A swag of cherries, strawberries, apricots, grapes, lemons, plums and ears of corn hanging from a blue ribbon with a cabbage white butterfly, a caterpillar and other insects by Cornelis de Heem (Flemish, 1631-1695)

izzy's playlists!
𓃗

PR's Tumblrdome

bliss lane
sheepfilms
Not today Justin
The Bowery Presents

Discoholic 🪩
RMH
taylor price
occasionally subtle
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
Misplaced Lens Cap

titsay
KIROKAZE
Game of Thrones Daily
YOU ARE THE REASON
tumblr dot com



seen from Türkiye
seen from Saudi Arabia

seen from Colombia

seen from Türkiye

seen from Italy

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States

seen from Ireland
seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States

seen from Germany

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Bangladesh

seen from Japan
seen from Kazakhstan
@thegreenmonster450
A swag of cherries, strawberries, apricots, grapes, lemons, plums and ears of corn hanging from a blue ribbon with a cabbage white butterfly, a caterpillar and other insects by Cornelis de Heem (Flemish, 1631-1695)

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
‘Space Fantasy 4’ (1974) by Steve R Dodd.
art museum websites when the artist was a communist: ...he continued to paint, despite the fact that every time someone in Soviet Russia made abstract art Joe Stalin would personally storm into their studio and start tearing apart the canvas with his teeth
art museum websites when the artist was a nazi: ...his work flourished from 1937–1945, a time where nothing particularly notable happened, and then he emigrated to the united states where he designed buildings for private universities
*snnf snf snff sff fff fff snfff snf*
fff fff sff snf snf* snff snfff
*snnf

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Golden Sun: The Lost Age - Daila
i think i found my new favorite artist on twitter
(source)
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but there's an interesting little quirk that I noticed in AD&D: the rulebook provides prices for rations and other meals, but not for rooms at an inn.
I think this provides a glimpse into what the game considers important. Rations are to be purchased and tracked, because this is a vital part of the mechanics for expeditions, especially into the wilderness, while rooms at inns can simply be subsumed in the monthly upkeep that each character must pay (100 gp/level).
I'm not entirely sure what mechanical function the other listed meals have, they might just be there for when a character needs to entertain dignitaries or something.
You are right nothing in the PHB and DMG, from memory Oriental Adventures does have fee for common services, not at home so i can't check.
I think it shows that what happen in towns is more compressed, while making sure the PCs will expand enough gold to make sure they need to go back again into the danger of the wilderness.
Always felt meal price, and drinks, was when players want to entertain NPCs, getting info out of them, coddling them. (Also players seem to like knowing their characters got a good meal from my experience)
Going to the tavern can lead to interesting stuff while just getting a room less so, so it's abstracted away.
I saw a post saying that Boromir looked too scruffy in FotR for a Captain of Gondor, and I tried to move on, but I’m hyperfixating. Has anyone ever solo backpacked? I have. By the end, not only did I look like shit, but by day two I was talking to myself. On another occasion I did fourteen days’ backcountry as the lone woman in a group of twelve men, no showers, no deodorant, and brother, by the end of that we were all EXTREMELY feral. You think we looked like heirs to the throne of anywhere? We were thirteen wolverines in ripstop.
My boy Boromir? Spent FOUR MONTHS in the wilderness! Alone! No roads! High floods! His horse died! I’m amazed he showed up to Imladris wearing clothes, let alone with a decent haircut. I’m fully convinced that he left Gondor looking like Richard Sharpe being presented to the Prince Regent in 1813
*electric guitar riff*
And then rocked up to Imladris a hundred ten days later like
Some people have been wondering about the raccoon. Listen. Listennn. Don't ask about the raccoon.
But does the racoon survive the Uruk-Hai? Does he curl up on Aragorn's head, or does he go straight to Faramir? Does he bite Denethor?
My friend. My colleague. My brother my captain my king. I too have been pondering this question, and in my mind there can be only one ultimate outcome.
A few months later
All hail the High Warden of Gondor.
Epilogue: It ADORES Faramir.
Every time I see this post I’m obligated to reblog and make it your problem too!
Édouard Boubat Lella, Paris 1948

