#3E-Fairness

[gay-impressionist]

🤡

[owlbear33]

I wonder how easy it would be to introduce a speed/tick system into dnd, or other d20 fantasy RPG, something OSR maybe, probably easier with a simpler system (or at least more structured) than current dnd

edit: hell maybe something not d20, I mean some sort of classic fantasy dungeon game

still probably not super easy, would screw with the action economy unless you're careful

I mean like the system in Exalted 2e

actions have a speed rating, that's how long the action takes in ticks, a "round" is 10 ticks long (usually represented by a tick wheel), weapons have a speed rating, attacks with weapons take that weapon's speed

so at the start of combat, everyone rolls initiative (Join Battle in ex2), determining on what tick of the first round they act, on your turn, you do what you're going to do, then you add up how many ticks that took,

you act again after that many ticks have passed (moving around the tick wheel)

if that means you act more than once in a round, then that's what you do

people acting on the same tick, act simultaneously

I honestly can't remember how EX2 handled multi-attacks (at least as far as speed goes), but I know it had them

you would need speeds for different types of action, or at least like movement, attacks with different weapons, spellcasting, and guidance on miscellaneous other actions for GM adjudication

[proustianlesbian]

some silly little thoughts i have on monster :

big fan of how so many characters in monster have a big nose like that's peak character design, that's exactly how i draw people 🫡. and every character, even ones with one line of dialogue have a different nose, i love this !! i think my favorite noses, on the top of my head right now, are runge's and karl's.

i'm also a big fan of how many middle aged/old men there is, as a fictional dilh (dad i'd like to have) lover. (this one is about only like five characters because the rest are kinda bad people etc.)

there was only supposed to have these two thoughts but i decided to ad two more :

i love the french detective hired by müller, he deserved better. also if there ever is an adaptation of monster, my theater teacher, who's an actor too, should play him i think 🤭 (he's french and kinda looks like the character and i love him so).

since i'm on the topic of an adaptation of monster with real actors, i don't want one UNLESS it's with exclusively with german-speaking actors. like i want it to be a fully european production all in german (with characters speaking czech, english, turkish, french etc when needed, obviously). i put my trust in arte if there was someone to produce this because they have banger german shows 🫡. also i want the actors in this scenario to mostly not be very famous, just to be good and have the same vibe as much as possible as the characters. although i'm not against more famous people being in it, they should have little roles imo (like if an actor like idk david suchet plays the old english husband or katrin sass plays a random nurse, i don't mind yk)

[hel-phoenyx]

Bah depuis que j'ai vu le nom de notre premier ministre j'ai de moins en moins envie de rentrer en France hein :)

[homosexualcitron]

WE'RE FINALLY GOING TO THE FAIR TOMORROW YEAYYYY CAN'T WAIT!!!!!

[thydungeongal]

Truth be told, I'm not resistant to XP/rewards being given out for, like, narrative-based triggers instead of just overcoming challenges. However, the D&D 5e DMG's presented method of milestone leveling is one of the worst ways to go about it in my opinion.

Part of the problem is that D&D 5e presents a choice between an XP system that only rewards combat (which, fair enough, has been the main source of XP since we, but even 3e and 4e had other sources of XP) and a system that removes all incentive structures altogether. Like, it feels like the game itself is reinforcing a false dichotomy of "combat play" and "narrative play."

There's a reason I like XP systems (albeit ones with much smaller numbies) even in my non-dungeon games: they make advancement objective and dependent on player choices instead of up to GM arbitration. Like, this here is an experience point system and it rewards player choice while keeping the XP numbers manageable (the hardest part of XP systems in my personal opinion is XP numbers being too fine-grained: once you start measuring experience in the thousands with very little gradation between rewards of a hundred and two hundred points, you know something's wrong):

And it reinforces the genre the game is going for. That's actually pretty much all there is to XP in the game, there's no hidden secret formula for calculating combat experience because the game doesn't care about fine-grained combat experience. It still gives recognizable incentives to the players with a bit of leeway for interpretation and ultimately rewards play. (By the way, this is from Against the Darkmaster: there are vocation-based sources of XP in addition to these.)

Anyway what I'm trying to say is that XP systems actually own.

[imsobadatnicknames2]

What's OSR? I've seen you mention it several times in your RPG posts. Is it like a genre of rpg or...?

Hey, sorry I took so long to reply to this lol you probably already just googled it by now.

But like. Anyway.

