GM credit by subtier


GM Discussion

51 to 90 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
4/5

yosemitemike wrote:
If fame is really the limiting factor, then letting a level 3 character take any item on the sheet would make no difference at all since that character could only take items their fame level allowed them to take regardless of what subtier sheet they got. That's an argument for letting them take items from the higher tier if they have the fame to be able to get them, not the other way around.

Either I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, or you're misunderstanding the rules for purchasing items.

When determining what a character can purchase, you go down this list:

  • Is it an "always available" item (mundane items, +1 weapons and armor)?
  • Is it on one of my chronicle sheets?
  • Do I have enough Fame to purchase the item?

If you answer "yes" to any of those questions, you can buy it. Otherwise you can't.

The only exception is items not normally available for purchase (such as partially charged wands).

As for balancing, think of it this way: a character with GM credit will, on average, have higher fame than an equivalent character because they always get the full Prestige for a scenario. Therefore, they are not as likely to need items to be on a chronicle sheet, since they'll have, again, on average, higher Fame, and be able to purchase them normally.

yosemitemike wrote:
Preston Hudson wrote:
Previously if the GM credit is given to a character in between subtiers, that character would be treated as if they had played down receiving the gold and items for the lower subtier since the GM's character assumed no risk and did not have to use any consumables. The introduction of the Out of Subtier gold value should not have changed anything else about how GM credit is applied to a character in between subtiers. Unless I am wrong, the way GM credit for characters between subtiers was awarded (before Guide 5.0) has been around since Season 3?
That's not an unreasonable guess but it is a guess and requires reading a version of the Organized Play document which is no longer available from Paizo.

So you think it is more reasonable to ignore the previous version and make up your own rule in the absence of a clear answer?

As many others have stated, before out-of-subtier gold was introduced, out-of-subtier characters receiving GM credit always took the lower gold and items. Until a clarification is made, you're better off assuming that this remains true for items.

Silver Crusade 2/5

TriOmegaZero wrote:
I can say it, but not make you agree. :)

Anyone can say anything.

redward wrote:
[
  • Is it on one of my chronicle sheets?
    If you answer "yes" to any of those questions, you can buy it. Otherwise you can't.
  • This is exactly the part that is in question. Is the answer to that question yes or no? It isn't specified anyplace that I have seen or that anyone has pointed out to me. Whether that item is avilable from the chronicle sheet or not is exactly the question.

    redward wrote:


    As for balancing, think of it this way: a character with GM credit will, on average, have higher fame than an equivalent character because they always get the full Prestige for a scenario. Therefore, they are not as likely to need items to be on a chronicle sheet, since they'll have, again, on average, higher Fame, and be able to purchase them normally.

    Players generally get full prestige for scenarios anyway or they generally do every time I have played. If this is the case, that essentially argues for eliminating subtier gear lists entirely or even eliminating chronicle sheet gear entirely and just allowing players to get whatever they want based on their character's fame.

    redward wrote:


    So you think it is more reasonable to ignore the previous version and make up your own rule in the absence of a clear answer?

    As many others have stated, before out-of-subtier gold was introduced, out-of-subtier characters receiving GM credit always took the lower gold and items. Until a clarification is made, you're better off assuming that this remains true for items.

    If so, why is one specified while the other isn't mentioned at all and is only mentioned in an a version that is no longer available using the "playing down" paradigm that doesn't exist in the rules any more. It makes no sense to say you get awards as if you had chosen to play down any more since there is no such thing as chosing to play down at all. Why wasn't this language or some equivalent carried over? Citing an obsolete and no longer available version of the rules that uses language for an option tha no longer exists is pretty dubious as evidence. The option of playing up or down was around for a long time as well but it's gone now except for one edge case. It's all based on APL and number of players.

    We don't take the lower gold though. We take something between. The average.

    4/5

    yosemitemike wrote:
    If so, why is one specified while the other isn't mentioned at all and is only mentioned in an a version that is no longer available using the "playing down" paradigm that doesn't exist in the rules any more.

    It is almost certainly an oversight.

    Silver Crusade 2/5

    That would be my guess as well. Therefore there is no way to really know which they intended for this new rules version until they clarify.