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
what would a ttrpg that prioritizes roleplay and actually functions as such look like? i've played a few that claim to be "rp forward" and every time the mechanics meant to facilitate roleplay ended up impeding it - and meanwhile i've had perfectly rewarding rp experiences in crunchier systems with no mechanical social encounter support at all. is there really a way to build rp into a system that works, or is it just a unicorn idea?
"Proiritising roleplaying" doesn't mean anything – it's a piece of vacuous marketing text targeted at people who've constructed their identity politics upon arguing about the correct way to pretend to be an elf.
The basic problem is that the term "roleplaying" is, itself, not well defined; in practice, it means whatever the person trying to sell you something wants it to mean. Here, for example, by invoking the presence or absence of "mechanical social encounter support" as the distinguishing feature of self-styled "RP forward" systems, you seem to be implicitly defining "roleplaying" to mean "set-piece encounters in which a player character attempts to persuade an NPC to do something for them without resorting to violence". Is this justified? Is playing out the process of hitting each other with sticks not "roleplaying"? Why not?
What most people mean when they toss the term "roleplaying" around in the context of tabletop games is something in the vicinity of "roleplaying is when we do things I'm interested in doing, and not-roleplaying is when we do things I'm not interested in doing". As all game rules are unavoidably opinionated about what player characters ought to spend their time doing – indeed, arguably this is the only thing that rules can meaningfully express opinions about! – the question of "does this system 'prioritise roleplaying'?" is typically reducible to "does this system agree with me about what kind of game I'm playing?". Games are then sorted into "priorities roleplaying" and "does not prioritise roleplaying" based on which side of the answer to that question they fall on for the person doing the sorting.
This is the ultimate root of a lot of this "the best sessions I ever had never touched the rules at all" stuff. For a variety of reasons, many people have genuinely never experienced playing a tabletop RPG whose rules agree with them about what sort of experience of play they ought to be having, and in some cases they can't even imagine what that would look like. If you and the system you're using disagree so badly about what kind of game you're playing that "engaging with the rules" and "engaging with my desired experience of play" are mutually exclusive activities, it's not surprising that ignoring the rules entirely would be your best play.
In this light, your question of "what would a system that really prioritises roleplaying look like?" translates to "what would a system that actually agrees with me about what kind of game I'm playing look like?", and that's not a question I can answer unless you're willing and able to get a lot more rigorous about what you mean when you say "roleplaying".
Here, for example, by invoking the presence or absence of "mechanical social encounter support" as the distinguishing feature of self-styled "RP forward" systems, you seem to be implicitly defining "roleplaying" to mean "set-piece encounters in which a player character attempts to persuade an NPC to do something for them without resorting to violence".
well, no, i was actually thinking about scenarios like navigating a ball/gala type event and exploring the plot through verbal conversation, but i suppose i didn't say that, so fine, egg on my face
i ask this because i've been thinking a lot about why i keep bouncing off games like Blades in the Dark and Monster of the Week, both of which like to bill themselves as "rp forward". there's a lot of tools and toys to play with in terms of social encounters for both of those games, to be applied in heist and monster mystery situations, respectively, so i think we can safely say that we're aware of what the rules want to be doing in this instance, and are broadly in agreement with them.
but in practice, i often forget that i even have those tools, or the conversation regularly grinds to a halt while people review their abilities lists, and it's just.... weirdly exhausting. and i keep thinking that surely there must be a better way, but i'm not a game designer, so fuck me if i know what that better way might look like. hence, asking an expert.
i suppose we do need more precise terminology, because yeah "roleplaying" is technically applicable to any aspect of game engagement you can think of. "navigating social situations" is slightly narrower, but maybe just "having a conversation" is what we're after. and maybe part of the problem is that most people are already halfway proficient at having a conversation? in ways that we're not proficient at the aforementioned hitting each other with sticks. so we can just Do It without needing to abstract parts of the process into dice rolls and hit points, because we can just observe what the other guy says and then decide how our character feels about it and how they want to respond.
so is the answer to this just "roleplay is a fake category, and none of it matters"? surely that can't be it. surely someone must know what they're doing here, and can come up with a framework to gamify Having A Conversation in a functional and satisfying way.
There are a couple of big issues here:
You've settled on defining "roleplaying [mechanics]" as "gamifying having a conversation". What does it mean to gamify having a conversation? In what way, and to what purpose? My previously proposed summary of "[having rules for] set-piece encounters in which a player character attempts to persuade an NPC to do something for them without resorting to violence" is one way of gamifying having a conversation, but you've said that's not what you mean by that; so, what do you mean?
If you're having trouble remembering what the rules for a particular thing are – or even that those rules exist – that's often a good sign that engaging with those rules isn't fostering your desired experience of play; however, it doesn't tell us anything about what that desired experience of play is, other than "not that". (Also, it's worth examining whether this is actually a domain-specific issue; many groups find it necessary to frequently stop and review the rules in many contexts, but this tends to be seen as more tolerable in turn-based frameworks like combat than in contexts that lack such a framework.)
Maybe I'm missing the point, but here's my thing: you're playing a game that is played by talking. Why, then, do you need detailed game mechanics about talking (the thing you're already doing)? Why not just talk, and save the game mechanics for all the stuff that you can't just do for real at the table (e.g. hitting each other with sticks)?
That's definitely a reasonable perspective, though it depends on a very particular notion of What Game Rules Are For.
Suppose, for example, that your tabletop RPG character has occasion to play a game of Texas hold 'em. There are two basic ways this could be played out:
Roll some dice to decide who wins, and based on the outcome of that roll, produce a description of your character having played a game of Texas hold 'em.
Pick up a deck of playing cards and play a round of Texas hold 'em, you in the person of your character and the GM in the person of your NPC opponent, making all relevant decisions in character as your respective roles.
We certainly wouldn't say that the second one less constitutes "roleplaying" than the first. Some in-character activities, however, are less amenable to this sort of step-by-step acting out – at least, not without a lot of special equipment – and one of the functions of detailed frameworks of rules, such as the prototypical "combat system", is to furnish a game-mechanical proxy through which this sort of fine-grained IC decision-making can occur.
(Hell, if you were feeling mischievous, you might even argue that a game with a crunchy combat system is more "RP focused" in this sense than one which simply produces produces a description of your character having had a fight, in the sense that it both obliges and enables you to act out the process of actually making all those nitty-gritty IC choices.)
