[Freemarket] The Dystopia of Freemarket

edited June 2010 in Story Games
Caveats: I haven't played Freemarket. I haven't even really read any versions of it. This is based entirely on previews and third-hand accounts, so I might be operating in error here. Also note that this is basically a personal reaction to it; tastes vary and I'm not really trying to sway anyone to my point of view.


So. Freemarket. I read about it and I think "Hey, this looks pretty neat" and then I read some more and I think "Hrm something is not quite right here" and even later on I think "What fresh hell is this?"

So. What is it about Freemarket that strikes me as dystopian? I had to dwell on this for a bit, but I think I've narrowed it down.

The premise of Freemarket is, to the best of my knowledge: "Your worth is determined by your level of public approval."

That's something I personally find objectionable. To the degree that it is morally repugnant. It contradicts some important things I believe in.

Of course, that doesn't inherently make it unsuitable as an rpg setting. No one wants to pack their bags and move to Apocalypse World either. But it would certainly have a deep impact on how I would play the game, and I can imagine how much tension there would be with players who take a more utopian view of the place.

But feel free to drop by my orbital any time. It has all the artistic integrity of American Idol, the high fashion of Crocs, and the innovation of FarmVille. If you see the Empress Paris Hilton, be sure to say hi.
«13

Comments

  • edited June 2010
    Roger, but here's a question, isn't that the whole point? From what you're saying, it's not that Freemarket says this is how the world works, but is a game to explore a world where this is true, in the tradition of fine Sci-Fi Dystopia?

    I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, Roger.
  • I think you've sliced off a small bit of what the game is about and given it the most dystopic interpretation possible, but I don't think that's what the game is about. I found in the one-shot I ran that worth is determined by how much you cooperate with others, how much you smooth over conflict, how much you create and give freely to others. There is something of a reality show/popularity contest going on but I don't think it's what makes Freemarket run.
  • edited June 2010
    I love that the arc of your Freemarket game is always going to be a reflection of your own values and aspirations. The things that I find disturbing about the setting are intensely personal, and would end up being a big deal in play. Just to be clear, this is a good thing.
  • Posted By: RogerThe premise of Freemarket is, to the best of my knowledge: "Your worth is determined by your level of public approval."
    That sounds like day-to-day real life to me.

    On the donut, you could totally just leave people alone and never starve. Good luck with that where I live.
  • I think Luke is aware of some post-Singularity, post-scarcity theory; and from all the authors (and economists) I've read on the subject, that's EXACTLY how it's going to work. Ready some Cory Doctorow (Whuffie) and The Venus Project papers. The only currency will be social; the only paupers will be assholes.
  • Thanks for the comments everyone; I'm going to provide a bit more context here.

    Basically this was kicked off when I read this old comment by Luke:
    Explain this urge to me. Is a game about friendly competition, cooperation, donation and friendship supremely unappealing? Why is the near-universal first impulse to take a dump in utopia?
    So then I became a bit insecure that maybe I was just having a knee-jerk reaction to a non-crapsack world.

    But as I thought it over, I think I have a real basis for my reaction. So I felt like sharing.

    It warms my heart to hear that Freemarket can support this sort of griefer approach. Dudes who are all about the counter-culture, who see poverty as a virtue, and popular appeal as the worst sin. It also sounds like it supports the story of those guys totally selling out, which I'm definitely chuffed about.

    I guess I also sort of post this as a Cautionary Tale, that if there's some people at the table who are like me, and there's also some Pure Utopians, that dangerous times lie ahead. So put this sort of stuff out on the table as early as you can.


    A specific response to Christopher, who writes "that sounds like day-to-day real life to me" -- I wouldn't exactly call that a strong defense of the Utopianism of the vision.


    And, because every thread gets better with pics, here's the sort of thing my griefer character would create and gift out:

    This Dog:

    image

    With these eyes spliced into it:

    image


    If your gifts aren't making children cry, you're doing it wrong.
  • Posted By: RogerSo. Freemarket. I read about it and I think "Hey, this looks pretty neat" and then I read some more and I think "Hrm something is not quite right here" and even later on I think "What fresh hell is this?"
    I've been following all the news about Freemarket since the name "Freemarket" was unveiled, and that quiet discomfort has followed all of my readings on the setting.
    The happy & bubbly aesthetics coupled with that discomfort has left me quite squicked.