    People seem to think I am arguing that between tier characters should absolutely get the higher tier items. I am not. I am saying that there is no definite answer in the current version and therefore people could argue for either one based on what their idea of appropriate is.

    I am also arguing that just saying that people get the appropriate award doesn't really answer anything at all since that word can be argued to mean just about anything especially if we are talking abour role-playing gamers. Role-playing gamers are brillinat at arguing that rules mean whatever it suits them for the rules to mean. They are almost as adept at it as miniatures wargaming grognards. We are a rules-lawyering, rules-arguing bunch and yes I include myself in that category as well as the miniatures gamer one.

    Shadow Lodge *

    Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
    yosemitemike wrote:
    People seem to think I am arguing that between tier characters should absolutely get the higher tier items. I am not. I am saying that there is no definite answer in the current version and therefore people could argue for either one based on what their idea of appropriate is.

    Exactly this.

    After our game tonight we spent 15 minutes going through the guide trying to answer this very question for our relatively new GM. Eventually the consensus was that it was 'obvious' that his between-tier character should get the items from all tiers, at least partially because we had been playing the high tier.

    I could easily be convinced that was the incorrect outcome, but not that there is anything in the current version of the guide that clearly answers the question.

    Scarab Sages 4/5

    1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

    The previous way to deal with GM credits between Tiers was they received credit for the lower tier, no "playing up" with a GM credit. With all that has been done to dscourage playing up, I find it hard for any GM to rationalize "playing up" with their no risk GM credit. However, there are apparently a plethora of GMs who will not only take, but will actively argue to receive, credit in a way that has been specifically discouraged by campaign leadership. So the removal of the phrase that appeared in previous guides is being seen as a relaxation of that rule, instead of a statement that is implied by actions of the campaign and other general rules and was no longer needed.
    If there are that many GMs out there actually arguing to "play up" with their GM credit because they are using the logic of it doesn't say I can't... Even though it is has been discouraged to the point of making system changes to discourage "playing up", then a clarification statement is probably needed.
    I don't believe there is anything, besides absence, to support the idea of "playing up" for GM rewards, but plenty of precedent to support the opposite. "It doesn't say I can't..." tends to be the worst possible way interpret rules, as it will always ignore the intent.
    I could be completely wrong, maybe the campaign is going one way with the player base and and doing a 180 with respect to GM characters. Which is why I'll agree that the unscrupulous types definitely need the rule to be clarified.
    Although that could be a GM boon idea... "This Boon allows a GM credit to "play up" 1 Tier on the Chronicle that follows."

    Silver Crusade 2/5

    The entire concept of choosing to "play up" has been removed entirely so references to "playing up" are no longer meaningful or relevant. Nothing has been done to discourage "playing up" because the concept is no longer a relevant one. You playing according to average level and number of players.

    Nothing in the current version actively discourages or encourages or addresses one option or the other at all.

    The whole "playing up" thing just isn't relevant any more because there is no such thing as playing up. In the one edge case described, the default is playing the higher tier and players can chose to play the lower one instead. Even if were still a relevant reference, the tier an adventure was played at has nothing to do with what the GM receives. That's quite clear.

    This isn't just a matter of unscrupulous players trying to "cheat". There is room for legitimate, actual disagreement here. No one in pH unbalanced's example is trying to cheat. They are simply trying to answer a simple question asked by a new GM by reading what the document says. Reducing other views to simply unscrupulous people trying to cheat is disingenuous.

    Scarab Sages 4/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    yosemitemike wrote:
    The entire concept of choosing to "play up" has been removed entirely so references to "playing up" are no longer meaningful or relevant. Nothing has been done to discourage "playing up" because the concept is no longer a relevant one. You playing according to average level and number of players.

    Yep, the entire idea of playing up was removed, so why would you think they would keep it around for a no risk GM chronicle. The concept is still there, it is simply not a choice, except for a few corner cases. A level one playing in Tier 4-5 is still "playing up" the gold reward isn't quite as nice as it used to be though.

    yosemitemike wrote:
    Nothing in the current version actively discourages or encourages or addresses one option or the other at all.

    Again the entire idea of of interpreting rules based on... " It doesn't say I can't" *is* the bastion of unscrupulousness. I believe the intent is obvious based on previous guides, numerous messageboard posts, and the changes made from season 4 to season 5 is that GM's take the lower tier, by removing the option to play up, in most situations, perhaps they also assumed they could take out the statement due to redundancy or it was simply an oversight. Until clarified I see no reason to make a new interpretation of the rules due to a lack of a previous statement.

    yosemitemike wrote:
    The whole "playing up" thing just isn't relevant any more because there is no such thing as playing up. In the one edge case described, the default is playing the higher tier and players can chose to play the lower one instead. Even if were still a relevant reference, the tier an adventure was played at has nothing to do with what the GM receives. That's quite clear.

    There is playing up (see first above). IF you are not happy using the phrase, simply substitute "taking rewards from a higher tier". There are four previous seasons and numerous message board posts, and probably some leadership clarification on this topic already. You are right, the tier played has never had anything to do with the GM rewards, the GM *always* took the lower tier (when they got rewards at all). No argument.

    yosemitemike wrote:
    This isn't just a matter of unscrupulous players trying to "cheat". There is room for legitimate, actual disagreement here. No one in pH unbalanced's example is trying to cheat. They are simply trying to answer a simple question asked by a new GM by reading what the document says. Reducing other views to simply unscrupulous people trying to cheat is disingenuous.

    It isn't *just* a matter of scruples, but acting like that isn't a huge part of it is also disingenuous. If ignorance of previous guides and rules was the reasoning behind pH's group determination of why the GM should get to "play up" with chronicle items, then that is legitimate and why I agree'd that a clarification may be warranted. However, if there were experienced GM's or even players familiar with the rules for previous seasons, or have been to the messageboards regularly, or have been participating in PFS to any significant degree, I think it *is* unscrupulous, regardless of the definition of *is*.

    I didn't say cheating, please don't change my wording with the intent to inflame with an opinion I did not express. It wouldn't be cheating, at this time, as you have pointed out, it *is* unscrupulous and the reason that word was chosen. In the real world I can got to jail for cheating (on taxes) but not for being unscrupulous (on taxes).

    Gaming the system not illegal, it *is* unscrupulous behavior and should be discouraged. Part of the "playing up" problem was it allowed players to game the system, easily, as well as pressure other players at the table to play above their tier, leading to the the system wide changes to "playing up". Assuming this is an oversight in the guide, GM's and players with previous knowledge of how GM chronicles were awarded, in lieu of a clarification, would be acting unscrupulously by taking the higher tier items. Cheating is unscrupulous, but one can be unscrupulous and never cheat.

    If it is not an oversight and the intent was to allow GMs to take higher tier rewards for dead level characters, then I will eat some crow when that comes to light.

    4/5

    The reason I advised you to assume that GMs get only the lower tier items is that it is a potential headache if you start buying items off the high tier chronicle sheet and the Guide is later clarified. Now you've got to sell back the items. If the items you bought are consumable, it's even more complicated.

    So until or if the rule is cleared up, it's in your best interest to assume the more conservative interpretation.

    Silver Crusade 2/5

    Brett Cochran wrote:


    Yep, the entire idea of playing up was removed, so why would you think they would keep it around for a no risk GM chronicle. The concept is still there, it is simply not a choice, except for a few corner cases. A level one playing in Tier 4-5 is still "playing up" the gold reward isn't quite as nice as it used to be though.
    [/quote}

    This straw man again. Seriously, I state exactly what I am arguing above in very clear terms. Go read it.

    Brett Cochran wrote:


    Again the entire idea of of interpreting rules

    I am not interpreting rules *at all*. I am not arguing for either answer *at all*. I am pointing out that the question isn't answered and that arguments people are making claiming it is are fallacious.

    Brett Cochran wrote:


    There is playing up (see first above). IF you are not happy using the phrase, simply substitute "taking rewards from a higher tier". There are four previous seasons and numerous message board posts, and probably some leadership clarification on this topic...