OSR (Old-School Revival, Old-School Renaissance, and more uncommonly Old-School Rules or Old-School Revolution, no one can really agree on what the R means) is less like a genre and more like a movement or a loosely connected community that seeks to capture the tone, feel and/or playstyle of 70's and 80's fantasy roleplaying games (with a particular emphasis on old-school editions of Dungeons and Dragons, particularly the Basic D&D line but pretty much anything before 3e falls under this umbrella), or at least an idealized version of what people remember those games felt like to play.

There isn't exactly a consensus on what makes a game OSR but here's my personal list of things that I find to be common motifs in OSR game design and GM philosophy. Not every game in the movement features all of these things, but must certainly feature a few of them.

Rulings over rules: most OSR games lack mechanically codified rules for a lot of the actions that in modern D&D (and games influenced by it) would be covered by a skill system. Rather that try to have rules applicable for every situation, these games often have somewhat barebones rules, with the expectation that when a player tries to do something not covered by them the GM will have to make a ruling about it or negotiate a dice roll that feels fair (a common resolution system for this type of situation is d20 roll-under vs a stat that feels relevant, a d6 roll with x-in-6 chance to succeed, or just adjudicating the outcome based on how the player describes their actions)

"The solution is not on your character sheet": Related to the point above, the lack of character skills means that very few problems can be solved by saying "I roll [skill]". E.g. Looking for traps in an OSR game will look less like "I rolled 18 on my perception check" and more like "I poke the flagstones ahead with a stick to check if they're pressure plates" with maybe the GM asking for a roll or a saving throw if you do end up triggering a trap.

High lethality: Characters are squishy, and generally die much more easily. But conversely, character creation is often very quick, so if your character dies you can usually be playing again in minutes as long as there's a decent chance to integrate your new PC into the game.

Lack of emphasis on encounter balance: It's not uncommon for the PCs to find themselves way out of their depth, with encounters where they're almost guaranteed to lose unless they run away or find a creative way to stack the deck in their favor.

Combat as a failure state: Due to the two points above, not every encounter is meant to be fought, as doing so is generally not worth the risk and likely to end up badly. Players a generally better off finding ways to circumvent encounters through sneaking around them, outsmarting them, or out-maneauvering them, fighting only when there's no other option or when they've taken steps to make sure the battle is fought on their terms (e.g. luring enemies into traps or environmental hazards, stuff like that)

Emphasis on inventory and items: As skills, class features and character builds are less significant than in modern D&D (or sometimes outright nonexistent), a large part of the way the players engage with the world instead revolves around what they carry and how they use it. A lot of these games have you randomly roll your starting inventory, and often this will become as much a significant part of your character as your class is, even with seemingly useless clutter items. E.g. a hand mirror can become an invaluable tool for peeping around corners and doorways. This kind of gameplay techncially possible on modern D&D but in OSR games it's often vital.

Gold for XP: somewhat related to the above, in many of these games your XP will be determined by how much treasure you gather, casting players in the role and mindset of trasure hutners, grave robbers, etc.

Situations, not plots: This is more of a GM culture thing than an intrinsic feature of the games, but OSR campaigns will often eschew the long-form GM-authored Epic narrative that has become the norm since the late AD&D 2e era, in favor of a more sandbox-y "here's an initial situation, it's up to you what you do with it" style. This means that you probably won't be getting elaborate scenes plotted out sessions in advance to tie into your backstory and character arc, but it also means increased player agency, casting the GM in the role of less of a plot writer or narrator and more of a referee.

Like I said, these are not universal, and a lot of games that fall under the OSR umbrella will eschew some or most of these (it's very common for a lot of games to drop the gold-for-xp thing in favor of a different reawrd structure), but IMO they're a good baseline for understanding common features of the movement as a whole.

Of course, the OSR movement covers A LOT of different games, which I'd classify in the following categories by how much they deviate from their source of inspiration:

Retroclones are basically recreations of the ruleset of older D&D editions but without the D&D trademark, sometimes with a new coat of paint. E.g. OSRIC and For Gold and Glory are clones of AD&D (1e and 2e respectively); Whitebox and Fantastic Medieval Campaigns are recreations of the original 1974 white box D&D release; Old School Essentials, Basic Fantasy and Labyrinth Lord are clones of the 1981 B/X D&D set. Some of these recreate the original rules as-is, editing the text or reorganizing the information to be clearer but otherwise leaving the meachnics unchanged, while others will make slight rules changes to remove quirks that have come to be considered annoying in hindsight, some of them might mix and match features from different editions, but otherwise they're mostly straight up recreations of old-school D&D releases.