    I was tweeting essentially this the other day:

    Every bit of "news" or preview that Freemarket has put up has:
    1.) Reinforced what I already thought about Freemarket (ie, fit nicely into the image they'd constructed)
    2.) Thoroughly disinterested me.
    3.) Thoroughly interested others.

    Which is really cool. I'm going to point to that as an example of effective marketing.
    Luke & Jared have demonstrated all the aspects of their game (physical product, art, writing, mechanics, backing philosophy, design talks), and they've polarized people into two camps: eager fans and other folks.
    IMO, that's really good marketing and really good buzz-building.
    Because everyone who's excited by what they know now... likely won't be disappointed ever.
    And those who aren't in, already know that.
  • edited June 2010
    Joe, just like Transmetropolitan. Hard to find a more colourful comic lately, heh. That is to say, this dissonance exists in some other places... and it's usually intended to squeak, or so it seems.
  • Posted By: Roger

    This Dog:

    image

    With these eyes spliced into it:

    image


    If your gifts aren't making children cry, you're doing it wrong.
    That dog already appears to have those eyes spliced onto it.
    TRY HARDER
  • Posted By: RogerA specific response to Christopher, who writes "that sounds like day-to-day real life to me" -- I wouldn't exactly call that a strong defense of the Utopianism of the vision.
    Agreed! That's what the second line of my two-line post was attempting to do.

    And it's cool if you don't like *that* utopia. But I'd be figuring out how to move, were it really an option.
  • edited June 2010
    It's cool, just have your Freemarket character create a superior, station-wide opt-in value system and promote it in place of the actual game mechanics. If you get enough of the station playing your game instead of Freemarket then you might finally succeed in building a moral society.

    (I am quite serious; this is the first character premise I thought of after reading about the game. I am going to put a MySpace inside your Facebook!)
  • edited June 2010
    Given it some more thought... and this thread's "dystopian" premise makes me laugh out loud. Let's see:

    * You want for nothing; you'll never starve or lack entertainment or want for education or fulfilling activities; and the only constraint on your near-godlike power is that if you want to do something that affects others (singularly or as group) you have to gain their approval.
    * Daily life is a struggle to accumulate resources, lest you be put on the street to beg or starve or freeze to death in winter; anything you try to do to effect positive change (even in your own life, e.g. education) goes through so many bureaucracies, legalities, and committees that it becomes banal; and anyone who CAN build up a hefty surplus of resources can do what they like with them, even to the point of polluting, disenfranchising, or enslaving others.

    Gee... which one is the "dystopia," again? (Hint: The Real Dystopia, out of the choices above, is the one that describes the modern, anarchical world.)

    Sure, everyone has an opinion. But, damn... some things ARE just patently BETTER than others, by any metric one would care to apply (other than, perhaps, a sociopathic metric).
    [edited for affect misuse when effect was meant]
  • I'm not too sure about "Utopian theory", but I'd have to agree with David (again!? geez, sir, get out of my head) about the bandying about of the term "Dystopian" to describe the feelings you're having. I think it might just not be the Utopia you're looking for. Which sounds like a punk rock don't sell out to the man never be happy and try to cause as much chaos and problems for others as possible type of Utopia. Which... well, if you're into Anarchy, I guess maybe that system of government would work better for you. But I'm fairly sure it wouldn't be defined as "Utopian". Feel free to disagree.

    Not that I'm saying (from all the descriptions and podcasts of Freemarket I've heard so far) that the donut sounds all peachy keen. There seems to be plenty of violence, competition, and even ne-er do wells. But, if you want to be "successful" (more bandying about of terms, sorry) in a society, you will have to gain the approval of said society. I dunno, maybe its more socialist than utopian. I'm no expert.

    In any case, what's with the "this game has a premise, I'm gonna do the opposite of that!" thing?
  • ndpndp
    edited June 2010
    I dunno about y'all, but my fictional diet (and, to some extent, real-life experiences) my entire life has trained me to be extremely suspicious of anything that looks like utopia. It's hard for me not to go "yeh, it looks good, but whats the REAL story?" - it's like hitting my knee with a hammer, I can't not do it.*

    *I meant "its like my leg moving when my knee is hit with a hammer", but i'm letting this stand because it's hilarious.
  • I like to play Freemarket as a big playground where I can do whatever neat shit occurs to me. So it's utopian in that respect.