    None of it in this version or about this version and therefore none of it a bit relevant.

    redward wrote:

    The reason I advised you to assume that GMs get only the lower tier items is that it is a potential headache if you start buying items off the high tier chronicle sheet and the Guide is later clarified. Now you've got to sell back the items. If the items you bought are consumable, it's even more complicated.

    So until or if the rule is cleared up, it's in your best interest to assume the more conservative interpretation.

    Now that's a reasonable argument.

    Scarab Sages 4/5

    I am completely in agreement with you yosemitemike, as long as you view Season 5 as a completely independent set of rules that has had no evolution based upon previous seasons, messagboard posts, Paizo Blog, and other official releases. Viewing the current ruleset in a vacuum without allowing reference to previous rulesets, messageboard posts, and other clarifications is disingenuous at best, especially since many of the recent changes were prompted precisely due to the way "playing up" worked. It is all relevant to determining what the current ruling should be in lieu of a clarification. Without a clear repeal of the way GM credit is rewarded, it makes no sense to, *interpret* otherwise. It is all relevant, especially the entire concept of playing up, why it was discouraged by removing it as a choice...

    I also agree a brand new GM with no access to a mentor or internet could rationalize giving higher tier rewards for their GM credit, regardless if the character was in a dead level or not (references the strawman), but I don't believe a GM lacking that newbish ignorance could come to that conclusion. In a year or two from now, I think it would be more relevant as there could be many GM's that had not GM'ed under previous rule sets.

    As said before I am in agreement that a clarification is needed to help discourage unscrupulous behavior.

    A level 3 playing in subTier 4-5 is still "playing up". The strawman works for dead levels also! I was not presenting this as a strawman intending to trap you into the idea of giving high tier rewards to low tier, it was simply a way to present "playing up" as a concept and reality is still there, the idea, has not been eliminated. Although, it has been discouraged by removing the choice (in most situations) and discussed at length on the messageboards on why it was being discouraged, some by campaign leadership. We can not take rules out of, nor apply them without, context.

    2/5

    redward wrote:
    ...think of it this way: a character with GM credit will, on average, have higher fame than an equivalent character because they always get the full Prestige for a scenario. Therefore, they are not as likely to need items to be on a chronicle sheet, since they'll have, again, on average, higher Fame, and be able to purchase them normally...

    And this is why it's really not a big deal. Even if GMs start giving themselves higher-tier rewards, is it going to break anything? Besides, after a few more chronicle sheets all their equipment will be decidedly level-appropriate again, and any tiny advantage they had will be gone.

    Lawyers...

    Shadow Lodge 2/5

    My go-to assumption for everything: Until you're sure one way or another, always go with the more conservative option.

    In this case, take the lower tier gear list as everyone has been telling you.

    4/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Have you ever read a thread, and then wanted to beat your head against a wall? Yeah, I thought as much.

    Let me echo Serum's statement above. Always take the conservative approach until the other approach is proven valid. Why? Because it avoids unnecessary and unsightly headaches down the road that will arise either because a GM does not agree with your interpretation, or an official ruling comes out taking the conservative approach.

    Scarab Sages 5/5 5/5 *** Venture-Captain, Washington—Spokane

    Sounds like I am not the only one taking the conservative approach on this issue.. My decision was based on previous editions of the guide but I agree with any approach that gives less headaches down the road.

    @Unknown Ediology, more times than I'd like to admit.

    4/5

    Resurrecting this thread in the interest of seeing if we can get an official answer about what boon/item you have access to when playing out of tier.

    Summing up the thread thus far, 3 opinions formed:

    1)Due to the way it worked prior to season 5, you should receive access to lower tier items and boons only.

    2)The guide doesn't specify so it is up to the GM to decide which items and boons they have access to.

    3) The guide doesn't specify, so GMs should conservatively take the minimal possible reward (lower-tier) boon/item access.

    That said, it'd be really nice to get a clarification on which is correct from PFS leadership, and for it to get updated in the guide for season 6.

    Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/5

    A PC getting GM credit applied gets access to all items up to (and including) the level of the PC.

