The Amateur Linkamancer's Thread

Speculation, discoveries, complaints, accusations, praise, and all other Erfworld discussion.

Re: The Amateur Linkamancer's Thread

Postby Lilwik » Thu Mar 20, 2014 11:54 pm

Taikei no Yuurei wrote:Since carnymancy is all about breaking rules, and 3 caster links seem to be a built in maximum... might a carnymancer be able to fudge the rules so that more than 3 casters could link?
I seriously doubt it. Dove has told us that Carnymancy is all about the show, that everything is a show. We don't know what rules a Carnymancer can break, but surely it's connected to the show. If we could find something that certainly isn't part of the show, then we would probably have found something that Carnymancers can't rig. Dove said that everything is a show, but the audience is never really part of a show. The world you see might all be contrived, but your own private experience of that world is always real. My interpretation of B1P54 is that Thinkamancers become overwhelmed by the difficulty of linking when they try for more than a 3-way-link, and that's the audience, not the show, so I'd bet it's beyond the reach of Carnymancy.

More generally, I suspect that Carnymancers can't give people the ability to do things that they don't know how to do conceptually. A Carnymancer might be able to give you the ability to lift a 100-ton boulder by making the boulder seem as light as air, but the Carnymancer wouldn't be able to help you understand trigonometry because that would be manipulating you instead of manipulating the show. I guess a Carnymancer can't stop someone from becoming confused when dealing with a hundred things at once (or linking 4 casters), because that's just the way audiences are. Reaching even further, I suspect that Carnymancy can't help a caster cast without juice because I suspect a caster's juice represents the freshness of the caster's mind, and running out of juice is mental fatigue, which ought to be a matter of the audience.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: The Amateur Linkamancer's Thread

Postby Lipkin » Fri Mar 21, 2014 12:07 am

The way Sizemore described links made me think a quad-link wasn't so much impossible as it was incredibly unstable. Like, they aren't forbidden by the rules, they would just be impossible to sustain, or dangerous/fatal to attempt. It's possible that there is a rule saying "No quad-links," but even if a Carny broke that rule, I would think a quad-link would be a supremely dangerous act.
User avatar
Lipkin
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 1045
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:36 am

Re: The Amateur Linkamancer's Thread

Postby Godzfirefly » Fri Mar 21, 2014 12:15 am

Lipkin wrote:The way Sizemore described links made me think a quad-link wasn't so much impossible as it was incredibly unstable. Like, they aren't forbidden by the rules, they would just be impossible to sustain, or dangerous/fatal to attempt. It's possible that there is a rule saying "No quad-links," but even if a Carny broke that rule, I would think a quad-link would be a supremely dangerous act.


The link that Taikei suggests to make this possible isn't just a Carnymancer's spell, though. It's a tri-link that is designed to stabilize another link. Such a goal has probably not even been considered in Erfworld before, since it requires more casters than most sides could even imagine employing in one place at a time, but tri-links have been shown to perform spells that change the nature of both disciplines into something quite different. So, it should do more than just change a rule. Perhaps a Carnymancer-Wierdomancer link could be expected to make it stable...or even a Carnymancer-Thinkamancer-Thinkamancer Tri-Link. It is hard to say...
Godzfirefly
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 12:51 am

Re: The Amateur Linkamancer's Thread

Postby Lipkin » Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:47 am

Still seems like it's out of the power set. Carnies break rules, but if it isn't a rule, but a limitation of linking, what could they do? Linking isn't a Carny's area of expertise. When a caster links with a Thinkamancer, they gain a deeper understanding of their discipline, and a greater power. The problem with linking is that it is dangerous and fragile with 3 casters in the link. Creating a stronger link would require linking with a thinkamancer, but by the time you have the understanding and power to achieve the quad link, there are too many people linked up already.

As far as we've seen, Carnies break rules, they don't make people better at working within them.