    I think I'd also enjoy playing a character who resents the system and is trying to unplug or do sabotage. I'd expect to fail. But that'd only reinforce the dystopian aspect.
  • Posted By: RogerSo. What is it about Freemarket that strikes me as dystopian? I had to dwell on this for a bit, but I think I've narrowed it down.

    The premise of Freemarket is, to the best of my knowledge: "Your worth is determined by your level of public approval."

    That's something I personally find objectionable. To the degree that it is morally repugnant. It contradicts some important things I believe in.
    What do you believe your worth is determined by?

    If you moved to Freemarket, would that change?
  • edited June 2010
    There is a fictional setting that describes a Utopia of this sort. The Civilization by Iain M. Banks.

    Of course, if you stretch things enough, you get Amber, and you can create loyal citizens, but after a while you want to interact with "Real" people.
  • Posted By: Thunder_GodThere is a fictional setting that describes a Utopia of this sort. The Civilization by Iain M. Banks.
    "The Culture" actually. And interestingly enough, among the trillions of happy citizens that make up the Culture, is a teeny thread of perpetually dissatisfied assholes. Knowing this, and wanting even them to be happy, the Minds have recruited them into Special Circumstances to channel their innate desire to fuck with people into useful channels, by having them fuck with other assholes in other civilizations.

    But that's a whole 'nother game! :)

    Of course the *real* reason Special Circumstances exists is because it's boring to read about happy, satisfied people living fulfilling lives. Which gets back to Luke's question of the seemingly unshakable impulse to take a dump on utopia...
  • Posted By: David ArtmanGiven it some more thought... and this thread's "dystopian" premise makes me laugh out loud. Let's see:

    * You want for nothing; you'll never starve or lack entertainment or want for education or fulfilling activities; and the only constraint on your near-godlike power is that if you want to do something that affects others (singularly or as group) you have to gain their approval.
    * Daily life is a struggle to accumulate resources, lest you be put on the street to beg or starve or freeze to death in winter; anything you try to do to effect positive change (even in your own life, e.g. education) goes through so many bureaucracies, legalities, and committees that it becomes banal; and anyone who CAN build up a hefty surplus of resources can do what they like with them, even to the point of polluting, disenfranchising, or enslaving others.
    So, I will hands-down give you this one: Earth is a shittier place.

    But, a dystopia where Freemarket isn't?


    And now I'll go into what I understand dystopia to be, having spent a great deal of thought on it (over the past 3 years I've been revising Perfect):
    A dystopia is a place where ideals have taken society to a dark and irrevocable place.

    What I mean by dark is a perversion of the original intent and what I mean by irrevocable is two-fold: designed to be immutable, defended by miseducation and "legacy work".


    So, is Earth dystopic?
    I would argue that corporate empires are dystopic. I would argue that America in the hands of the Bush family is dystopic.
    There are certainly dystopic elements and factions within this world.
    But, generally... that anarchic chaos and the fact that nations operate in semi-independence (sort of)... that challenges the "irrevocable" requirement pretty resolutely.
    Earth is too patchwork to be dystopian, in my eyes. It's just shitty.

    A dystopia isn't a bad place, by definition. It's a perverted place.

    Is Freemarket dystopic?
    It's DEFINITELY designed to be immutable, in structure (but not in content, which is interesting and challenging to think about!)
    People in this thread argue that it is defended by miseducation and legacy work, in that the art and aesthetics are in contrast with some of the society's undertones.

    Is the end result of Freemarket a perversion of the goals of Freemarket?
    I think that question is answered in play?
  • I have a hard time seeing a setting of whose populace I am seethingly envious (fictional though they may be) as dystopian.
  • I'm not 100% on Freemarket, Joe, so I'll give you "irrevocable." I can't possibly give you "dark." (Have you looked at the art?) Mechanically, it could work out to be constraining, even totalitarian (in some kind of post-scarcity sense). But I'm with Wilhelm: it's sounding a lot like The Culture; and the only "darkness" in that comes from psychopaths and sociopaths. And I can't see dystopia at all, in The Culture, because such sociopathy doesn't reach the level of governance (certain GSVs notwithstanding).

