU PLAY that specific game.
    In this sense, how YOU (designer) play the game is the right way, and any other way is wrong.
    And as a designer it is thus your RESPONSIBILITY to make your game as clear and understandable and functional as possible.
    Functional to the goal of transmitting/communicating "how to play this game".

    So when I say stuff about playing wrong I don't mean to judge someone else's fun in a negative way. It's just not about that :)
    What I am doing is a critical comment on the design of a game, and the practical consequences I see coming from it.

    I don't quite agree with this. In fact, Adam Koebel is known for hating any kind of prep. And I don't remember the rules substantially favouring prep over improvisation. What is it specifically that makes you see DW that way?
    Comparing DW with D&D, I would say his hatred generated a very effective game. It's faster, lighter, meaner, better. I would vote for it any day :)

    But comparing DW with AW, to name a very close relative, I would say that the effect is quite the opposite. Maybe not dramatically so, but still noticeable to me. It increases the weight on the GM's shoulders and, among other things, it increases the amount of GM prep possible, of not strictly required.

    To be honest I can't point a finger to a single sentence in the rulebook, or a single mechanic, and say "Here, there, this is the problem" ... it is more of an aggregation of many small details that all together contribute to making DW less effective than AW in teaching the GM and the Players how to properly run the game.
    It's like... the game is more lax in accepting behaviours from both GM and Players that in AW would never fly, if you bothered to follow the rules at all.
    Which might actually be by design... I mean... they might be related, but in the end DW is not and is not intended to be a carbon copy of AW!

    But, like...
    There is more bookkeeping, both for PCs but also for NPCs and monsters.
    The world is supposed to be handled in a more detailed way, with the specific rules for cities and their tags.
    Things like henchmen have too their own subset of rules.
    The way the "fronts" are created is not quite the same as in AW, and in my opinion it ends up producing a pretty different kind of campaign... one where a GM might think it is ok to prepare more stuff.
    You see?
    You can totally wing it and play with near zero prep... but while AW tells you that this is THE way to play and you are doing it WRONG otherwise... in DW this is not so clear, not so strict, not so... effective.

    Also, how the first session is handled, with an action oriented "in medias res" approach instead of the AW "one day in the normal life of..." approach, has its own repercussions.
    Seems pretty harmless, and maybe even more fun.
    But it has consequences and ramifications.
    A guy like Adam maybe thinks nothing of it and just wings everything on the spot, depending on how the Players created the characters.
    I do the same and have no problem with it.
    But I know, and have witnessed, many many people that don't feel comfortable with this formula and feel like they have to come at the table with "a good idea".
    Which leads some to actually prepare a starting quest.
    Which leads some to maybe make this starting quest the initial point of a longer campaign.
    Which is as far from zero-prep as I can imagine.

    Case and point, the NEED to start the game with a quest in hand lead people to come up with things such as "Dungeon Starters", which when done properly are cool tools that gift the GM with a pre-made small collection of flavourful locations and NPCs and, as they should be called, bangs.
    But when done not so properly, they can easily be plain and simple quests, old style.
    Which can cause all kinds of trouble for the GM due to how the Player-focused structure of a PbtA game works.
    Which can lead a new GM that is still learning how DW works (and usually comes from a heavy Trad background) to do the obvious thing that comes natural: ignore the awkward and problematic rules, you are the GM and you know better, just have fun (such terrible words >__<).

    Just like when a GM/MC ignores the <b>rules on when they can make a Hard Move, how many are they allowed to make, which ones they are allowed to make, etc ... so that in the end the Hard Moves get out of the window as they are perceived "just as guidelines" that the GM/MC will never actually use because they know better, they don't need them, they have been running Rolemaster for ages and don't need no rules to instruct them on how to be a good MC.

    It's all connected.
    One sloppy detail leads to the other, and all together they form a chain reaction that influences and shapes the way people play.

    Now.
    Let's put this into perspective.
    It's not like DW is a scourge on the world of PbtA games, or that anyone playing it will suffer the full extent of the problems I described here.
    Let's not be dramatic :smile:

    But, as a designer, I can't help but notice these side effects of the game.
    And, as a Player used to gmLess games or to tighter PbtA games, a game like DW simply feels more grievous for the GM and more prone to be played wrong.

    THIS is also what I see happening with subsequent generations of PbtA games.
  • For what it's worth, I agree entirely.