I may not be making much sense. But bottom line, I don't think a Carny could create a quad-link, with the exception of Charlie, who could conceivably use the Dish as the Thinkamancer, while adding Carny skills together with two other casters.
User avatar
Lipkin
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 1045
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:36 am

Re: The Amateur Linkamancer's Thread

Postby Taikei no Yuurei » Fri Mar 21, 2014 6:28 pm

Lipkin wrote:Carnies break rules, but if it isn't a rule, but a limitation of linking, what could they do?
Is there really a difference between a rule and a limitation?
Linking isn't a Carny's area of expertise.
That doesn't seem to have stopped Dove messing with a moneymancer looking at records of money.
As far as we've seen, Carnies break rules, they don't make people better at working within them.
That seems to be exactly what Dove is doing by having Homekey attack itself. It doesn't break the prediction, but instead is a 'better' way to work within it.

I may not be making much sense. But bottom line, I don't think a Carny could create a quad-link, with the exception of Charlie, who could conceivably use the Dish as the Thinkamancer, while adding Carny skills together with two other casters.
Indeed, Cahrlie might be able to make a 3 caster link that doesn't include an actual thinkamancer, but would instead require him as a carnymancer. Though, along similar lines, if you had a multi discipline caster like Wanda or Issac, you could create a link between a huge number of disciplines, if not actual casters. That would still limit how much juice you have access to, but you could tap into a huge verity of magic.
Taikei no Yuurei
Erfabet Supporter!
Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: The Amateur Linkamancer's Thread

Postby Lamech » Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:13 pm

A carnymancer wierdomancer link would make sense when it comes to stabilizing links. Link only the portions of the mind that are about casting, none of the conflicts. Make the caster ability cheat somehow. It could work But it might not. One of the links might just fail on its own, or it might flub the spell or it might not be the right combination. Or a four link might have other unforeseen problems. And you won't know until you try and set everything up. And if you DO and if fails then the fallout will be bad. The four link is gone. It fails and backlashes hard. The three link will have the spell backlash in their face, which could in turn break that link causing more backlash. And if it DOES work you have no idea what benefits it will give. Normal functions are subsumed when the link goes up. Quad-link abilities might not even be applicable on the scale you want. You are risking 7 casters, 2 thinkamancers on your trick working. You would need to be truly desperate. When you have like 30 potential tri-link combos.
So what you would need to justify experimenting:
1) A truly awful situation, than cannot plausibly be solved by your two tri-links.
2) 7 casters, with 2 of them thinkamancers.
3) That could be plausibly solved by a quad-link.

Its never going to happen.

Anyway, if you wanted to experiment with Links, I would suggest using magics like predictomancy, thinkamancy luckamancy, date-o-mancy or whatever to try and maximize the success of a bi-link, make bi-linking safe, use bi-links to make super-charged items to make linking safer and more effective, and then do the same with tri-links. If I had two thinkamancers I would seriously consider trying that.

Also I want to see a wierdomancer-carny link. Break rules for abilities. "Fire burns everyone? I think our fire only burns enemies. Also your garrison is on fire. Don't worry it will go out when every enemy is dead. The garrison will be fine though." or something like "BTW inferno's now can spread to adjacent hexes." Or flying "What height limit? Is that some point arrows can't go past? Cause I'm above that. Good thing these bombs don't have to deal with that."

Finally, ideas for improving links:
Signamancy: Makes it so the people just look like they will work well together.
Date-o-mancy: Improve their relationship.
Flower Power: Eliminate unwanted thoughts with drugs.
Thinkamancy/Luckamancy: Duh
Carnymancy: Give the backlash to someone else.
Hat Magic: Provide backlash protection via thinking cap.
Weirdomancy: Alter casting special.
Predictomancy: Look a few seconds ahead to see if you will all die.
Dirtamancy: Improve the tower.
Lamech
 
Posts: 1450
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:23 am

Re: The Amateur Linkamancer's Thread

Postby Lipkin » Fri Mar 21, 2014 9:24 pm

Taikei no Yuurei wrote:
Lipkin wrote:Carnies break rules, but if it isn't a rule, but a limitation of linking, what could they do?
Is there really a difference between a rule and a limitation?