    I'd also be leery of equating dystopia and anarchy. Certain models of anarchy are utopian (viz, again, The Venus Project).
  • Posted By: David Artman it's sounding a lot like The Culture; and the only "darkness" in that comes from psychopaths and sociopaths.
    The fiction has a mass exit strategy for them, too - you misbehave, you get frownies, you lose friends, you leave the Donut. Back to the dirt-farm on mars for you, jerk.
  • Posted By: skinnyghostThe fiction has a mass exit strategy for them, too - you misbehave, you get frownies, you lose friends, you leave the Donut. Back to the dirt-farm on mars for you, jerk.
    I've been thinking about this on the meta-level, and how it seems to be completely intentional commentary on the part of the creators. "Play our game, be nice, work together, and have fun! Or you are OUT buddy! No assholes in our game thank you."

    Maybe I'm looking too much into it. But if intentional, certainly hilarious.
  • edited June 2010
    I think a part of the reason nearly all utopias in books are dystopias is because, prior to a story happening, the status quo can go on for thousands of years. We get to the story, and hear it from the position, usually as it all breaks apart.

    Sometimes we get "Stories of the fall" as someone from outside comes and destroys the utopias, but nevertheless, utopias in stories are meant to be destroyed, or not be utopias, or abandoned. That's the nature of stories, change.

    Harrison Berjeron (sp), utopia or dystopia? Like all such stories, think of all the people in Shadowrun under the care of megacorporations who live very happily, heh.
  • Upon further introspection, I think it may have been overly melodramatic on my part to call it a dystopia. But I'm holding the line at non-utopian.

    Lots of people seem to think it's plenty utopian enough for them, and that's fine -- it is a pretty personal reaction, and it's a feature of a game setting that it can speak to people in this personal sort of way.

    I don't find myself particularly swayed by "Well, yeah, but it's a lot better than the society I'm living in!" That sets the utopian bar far too low for my tastes.


    Guy cuts to the heart of the matter by asking "What do you believe your worth is determined by?" A fair question, given that I opened up this territory. I think I would describe it in terms of purity and fidelity to one's own personal vision and goals. Culminating in an independence from popular opinion and approval, in contrast to a Freemarketian dependence on those things.

    Would that change if I found myself in the orbital? Hard to say. I hope not, but societies are pretty good at using all the carrots and sticks available to them to bring everyone into conformity. So I don't know.


    Tangent: Is Freemarket really that far away? What would it take for the average person to establish merely that they'd never starve or freeze to death? I don't know. I suspect it's closer to being within reach than some folks seem to think, but of course it would depend a lot on just what 'average person' one might be talking about.
  • I think I would describe it in terms of purity and fidelity to one's own personal vision and goals. Culminating in an independence from popular opinion and approval, in contrast to a Freemarketian dependence on those things.
    I think this is probably why Freemarket gives you the "no" feelings.
  • Posted By: RogerI think I would describe it in terms of purity and fidelity to one's own personal vision and goals. Culminating in an independence from popular opinion and approval, in contrast to a Freemarketian dependence on those things.
    Solipsism, eh? Okie dokie. I'm a utilitarian (populist) at heart, so we'll never agree on this one--fundamental difference in premises (and VERY few people will actually re-consider basic premises of metaphysics/metaethics).

    Fortunately, neither opinion speaks to utopia, dystopia, or anti-utopia, excepting in how a social structurre suits one's particular metaethics.

    And that's sort of what I was gonna point out, coming back to post here again: we seem to have two threads going. One is "what is dystopian" and the other is "why does Freemarket give me an 'ick' feeling; and does it make you go 'ick,' too?" The former should be its own thread (possibly on a politics or philosophy site); the latter is a poll, and to answer: No, I don't get an "ick" feeling from it, from what I've read about it or from the particular element of its setting that you point out/have interpreted from the rules. I don't even find it to be a moral statement, per se; rather a neigh-mechanistic result of post-scarcity. All you got is identity/personality to trade, and the only metric of your trade worth is how many folks want your ideas around them.

    As I posted above: Post-scarcity, the only currency will be social, and the only paupers will be assholes.
  • edited June 2010
    David, you're straw-manning. Isolationism is a FAR cry from solipsism. It's not a metaphysical stance.

    Also, as to your point, plenty of non-assholes will be paupers, and plenty of paupers will be kings. Think of trolls, or shock-jock radios, etc. who use "Being an asshole" to gain their currency.
  • edited June 2010
    In the poll, I'm also a "no-ick-feeling."