From this perspective, one might easily conclude that the purpose of RPG rules is to furnish such game-mechanical proxies; by extension, when no proxy is needed because sitting at a table poses no obstacle to acting things out in detail, game mechanics need not enter into it.
That's not the only possible perspective on What Game Rules Are For, though. Take me, for example: from my perspective, game rules are toys. They're made of methods and procedures rather than metal and plastic, but they're toys all the same, and I want to mash their faces together like a kid making their action figures make out. Whether or not a game-mechanical proxy is strictly required in order to play out the activity in question just isn't terribly relevant to me, because that's not why I want the rules to be present in the first place.
This being so, if somebody comes to me asking how best to address or model a particular activity in a framework of rules, I'll assume that they likewise have a reason to want such a framework to be present. I've got nothing against freeform RP, but I'm going to do you the courtesy of assuming that you've already considered and discarded that option and aren't just wasting my time!
what would a ttrpg that prioritizes roleplay and actually functions as such look like? i've played a few that claim to be "rp forward" and every time the mechanics meant to facilitate roleplay ended up impeding it - and meanwhile i've had perfectly rewarding rp experiences in crunchier systems with no mechanical social encounter support at all. is there really a way to build rp into a system that works, or is it just a unicorn idea?
"Proiritising roleplaying" doesn't mean anything – it's a piece of vacuous marketing text targeted at people who've constructed their identity politics upon arguing about the correct way to pretend to be an elf.
The basic problem is that the term "roleplaying" is, itself, not well defined; in practice, it means whatever the person trying to sell you something wants it to mean. Here, for example, by invoking the presence or absence of "mechanical social encounter support" as the distinguishing feature of self-styled "RP forward" systems, you seem to be implicitly defining "roleplaying" to mean "set-piece encounters in which a player character attempts to persuade an NPC to do something for them without resorting to violence". Is this justified? Is playing out the process of hitting each other with sticks not "roleplaying"? Why not?
What most people mean when they toss the term "roleplaying" around in the context of tabletop games is something in the vicinity of "roleplaying is when we do things I'm interested in doing, and not-roleplaying is when we do things I'm not interested in doing". As all game rules are unavoidably opinionated about what player characters ought to spend their time doing – indeed, arguably this is the only thing that rules can meaningfully express opinions about! – the question of "does this system 'prioritise roleplaying'?" is typically reducible to "does this system agree with me about what kind of game I'm playing?". Games are then sorted into "priorities roleplaying" and "does not prioritise roleplaying" based on which side of the answer to that question they fall on for the person doing the sorting.
This is the ultimate root of a lot of this "the best sessions I ever had never touched the rules at all" stuff. For a variety of reasons, many people have genuinely never experienced playing a tabletop RPG whose rules agree with them about what sort of experience of play they ought to be having, and in some cases they can't even imagine what that would look like. If you and the system you're using disagree so badly about what kind of game you're playing that "engaging with the rules" and "engaging with my desired experience of play" are mutually exclusive activities, it's not surprising that ignoring the rules entirely would be your best play.
In this light, your question of "what would a system that really prioritises roleplaying look like?" translates to "what would a system that actually agrees with me about what kind of game I'm playing look like?", and that's not a question I can answer unless you're willing and able to get a lot more rigorous about what you mean when you say "roleplaying".
Let's try something out. Post a movie (trailer and/or poster is enough) that exemplifies the spirit of Dungeons & Dragons to you, and make sure to include what your favourite edition of the game is. No actual D&D-branded movies, please, that's too easy. Other than that this is a judgement-free zone of genuine curiosity, don't mock other people's picks. I'll start.
The Sword and the Sorcerer (1982)
Favourite edition: Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st Edition
Conan The Destroyer (1984)
Favourite edition : Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition
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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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?"
Here's a weird quirk of the AD&D initiative rules that I'm not sure are supposed to work this way but, as is often the case with AD&D, the wording is a bit arcane: if somehow a Medium wielding a dagger were to find themself in a melee against a 13th-level Lord wielding a bastard sword, initiative would be diced for. Win or lose, as the Lord may make two attacks each round, they would make one of their attacks followed by the Medium's one attack (assuming they survived) and then the Lord's second attack. But if initiative is tied…
Because the Medium is wielding a dagger (speed factor 2) and the Lord a bastard sword (speed factor 6), the Medium not only gets to attack first (which they would not do if they won initiative), the difference between the two being twice the dagger's factor allows the Medium to make two attacks, followed by the Lord making their attacks.
Again, I'm absolutely not certain that this is how it is supposed to work, but it seems to be the consensus based on discussions I've seen.
So i only know for 1e, since i don't recognise "Medium" off the top of my head, it might be 2e. As usual we find stuff that contradict each other or at least need to be ruled by the DM. Especially with the writer seemingly using "Multiple attacks" and "Multiple Attack routines" interchangeably in other parts of the book. p.62-63 of the DMG under Initiative For Creatures with Multiple Attack Routines.
When one or more creatures involved in combat are permitted to use their attack routines twice or more often during the round, then the following initiative determinants are employed. When the attack routine may be used twice, then allow the side with this advantage to attack FIRST and LAST with those members of its group who have this advantage.
Skipping the part about both sides having multiple attack routines.
The Lord having two attack routines means they would always attack first and last in a round against a creature without multiple attack routines.
And p.66 in Weapon Speed Factor
When weapon speed factor is the determinant of which opponent strikes first in a melee round ...
I would honestly say that in this case weapon speed factor is not determinant, because the Lord has the advantage of multiple attack routines.
So i honestly read it as the initiative doesn't apply here.
This is 1st Edition, I used the wrong level title for a 1st-level magic-user (should've been Prestidigitator). And you make a good point about initiative probably not applying in this case.
Weapon Speed Factor use the word "attacks" but the meaning really seem to me to be "attack routines" which is confusing because in the system there's a big distinction between the two and they use either interchangeably when it comes what characters do.
I've been itching to write the system down nice and proper for my own use and sharing but... i don't know if i want to make a new OSRIC with a different interpretation it's a lot of work. xD
But i'll stop here i could grumble about that specific subject for a while if i'm not careful/