Your mom says you can't have any more cookies. It's a rule if there are more cookies, and she's stopping you from eating them. It's a limitation if there are no more cookies to eat.

From what I see, there is no rule saying "Three casters is the limit of linking." That is a rule that could be broken. Instead it is "Links are hard, dangerous, and unstable. Any more than three casters in a link and the link falls apart under it's own weight." If the link could be stabilized, a quad-link would work. But it would take a link to gain the power and knowledge to achieve a quad-link, so it's functionally impossible.
User avatar
Lipkin
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 1045
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:36 am

Re: The Amateur Linkamancer's Thread

Postby Taikei no Yuurei » Sat Mar 22, 2014 4:30 am

Your cookie example works okay for itself, but it doesn't apply to linking or Carnymancy at all, since the 'rules' we're talking about here are the equivalent of laws of physics. Carnymancers don't break rules that are just simple conventions. They don't break rules that a particular king has set up. They break rules which are the fundamental foundation on which the world is built. They break physics. Ex: breaking the rule that an incapacitated unit is croaked at the start of its next turn. Or the rule that being in an inferno hex kills them. To compare that to your mom telling you you can't do something is like comparing anti-gravity to flapping your arms really fast.

I don't see any reason a Carnymancer wouldn't at least have the potential (especially so if part of a link) to mess with the maximum number in a link. The forces working against them might be too strong to actually overcome, and so it still might not be possible, but it is certainly something that should at least fall under a Carnymancer's ability to try. Otherwise you're saying a Carnymancer can't do anything, because Erfworld is all 'limitations' as opposed to 'rules' under your definition.
Taikei no Yuurei
Erfabet Supporter!
Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: The Amateur Linkamancer's Thread

Postby Lilwik » Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:38 am

Taikei no Yuurei wrote:They break rules which are the fundamental foundation on which the world is built. They break physics.
I see your point, but I would feel more confident that you are correct if I could see a few more examples of Carnymancy at work. I hope we get to see Dove actually do some casting before Digdoug is over.

Taikei no Yuurei wrote:Or the rule that being in an inferno hex kills them.
It seems clear that Jojo broke a rule about deadly incapacitation, but I'm far less confident that Sylvia's survival of the volcano had anything to do with breaking rules. Sylvia didn't escape death in that volcano any more than anyone else did, and they surely didn't all have Carnymancy help. Carnymancy isn't just about breaking rules; it's also about putting on a show. I don't understand what "putting on a show" really means, but maybe Sylvia's life was some sort of show.

Taikei no Yuurei wrote:I don't see any reason a Carnymancer wouldn't at least have the potential (especially so if part of a link) to mess with the maximum number in a link.
I wish I understood Carnymancy well enough to say that there is a clear reason to suppose anything about Carnymancy, but there are a few flimsy reasons. For one, links are Thinkamancy, so I expect only Thinkamancers really understand them or have any hope of assisting. For another, the way the instability of links increases with the number of casters seems to be a weakness in the Thinkamancer rather than a rule. Finally, I can't see how a 4-caster link has anything to do with a show. The way Dove talks about putting on a show, I'm beginning to doubt that Carnymancy even has the power to do real things. Maybe everything it does is fake somehow.

Taikei no Yuurei wrote:The forces working against them might be too strong to actually overcome, and so it still might not be possible, but it is certainly something that should at least fall under a Carnymancer's ability to try. Otherwise you're saying a Carnymancer can't do anything, because Erfworld is all 'limitations' as opposed to 'rules' under your definition.
That line of thinking seems completely backward. If we come to the conclusion that Carnymancy should be able to create a 4-caster link just because it goes against how Erfworld normally works, then we are forced to accept that everything imaginable should fall under a Carnymancer's ability to try for exactly the same reasons. Cats and dogs literally falling from the sky like hail would be Carnymancy too. It makes no sense to jump from the idea that one thing is beyond the domain of Carnymancy to the conclusion that Carnymancy can't do anything. The great mystery of Carnymancy is that we still don't know where the boundaries of its domain really lie.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: The Amateur Linkamancer's Thread