    I try to take FreeMarket at face value. I don't know that anywhere in the beta it says, "Freemarket station is a utopia". The text does mention "Utopia", apparently. Still, I don't necessarily see it as Utopia, but like Luke said, the game is about friendly competition, cooperation, gifting, etc. Sounds fun, happy, & great to me, with no dark overtones!

    Actually, I guess I do see it as a Utopia: You don't have to worry about the things lower on Maslow's hierarchy, you have the freedom to constantly learn, you have complete creative freedom to do what you want with your life, and still, you are challenged and you grow. Sounds like fucking utopia to me.

    Now if I play the game and the emergent thing is this sort of dark horror-feeling underneath all the happiness, then I'd take a second look and re-evaluate my "at face value" judgement. But the thing that gets me excited about FM is that, to me, it does seem like something approaching Utopia. I don't know how you can read Down & Out in the Magic Kingdom and not want to live in the bitchun society, at least for a while.
  • Posted By: anansigirlPosted By: skinnyghostThe fiction has a mass exit strategy for them, too - you misbehave, you get frownies, you lose friends, you leave the Donut. Back to the dirt-farm on mars for you, jerk.
    I've been thinking about this on the meta-level, and how it seems to be completely intentional commentary on the part of the creators. "Play our game, be nice, work together, and have fun! Or you are OUT buddy! No assholes in our game thank you."

    Maybe I'm looking too much into it. But if intentional, certainly hilarious.

    Given that Jared & Luke are the creators, I think it's completely intentional.
  • Posted By: Thunder_GodAlso, as to your point, plenty of non-assholes will be paupers, and plenty of paupers will be kings. Think of trolls, or shock-jock radios, etc. who use "Being an asshole" to gain their currency.
    Why would a non-asshole be a pauper, again? It's post-scarcity! Throw away your zero-sum intuitions, they have no place here unless specified. (e.g. in Freemarket physical space is still zero-sum) In particular an asshole gaining currency does not mean a non-asshole loses currency.

    Assholes do not automatically become paupers because as it happens society enjoys certain types of assholery.
  • edited June 2010
    Even in this post-scarcity environment, time is finite, and people can still be boring, or just have all their friends find something different to be more interesting. So they won't get attention, or gain so little as to be virtual paupers.

    That others get currency means there's less for you. Attention is a finite resource. Just look at my RSS feed...

    There is no causation and zero-sum between the assholes and non-assholes. These are two things that will happen independently of one another.
  • Posted By: hans ottersonPosted By: anansigirlPosted By: skinnyghostThe fiction has a mass exit strategy for them, too - you misbehave, you get frownies, you lose friends, you leave the Donut. Back to the dirt-farm on mars for you, jerk.
    I've been thinking about this on the meta-level, and how it seems to be completely intentional commentary on the part of the creators. "Play our game, be nice, work together, and have fun! Or you are OUT buddy! No assholes in our game thank you."

    Maybe I'm looking too much into it. But if intentional, certainly hilarious.

    Given that Jared & Luke are the creators, I think it's completely intentional.

    Which, to me, is totally fine. I think that you play the game (either Freemarket itself or the "living on the donut" game inside the fiction) and you play by the rules and everyone gets along or you don't. You go play some other game with some other people. I'd never considered the meta-level fictional commentary before. It's perfect. It fits with what I think I understand about how Jared and Luke write games.

    It's pretty amusing.
  • Posted By: RogerGuy cuts to the heart of the matter by asking "What do you believe your worth is determined by?" A fair question, given that I opened up this territory. I think I would describe it in terms of purity and fidelity to one's own personal vision and goals. Culminating in an independence from popular opinion and approval, in contrast to a Freemarketian dependence on those things.

    What do you mean by "worth" in this context? The "worth" you're talking about in the original post, up top, is a form of external validation: In Freemarket, society values people who do cool things for other people.

    But when you gave your own beliefs about worth, you described it in internal terms ("fidelity to one's own personal vision and goals"). Do you expect a society to value you based on your own internal standard? If your sense of worth is really based on internal values, shouldn't external validation be irrelevant to you?

    As far as I can tell, the society portrayed in Freemarket is one that would give you free reign to pursue your personal goals (unless they were deeply anti-social). Are you saying you would need external validation on top of that?

