Avatar

Memento Nostri

@alharinish / alharinish.tumblr.com

Included inside is basically everything I find on this website that I enjoy in one way or another. Most of the time this is going to be straight up geeky shyte with more and more crazy left political stuff (for an American anyway) leaking in. I'm a Demi Cis Male Millenial Heathen with socialist leanings and a proclivity for reinactment and LARPing.
Avatar
Avatar
butchpirates

On Demand Streaming of Free Shakespeare in the Park productions

"This summer, throughout May and June everyone will have free access to stream The Public’s Free Shakespeare in the Park productions of MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING (2019), MERRY WIVES (2021), RICHARD III (2022), and the premiere of HAMLET (2023), captured live from The Delacorte Theater in Central Park by THIRTEEN for Great Performances on PBS.

Streaming Schedule:

[ID: 1: Danielle Brooks as Beatrice and Grantham Coleman as Benedick from Much Ado About Nothing.

2: Ato Blankson-Wood as Hamlet.

3: Pascale Armand, Julian Rozzell Jr., David Ryan Smith, Susan Kelechi Watson, and Phillip James Brannon in Merry Wives.

4: Danai Gurira as Richard III. /end ID]

Avatar
Avatar
ukk0

🖤💜 Happy international asexuality day! 🖤💜🐀

Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction to others, or low or absent interest in or desire for sexual activity 🖤💜

Avatar

I don't know how strictly accurate this is, but one of the things I find shocking about watching historical dramas is how many people there are around all the time---according to Madame de... (1953) a well-off French household in the Belle Epoque maintains a workforce of at least 3, and the glittering opera has staff just to open doors. According to Shogun (2024) you can expect a deep bench just to mind your household, and again, people who exist to open doors.

Could people....not open doors in the past? Were doors tricky, before the standardization of hinges? Because otherwise, the wealthy used to pay a whole bunch of people to do it for them in multiple contexts, and I find myself baffled.

There is still the job of doorman/porter; their responsibilities are hospitality *and* security.

It's just in the past that more people had household staff (and more people *were* household staff), so historical media that is at all accurate is going to have background characters to do things like open doors, greet visitors, and mind their employer's small and portable valuables.

Also, technology has been able to replace having to have an employee out front of your building -- that's part of what security cameras and doorbell cameras are for. Also we have much better locks nowadays.

Avatar
fremedon

Two other technological advancements that have enabled private houses and apartment buildings to dispense with live porters/doormen:

1.) The telephone--your cell phone especially, but landlines too! Before that, if you needed to get in touch with someone faster than a letter would get there (which might have been pretty fast, depending on time and place--in Sherlock Holmes's day, London had three daily mail deliveries! but that still wasn't instaneous), your only other option was to knock on their door--and if they weren't in, someone needed to be there to take a message.

2.) Electric lighting and heat. The porter would sit up till (and often past) your usual hour to come home, and if you still weren't there, they would leave some kind of light burning and a taper for you to light your way to your room. In multifamily buildings, they'd often have a room right inside the door with a small window opening in it, and leave a lamp burning either just inside or outside that window, where they could reach it without getting up, so that that live flame was never left unattended.

In general, it's hard for modern people to understand how ubiquitous, and how necessary servants were in the past, in almost every social stratum. Managing a household run on fire for light, heat, and cooking simply required so much more work--making fires, tending fires, CLEANING THE GODDAMN SOOT OFF OF EVERY SURFACE EVERY DAY--that almost every family had to outsource some of it.

And even if you lived in one of the cities where most of that work could be outsourced outside your own home, the one indispensable servant you still needed was the porter.

In Paris circa 1830, visitors from abroad would often note, in wonderment, that it was possible to live with no servants but the porter. You could hire a cleaner who didn't live in; you could order dinners from the traiteur, who would send them over hot along with dishes and set the table for you--you could even order dinners on a regular schedule, basically a meal subscription; there were even companies that would deliver a bath to your home, with a portable tub and a cask of hot water, and haul away the dirty water when you were done. (If you were already paying for water delivery--which many people did; most of the city got its water from public fountains rather than private wells--economies of scale for fuel meant it was only very slightly more expensive to use one of these services than to heat water yourself.) But all of these services were made possible by having the porter there to let all these other people in and out, take messages, and keep a light burning.

In small multi-family buildings this role was sometimes played by the landlord, which obscured the service relationship, but often (and almost always in larger buildings) they would be hired by the landlord and their wage folded into the rent; they were also often the onsite handyman, just like a live-in superintendent in some apartments today. They would also often be available to take on other service work for the tenants--cleaning, shopping, errands.

It's also hard, I think, for modern people to grok how much cheaper labor was compared to the price of things--food, clothes, manufactured goods. We are used to thinking of things as basically costing their labor costs, with the price of raw materials a rounding error; before industrialization, that ratio was reversed. You've heard the line attributed to Agatha Christie, about how growing up she never expected to be so rich as to be able to afford a motorcar or so poor as to not be able to afford a servant?