Postby Lipkin » Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:57 am

Taikei no Yuurei wrote:Your cookie example works okay for itself, but it doesn't apply to linking or Carnymancy at all, since the 'rules' we're talking about here are the equivalent of laws of physics. Carnymancers don't break rules that are just simple conventions. They don't break rules that a particular king has set up. They break rules which are the fundamental foundation on which the world is built. They break physics. Ex: breaking the rule that an incapacitated unit is croaked at the start of its next turn. Or the rule that being in an inferno hex kills them. To compare that to your mom telling you you can't do something is like comparing anti-gravity to flapping your arms really fast.

I don't see any reason a Carnymancer wouldn't at least have the potential (especially so if part of a link) to mess with the maximum number in a link. The forces working against them might be too strong to actually overcome, and so it still might not be possible, but it is certainly something that should at least fall under a Carnymancer's ability to try. Otherwise you're saying a Carnymancer can't do anything, because Erfworld is all 'limitations' as opposed to 'rules' under your definition.

I was answering the question that was asked. There is a difference between a rule and a limitation.

The way I see it, a quad-link is like the square/cube law. Even if it were possible for something to grow so huge, it would collapse under it's own weight. If you could link 4 casters together, it would backfire and not work. There isn't a rule saying that a quad-link isn't allowed, there is a limitation saying it won't hold together. Like if you had to roll a high number to succeed a tri-link, and a quad-link makes the number you have to roll higher than the maximum roll you can make.

I could be wrong. Easily. But I do not think we will ever see a quad link without the use of a Tool in the mix, even if a Carny was involved.
User avatar
Lipkin
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 1045
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:36 am

Re: The Amateur Linkamancer's Thread

Postby Alpha the White » Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:18 am

Lipkin wrote:I could be wrong. Easily. But I do not think we will ever see a quad link without the use of a Tool in the mix, even if a Carny was involved.

While I agree that carnymancy wouldn't do much to enable a larger link, I do think it may be possible by use of more Thinkamancers.
In principle, your suggestion is that the mechanics of linking places an ever-greater burden of stability on the link with more casters.
From where I stand, however, this appears to be a function of the magics holding the link together in the first place, namely Thinkamancy:
1 Thinkamancer - 1 Othermancer = Extremely stable. The Thinkamancer can break it off safely, etc.
1 Thinkamancer - 2 Othermancer = Unstable. The Thinkamancer can't safely separate the link, otherwise risky in some unspecified fashion.
1 Thinkamancer - 3 Othermancer = Not tenable by common wisdom.
It could simply be that each mind in a link adds a growing cost to the whole link, which makes large links untenable, but it could also be a function of taxing the Thinkamancer's ability to manage the signalling involved. A Thinkamancer with a single othermancer can easily separate the link with no danger to either themselves or their subject, while the dual-link is just too difficult to manage safely.
I suggest, then, the following:
2 Thinkamancer - 1 Othermancer = ??? (aka Why would you bother Edit: More juice, as per Godzfirefly)
2 Thinkamancer - 2 Othermancer = Stable. Each Thinkamancer is dedicated to one Othermancer, and they can easily disentangle things should they need to.
2 Thinkamancer - 3 Othermancer = Unstable. Either the Thinkamancers share responsibility for the 3rd Othermancer, or one of them is responsible for 2. In the first case, this link is more stable than a standard trilink, and in the second case this link is exactly as unstable as a trilink, as it's essentially an (unstable) trilink that has been joined by a (stable) duolink.
2 Thinkamancer - 4 Othermancer = Unstable or Untenable. This is essentially 2 trilinks, which have a hard enough time staying safe under normal circumstances. Either the thinkamancers have enough bandwitdth between them to form an unstable crossover link, or they don't and the burden is just too large.
Last edited by Alpha the White on Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Alpha the White
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 2:27 pm