  • whoa when was the last time anyone in this thread read a Culture book? The only resemblance I am seeing between the Culture and FreeMarket is both are post scarcity. General capitalist dogma and 'your worth is defined by your popularity' aren't really Culture concepts. I wouldn't call the Culture a Utopia either. It carries a certain disrespect for non-Culture civilizations and is an aggressive expansionist empire.
  • edited June 2010
    Posted By: avramAs far as I can tell, the society portrayed in Freemarket is one that would give you free reign to pursue your personal goals (unless they were deeply anti-social). Are you saying you would need external validation on top of that?
    I share some of the revulsion expressed for the world portrayed in Freemarket - but this revulsion makes it a very compelling world for me to imagine, and this question is one of the ones that would challenge me.
  • This is sort of like watching USAns talking about social democracy.
  • Posted By: MatthijsThis is sort of like watching USAns talking about social democracy.
    If EVERYONE has healthcare, how will they know I'm richer than them?
  • Actually, it occurs to me that one thing that makes Freemarket society different from a pure popularity contest is that its not just about frownies & smilies, you are also being graded by the system (the not quite AI that runs the station) as to how much actual tangible value your are putting in to (or taking out of) the system. Production of Ephemera (song, writing, stories, idea, etc) is scored much less highly in terms of boosting your flow than more tangible goods and services. So just being "cool" is insufficient to prosper. Your MCRZ may be the awesomest rock band on the donut, but you still might not be scoring as much flow at the end of the day as the MCRZ that does a really good job of making sure the plumbing keeps working...
  • So, let me see, we're playing what we often call ROLEPLAYING GAMES in which we visit ALIEN WORLDS and try to IMAGINE WHAT THEY MIGHT BE LIKE TO LIVE IN. Is this correct? And sometimes we might play in worlds where CTHULHU MAKES YOUR EXISTENCE MEANINGLESS, is that the case?

    Frankly, I think it's a hell of an achievement to make the world of Freemarket interesting as a game. But then, interesting worlds usually suck to live in.
  • Posted By: droogSo, let me see, we're playing what we often call ROLEPLAYING GAMES in which we visit ALIEN WORLDS and try to IMAGINE WHAT THEY MIGHT BE LIKE TO LIVE IN. Is this correct? And sometimes we might play in worlds where CTHULHU MAKES YOUR EXISTENCE MEANINGLESS, is that the case?

    Frankly, I think it's a hell of an achievement to make the world of Freemarket interesting as a game. But then, interesting worlds usually suck to live in.
    good point, and yes.

    But also, we're told that life sucks in cthulhuverse. We're told life is beautiful and correct in Freemarket, and then told why, and there's a cognitive gap for some.
  • We're also told why life is beautiful and correct in Paranoia. I see it the same way.
  • Well, I've got a bit of a cognitive gap about life sucking in Lovecraft Land, but that's another thing.

  • Posted By: Thunder_GodWe're also told why life is beautiful and correct in Paranoia. I see it the same way.
    This right here. FreeMarket is definitely a child of Paranoia.
  • Yes, people keep discussing it as if FreeMarket is genuinely a Utopia, and delivered as such. Now, whether it's a Utopia I guess depends, but whether it's sold as such? I guess we need Graham and his humorless humor here so people would get the vibe I'm getting... straight delivery does not mean straight message.
  • I am fascinated by the revulsion of Freemarket's society when so much of fantasy gaming is built on feudalism whose tenets are swallowed without a thought in most games.
  • Well sure! It's easy to see the correct and approved lines of conflict in a feudal or other classic fantasy setting. Same with cyberpunk, nostalgia for which I sense throughout this thread.
  • Posted By: Paul BSame with cyberpunk, nostalgia for which I sense throughout this thread.
    Oh, hey, yeah.
    Maybe that's what's going on in my head.
    I'm seeing all the trappings of the FUCK THE MAN, AND FUCK HIS TECHNOJAIL genre, and I'm trying to apply that genre's thinking to Freemarket.

    Pervasive, socially-moderating computer systems are a feature of cyberpunk, and so when I see one I think we're in a cyberpunk story.

    Eat your heart out, Ron Edwards.
    I'm brain damaged.
  • edited June 2010
    Caveman Science Fiction

    (I don't actually have an opinion on this topic, but it's a funny comic.)
  • Dresden Cloak is great. The Philosophy Adventure RPG was brilliant at places.
Sign In or Register to comment.