Again, Paris circa 1830: In Les Misèrables, one of the privations we are told Marius endures while working his way up to merely poor from absolutely penurious is "sweeping his own landing." By the time he's living in the Gorbeau House, the filthiest tenement we see in the book, he still doesn't have heat in his room, but he is paying the portress to clean his room and buy the bread and eggs for his breakfasts. He pays her, for these services above doorkeeping, thirty-six francs a year, which is six francs more than his rent. His food costs ten times that--one franc a day, three hundred sixty-five a year, eating very frugally but adequately. (He was also spending one hundred francs a year on his outer clothes, fifty francs on underwear, and fifty on laundry, for an exceedingly inadequate wardrobe which did not really allow him to maintain a respectable appearance.)

(Note that laundry is outsourced; no one in a city at almost any income level did their own laundry. Mrs. Beeton--English and half a century later, but applicable--said that in most middle-class households sending out the laundry and hiring another servant to make it possible to do at home cost about the same, and that of the two, sending it out was by far the easiest; she only recommended trying to do laundry at home for large country estates that had less soot to deal with, more space for drying, a long distance from the nearest town, and a large enough household to make it worthwhile.)

AT ANY RATE. tl;dr:

1.) Everyone except the very poorest and people who were servants themselves had servants until very recently. (And the servants did have servants sometimes--in a very large estate, part of the job of the stillroom maid was to wait on the housekeeper, cook, and butler.)

2.) Even the very poorest of the poor still had porters and doorkeepers, if they were renters in a multi-family building, because the building itself could not function without them. The porter or doorkeeper was the single absolutely most essential piece of domestic labor, full stop.

3.) And, what, you think a good doorkeeper is going to let the rich dude open the door himself?

Avatar

The midjourney stuff just reminds of when we were trying to find a new platform to host the ao3 donation form, and companies kept trying to tell me about all their "ai" features that would track donor engagement, and figure out the optimal pattern to email individual donors asking for follow up donations, and all the ways they suggest we manipulate people into staying on our websites. It was a great way to filter out who either wasn't listening to us when we described our ethics and donor base, or just didn't believe us.

Now granted ao3 is a unique case based on a) the amount of page views we get in any given time period and b) the fact that most donors absolutely do Not want to be identified as such anywhere, (the default "list of recent donors" module got nuked Immediately) but it surprised me some that the concept of "donors who value their privacy and would be furious at even the whiff of AI" is unique. Some of us really are just existing in different worlds.

The last part was kind of insane, honestly. When we started changing platforms for the donor database, I kept telling them that yes I was aware we already had an account for the volunteer database, and no that could not be connected to the donor database. And they said yes fine sure and then connected them anyway. And I called them back and said, excuse me, I'm confused, I can see both databases. And they said, well, yeah, but it's only you, someone has to be able to see both databases to give other users access. The other users can't see both. And I said, no, we have been asking for a completely separate database. I should not be able to see both. And they said, you are one organization, one organization can't have two databases. And I said, last year someone used our volunteer email list to commit approximately one thousand felonies. Please feel free to imagine how much worse it could have been had they had a way to use volunteers' email addresses to get their legal names. We do not want this to be something anyone can do no matter how much we trust them. Let me describe those felonies to you in more detail. And they emailed me two hours later and said, you can have two separate databases.

Avatar
kyraneko

This post feels like watching an iceberg go by in clear water. The amount of stuff going on beneath the surface of AO3 just astonishes.

Avatar
jeffsatyr

(ID in alt)

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
libraford

You know sometimes you think 'wow, cats sure are depicted in weird ways in old illustrations- good thing we have better resources now!'

And then you catch a cat doing this.

isisthesphinx Neighborhood cat? She is adorable, either way.

We visited relatives over the weekend. Cat belongs to a family member.

Avatar
reblogged

I think an important part of the "D&D is easy to learn" argument is that a lot of those people don't actually know how to play D&D. They know they need to roll a d20 and add some numbers and sometimes they need to roll another type of die for damage. A part of it is the culture of basically fucking around and letting the GM sort it out. Players don't actually feel the need to learn the rules.

Now I don't think the above actually counts as knowing the rules. D&D is a relatively crunchy game that actually rewards system mastery and actually learning how to play D&D well, as in to make mechanically informed tactical decisions and utilizing the mechanics to your advantage, is actually a skill that needs to be learned and cultivated. None of that is to say that you need to be a perfectly tuned CharOp machine to know how to play D&D. But to actually start to make the sorts of decisions D&D as a game rewards you kind of need to know the rules.

And like, a lot of people don't seem to know the rules. They know how to play D&D in the most abstract sense of knowing that they need to say things and sometimes the person scowling at them from behind the screen will ask them to roll a die. But that's hardly engaging with the mechanics of the game, like the actual game part.

