Only if you buy


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Whenever the point-buy or rolling discussions start some says point-buy enables/encourages min-maxing because people put the dump the stat they dont need such as charisma.
However if someone rolls for stats, no matter if they get decent rolls or super rolls, the lowest stat is still going into the less needed stat if that is how the play the game. I really understand that point/argument if neither rolling not point-buy stops that behaviour.

If someone can explain this I am all ears.


For it to be min-maxing, it has to be low in absolute terms, not relative terms. So if you're making a wizard and you roll stats and your highest is a 15 and your lowest is an 11, putting the 15 in Int and the 11 in Cha isn't really min-maxing.


Matthew Downie wrote:
For it to be min-maxing, it has to be low in absolute terms, not relative terms. So if you're making a wizard and you roll stats and your highest is a 15 and your lowest is an 11, putting the 15 in Int and the 11 in Cha isn't really min-maxing.

So if I roll a 7 and put that into charisma that would be min-maxing?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see how relative or absolute plays into it. You're still putting a low stat where you need it least and a high one where you want it most.

It's exactly the same.


I'm an advocate for rolling and I agree with you Wraithstrike. One way to eliminate the dump score is to roll some form of "straight down the line" method. Another way is to not allow buying down a score.

I advocate hybrid methods like...wait for it...the Dice Point method!


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Lakesidefantasy wrote:
One way to eliminate the dump score is to roll some form of "straight down the line" method.

I can understand why people didn't mind that in the past when character generation took two minutes and your character's life expectancy was probably somewhere around one session, but in a game like Pathfinder where character generation can take hours and death is a minor inconvenience? No. Being pigeonholed into something you don't want to play because the RNG willed it is not something I would consider to be fun in the long term, and for the most part, Pathfinder characters tend to be longer term.


wraithstrike wrote:
So if I roll a 7 and put that into charisma that would be min-maxing?

Min-maxing implies using a mixture of very low and very high stats. And doing it on purpose, I guess.


Straight down: 3d6 ⇒ (4, 1, 5) = 10
Straight down: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 6, 5) = 17
Straight down: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 4, 4) = 13
Straight down: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 3, 3) = 8
Straight down: 3d6 ⇒ (3, 1, 6) = 10
Straight down: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 3, 1) = 6

Edit, Huh, not as bad as I thought as it would be but I still wouldn't want to play this. I'm pretty much confined to archery or finesse fighting.


Matthew Downie wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
So if I roll a 7 and put that into charisma that would be min-maxing?
Min-maxing implies using a mixture of very low and very high stats. And doing it on purpose, I guess.

I was just asking for purpose of clarification.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Dilettants
Real minmaxing is putting the rolled 5 in cos so you can roll again after next combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With point buy the decision when picking your lowest stat is is "I'm going to make my charisma a 7 because I don't need it and want my strength as high as possible". With stat rolling the decision is "my worst roll is a 7 and it needs to go somewhere, I guess I don't need charisma". The end result is the same, but the motivations and reasoning aren't necessarily the same. You also haven't lowered charisma for the express purpose of raising strength. You've put your highest stat in strength and your lowest in charisma certainly, but the scale of difference in those two numbers was decided by the dice rather than your point allocations.

Remember too that stat rolling may result in much lower or much higher average stats than point buy usually will. If you have multiple low scores or multiple high scores then the nature of dump stats changes as well. If your character is going to be great anyway due to high scores some people are more likely to make an unusual stat high for fun, knowing they'll be effective anyway. Equally if your character will have low scores no matter what you do, that may inspire a rather non-standard build too.

While I prefer stat rolling to point buy, I'm happy with either method and play games using both. You certainly can min-max when rolling stats, and you don't have to min-max when using point buy. But for me it's generally true that point buy makes my character generation process feel a bit more prescribed while stat rolling makes the process feel a bit more organic. There are times where I know exactly what I want beforehand, so I like the prescription. And others when I have no clear idea of what I want my character to be until I randomly generate the stats and use them to decide.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lakesidefantasy wrote:

I'm an advocate for rolling and I agree with you Wraithstrike. One way to eliminate the dump score is to roll some form of "straight down the line" method. Another way is to not allow buying down a score.

I advocate hybrid methods like...wait for it...the Dice Point method!

If I was rolling straight down the line I would just pick my class based on what array I rolled, making sure the highest stat is in the most useful place for that class. Same deal.

Berik wrote:
With point buy the decision when picking your lowest stat is is "I'm going to make my charisma a 7 because I don't need it and want my strength as high as possible". With stat rolling the decision is "my worst roll is a 7 and it needs to go somewhere, I guess I don't need charisma". The end result is the same, but the motivations and reasoning aren't necessarily the same. You also haven't lowered charisma for the express purpose of raising strength. You've put your highest stat in strength and your lowest in charisma certainly, but the scale of difference in those two numbers was decided by the dice rather than your point allocations.

Erm... No, this is pretty much exactly the same thing. You're making the same decision, just with different tools available.


Berik wrote:
With point buy the decision when picking your lowest stat is is "I'm going to make my charisma a 7 because I don't need it and want my strength as high as possible". With stat rolling the decision is "my worst roll is a 7 and it needs to go somewhere, I guess I don't need charisma". The end result is the same, but the motivations and reasoning aren't necessarily the same.

Which goes back to the player mindset. If the GM is worried about the player thought process rolling changes nothing. If the player is not the type to min-max then its a non-issue. Yes, I understand the organic idea still stand, but I am focusing on the "min-max" idea.

PS: I was just using your post to make the point that rolling does not really stop it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

With point buy you receive a benefit for intentionally lowering an ability you don't need. There is a difference between lowering your Cha to 7 in order to max out your Int and putting a rolled 7 into Cha because that 7 has to go somewhere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
With point buy you receive a benefit for intentionally lowering an ability you don't need. There is a difference between lowering your Cha to 7 in order to max out your Int and putting a rolled 7 into Cha because that 7 has to go somewhere.

It's a matter of degree, not kind; which is wraithstrike's point. It's still min-maxing: high scores in "important" abilities and low scores in "unimportant" abilities (for that character). The only real difference is the level of customization afforded using point-buy; min-maxers will min-max regardless of the generation method.

As has been mentioned, "in order" methods are probably the only real way to curtail min-maxing. Although, even then it will occur, as min-maxers choose the "optimal" race, class, feat, and skill selections for those ability scores.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
With point buy you receive a benefit for intentionally lowering an ability you don't need. There is a difference between lowering your Cha to 7 in order to max out your Int and putting a rolled 7 into Cha because that 7 has to go somewhere.

^ nailed it.

Point buy min-maxing is about selling things down in order to raise other things up.

When rolling, you don't have that option. You'll still put your lowest rolls in the least useful stat, but you can't actually make your other stats better by doing it.

Basically, with point-buy, you can min-max harder than you can with rolls.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So basically what you're saying is there isn't actually a problem, it just feels wrong to you.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Doomed Hero wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
With point buy you receive a benefit for intentionally lowering an ability you don't need. There is a difference between lowering your Cha to 7 in order to max out your Int and putting a rolled 7 into Cha because that 7 has to go somewhere.

^ nailed it.

Point buy min-maxing is about selling things down in order to raise other things up.

When rolling, you don't have that option. You'll still put your lowest rolls in the least useful stat, but you can't actually make your other stats better by doing it.

Basically, with point-buy, you can min-max harder than you can with rolls.

This is why I use a point buy without a sell down. 25 points, no stat under 10 before racial modifiers, no stat over 17 after racial modifiers. Problem solved.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The only real problem with point buy is that it is infecting game design.

Half the classes in the ACG have abilities that allow them to circumvent ability prereqs based on the premise that the class couldn't access those abilities because of the way the stat generation method limited them.

That combined with the stigma set by those who swear by it, makes me consider it, The Devil.

There was a thread on Facebook about it that got really nasty.


wraithstrike wrote:

Whenever the point-buy or rolling discussions start some says point-buy enables/encourages min-maxing because people put the dump the stat they dont need such as charisma.

However if someone rolls for stats, no matter if they get decent rolls or super rolls, the lowest stat is still going into the less needed stat if that is how the play the game. I really understand that point/argument if neither rolling not point-buy stops that behaviour.

If someone can explain this I am all ears.

People make up all sort of fake excuses to justify rolling for stats. In reality they just want the really high stats rolling tends to generate (either through a rigged rolling method or mass-cheating)


I thought min/maxing was more where the player: distributes their scores, then lowers one in order to boost another, "dumping" that one stat by 2 or 3 points (from 10 to a 7, say) so that they free up points to put into another attribute.

Another "min/max" example: I had a campaign where I let players roll 5d6 and keep the best 3. Yeah, they all had pretty good scores. We were starting at level 1. Then 1 player with a Rogue wanted to take a level of Sorcerer at level 5, and he lowered his DEX (which was insanely high) and raised his CHA by 4 points to 20! He was surprised when I wigged out about it. For him, they're just numbers that don't reflect anything, but do drive his mechanics so he wanted to max his CHA. Makes sense, but is totally a "min/max" attitude.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Minmaxing literally just means minimizing undesired traits and maximizing desirable ones.

In point buy you min max by keeping unneeded stats low.
In die rolling you min max by putting crappy rolls in unneeded stats.

Different ways of achieving the same thing.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Strength: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 4, 1) = 7
Dexterity: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 3, 4) = 8
Constitution: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 4, 5) = 15
Intelligence: 3d6 ⇒ (3, 3, 5) = 11
Wisdom: 3d6 ⇒ (4, 2, 5) = 11
Charisma: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 3, 2) = 7

Wow, that would be a very difficult array to work with.


I like both point buy and rolling; which, according to fans of point buy puts me squarely in the other camp. It doesn't matter that I advocate hybrid methods.

I don't advocate Straight 3d6, but, almost without fail, those who exclusively advocate Point Buy will use the Straight 3d6 method to criticize the opposition. It's a Rolling vs. Buying form of Godwin's Law.

Yes, Straight 3d6 sucks, but their are very few people who use it. However when it comes to rolling for scores "some form of 'straight down the line'" is a way to avoid dump scores. Conversely, when it comes to buying scores, disallowing "sell down" is also a way to avoid it.


Am I the only one around here that doesn't care how I get my stats as long as it's reasonably fair between players on how those numbers are generated.

I will say that my preferred method is stat array. Rolling has the problem of having an entire bad campaign happen due to luck and I do agree that point buy does lead to at least a minmaxing mindset where I have players tweaking numbers back and forth for an hour to squeeze out the right amount of advantage they want.


I've started doing similar to what Kolokotroni does: 20-point (or 25, depending on the campaign) but with upper and lower limits for their first level: no score below an 8 and none above a 18 after racial modifiers (20 max in a 25-point buy).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Snowblind wrote:

Minmaxing literally just means minimizing undesired traits and maximizing desirable ones.

In point buy you min max by keeping unneeded stats low.
In die rolling you min max by putting crappy rolls in unneeded stats.

Different ways of achieving the same thing.

This. You can min-max no matter what system you use.

Liberty's Edge

I feel the best way to deal with min/maxing is at the source: the players (as a whole, not any individual one) and the DM.

It may not work for all groups, but in my group we make it clear the plot comes from your characters rather than going at your characters. That means that if no-one puts above 10 in cha, the party isn't going to be doing much of anything that requires diplomacy. If no-one plays a full caster, high casting is not going to be a required role. Etc, etc.

This extends into optimization as well, and is a group effort. If anyone is making non-standard decisions, such as giving a barbarian 14 int, then everyone is aware of that and works to avoid stepping all over whatever thing the barbarian wants to do with that intelligence. If they select a couple knowledges, others in the group work to make characters that deemphasize those skills. This allows the DM to put skill challenges related to those skills that, in effect, target the barbarian.