    Part of it is the structure of the rules - and there are many examples: consider, for instance, that prep is required to create traps and monsters, which oppose the players. You could easily learn to improvise monsters with experience, but the game demands and rewards some prep here in a way that AW does not.

    Another part of it is the premise of play. AW has a strong fictional premise, baked into the "setting" (and its themes) as well as into the playbooks:

    There is a harsh world where you struggle to survive. Scarcity is a problem, and you have to fight to live. Each playbook gives some suggestions (some more than others) about what your problems might be and what your tools for dealing with them might be. For instance, it's almost impossible to prep content/material for the Hardholder or the Hocus, and start-of-session moves create a shifting "actuality" we all have to improvise to deal with.

    The inherent danger and scarcity of Apocalypse World means that "playing out a day in the life of..." any given character is automatically interesting. Having to spend Barter to survive at the beginning of the session already puts this front and center, before you've even started playing.

    In contrast, the "default story" for a D&D-esque adventure is established heroes setting out on a quest. We can't simply "follow them around" and address the themes inherent in the setting. Unless the players are simply "inventing" a quest out of thin air, it's quite natural to expect the GM to do so (and the need to prep things like monsters cements that further).

    There's no character type who starts the session with a condition like, "You're out of food, and the people you're leading are dying from disease. What do you do?"

    There are lots of other examples. For example, some of the Hx options suggest immediate conflicts or dramatic directions to explore. In comparison, DW's Bonds tend to simply describe ongoing dynamics between members of an adventuring party. They are static rather than dynamic - that person tends to make fun of so and so, and that one is a mentor to the other one.

  • FWIW, I couldn't understand how Fronts worked in AW until DW came out.

  • Interesting; are they presented differently in any way? It seems to me that they operate the same way in both games. Or did you just find the wording/description clearer?
  • Many people find the wording of AW1 very hard to decipher.
    The current AW2 wording is a bit better... and yeah, fronts have been completely reshaped into the new Threat Map.

    But even in 1st edition, while AW fronts instructed the MC to simply outline a few interesting questions and flesh out some NPCs and threats... in DW the whole campaign crafting process leads the GM to come up with many more details, outlining whole lines of nefarious future events up to a final "Doom" if the threat is not stopped in time.

    Again, it is reminiscent of AW mechanics such as Clocks ... but the specific implementation is different enough that it makes a difference.
  • I'm pretty sure that in 1st Ed AW, you're supposed to make "countdown clocks" for all your Threats, in pretty much the same way. (But I'm not totally hip to DW's Portents and such, so maybe I missed something.)
  • I'm not really sure I understand why DW is bad? Even if I accept that it permits of somewhat more preparation... so what? Someone who drifts over into running it in a truly trad style with a preset plot and ignoring the rules and etc. is still an ass doing things the game explicitly forbids.
  • edited November 2017
    Hmmm. Depends what you mean by "bad"!
  • edited November 2017
    DW is not "bad" in a general sense. I wouldn't say that it is poorly designed or anything.
    But it goes in a direction I don't personally appreciate.
    If that's by design or by error, I can't know.

    And this is by the book!
    I don't usually consider the case scenario where the people at the table ignore substantially the rules. Although I consider as undesirable rules that are hard to follow in a clear way, be it because they are poorly communicated or murkily designed.

    So if I take DW by itself to me it is just an OK game.
    And compared to AW it is kind of worse on many points.
    Because my tastes and needs obviously don't align too much with those of the DW authors.

    That's pretty much it @Deliverator :)
    And if you read my previous posts you'll find a list and discussion of some specific gripes I have with DW and other PbtA games, beyond the increased amount of prep.
    Which, in the context of this thread, mean pretty much a return to a more "Trad" style GM authority.
    Which I don't really appreciate anymore.
  • One could consider Dungeon World bad because it's so thoroughly wedded to a tepid genre of fantasy? Just saying, this is what I struggle with personally. Its premise is, also, not a dramatic one, but rather one born out of emulating D&D's dungeon commando party conceit. In dramatic terms it's like trying to do Platoon or some such war story, except your platoon buddies are dwarves and elves and the druid's animal companion, so I guess it's gonna be distanced and symbolic as fuck. So I could easily see somebody call the game "bad" on aesthetic grounds, if they did not share a fascination for emulating D&D with another game.
  • I'm basically on the same page. *Dungeon World* is a game which gives itself a number of really hardcore constraining principles: it wants to use the mechanical and procedural tools of AW while somehow retaining familiar bits of D&D.