And to paraphrase @prokopetz this also contributes to the impression that other games are hard to learn: because a lot of other games don't have the same culture of play of D&D so like instead of letting new players coast by with a shallow understanding of the rules and letting the GM do all the work, they ask players to start making mechanically informed decisions right away. Sure, it can suck for onboarding, but learning from your mistakes can often be a great way to learn.

Avatar
a-wa-c

I think this also hurts group dynamics as well.

When you have people that have actually done some reading on the rules vs. people that just coast and foist the majority of the game onto the GM, it makes it appear like the more knowledgeable players are sweaty power-gamers or rules-laywers.

Best example I've got with asking players to make informed decisions was when I ran the Wilderfeast Quick Start. The GM has the info about what ingredients can be gathered in any of the regions, but the party then has to cook it. They know what the ingredient does and just have to make the decision on how they want to combine their ingredients as a party.

My point is not to say that people who don't want to learn the rules shouldn't play, only that people who don't actually know the rules aren't necessarily engaging with the game to its fullest, especially in the case of a relatively rules-heavy game like D&D, and that as the previous poster mentioned it can actually result in a bad rules dynamic where the DM needs to do more work due to player unwillingness to learn the rules as well as casting players who actually know the rules and can engage with them in unfavorable light. All of these are negative elements of the culture of play surrounding.

Like, there isn't anything meaningfully gatekeepy about saying "players who don't know the rules of the game aren't as good at playing the game as the people who know the rules of the game." Because playing games is a skill that can be cultivated and knowledge of the rules is an important part of that skill.

And respectfully, if the idea of learning the rules of D&D seems like an insurmountable task, you don't have to learn them, but you might actually gain something out of actually making an effort because it can make engaging with the game more rewarding for you. Or if the idea of learning the rules of a game that has hundreds of pages is an insurmountable obstacle, there are lots of games with much more modest page counts! D&D is actually relatively heavy as far as RPGs go but it's not the only RPG, and you can get rewarding mechanical engagement combined with cool stories for a much smaller time investment.

Pointing out that, if you're playing a game with a several-hundred-page rulebook and haven't even made the effort to read the parts of it relevant to your character, then you're pushing a lot of cognitive load onto your friends, isn't gatekeeping. Nobody's kicking you out of your group for it.

i also think that the OP is kind of more about the people who bite back against people going "hey, maybe try something other than D&D" with "but those games are too crunchy/hard to learn" when they don't even really know the actual rules of D&D. i mean, i've had people like this push back against learning PbtA games.

i really hope this was just an unusual case, but i've even had that exist response from one of the local DMs where i live, when i invited him to be a player in a game of Masks i was starting up.

Oh yeah, that was definitely the original context. And it's really funny to hear "learning another game is hard" as a reason for not engaging in game beyond D&D when clearly people are not learning D&D either if they consider the act of reading the rules beyond the pale.

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
renthony

Bishops keep getting excommunicated, conservative Catholics keep saying the Church is headed for a schism, there's a convent in Spain up to some cult shit, the Pope called the clergy faggots, and to be perfectly honest I'm waiting for the Vatican to put another corpse on trial any day now.

Avatar
dovesndecay
Image
Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
txttletale
Anonymous asked:

Do you have a favorite setting agnostic ttrpg? Trying to get out of 5e because after the honeymoon period of getting into ttrpgs I'm over the system and I want to run a fallout game to get my friends to play something else lol.

i straight up don't believe in 'setting-agnostic ttrpgs' as a concept. a ttrpg can be agnostic to the precise details of a setting, but including essentially any kind of mechanic is a statement about the setting of a ttrpg, even if no dedicated 'splatbook' or world description is provided. the closest i've seen is FATE, but FATE makes a fair few assumptions about the tone of its stories that have knockon effects on the emotional tenor of its settings.

there is a dedicated fallout game by modiphius--i've never played it, so i have no idea if it's any good, though. other than that, i'm not super sure--a lot of the post-apocalyptic systems i can come up with off the top of my head have pretty specific setting assumptions that don't line up with fallout (like psychic powers existing), so i'm not sure i can really recommend them. something like savage worlds might work okay, it's built for fast-paced pulpy action which seems appropriate and i'm sure it has to have one post-apocalyptic supplement among the dozens. and if you're a fallout fan already you have a head start on the most imporant thing about plaiyng savage worlds, "ignoring all the racist parts",

Avatar
Avatar
mostlylarp

Also Fallout's "original" system is GURPS, as that's what the first game was simulating with its mechanics. I'm guessing there's resources already out there for reverse-engineering the setting back into tabletop.

Avatar
alharinish

The Steve Jackson Games forums are chock full of advice on how to adapt Fallout to GURPS, not to mention there's a set of post-apocalyptic books titled After the End that you could use to run a fairly complete Fallout GURPS game with if you add them to the Core Set.

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.