    So in a tier 1-5 scenario:

    A 1st-level PC gets access to subtier 1-2 items
    A 2nd-level PC gets access to subtier 1-2 items
    A 3rd-level PC gets access to subtier 1-2 items
    A 4th-level PC gets access to subtier 1-2 and subtier 4-5 items
    A 5th-level PC gets access to subtier 1-2 and subtier 4-5 items

    Reading up, this is what 99% of people think is the answer, so it's almost certainly the way to go.

    4/5

    Paz wrote:

    A PC getting GM credit applied gets access to all items up to (and including) the level of the PC.

    So in a tier 1-5 scenario:

    A 1st-level PC gets access to subtier 1-2 items
    A 2nd-level PC gets access to subtier 1-2 items
    A 3rd-level PC gets access to subtier 1-2 items
    A 4th-level PC gets access to subtier 1-2 and subtier 4-5 items
    A 5th-level PC gets access to subtier 1-2 and subtier 4-5 items

    Reading up, this is what 99% of people think is the answer, so it's almost certainly the way to go.

    Certainly the way to go means absolutely nothing until campaign leadership has issued a statement about which way this should be ruled. The guide explicitly states you should take the boons/items from the "appropriate tier". A normal table that was played out of tier is assumed to be 6 players, playing up with the 4 player adjust, so the general assumption would be they would be getting upper tier items/boons. The only valid argument against this is that in a lack of clarification, its better to take the most conservative approach, which is what I summed up as opinion 3.

    My thought is that this is something easily clarified and wouldn't take much discussion by campaign leadership to decide what the appropriate tier for item/boon access would be.

    off topic:

    Personally I'm a huge fan out out of tier gold because before I'd prefer not to take GM credit on a level 3 in a 1-5, or play a level 3 in a 1-2 subtler, for the reasons, and I think they did a fantastic job rectifying this in S5. I'm really looking forward to the changes coming in S6 with factions, as the way the presented doing it in S5 was exciting, but caused some issues that we've all discussed.

    Shadow Lodge 4/5

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    You can't get the subtier 4-5 items unless you are getting credit for subtier 4-5. The only way to get credit for tier 4-5 is to apply the credit to a character that is level 4 or level 5. If you are level 1, 2, or 3, you are not level 4 or 5.

    Why is this thread so long?

    4/5 *

    Wow... some people really seem to enjoy finding ways to translate grammar into free stuff for their characters.

    Mystic Lemur covers it. And given that a GM's job is to interpret the rules in a way that is logical and fair to everyone... well, if you think getting items above your tier is "logical" or "fair", you will run into trouble as a GM when you take that logic forward and your players call you on it.

    Lantern Lodge 5/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Mystic Lemur wrote:
    Why is this thread so long?

    That depends on your definition of the word "is."

    4/5

    10 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

    A local VO encouraged me to revisit this since it is a legitimate concern and isn't clarified in the guide, so here it goes.

    This is a question for the PFS campaign staff. Please hit FAQ to call attention to this if you think the S6 guide should be clarified.*

    What subtier is appropriate for the selection of items and boons when you receive GM credit for an out of tier character?

    *:
    Rather than stating your opinion and assuming that anyone who reads text that doesn't specify which subtier you use, as neither is appropriate as the guide says, is wrong for coming to a different conclusion.

    Shadow Lodge 4/5

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Mike Brock expects us to use common sense in our interpretations because they don't have the time to list out every possibility that someone might possibly misconstrue. If you aren't level 4-5, you don't get level 4-5 rewards. Don't like it? Don't apply the credit to that character.

    Digital Products Assistant

    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    Removed a post and the replies to it. Airing out private messages isn't cool here.

    The Exchange 5/5

    I had this same question, searched, found this thread and also tried to resolve it against the Sky Key Guide and don't see that there is any ambiguity on this issue with respect to applying credit to characters that fall within a defined subtier.

    Page 38 of the GPSOP says:
    "The subtier for which a GM’s character receives credit depends on the character’s level. If a GM with a 1st-level rogue runs a Tier 1–5 scenario using Subtier 1–2, she takes a Subtier 1–2 Chronicle sheet for her 1st-level rogue. If she instead runs a Tier 1–5 scenario using Subtier 4–5, she still takes a Subtier 1–2 Chronicle sheet, as her PC clearly falls within the lower subtier."