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Here's a weird quirk of the AD&D initiative rules that I'm not sure are supposed to work this way but, as is often the case with AD&D, the wording is a bit arcane: if somehow a Medium wielding a dagger were to find themself in a melee against a 13th-level Lord wielding a bastard sword, initiative would be diced for. Win or lose, as the Lord may make two attacks each round, they would make one of their attacks followed by the Medium's one attack (assuming they survived) and then the Lord's second attack. But if initiative is tied…
Because the Medium is wielding a dagger (speed factor 2) and the Lord a bastard sword (speed factor 6), the Medium not only gets to attack first (which they would not do if they won initiative), the difference between the two being twice the dagger's factor allows the Medium to make two attacks, followed by the Lord making their attacks.
Again, I'm absolutely not certain that this is how it is supposed to work, but it seems to be the consensus based on discussions I've seen.
So i only know for 1e, since i don't recognise "Medium" off the top of my head, it might be 2e. As usual we find stuff that contradict each other or at least need to be ruled by the DM. Especially with the writer seemingly using "Multiple attacks" and "Multiple Attack routines" interchangeably in other parts of the book. p.62-63 of the DMG under Initiative For Creatures with Multiple Attack Routines.
When one or more creatures involved in combat are permitted to use their attack routines twice or more often during the round, then the following initiative determinants are employed. When the attack routine may be used twice, then allow the side with this advantage to attack FIRST and LAST with those members of its group who have this advantage.
Skipping the part about both sides having multiple attack routines.
The Lord having two attack routines means they would always attack first and last in a round against a creature without multiple attack routines.
And p.66 in Weapon Speed Factor
When weapon speed factor is the determinant of which opponent strikes first in a melee round ...
I would honestly say that in this case weapon speed factor is not determinant, because the Lord has the advantage of multiple attack routines.
So i honestly read it as the initiative doesn't apply here.
aquarium date 🐠