    This is both fictional (an "adventuring party"?) and mechanical (D&D's stats are terrible, from a dramatic perspective). I'm hard-pressed to find anything dramatically interesting in D&D genre tropes which make it into Dungeon World.

    Consider, for a moment, how much more bland the Dungeon World "classes" are than AW's playbooks or Monsterhearts' Skins. They give you very little to work with. Being a Werewolf is a metaphor for puberty, anger, and how physical strength can be leveraged into possessive relationships. Being a Fighter in Dungeon World means... you like to fight things and look cool doing it.

    Same goes for other elements of the design. For example, most class moves are about developing mechanical effectiveness in combat (again, a D&D trope) instead of saying something about the character. The basic moves say fairly little about the genre or style of the game, again, compared to those two games. "Go aggro" says something about the nature of Apocalypse World and how people in it relate to each other; Hack & Slash is just about exchanging hit points with an enemy until one runs out and is defeated.

    In short, for my tastes, Dungeon World takes all the most boring and limiting parts of D&D and keeps them, while discarding or avoiding the quirky, interesting, intriguing parts. This applies fictionally just as much as it does in design.

    As a result, it does a great job of what it set out to do: emulating D&D tropes with AW-esque mechanics. But, in my opinion, it leaves the game as a relatively flavourless mix of elements which don't help create good characters or good stories.

    Again, in comparison, AW and Monsterhearts both base their entire design on powerful thematic material (issues of survival, what it means to be human, belonging, growing up, etc) while Dungeon World seems to be, rather, just looking to recreate familiar D&D cliches.

    I don't think this is *bad* (it is, presumably, what the designers set out to do), and I bet lots of people dig it. It's just not for me.

    In addition, I think those D&D tropes and lack of thematic focus DO mean that DW GMs are much more likely to run it in a "traditional" style, for the reasons we've discussed above.

    These are all matters of taste; I can criticize the game all I want for being uninteresting *to me*, but it seems that a lot of people are looking for exactly what it delivers, and that's great.
  • I've seen this criticism leveled against DW quite a bit (that it "doesn't utilize the AW mechanics to do something narratively interesting" or some such), but on the other hand most of the people I know who enjoy DW actually like it that way. Almost everyone I know who was big into DW a few years ago were long-time D&D players who still loved the idea of D&D but were feeling stifled by the mechanics of 3E, 4E, and/or PF. It's less that they wanted a system to do lots of heavy lifting to create a unique experience, than they needed the game to get out of their way. Whether this is the most optimal use of PbtA is questionable, but it did seem to work for a lot of people.
  • Yeah, DW isn't necessarily the game I'd go to for an exploration of deep themes or whatever, but it's a ton of fun. And for beginners, it can be amazing. I'll never forget the three 10/11-year-olds I ran a campaign for at a game store. Their previous experience was with D&D3.5, and they got the difference. I remember one of them explaining to another GM about how Dungeon World is a conversation, and just being floored. Just getting them into that mindset of thinking about RPGs that way was, I think a real contribution. They can always play more serious things later.
  • Yes, exactly. If what you're looking for is a more flexible, fast-moving game that still *feels like* modern D&D, it's right up your alley.
  • edited November 2017
    " they needed the game to get out of their way." That. Hands-on-able and fast is sometimes/often better than good.

    @Hasimir : The work of the designer is to make a game proposition.
    The work of the editor is to make it clear and understandable. They can be the same person, but it's not necessary.

    Sorry, this is really out of the way regarding OP.
  • " they needed the game to get out of their way." That. Hands-on-able and fast is sometimes/often better than good.

    @Hasimir : The work of the designer is to make a game proposition.
    The work of the editor is to make it clear and understandable. They can be the same person, but it's not necessary.

    Sorry, this is really out of the way regarding OP.
    No worries, I've already got a lot out of this thread.
  • Consider, for a moment, how much more bland the Dungeon World "classes" are than AW's playbooks or Monsterhearts' Skins. They give you very little to work with. Being a Werewolf is a metaphor for puberty, anger, and how physical strength can be leveraged into possessive relationships. Being a Fighter in Dungeon World means... you like to fight things and look cool doing it.
    Indeed. I remember reading it and getting to the point where the Druid actually seemed most interesting, because I could sort of see myself riffing something-or-other about nature religions with it. It just barely crossed over the threshold of being something, instead of being nothing.