Re: The Amateur Linkamancer's Thread

Postby Godzfirefly » Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:49 am

Alpha the White wrote:2 Thinkamancer - 1 Othermancer = ??? (aka Why would you bother)

Presumably, this could either act as a normal tri-link, combining Thinkamancy with the Othermancy, or it could work like a much-more-powerful version of a 2-caster link, making the Othermancer able to cast spells within their discipline even more powerful than what a 2-caster link might perform.
Godzfirefly
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 12:51 am

Re: The Amateur Linkamancer's Thread

Postby Alpha the White » Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:38 pm

Godzfirefly wrote:
Alpha the White wrote:2 Thinkamancer - 1 Othermancer = ??? (aka Why would you bother)

Presumably, this could either act as a normal tri-link, combining Thinkamancy with the Othermancy, or it could work like a much-more-powerful version of a 2-caster link, making the Othermancer able to cast spells within their discipline even more powerful than what a 2-caster link might perform.

Maybe that's what it'll take for Ace to make a true Giant Mecha.


On an unrelated note, anyone else wondering why Parson doesn't try to plug Tooled Wanda into a link BEFORE anything else?
Broken mechanic + Broken mechanic = ???
"Two words: God Mode"
User avatar
Alpha the White
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 2:27 pm

Re: The Amateur Linkamancer's Thread

Postby Godzfirefly » Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:02 pm

Alpha the White wrote:On an unrelated note, anyone else wondering why Parson doesn't try to plug Tooled Wanda into a link BEFORE anything else?
Broken mechanic + Broken mechanic = ???
"Two words: God Mode"

My guess? He doesn't completely trust her as-is. Her in a link might be even worse.

Plus, who knows if her attunement will continue working while she's in a link that keeps her from having individuality.
Godzfirefly
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 12:51 am

Re: The Amateur Linkamancer's Thread

Postby Lilwik » Mon Mar 24, 2014 6:04 pm

Alpha the White wrote:2 Thinkamancer - 2 Othermancer = Stable. Each Thinkamancer is dedicated to one Othermancer, and they can easily disentangle things should they need to.
I doubt that two bi-links put together give you a slightly more difficult bi-link. It seems more like a slightly more difficult tri-link to me, since each Thinkamancer is managing two connections, not one, and for each Thinkamancer one of those connections is a link to a bi-link instead of a individual caster.

I can understand imagining that adding enough additional Thinkamancers to the situation ought to be able to solve any Thinkamancy problem, but it might not work that way. No matter how well-intentioned, each additional Thinkamancer would be an additional mind in the link and that might inevitably add confusion. You can't keep adding more cooks to a kitchen and expect to get better meals forever.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: The Amateur Linkamancer's Thread

Postby Alpha the White » Mon Mar 24, 2014 7:07 pm

Lilwik wrote:I can understand imagining that adding enough additional Thinkamancers to the situation ought to be able to solve any Thinkamancy problem, but it might not work that way. No matter how well-intentioned, each additional Thinkamancer would be an additional mind in the link and that might inevitably add confusion. You can't keep adding more cooks to a kitchen and expect to get better meals forever.

That's what I was referring to when I said
It could simply be that each mind in a link adds a growing cost to the whole link, which makes large links untenable

That is, that the cost of adding a mind to a link is a distinctive one, like cognitive dissonance due to disparate personalities, or transmission interference due to too many minds processing the same information.

I think more information is needed before that question can be definitively answered, though. Meanwhile, I will continue to believe that the limitation is linking power, and that thinkamancers are essentially acting as a magical/mental switchboard in the process.
User avatar
Alpha the White
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 2:27 pm

Re: The Amateur Linkamancer's Thread

Postby Godzfirefly » Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:09 pm

Lilwik wrote:No matter how well-intentioned, each additional Thinkamancer would be an additional mind in the link and that might inevitably add confusion. You can't keep adding more cooks to a kitchen and expect to get better meals forever.