The only hard rule my group has is that you're not allowed to dramatically out-optimize anyone else in the group. If you do, you either have to respec to something weaker or help the other member get stronger. Often it becomes a bit of both. If it's a short campaign then we just let the campaign finish that way and have them retune for the next one instead.

This doesn't work with all groups, and certainly doesn't in PFS, but is surprisingly easy to implement. The key is for the DM to note down the interesting parts of their character (like the 14 int barbarian or 14 str wizard) and ensure that some challenges will target those points every so often. It only has to be useful a couple of times for people to be on board with it.

Fake TL;DR - They see me rollin'. They hatin'. I now they're all tryin' to catch me optimizin'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
With point buy you receive a benefit for intentionally lowering an ability you don't need. There is a difference between lowering your Cha to 7 in order to max out your Int and putting a rolled 7 into Cha because that 7 has to go somewhere.

Completely incorrect, as this discounts opportunity cost. You put the 7 in Cha so you'd have the opportunity to put a higher stat elsewhere. Different tools, exact same reasoning, exact same outcome.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I personally come from a background of playing video games and enjoying getting the most out of my character, so I wanted to ask. What is the issue with min-maxing? If your character doesn't benefit from int, for example, why should it be a problem that my character have 8-10 int?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I prefer to Min-Max my equipment choices

DON"T ask me why I have nineteen iron spikes!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Min-max: to minimize your weakness and maximize your strengths.

I'm sorry, but I do this in real life. I'm not content to have "character defining" weaknesses; I prefer to work on my weaknesses to make them less weak and continue to improve on my strengths to make them better.

Why should my character be any different?

And why should anyone care that I want to be a better and more competent person (or character)?

Liberty's Edge

The only way to combat min-maxing stats in some form another is to have a system where dumping a stat actual has a meaningful effect. Traditionally D&D 3.X and Pathfinder do not.

As for rolling vs point buy min-maxing, it happens with both methods, although the method and motivations differ and point-by is the prefered method if you want to twist your stats into a pretzel. It's also the prefered method if you want to get a character that looks like the one you have in your head. I use point buy exclusively in my games for the later reasons. I use a different table and point value than PF that produces an average score of 13, with an 'average' array of three 12s and three 14s, can't purchase anything below an 8.

There is however a qualitative difference between "I'm buying this stat down to the basement so I can pump this other one into the stratosphere," and "Crap, I rolled a 6... I guess I'll put it in the stat I need the least," or "Ok... I rolled a 6 for Charisma... Guess I'm not playing a Bard or Paladin..."


master_marshmallow wrote:

The only real problem with point buy is that it is infecting game design.

Half the classes in the ACG have abilities that allow them to circumvent ability prereqs based on the premise that the class couldn't access those abilities because of the way the stat generation method limited them.

That combined with the stigma set by those who swear by it, makes me consider it, The Devil.

There was a thread on Facebook about it that got really nasty.

Why are you assuming it is because of point buy. Maybe it was low rolls from rolling.

edit: Could you answer my opening topic. I still don't see the difference between dropping that 7 in charisma or rolling a 7 and dropping it into charisma. Either way the idea is to make the least useful stat have the lowest score. The same would apply with a sorcerer for strength. They just have to wait until they can get a handy haversack.


Krensky wrote:


There is however a qualitative difference between "I'm buying this stat down to the basement so I can pump this other one into the stratosphere," and "Crap, I rolled a 6... I guess I'll put it in the stat I need the least," or "Ok... I rolled a 6 for Charisma... Guess I'm not playing a Bard or Paladin..."

That however is not what is happening in the mindset of a player that likes to minmax. It is more like I rolled a 6. Well my fighter does not need a high charisma score so I will put it there.

Your idea only works when people roll straight down the line, but most of the times you just roll the numbers and place them where you want.


bookrat wrote:
Min-max: to minimize your weakness and maximize your strengths.

Wait... that doesn't work. Technically minmaxing is maximizing your strengths by making your weaknesses worse not minimizing them.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

When we say 'minimizing weaknesses' it means making them occur/have an effect less often than normal.