    If one were inclined to, it would be possible to push the D&D classes much harder in terms of dramatic identity, though. I've fiddled with this a bit in the context of Dragon Union, which is sort of a sister game to Dungeon World in many ways. For example, when you interpret "being the Fighter" in terms of battle trauma and the crucial flaws that violence brings to problem solving, it starts standing up as a dramatic identity. Similarly, one should be able to work out an identity of Thievery, of being a criminal outsider, as an actual big dramatic deal. So it's not impossible so much as just something that Dungeon World emphatically avoids - it defines the classes in a very whitebread, offend no-one way.
  • Arguably, the point of DW was/is to allow players to explore a fantasy world through the "neutral" lens of a cool/heroic/superpowered character.
    It's an action adventure game.
    It was never meant for dramatic play... and running it I found out how DIFFICULT it is to inject such content in the game unless both GM and Players agree, out of the rules, to make space and time for this kind of exploration.

    The default DW rhythm and flow is:
    action -> action -> action -> resource management -> action -> action -> action
    I had to build my own moves to specifically break this flow and, at least during "downtime" moments, create space and opportunity and incentive to express something personal and human, rather than simply showcasing how cool and powerful and skilful my PC is :astonished:
  • Yes, that's exactly it.

    I think the D&D ethos has all kinds of room for colourful and quirky content - especially the phantasmagoria of the earlier editions. However, modern D&D seems to avoid all that in favour of a sort of video game mentality. DW, if anything, seems to me to push even further in that direction.

    A similar thing happened with Red Box Hack and Old School Hack. Old School Hack is arguably a better design and more thoroughly done, but I was disappointed to see how much of the quirks and colourful touches of Red Box Hack had been removed to make for a more "game-like" experience.
  • I don't quite agree with this. In fact, Adam Koebel is known for hating any kind of prep. And I don't remember the rules substantially favouring prep over improvisation. What is it specifically that makes you see DW that way?
    He certainly preps when he runs SWN
  • He certainly preps when he runs SWN
    Yeah, I agree, that statement seems weird. He's the only GM I've ever seen stream his prep sessions to the internet. I've watched a couple of them. He does prep, and he doesn't hate it. Obviously what you prep and how thoroughly varies by game (What you prep for Mouse Guard is very different from what you prep for SWN) but "hating" prep doesn't seem to be an accurate way to describe it, and I wonder what this is based on.
  • I think there's a communications breakdown around the word "prep" -- in a lot of PBTA games, prep is OK, playing-before-you-play is not. The division between these activities is kind of fuzzy.
  • edited May 2018
    He certainly preps when he runs SWN
    Yeah, I agree, that statement seems weird. He's the only GM I've ever seen stream his prep sessions to the internet. I've watched a couple of them. He does prep, and he doesn't hate it. Obviously what you prep and how thoroughly varies by game (What you prep for Mouse Guard is very different from what you prep for SWN) but "hating" prep doesn't seem to be an accurate way to describe it, and I wonder what this is based on.
    Wow, totally missed these posts, including a direct reply to me 6 months ago. To the point: my statement comes from reading a comment by Adam in which he plainly says something along the lines of "f**k prep" (and it seemed clear to me by context that he meant any kind of prep.) He also stated on a more recent discussion that he later changed his views on prep somewhat, after designing DW. I don't know what the "timeline" of his thinking is, but it's not something I'm particularly interested in (I'm not a fan of his design work or of his GMing style).

    Unfortunately, I can't find the references and link them, but hopefully someone with better google-fu skills can.
  • From what I've seen of Adam's preferred playstyle, he does "prep", but his "prep" is quite different from the "prep" you'd find in, say, a typical D&D adventure module. Instead of scenes and encounters and adventure hooks, it's a loose collection of concepts, questions, and brainstorming. He'll think about possibilities and raise some questions, and then head into the actual game without anything nailed down, ready to improvise.

    I could be wrong, of course; it's just my best guess from some of the "GM prep" videos I saw, and the resulting sessions.
  • @Paul_T

    Yeah, that may be the case, although he commented at some point about changing his views on prep, so I'm inclined to think that at some point in his thinking he did dislike prep of any kind. So I'm not really sure. Obviously, it's a matter of doing some google-fu or just ask him directly, if someone is really that interested.

    On a tangent, I do think we should be clear about what we mean by prep. As you point out, I can very well do tons of prep but that still doesn't mean I'm scripting a plot in any way. I think this is important to point out because I see a lot of people conflating the two all the time ("Hei, it's play to find out, so you shouldn't do any prep!")
  • @Paul_T
    On a tangent, I do think we should be clear about what we mean by prep. As you point out, I can very well do tons of prep but that still doesn't mean I'm scripting a plot in any way. I think this is important to point out because I see a lot of people conflating the two all the time ("Hei, it's play to find out, so you shouldn't do any prep!")
    Yup, this drives me nuts. If you go back to the Sorcerer RPG and look at how Edwards says to GM Sorcerer, it's all about how to prep without telling a story. He had a lot of good tools for that, like the diagram on the character sheet and the "Bandolier of Bangs".
  • Indeed.

    I've done prep where you draw a map and you list every little thing in each room. I've done prep where you have a sequence of scenes, and all the little things which will force all the characters to follow that sequence of scenes. I've done prep where you create a number of factions or threats and then allow the players to discover them as they go. I've done prep where all you do is brainstorm and daydream for a while but don't write anything down... or even commit to anything! And I've done "prep" which is all just asking the players questions and writing down their answers.

    There are even other forms of prep: one I've never done, but some people do, is practicing accents, bringing props, making costumes, and preparing sound effects or playlists or music. One I have done (a lot) is designing new rules, procedures, or other game mechanics in preparation for a game or a session.

    There's such a wide spectrum.
  • Yes. A whole lot of things can be prep. At the light end: My prep for a session of the playtest of Fate of Cthulhu: Write down one location and two aspects and realize I'm done.

    My prep for Dracula Dossier 1977 is currently ongoing and has included:
    Watching the Oldman Tinker Tailor with most of the players. Of the two who didn't make it, one's already seen it and was the person suggesting the rest of us watch it.
    Reading Le Carre's Spy Who Came In From the Cold, starting Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.
    Watching first hour of the BBC Tinker Tailor.
    Sending email about what we should discuss during character generation / setting expectations.
    Having the character generations / setting expectations session.
    Typing in 4 of the 5 character sheets to a Google Drive Spreadsheet.
    Talking with folks about handling specific issues.
    Typing up an explanation of the various moving parts for a friend who got information overload -- but during this, I figured out answers to questions about what to do in future legs, if we get that far, and if the situation hasn't changed to the point where these answers no longer work.
    Typing in material from the Director's Handbook about the 1977 leg that I don't think hold spoilers so the players can look at it. (Win conditions, stuff that's happened to date -- not a huge amount of material, but useful to have where folks can see it.)
    Agreeing to do this as two long sessions.
    Realizing I still need to plot out a skeletal outline before our first session, which is in a couple of weeks.

    My prep for Our Ladies of Sorrow before the first session included:
    Deciding who was playing, when and where we were setting the first scenario, and having a character creation session.
    Since we knew we were using Trail, reviewing the conversion notes online for this, which involved writing out a summary, plugging in the Trail parts, and then rewriting it into a notebook, modifying the Trail conversion as I went. It is entirely possible that my notes are as long as the scenario.
    Writing love letters to the characters and being awed by the answers.
    Putting points on a map of Greenwich Village, which included arguing with Google Maps for a bit. This was probably the most concretely useful bit of prep I did, though all of it was useful.
    Typing up most of the handouts, modifying for the scenario being in NYC in the summer of 1963.
    Doing a lot of online research, more broad than deep, but learning that JFK is still Idlewild and liking the sound of "Idlewild".
    Spending far too much time staring at the borders of police precincts and trying to make the scenario default of "these are the two cops who'll show up at everything" make sense (figured it out).
    Getting a box of 120 crayons to draw some of the children's drawings that appear in the scenario.
    Doing the drawings and being amused while Josh writes a script to figure out the optimal configuration of the crayons in their box and then sorts by eye anyway.
    Coordinating the dinner order, as we shift from a cafe/diner to some do that, some bring in, some order Indian food, to one person brings in, and the rest of us order Indian food.

  • Coordinating the dinner order, as we shift from a cafe/diner to some do that, some bring in, some order Indian food, to one person brings in, and the rest of us order Indian food.
    Best part of prep right here.
  • I think the reason Adam doesn't hate prep for SWN is because there's mechanics for prep for the GM to use between sessions. However, I have noticed his latest project is to put this prep in the hands of his viewers.
Sign In or Register to comment.