There are games that I would call "old-school compatible", that feature significant enough mechanical changes from old-school D&D to be considered a different game, but try to maintain mechanical compatibility with materials made for it. Games like The Black Hack, Knave, Macchiato Monsters, Dungeon Reavers, Whitehack, etc. play very differently from old-school D&D, and from each other, but you generally can grab any module made for any pre-3e D&D edition and run it with any of them with very little to no effort needed in conversion.

There's a third category that I wouldn't know how to call. Some people call then Nu-OSR or NSR (short for New School revolution) while a small minority of people argue that they aren't really part of the OSR movement but instead their own thing. I've personally taken to calling them "Old School Baroque". These are games that try to replicate different aspects of the tone and feel of old-school fantasy roleplaying games while borrowing few to none mechanics from them and not making any particular attempts to be mechanically compatible. Games like Into the Odd, Mörk Borg, Troika!, a dungeon game, FLEE, DURF, Songbirds, Mausritter, bastards, Cairn, Sledgehammer, and too many more to name. In my opinion this subsection of the OSR space is where it gets interesting, as there's so many different ways people try to recreate that old-school flavor with different mechanics.

(Of course, not everything fits neatly into these, e.g. I would consider stuff like Dungeon Crawl Classics to be somewhere inbetween category 1 and 2, and stuff like GloG or RELIC to be somewhere imbetween categories 2 and 3)

The OSR movement does have its ugly side, as it's to be expected by the fact that a huge part of the driving force behind it is nostalgia. Some people might be in it because it harkens back to a spirit of DIY and player agency that has been lost in traditional fantasy roleplaying games, but it's udneniable that some people are also in it because for them it harkens back to a time before "D&D went woke" when tabletop roleplaying was considered a hobby primarily for and by white men. That being said... generally those types of guys keep to themselves in their own little circlejerk, and it's pretty easy to find OSR spaces that are progressive and have a sinificant number of queer, POC, and marginalized creators.

[prokopetz]

Now, to be fair to those D&D grognards regarding 4e- for which I was one, though I've softened somewhat over the years, especially because of a younger player who came in during 5e and now can't stop raving about how much he thinks 4e is better -the primary complaint was that it didn't feel like *D&D*, not that it was itself a bad game. Personally, I'm just not a fan of symmetrical design and I didn't like it wore its mechanics on its sleeves. (I don't have a question, I dunno how to Tumblr)

(With reference to this post here.)

I've never been able to take assertions that this or that edition of Dungeons & Dragons "isn't real D&D" seriously. No iteration of D&D is real D&D. Practically every major revision has represented a huge departure from its predecessor, to the extent that it hardly makes sense to talk about the game at all without specifying a particular edition – D&D’s history is functionally half-a-dozen completely different games in a trenchcoat. Like, the game's current iteration isn't identical to the one you grew up with? Welcome to the club!

(As an aside, I'm particularly entertained by 3E/Pathfinder fans making the it's-not-real-D&D argument, given that the Third Edition represents a considerably larger departure from the Second Edition than the Fourth Edition does from the Third. Indeed, the criticisms that 2E fans levelled at 3E are often nearly identical to the criticisms that 3E fans levelled at 4E, right down to the specific assertion that it too closely resembles a particular popular video game published by Blizzard Entertainment – 3E was widely dismissed as "just tabletop Diablo" in precisely the same manner that 4E was panned for being "just tabletop World of Warcraft"!)

[vintagerpg]

OK, this is Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk (2007), a late-in-3.5E campaign book. It is a return of sorts — in 1990, TSR released WGR1: Greyhawk Ruins, which was an earnest attempt at creating a published version that matched the vibe Gygax’s ur-dungeon. That remains a somewhat obscure supplement, but forms the basic foundation of this campaign.

There is a fair amount of material on the city of Greyhawk and some important world lore before getting to the ruins themselves. The upper works are the remains of three towers — Zagig’s, Magic and War — each with voluminous, interconnected subterranean regions. These are vast, and not fully detailed. Rather, the book employs a system of encounter spaces and connections that creates an illusion of endless detail without the slog (or the page count). It feels super usable, with all the information for a given encounter (attributes, maps, tactics) all laid out on one or two pages.

