oozey mess
The Bowery Presents
Monterey Bay Aquarium
pixel skylines
Sweet Seals For You, Always
$LAYYYTER
trying on a metaphor
Sade Olutola
No title available
Cosimo Galluzzi
Love Begins
sheepfilms
KIROKAZE
almost home
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
ellievsbear
No title available
official daine visual archive
Misplaced Lens Cap
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Japan
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Venezuela
seen from Brazil
seen from Bangladesh
seen from Nepal
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Mexico
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from Belarus
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United Kingdom
@bad-quail
This is the blog of Bad Quail Games. Purveyor of artisanal PDFs.
You can also find me at:
cohost: https://cohost.org/Bad-Quail RIP
bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/bad-quail.itch.io
mastodon: https://dice.camp/@Bad_Quail
instagram: https://instagram.com/bad_quail/
After letting it sit on the backburner for a few years, I finally got Mud + Laser in a state to publish. I had the opportunity to run a one-shot of it at Between Two Cons last weekend, and had a blast with it. Truly the biggest barrier to getting anything done has been play: since 2020, I haven't been able to reconvene my old in person group. Anyway! Mud + Laser is a baroque military science fantasy game about partisans fighting in a Great Galactic War against a crumbling interstellar empire. It's inspired by Rogue One, Andor, Dune, and (very roughly!) on 17th and 18th century history. Built on the bones of Mausritter. It has a few unique features including:
Variable armor values based on damage type.
Goal-based XP.
A character upgrade system based on decorations for diagetic achievements.
Currently available exclusively on RPG Trader.
Space: 164X
Mud + Laser is now available on Itch-dot-io!
Space: 164X
Additionally, we've released a new pamphlet size adventure for Mud + Laser: The Nymphs of Neso!
A Mud + Laser Asteroid Crawl
The Nymphs of Neso is an asteroid crawl. Visit N350—dubbed "Wheal Neso"—a pirate mining colony turned monastic cloister. The partisan alliance wants Neso for a hideout and staging ground, but the hermit-miners might not be so accommodating.
A Mud + Laser Asteroid Crawl
Also available on RPG Trader.
Stolen from elsewhere.
After letting it sit on the backburner for a few years, I finally got Mud + Laser in a state to post. I had the opportunity to run a one-shot of it at Between Two Cons last weekend, and had a blast with it. Truly the biggest barrier to getting anything done has been play: since 2020, I haven't been able to reconvene my old in person group. Anyway! Mud + Laser is a baroque military science fantasy game about partisans fighting in a Great Galactic War against a crumbling interstellar empire. It's inspired by Rogue One, Andor, Dune, and (very roughly!) on 17th and 18th century history. Built on the bones of Mausritter. It has a few unique features including:
Variable armor values based on damage type.
Goal-based XP.
A character upgrade system based on decorations for diagetic achievements.
Currently available exclusively on RPG Trader.
Space: 164X
My haul from Between Two Cons at the charming Norse Hall in Portland, Oregon. Not pictured: Sunrot, which the creator is graciously shipping to me.
I've grown to really dislike the framing of tabletop RPGs as being about story. To some extent this is unreasonable and knee-jerky on my part. I've talked to several people who just use "story" and "imagined world" interchangeably. But, I do think talking about RPGs in terms of "story" does impose, intentionally or not, the concerns of storytelling on the act of play.
For me, the draw of playing an RPG is in adopting the persona of a character and seeing how they mesh with the imagined world, treating that world as a real place. Putting that in the frame of story can nudge the concern of play from engaging with the world organically to engaging with it as a narrative canvas; in terms of "what makes a good story?" or "what is narratively satisfying?"
RPGs are their own artistic medium. And, they are a medium for play. I think we do a disservice by burdening our expectations of play with the framework of storytelling mediums.
Collared peccary (Dicotyles tajacu/Pecari tajacu) “Javelina aka Collared Peccary” by Larry Lamsa, CC BY 2.0 (x)
fun fact about kashrut and halal and all other cultural and religious foodways: you, culturally christian american atheist, also have these practices. they're just the dominant cultural norms where you live so you don't notice.
which animals do you consider food animals? which animals would you only eat if you were desperate? if you sat down at a restaurant and they served meat from an animal you don't consider food, or a body part you don't consider food (like tongue or testicles), what would you do? order something else? leave the restaurant?
what kinds of foods do you think "go together," and which don't? what foods do you find strange or exotic? what makes them seem that way? maybe they combine ingredients or flavors that you don't think go together. maybe the texture or appearance is something you're not used to.
hindus don't eat cows because they consider them sacred. jews don't eat pigs because we consider them unfit to be eaten. many people don't eat veal because they object to killing a juvenile animal. none of these standards or attitudes are actually that different from each other.
okay now imagine someone snuck some veal into your food because you told them you don't eat veal.
I have another example: I remember when there was a massive scandal because horse meat was found in a bunch of European products that were supposed to be beef. And per Wikipedia: The Food Standards Code of Australia and New Zealand definition of 'meat' does not include horse.
And yet horse is a common meat eaten in plenty of other cultures, and historically that's even included Italy (although new legislation seeks to change that.)
Your semi-annual reminder that the difference between a Sorcerer and a Wizard is:
Sorcerer comes to us from Latin by way of Old French and probably originally meant something like "fortune teller."
Wizard comes to us from Old English and translates best to "wiseass."
BORN TO IGNORE NOTIFICATIONS MEMORY IS A FUCK ショートメール Forget them all 2025 I am didn't reply man 454 157 892 348 UNREAD MESSAGES
I wish we could teach each other how to love the way we can teach animals that aren’t supposed to be able to feel it.
@kaijutegu is this cute? I know you deal with tegus and not iguanas, but I didn't know who else to ask
This is precious.
So, first thing you need to know is that is a very visibly healthy adult green iguana. Every part of the iguana is sharp. The claws evolved to haul a ten pound lizard up a tree. The spines are like tiny icepicks. The tail is a bullwhip. The teeth evolved to shred leaves, but they'll just as easily shred your flesh. Good luck making a healthy adult iguana do anything they don't wanna. That puts us on our first thing to look at- is the animal capable of defense and getting away, physically? Yes, definitely.
Next thing to know is what does a threatened or scared iguana look like? When an iguana is threatened, it doesn't stand on its hind legs like that; it stands on all fours and puffs itself up to look bigger, aggressively bobs its head (note: head bobbing is a behavior used for a LOT of things, it does need context- for example, they also head bob as part of mating displays), there is hissing, there is tail whipping- iguanas are not subtle creatures. None of this is the behavior of an iguana that feels threatened or is being a threat!
So what does standing like that mean? That's just simple reaching. The iguana sees something they want and is attempting to reach it, and what they want appears to be uppies, because they settle into the human's grip immediately.
Then, we see some GREAT handling from the human. There's really great communication happening between the two of them! The person picks up the iguana very securely- pelvis and pectoral girdles are well supported, and he doesn't grab. (Iguanas typically do NOT like being grabbed around the sides; many of their predators are birds and coming at them from above or gripping the sides is scary!)
As he goes in for the pet, he lets the iguana support their back half on his knee. The hold is secure but not tight; at any point, if the iggy was distressed, they could leave. But they don't- instead, you see them leaning into the pets, actively participating in the behavior. They're not even closing their eyes to block stimulus. They want this to happen.
This is the kind of bond that's possible when you can prove to a big lizard that you're trustworthy, and easily the best iguana video I've seen in a long time. Thank you for tagging me in!
Some green iguana body language resources under the jump!
The fun thing about enumerating distinct versions of D&D to figure out what edition we're "really" on is that there's no end to potential fuckery. Holmes Basic, Moldvay Basic, and Mentzer Basic are distinct versions of the game, but Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition isn't. Do I actually believe that? You can't prove that I don't!
So, I know what when WotC took over D&D they based their version number off the current edition of AD&D. And, that only kind of makes sense for that even! BUT. I think the current edition numbering makes sense if you use it for distinct game lines. First Edition is the Basic to B/X to BECMI line that started with OD&D and culminated in the Rules Cyclopedia. Second Edition is AD&D. It's semi compatible with Basic, but a distinct game line in terms of marketing and trade dress. And then come the WotC editions with their extant numbering. Each is essentially a new game with no intended compatibility with previous or future editions, and each has a new logo and trade dress. Each edition can contain multiple iterations as long as it's clearly the same game line.
Mint Plays Games: Laser-Ritter.
Over September and October, I played a Session 0 and three sessions of Laser-Ritter with my home group. Laser-Ritter is a space-fantasy ttrpg, currently in ash-can, that encourages you to create your setting as you play. There are five character archetypes that pull from common space fantasy tropes, but especially from media like Star Wars & Dune, with swashbuckling elements from media like the Three Musketeers and Treasure Planet.
The tone set by the book is very hands-off: similar to the tradition of OSR games, there are names and lists that hint towards a setting, but don't describe any of it in detail. The world of Laser Ritter is gestured towards, hinted, at, but definition happens as you play - particularly in Session 0.
Before you make characters in Laser-Ritter, the group collaboratively creates a few key details that give us an idea of what our galaxy looks like. Our group came up with a recent shift in power: a former criminal syndicate lost and shattered, and a hegemony comfortable in the money it carried to power. We also created a mysterious group called The Basalt Pillar, a secret guild of assassains that traded in tables that bore a dead language. Each detail was touched by four different people, which made the universe feel like it belonged to all of us.
The character options act mostly like playbooks: you pick a type and make selections within a limited range of choices. These playbooks encourage you to play to a certain type, and guide you towards a differentiation from the other players. Our group had two people both choose the Freebooter, but the players made an effort to pursue different choices within their playbooks, to make their Freebooters feel distinct and unique. Some of their strengths overlapped, but their motivations and inventory still made them feel like different people. These playbooks feel very similar to the practices of Forged in the Dark and PbtA: clearly defined roles with limited choices allow you to play into tropes that fit the genre.
When it comes to procedures of play, Laser-Ritter uses 2d10 for pretty much every roll. The numbers are added together with one of 4 stat modifiers, and must cross a threshold number in order to succeed: 10 being something easy to do, and 18 being something terribly difficult. In some situations, characters may experience fortune or misfortune, which is represented by a third d10. With fortune, you add up the two best, and with misfortune, you add up the two worst.
You can also gamble away parts of your character sheet: the integrity of your gear, pieces of your backstory, and even your fate. When you gamble a piece of your sheet, you gain fortune, regardless of the situation. However, if your third dice is not kept, you lose the wager and lose access to that piece, either permanently or temporarily, depending on what you bet. This feels directly connected to Pushing Your Luck in Forged in the Dark games, apart from the fact that the loss can feel quite a bit more permanent.
Another piece that felt resonant with Forged in the Dark is the Take A Breather process that happens between action scenes. When characters Take A Breather, they find new gear, repair their kits, or heal themselves, physically or emotionally. These are slower moments, more narrative than procedural, that allow us to observe the inner lives and struggles of the characters, fleshing out the world as they explore it in the search for an advantage.
When it comes to success and failure in Laser-Ritter, we typically had a pretty fair chance at success: most rolls beat a threshold, especially when players gambled, and if they really cared about something, they could spend a resource called Pathos to re-roll. My players might have been a bit more careful with Pathos if we had played a campaign, but we just stuck to three sessions, and I think it helped that they had an option during Take A Breather to regain some of their Pathos, and thus avoid a tragic end.
The lack of pre-established lore was the thing that stuck out the most to me, along with the apparent silence regarding GM advice. Laser-Ritter is in ashcan, so it's technically not a full release, and to me, the thing that feels like it's missing is more guides for the GM to help determine what kind of story you're telling.
Let me draw a difference between the two above points before I continue. First of all, I really really like the gesture towards lore, rather than a chapter that gives me a predetermined history. The gestures allowed us as a group to create the parts that really mattered to us, and we ended up with a galaxy that felt like ours. This is something I really value in roleplaying games, and the collaboration right from the beginning encouraged my players to make statements about the galaxy with very little prompting, even the player who was completely new to ttrpgs.
Where I personally struggled, was the lack of structure for GM's. The book contains a list of inspirations, which definitely suggests the kind of stories you can tell, but as a GM, I felt a conflict between what I was provided and what the players expected to do. I believe the tension here is possible due to the heritage this game pulls from.
In OSR games, players typically sit down to run through a module created for the game, or explore a map already drawn out, with detailed factions and lists of problems to run into. Since the beats are figured out while navigating these modules, the GM doesn't need to think too much about direction. The group figures out the direction, and the GM pulls from their materials to figure out what's on the other end.
In PbtA and Forged in the Dark games, players collectively contribute to the world, and the GM pulls from principles designed to focus on the tropes and themes that make the game and the story within it feel cohesive. They don't have to know what will be at the end of a player's choice, because the game has procedures to determine what has to happen. The GM's job is to think of possibilities, and to make choices to fit what the fiction demands.
Laser-Ritter pulls from both of these traditions, but it's result is that it isn't really either. There aren't any modules or maps: the world is created collaboratively, so I as the GM had to either create planets I thought might be interesting, or rely on what the players created. This meant that I couldn't plan ahead. There also aren't any GM principles: I don't know what the fiction demands, but instead have to guess. The result was an adventure that felt a little bit like a railroad, but because my players had the confidence that they could introduce new pieces as they played, I couldn't really stick to that railroad like I might be able to with a module.
The strongest example of this was a planet I'd written some notes about - an ancient planet, abandoned by modern civilizations and rediscovered by the Hegemony. A player introduced a piece of lore that placed them in the Hegemonic colonization of the planet, which meant that it couldn't be a secret: just a well-hidden, well-barricaded world. We still managed to make it work, but it certainly led to a lot of improv-ing on the fly. Improv-ing without the tools that I'm typically used to.
I think that OSR players might resonate with the limited gear and the stats with modifiers in Laser Ritter, but feel adrift at sea without some kind of adventure module. Fans of Blades and PbtA games might resonate with the world that you create as you go and the narrative consequences of Pathos, but might feel unsure about the types of stories Laser Ritter is hoping to tell, due to lack of direction for the GM.
I'd love to see a list of GM principles, or perhaps an example of play to demonstrate what a session of Laser-Ritter might look like. Even if it's difficult to create a module or map like the ones seen in typical OSR games, I think it might be helpful to throw out some story-seeds or a table of rumours, to hook the players' interest, and also give the GM something to pull from in a pinch. I don't think that these hooks or suggestions would take away from the players' agency; they might just help create a possibility cloud for a GM, and give them a bit of an idea about what a typical Laser Ritter session might look like.
If you like space operas and are excited by the blend of procedures or mechanics from various places, you might get a kick out of Laser-Ritter. You can pick up a copy of this game from its store page on Itch.io. You can also check out my online Google Sheets play-kit if you are interested in playing this game online!
Thanks for the thoughts!
Read "Radiant Star" by Ann Leckie available from Rakuten Kobo. Space opera's sharpest mind returns to the world of the Imperial Radch in thi
News! Mark your calendars!
Hell yeah!
Woke up from a weird nap and saw this reel and it's making me feel like I need to get up and walk for like an hour
My god I wish more people understood this.
See also "why don't billionaires end world hunger" or any aphorism in that style. They don't want to, but even if they wanted to, they couldn't, because their actual "money" doesn't exist. It's just capitalist masturbation, stocks and financial tools that don't actually represent real production or value to society but rather what creates capital. It's not just "a bunch of greedy people who don't want to spend money", it's the system of capital accumulation itself. Even if some of those billionaires had a change of heart and decided to reestructure their company to help people, they would get quickly fired or their company would get picked apart by others.
(and also the fact that leaving things such as food production in the hands of billionaires is the worst idea you can have)
The only thing that is real are the means of production and the workers who actually create everything we use to live.
There is surely lot of better theory explaining this and I encourage people to seek it out and read it, but this is something that is worth remembering.
An argument I've had with several of my friends, and always failed to convince them, is that stocks are a bigger-fool commodity.
(A bigger-fool commodity is one that has no inherent worth, so you'd have to be a fool to pay money for it. If you have paid money for it, the only thing you can do is try to find a bigger fool to buy it from you at a higher price.)
Let's consider Apple just as an example. At the time I'm writing this, there are about 14.84 billion shares of Apple outstanding, each share is trading at about $238.15, for a total market capitalization (a.k.a. market cap, the total value of all outstanding shares) of approximately $3.53 trillion dollars.
So what does a share of Apple actually get you?
Stocks have value in three ways:
They (may) pay dividends. Periodically a company may decide to pay out a certain amount of money to each share of stock. In the case of Apple, that amount is currently around 25 cents, and they have been doing it three to four times a year. So your share of Apple will gain you about one dollar a year of passive income. If you bought a share today, you'd have to keep it for over two hundred years (assuming Apple continues to exist and pay dividends at the current rate) to make back your purchase price.
You can vote at shareholder meetings. This is worthless unless you hold a significant percentage of the total shares, such that your vote actually means something. In the case of Apple, you'd have to own literally millions of shares to even be noticed.
You can sell it to a bigger fool.
For the average small investor (i.e., basically everyone who isn't a billionaire or a major investment fund) the first two points are worthless, at least compared to the stock price. The only useful thing you can do with a share of stock is sell it to someone else, hopefully for more than you paid for it.
(Well, there are maneuvers like shorting, where you make a bet that the stock price will fall; but those are mostly the domain of those billionaires and major investment funds.)
The price of a stock is based entirely on what you think someone else will pay for it in the future, and what that hypothetical person will pay is based on what they think someone else will pay for it, which in turn etc. etc. it's all circular.
"But you own part of the company!" people always say to me. "That's where the value comes from." OK, fine. One share of Apple means I own one fifteen-billionth of the company. What, concretely, does that actually mean? Can I walk into an Apple building and just scoop up some coffee creamers and walk out, because I "own" them? No, I'll be tackled by security and thrown out. All that share means is that I own a notional object that has no intrinsic value.
It's all a house of cards, a bunch of people playing pretend, but those people can cash out for actual money dollars and buy things with them. Where does that money come from? Nowhere, basically. If Tim Cook tells a journalist that he's feeling good that day, Apple stock goes up and suddenly a trillion pretend dollars have appeared out of nowhere. If he says he's feeling sad, Apple stock goes down and a trillion pretend dollars go away. But in the meantime someone dumped their shares and got enough real dollars to buy a real yacht.