    So...
    1. Subtier of the GM credit depends on character level
    2. Running an upper sub-tier scenario still only confers a lower sub-tier Chronicle if the target GM character is lower level.

    However, I was not able to resolve the question for out-of-subtier characters and found some perspectives in this thread interesting. It makes sense to follow the conservative view, but I could see how a party playing up/down might lead to some controversy regarding credit for an out-of-subtier GM character - like a 5th level in a 1-7 (1-2,3-4,6-7) when the party runs the upper subtier.

    The conservative approach still seems best, especially since it is a boon to be able to advance characters without directly facing the same risks that a party might face. Also, in terms of what gear is appropriate for the character, with a "same level or lower" approach for subtier items, you can never go wrong.

    If my 5th level character had to face the direct risks of a 6-7 subtier run as a player, then it would a different story. But, he doesn't - he gets to move forward with full success, even if the party fails the mission. So, the 1-2/3-4 item award would seem appropriate for him from a. conservative, b. risk-reward and c. level-appropriate gear standpoints.

    I think it's great that we get a character credit as GMs. Also, it would be nice if paizo would take a moment to clarify this to help eliminate any remaining ambiguity. I almost tl;dr'd this thread, but am glad I made it the end.

    For example - an FAQ on GM Credit could say something like:
    "GM credit includes Chronicle sheet items from any subtier less than or equal to the level of the character that will receive the credit, regardless of which subtier the party played."

    It doesn't take long to craft a 1-sentence fix and common sense is sometimes not the same thing for everyone. I hope this post is helpful and not just waking the dead (or undead). Hmm...wouldn't work...mind-affecting. ^_^

    If anything above is not correct, please indicate/correct - thx.

    5/5

    Zan Greenshadow wrote:


    However, I was not able to resolve the question for out-of-subtier characters and found some perspectives in this thread interesting. It makes sense to follow the conservative view, but I could see how a party playing up/down might lead to some controversy regarding credit for an out-of-subtier GM character - like a 5th level in a 1-7 (1-2,3-4,6-7) when the party runs the upper subtier.

    Sub-tier actually played at the table (and table results) has absolutely no bearing on GM chronicles.

    The Exchange 5/5

    Kevin Ingle wrote:


    Sub-tier actually played at the table (and table results) has absolutely no bearing on GM chronicles.

    Right. So, then it sounds like there's never any rationale to take upper sub-tier loot for an out-of-sub-tier character.

    Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

    Zan Greenshadow wrote:
    Kevin Ingle wrote:


    Sub-tier actually played at the table (and table results) has absolutely no bearing on GM chronicles.

    Right. So, then it sounds like there's never any rationale to take upper sub-tier loot for an out-of-sub-tier character.

    Indeed.

    The general reasoning in related rules seems to be "if you're between tiers as a GM, you get the lower tier stuff, which is fair, because your character wasn't at risk when you GM'ed".

    Shadow Lodge 4/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    ye gods why did you remind me of this thread

    Shadow Lodge 2/5

    We know the truth.

    The Exchange 5/5

    Conman the Bardbarian wrote:
    We know the truth.

    Your avatar needs a bandana.

    Shadow Lodge 2/5

    I'm not wearing it like a bandana.

    Grand Lodge 4/5

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
    yosemitemike wrote:
    That would be my guess as well. Therefore there is no way to really know which they intended for this new rules version until they clarify.

    Since I was reminded of this, I wanted to make sure to post the updated clarification.

    Guide Pg 38 Paragraph 7 wrote:
    A GM may apply credit for running a scenario, module, or Adventure Path in any of the same ways a player can, and must follow the same rules as a player when applying credit to a character

    Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville

    It was stated before, but I want to point it out again.

    Whatever the group played at has no bearing on how the GM Credit is chronicled. The character the GM gives credit to only counts itself for Tier determination. Mid-Tier characters get mid tier gold and the lower tier items on the chronicle.

    Now, some changes between guides may have omitted a sentence when adding the Mid-tier gold statement, but the rule of thumb still stands in My Humble Opinion.

    If one wants upper tier GM credit, put that credit to a character within that tier.

    51 to 90 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / GM credit by subtier All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.
    Recent threads in GM Discussion