Isn't that exactly why none of the casters in a link is permitted to have individual thoughts? And, why addressing a caster in a link by name is capable of destroying the link?

So, other than the need to suppress even more minds, why shouldn't more minds mean more power (though, potentially with diminishing rewards.)
Godzfirefly
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 12:51 am

Re: The Amateur Linkamancer's Thread

Postby Lamech » Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:48 pm

Godzfirefly wrote:
Lilwik wrote:No matter how well-intentioned, each additional Thinkamancer would be an additional mind in the link and that might inevitably add confusion. You can't keep adding more cooks to a kitchen and expect to get better meals forever.


Isn't that exactly why none of the casters in a link is permitted to have individual thoughts? And, why addressing a caster in a link by name is capable of destroying the link?

So, other than the need to suppress even more minds, why shouldn't more minds mean more power (though, potentially with diminishing rewards.)
You need to blend and subsume every mind and discipline into a unified whole. More ideas for link's messing with links though:
Carny/Shock/Think: Its a rule backlash hits the people in the link. Break that. Now convert the backlash into shockamancy form. Not only are links protected you get charges for weapons when they fail. This allows for experimental link procedures without chewing up your casters.
Bithink or trithink: Instead of going for a quad link why not link links? For example you could link a trithink to the Eyemancers for a further power boost. Perhaps the ability to control all senses and have total knowledge over several hexes. Throw a change/dirt link into the mix to have actual power of the area as well.
Luck/Think: Use luckamancy on link rolls. Also make sure the luck backlash hits other sides. Not only do you keep everyone else from using links you can abuse them safely now.
Ditto/Change/Think: Alter the minds of the casters. Basically clone the mind of one of the casters into the others minus casting knowledge. Less conflict for safer minds.
Doll(?)/Weird/Think: Grant additional casting powers to casters via new items. This won't get you something larger than a trilink, but your link is now directly increasing its abilities. The link will spiral up to infinite power and that will be the end of it. There are other possibilities instead of a dollamancer: Changeomancer, Hat Magician, Flower Power, but the idea is always the same. Get a positive feedback loop going with casting power. This isn't even the only way to go about it. A dirtamancer link could repeatedly spam "improve tower" (maybe add a weirdomancer to make floating supports when it gets really tall.)
Lamech
 
Posts: 1450
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:23 am

Re: The Amateur Linkamancer's Thread

Postby Taikei no Yuurei » Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:36 pm

Godzfirefly wrote:
Lilwik wrote:No matter how well-intentioned, each additional Thinkamancer would be an additional mind in the link and that might inevitably add confusion. You can't keep adding more cooks to a kitchen and expect to get better meals forever.


Isn't that exactly why none of the casters in a link is permitted to have individual thoughts? And, why addressing a caster in a link by name is capable of destroying the link?

So, other than the need to suppress even more minds, why shouldn't more minds mean more power (though, potentially with diminishing rewards.)

Same reason giants don't work in the real world. Square/cube law. Basically each extra thinkamancer in the link adds less linking power than they take up. At least, that would be my guess. Maybe 4 thinkamancers would be able to manage a quad link, but I'm not sure just how much use that would be since there is no cross discipline awesomeness. I'm sure the thinkamancers would find it all kinds of cool though.
Taikei no Yuurei
Erfabet Supporter!
Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: The Amateur Linkamancer's Thread

Postby Lilwik » Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:43 pm

Taikei no Yuurei wrote:Maybe 4 thinkamancers would be able to manage a quad link, but I'm not sure just how much use that would be since there is no cross discipline awesomeness.
I think it would be even worse than a lack of cross-discipline powers. Leaving aside the fact that we pretty much know it's impossible, I imagine that you wouldn't even get any Thinkamancy out of the link since all four Thinkamancers would be too busy maintaining the link to do anything else.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Everything Else Erfworld

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests