Dang it Beans you get back here and say that out loud!!!
noise dept.
wallacepolsom

#extradirty
RMH
šŖ¼

romaā
Mike Driver
i don't do bad sauce passes
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
Show & Tell

izzy's playlists!
I'd rather be in outer space šø
Jules of Nature

⣠Chile in a Photography ā£
Cosimo Galluzzi
Sweet Seals For You, Always

pixel skylines

ē„ę„ / Permanent Vacation

seen from Italy
seen from Türkiye

seen from India
seen from Sweden

seen from Netherlands
seen from United States

seen from Austria

seen from Germany

seen from United States

seen from France
seen from Iraq

seen from Malta
seen from United States
seen from T1
seen from Ireland
seen from United States

seen from Germany

seen from United States
seen from Latvia

seen from Germany
@theonlywayoutisforward
Dang it Beans you get back here and say that out loud!!!
I agree with the āpeople write dark fic to cope with their traumaā as much as anyone else but itās an unnecessary justification that pro-censors donāt believe anyway.
100% engage with fic if thatās your path to healing, but itās not a requirement for such stories to exist and if you write it for funsies, so what? You donāt need a dark and tragic backstory as some fanfic resume. I walked into a series of super fucked up fanfics not knowing exactly what I was getting into but the tags were warning enough. And I stayed reading in utter fascination at how the authorās mind worked. It was like staring the Dali painting āApparition of a Face and Fruit Dishā and seeing more and more macabre figures in the background the longer you looked.
I donāt remember what it was called or who wrote it or how to even find it. Something something āart should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortableā
You donāt need to give me excuses for why you wrote what you wrote, Iāve already bought a ticket and popcorn. That you chose to make it exist is justification enough.
Me: *agonizing over whether a semicolon goes here, what the proper dialogue should be there, other assorted rules and semantics*
Terry Pratchett: "!" said the stranger.
THAT'S ALLOWED?
Writing is for communication. Sir Terry knew very well that anything's allowed if it helps you communicate something effectively.
The element of Surprise, found in nature as the semi-pure Surprisium, has been crafted into an alloy in this blade. It will always catch a foe off-guard but, alas, every time you draw it you will also be shocked to suddenly be holding a sword.
Ā
Scooby-Doo is a dog who can talk, which is amazing, and he largely uses his powers of speech to communicate how scared he is of ghosts and monsters, and basically the only thing his owners do is drive him around the country putting him inside various haunted houses and such. I wish I could take Scooby-Doo aside, I want to say to him, these people are not your friends.
that post about āyou get bandits when you cut soldiers loose without payā reminds me of the Thirty Years War, because one could say that beneath all the religious schisms and diplomatic jockeying, the heart of the thirty years war was āwhat happens when you have a state with just enough capacity to raise massive armies but without enough financial capacity to actually pay those armiesā and the answer is that the line between professional armies and roving gangs of bandits disappears and every time you try to raise an army it just becomes another independently acting wildfire devouring the countryside. No matter how bad things get, every day I wake up and thank my lucky stars that I do not live in 17th century Europe. Or 17th century China. Or the 17th century Americas. Or basically anywhere in the 17th century.
One of my favorite little anecdotes about ancient mercenaries is that it was tradition for most of history to give your mercenaries two wages- "Bread" and "Gravy." Both were set at a daily value, but where "Bread" was intended to cover regular maintenance and life stuff and therefore paid out frequently (Here's your week's meal and gear repair budget!) the "Gravy" wage was paid out exclusively at the end of the contract as one lump sum. So like, your gravy wage and bread wage might be one silver coin per day each, so you're getting a handful of coins every week to cover food, and then at the end of an 800 day campaign, you get a wheelbarrow with 800 coins.
Employers liked offering this structure because then they didn't have to like, try to guess how long the invasion of spain will take and then carry 800 coins per soldier around the battlefield where it could be captured. It also gives them the chance to budget around the assumption that they take an enemy city and *find* vast sums of treasure even if they don't have the full value at the beginning of the war.
The main flaw of this system is that it's very easy to end up in a scenario where if you have, say, 50,000 guys that have been fighting for 800 days, you now owe 40 million silver to your army, and if the budget has not worked out to a 40 million surplus, you literally can't afford to end the war, but you can probably afford to pay them for a couple more weeks. So then you have to start thinking creatively.
Anyway across all time and history a lot of generals were ultimately beaten to death by men chanting gravy.
Once when I was in undergrad, someone described something as āproblematicā in class and our professor was like, āThatās cool, but āproblematicā doesnāt really mean anything. It means that the thing youāre describing has a problem, and in and of itself thatās not bad. Art, especially, should always have problems, or else itās not interesting and not art, either. It sounds like youāre trying to say that this is bad, but you donāt want to say ābad.ā Is that right?ā
So from then on whenever one of us called something problematic, he would make us talk it out until we could name the ābadā thing we were hinting at. In this particular class, 7/10 it was some type of oppression, and the remainder was like, āIām uncomfortable because this is very new/confusing/pushing boundaries that made me feel safe.ā
Once we stopped calling things āproblematicā and stopping at that, class got way more interesting and... we all had to say, like, āthatās racistā or āthatās misogynisticā or āew capitalism grossā out loud, which a lot of us had never done in a classroom before. Or we had to be like, āUhhh... Iām not sure whatās so bad?ā and confront our own beliefs and that was maybe even more useful.
Anyway. Whenever I see the word problematic, I canāt help but think of this professor being like, āGood starting point, now letās get specific.ā I think when we have to commit to saying āthatās ___ā it requires a lot more careful thought about the truth and impact and complexities of whatever weāre claiming. Sometimes there really is some bullshit afoot, and also sometimes itās art, and it should be full of problems, because thatās what art is.
#'this is present in the text' is often a good first step #but those second and third ones (naming it; describing its function) are vital (via @elucubrare)
Did you play AD&D? I can't remember how old you are, so hopefully that's not too offensive. If so, was a typical game really as hostile as people say it was?
That's one of those question where the answer hovers somewhere between "no, with a couple of massive caveats" and "yes, but not in the way most people think".
A lot of AD&D 1st Edition's GMing practices are pretty hardass by modern standards; however, they need to be understood in the context that the game's authors were writing for a target audience who mainly played the game in college wargaming clubs, where players would frequently transfer between groups and group sizes tended to be very large ā six players per GM was considered a bare minimum, and up to a dozen player characters in a single party was by no means unheard of!
In particular, players would often bring their character sheets with them when hopping between groups, and it was considered a faux pas for a GM to reject an incoming player's existing character or request any substantive changes be made, so managing expectations could be quite challenging; even as late as 2nd Edition, the Dungeon Master's Guide contains extensive discussion of how to gracefully handle players bringing existing characters with them who aren't necessarily a good fit for the present game's tone or resource economy.
The upshot is that the culture of play these iterations of Dungeons & Dragons are targeting inherently obliges the GM to take a much firmer hand to keep things on track than a pickup game that draws players exclusively from within the GM's established friend group might ā and to be sure, some GMs abused these expectations to act like petty tyrants, but some contemporary GMs do that, too.
A big part of the modern perception that 1E and 2E were extraordinarily player hostile, meanwhile, has nothing to do with the previously discussed GMing practices; rather, it emerges from the transition away from that culture of play in a slightly unexpected way.
In brief, back when D&D was mainly played by wargaming clubs, it was fashionable to run pre-written adventure modules competitively at conventions; the competition wasn't between players, but between parties, with multiple groups running the same adventure in parallel to contend for prizes. Tournament play sometimes chose its winners based on the fastest real-time completion of the module in question, or set specific objectives within the module which would award points when completed, a bit like speed-running or achievement-hunting in a video game (though neither practice existed yet at the time).
It was the survival module, however, that quickly emerged as the most popular tournament format. In a survival tournament, each player would provide or was furnished with a binder containing a fixed number of pre-generated character sheets, switching to the next character sheet in the set as each preceding character died; the winning group was the one whose last surviving character's corpse hit the dirt furthest from the dungeon entrance.
Many of 1E's most popular adventure modules, including the infamous Tomb of Horrors, were originally written as survival modules to be run at tournaments in conventions. As such, they were designed to kill off player characters both quickly and efficiently, so as to reduce the likelihood that the tournament would run overtime and get kicked out of the convention venue. When they were later cleanup and repackaged as commercial adventure modules, their text rarely bothered to explain any of this ā who doesn't recognise a survival module when they see one?
The answer to that question, of course, is kids who didn't come up through the mentorship system of the college wargaming clubs, but taught themselves how to play D&D from first principles using books they bought at their local hobby stores ā and when D&D's popularity unexpectedly exploded in the early 1980s, there were suddenly rather a lot of them!
These kids purchased the repackaged survival modules along with all their other D&D books; having no frame of reference, they assumed that these represented what a "standard" D&D adventure was supposed to look like ā and since they weren't experienced players with whole binders full of pre-generated backup characters at their fingertips, the result was a lot of seemingly unfair total party kills, and a lot of kids concluding that the previous generation's GMs must have been objectively insane.
There is an additional amusing point of order here, which is the answer to the following two questions. I once had a discussion with someone in Gary Gygax's gaming group, who was involved in early TSR work a bit. Allow me to paraphrase my questions and his answers.
Why publish survival modules as your primary format of published adventure?
"Because that's what we had -- they were already laid out for publication. Why not publish them and make some money off it?"
Did it ever occur to you at the time that publishing adventures like these would shape the larger D&D culture's expectations of what play was supposed to look like?
"No, why would it?"
The Royal Armouries let me play about in their armour!
(This was a set from someone similar in size to me, but it wasnāt exactly correct in all dimensions. Real knights often wore armour that was made to measure, which would allow for a slightly better range of motion. However, for a video game or film character that has looted armour, then something that fits as well as this would be a best case scenario, so it still tells us a fair bit!)
Never ask a council of mages what the least ethical Wizard School is
Apple Introduces Revolutionary New Laptop With No Keyboard
I think one of the funniest abortion stances I've heard was from my parents neighbor. He's a like, hard-core libertarian viking larper guy who is very tall and very fat and very bald.
He believes a fetus is human with a soul, but also its "basically attacking the woman's body" so if she wants to get rid of it, that's "basically self-defense". He compared it to shooting a home invader. So he supports abortion not as healthcare, but as killing a baby in self-defense
Y'know I'm so glad someone reminded me of this. Because this was also discussed.
My stepmother did NOT like the way her Libertarian Viking Neighbor framed pregnancy as the fetus "attacking the woman". She incredulously told him this was extremely disrespectful to expectant mothers to portray pregnancy as so violent and negative.
Libertarian Viking Neighbor's response was that people consensually hurt each other all the time, and "there's like a whole community about that, with the acronym the one that starts with a B" And his reasoning was that if the mother was consenting to bring attacked by the baby, it in fact wasn't violent and negative because there was consent.
He brought up people consensually hurting each other, didn't go for one of the obvious answers like boxing or body mods or something, no he went STRAIGHT TO BDSM and he DIDN'T EVEN REMEMBER THE ACRONYM
Types of players I really enjoy running games for
Players who write extensive backstories. Provided they're willing to work with me to make sure their story fits into the lore for my setting, I love hearing all about their OC's personal history. I live for the drama and the passion and enjoy finding ways to work it into my campaign.
Players who do voices. I love it when people get into character and try and bring some theatricality to the table. I admire their commitment and the courage it takes to perform.
Players who cleverly use the mechanics for teamwork. It's always satisfying when a player strives for system mastery, but it's particularly pleasing to me to see a player that is able to take advantage of the mechanics to produce strong synergy with the other players. I love rewarding this kind of play.
Players who fail graciously. I love it when a player sees a critical fumble as an opportunity for drama or comedy instead of something to be avoided at all costs. This is what it looks like to be a good sport.
Players who match my vibes. I really appreciate it when a player reads the room and plays their their character accordingly. Who is silly when I want to be silly and serious when I want to be serious and supports me in building and maintaining an engaging atmosphere.
Players who pay attention. I am so grateful when players let me finish my narration and take notes and connect the dots.
Inexperienced but enthusiastic players. It's so much fun running for people who are new to the game. I love being the one to introduce them to this hobby and show them how much fun it can be. Most of the time, their excitement more than makes up any awkwardness that comes with learning the game.
There are probably some things I'm forgetting, but this post is getting long enough as it is. You all are a delight and I love having you at my table.
ābits to use in everyday conversationsā