Hence why things like Student of Philosophy that trade your dump stat to things for your best stat are big parts of min/maxing.


If stats in point buy started at 7 instead, would you have a problem with low stats? It's kind of a silly argument. What if I want a low wish for my character because it fits, and then I make a high strength, because it fits? Why am I not allowed to do this?

Shadow Lodge

Who says you can't?


Malwing wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Min-max: to minimize your weakness and maximize your strengths.

Wait... that doesn't work. Technically minmaxing is maximizing your strengths by making your weaknesses worse not minimizing them.

It is one of those words that has a different meaning depending on who you talk to. I even made a thread so we could get an agreement on certain words. It did not work.


Wait so am I maximizing my flaws, or minimizing my advantages, or maximizing my potential short comings while minimizing my eventual returns on maximizing the negative effects of the minimized enhancements to my dump stats?


TOZ wrote:
Who says you can't?

Okay, I guess no one said that I can't, but a lot of people are implying it is bad form to do so.


Albatoonoe wrote:
If stats in point buy started at 7 instead, would you have a problem with low stats? It's kind of a silly argument. What if I want a low wish for my character because it fits, and then I make a high strength, because it fits? Why am I not allowed to do this?

They don't start at 7. The issue is that if someone drops the score that is low into the attribute they dont care about, people complain, but if someone rolls a low score and puts it into the same stat it is supposed to be ok. Because point buy allows you to buy a low roll it someone encourages mix maxing, but rolling really allows for stats to be placed in the same order. I really dont get the logic. I believe some people just dont like point buy for other reasons and use that as an additional excuse. However I think it is fair to ask first before I decide to be sure.


Each of these methods have their faults and their advantages. There are many different issues, dump scores are just one.

I agree when comparing a Point Buy method of 15-20 points against the Standard 3 of 4d6 method, the criticism about dump scores is invaldid as both suffer from it.

I don't like selling scores down. My first Pathfinder Society character was a polearm fighter with the scores: Strength 14, Dexterity 16, Constitution 10, Intelligence 13, Wisdom 10, and Charisma 12. Go ahead and laugh but he is still alive at 11th level. But, now on my eighth character I do it more often than not.

The pressure to dump a score in a Point Buy environment is intense. Not to say that the same intensity is not present with the Standard 3 of 4d6 method.

I guess I haven't said anything new. But, this thread is about is not about criticizing the Point Buy method.

I myself like hybrid methods.


wraithstrike wrote:

Whenever the point-buy or rolling discussions start some says point-buy enables/encourages min-maxing because people put the dump the stat they dont need such as charisma.

However if someone rolls for stats, no matter if they get decent rolls or super rolls, the lowest stat is still going into the less needed stat if that is how the play the game. I really understand that point/argument if neither rolling not point-buy stops that behaviour.

If someone can explain this I am all ears.

I play in game where you roll in stat order...so you don't get to decide. That is one way to stop that behavior.


wraithstrike wrote:
Malwing wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Min-max: to minimize your weakness and maximize your strengths.

Wait... that doesn't work. Technically minmaxing is maximizing your strengths by making your weaknesses worse not minimizing them.

It is one of those words that has a different meaning depending on who you talk to. I even made a thread so we could get an agreement on certain words. It did not work.

If that's the case, then I can't find the definition that's says min-max is maximizing your strengths while maximizing your weaknesses.

All the definitions I can't find - and the definition I've been using for years - is that you maximize your strengths by purchasing things for the minimal cost, aka minimizing the weaknesses you have to take in order to maximize the benefit.

This definition even applies to this exact thread; you're talking about someone putting their largest penalties in their most useless attributes - they're literally minimizing their weaknesses by placing them in abilities that they cannot use or use so rarely that it doesn't matter. So these penalties do not effect them

One of my weaknesses - as a person - is that I have a strong fear of heights. Fortunately, this matters little to me because I've taken a career that doesn't involve heights. I've also taken active efforts to overcome this fear (parachuting, rappelling, etc), which may be akin to taking a feat or putting in extra skill ranks in something to minimize this weakness of mine. Just like a character with 7 charisma might take a skill focus feat and put ranks in bluff or diplomacy to overcome their weakness.


bookrat wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Malwing wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Min-max: to minimize your weakness and maximize your strengths.

Wait... that doesn't work. Technically minmaxing is maximizing your strengths by making your weaknesses worse not minimizing them.

It is one of those words that has a different meaning depending on who you talk to. I even made a thread so we could get an agreement on certain words. It did not work.

If that's the case, then I can't find the definition that's says min-max is maximizing your strengths while maximizing your weaknesses.

All the definitions I can't find - and the definition I've been using for years - is that you maximize your strengths by purchasing things for the minimal cost, aka minimizing the weaknesses you have to take in order to maximize the benefit.

This definition even applies to this exact thread; you're talking about someone putting their largest penalties in their most useless attributes - they're literally minimizing their weaknesses by placing them in abilities that they cannot use or use so rarely that it doesn't matter. So these penalties do not effect them

One of my weaknesses - as a person - is that I have a strong fear of heights. Fortunately, this matters little to me because I've taken a career that doesn't involve heights. I've also taken active efforts to overcome this fear (parachuting, rappelling, etc), which may be akin to taking a feat or putting in extra skill ranks in something to minimize this weakness of mine. Just like a character with 7 charisma might take a skill focus feat and put ranks in bluff or diplomacy to overcome their weakness.

I used that definition for this thread because that is what seems to be referred to when the argument is made about dumping stats.

I personally prefer the other definition since that is what I am more likely to do. I try to shore any weakness a character has that could be debilitating.

Liberty's Edge

wraithstrike wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
If stats in point buy started at 7 instead, would you have a problem with low stats? It's kind of a silly argument. What if I want a low wish for my character because it fits, and then I make a high strength, because it fits? Why am I not allowed to do this?
They don't start at 7. The issue is that if someone drops the score that is low into the attribute they dont care about, people complain, but if someone rolls a low score and puts it into the same stat it is supposed to be ok. Because point buy allows you to buy a low roll it someone encourages mix maxing, but rolling really allows for stats to be placed in the same order. I really dont get the logic. I believe some people just dont like point buy for other reasons and use that as an additional excuse. However I think it is fair to ask first before I decide to be sure.

Because there is a difference between choosing to take a really low attribute in a dump stat in order to get a really high one and someone who gets stuck with a low stat and chooses to stick it in the place it will hurt the least.

Liberty's Edge

John Kretzer wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Whenever the point-buy or rolling discussions start some says point-buy enables/encourages min-maxing because people put the dump the stat they dont need such as charisma.

However if someone rolls for stats, no matter if they get decent rolls or super rolls, the lowest stat is still going into the less needed stat if that is how the play the game. I really understand that point/argument if neither rolling not point-buy stops that behaviour.

If someone can explain this I am all ears.

I play in game where you roll in stat order...so you don't get to decide. That is one way to stop that behavior.

Nah, that just delays it until after the next combat.


master_marshmallow wrote:

The only real problem with point buy is that it is infecting game design.

Half the classes in the ACG have abilities that allow them to circumvent ability prereqs based on the premise that the class couldn't access those abilities because of the way the stat generation method limited them.

That combined with the stigma set by those who swear by it, makes me consider it, The Devil.

There was a thread on Facebook about it that got really nasty.

I agree with this. However, 3.5/PF just doesn't work well with random rolling from the get go. I mean sure you can trick motivations and intentions by using some type of failsafe rolling method that provides a standard array anyways, but why go through the extra work for a similar payout? Maybe just maybe P2 will take the path that allows random rolling to work out just fine. I doubt it though because 5E went this route and P2 when it happens is most likely going to be a wild opposite. The snakes are out of the can, so I'm living with point buy the devil I know.

To answer the OP its because people either want the traditional experience or the feel of an organically made character. This trick may just work for some groups, but others will only try and fight it. Ultimately, it's a preference thing and I would be surprised if you get a better answer than that.

1 to 50 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Only if you buy All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.