I don’t know how I feel about it, though. It feels very very 3.5, for better and worse. Even allowing for that, this all feels somewhat disappointing, if only because it is trying to reconstruct a thing that never truly existed. The original, likely lost or unpublishable Greyhawk dungeon wasn’t a sensible place to explore, with a cohesive plot or anything like that. It was irrational, built on the fly literally to test new mechanics during the development of the game. It had a bowling alley for giants, and a portal to King Kong’s Skull Island. This book is, weird to say, too cool to be Castle Greyhawk. Or, at least, the Castle Greyhawk I am interested in reading about.

I don’t find the art direction very helpful. Michael Komarck’s cover has baldy Mordenkainen pondering his orb, in which a not-nearly-ruined-enough castle appears. Its the most distinct piece of art in the book, the rest of which is done by a gang of artists whose names I don’t recognize; it’s all workmanlike and adheres closely to the 3E art direction.

I dunno, this is fine, probably.

[indierpgnewsletter]

Traveller & Champions

What is your relationship with the characters you play in RPGs? What do you want it to be?

In Traveller (the classic version, I add, tipping my hat), you make a character through what is now called the “lifepath method”. That name is a bit misleading because in this game, it’s more of a career path. And maybe more specifically, your military career path. Traveller was a game of veterans and if you want to get complicated, that’s what we should talk about. But let’s keep it light and focus on this unassuming table:

Now honestly, this table is iconic but I couldn’t make sense of it without having read the rules of the game (twice). But to put it simply, you’re rolling dice to see which branch of the intergalactic military you joined (either enlisting in your first choice or being drafted by whoever would be willing to take you). Then, you roll to see if you survive your first term, whether you become a commissioned officer, whether you get promoted, and whether you’re allowed to re-enlist for the next term or forced into an early retirement. If do re-enlist, you repeat the process till you retire or die.

Apart from picking your first choice (which you might not get), there are no decisions made in this process (don’t disagree yet!). You roll the dice and whatever happens to your character, happens. You just find out. You might die – and if you’re serving in the Scouts, it’s very likely you do – and you just have to start again with a new character. I think consensus is that this method can be surprising but detached.

Let’s talk about Champions. Traveller came out in 1977 and was revised constantly over the next decade. Champions came out in 1980 and is remembered by many as the classic superhero RPG. In 1984, we got Champions 3e which I understand is what cemented it as a landmark in RPG history.

In Champions, you build your character. You get skills (Security Systems, Swinging), Special Effects (Extra Limb, Mind Control), Advantages (Useable at Range), and Disadvantages (Unusual Looks). You pick your skills, spend power points to buy your powers, balance your advantages and disadvantages, and come out the other end – sometimes hours later – with your character. It’s fair to say that Champions is only decisions – it’s nothing but decisions. And that feels different. I think consensus is that this method has lots of strategy and self-expression but is very involved.

At first, it feels like these two games are on opposite ends of a spectrum. But actually, there’s a contradictory impulse in both of them. When you play Traveller, it’s a step-by-step process of discovery. You roll the dice and learn something about the character and then you immediately contextualize it. With every fact you learn, you spin the fiction. If you needed to roll a 7 to not die and you roll exactly a 7, you think, “Wow, they must’ve had a near-death experience. What could it be?”. And these are decisions. Big, important, affecting decisions. Often Traveller‘s lifepath doesn’t spit out a random character, it spits out someone that you’ve closely watched struggle and live for years before they come to you. If that doesn’t make you care about them, what is? At the same time, when you play Champions, you can build and tinker and strategize and eventually make somebody who you might not actually enjoy playing. Sometimes, you get caught up in the general aura of optimization and make somebody effective but that isn’t the same as somebody fun. Or you build them “wrong” and you get a character that is out-of-step with the rest of the group in power, which ends up annoying in other ways.

To zoom out a little, this isn't a criticism of either game. The point is this spectrum of controlled character creation starts to look a little superficial. Reality is much more complicated. Random can become involved and self-expression can become detached. So then what about about these two different methods is actually the important part?

(This first appeared on the Indie RPG Newsletter.)

[linkedsoul]

HI MY FRENCHIES FROM THE 3RD CIRCUMSCRIPTION OF FRENCH PEOPLE ABROAD aka my French residents of Northern Europe and especially London: (and my English speaking followers who'd like to French elections drama)

Macron's candidate, Vincent Caure, is blatantly lying on his program about his opponent's party, the NFP, which feels very dishonest and, frankly, kind of pathetic? I know Frenchies in London voted a lot for him but PLEASE let's not let a liar get ahead of the race.

He claims the NFP - a coalition of green and leftist parties - will have Mélenchon as Prime Minister. For some reason, the French media is OBSESSED with making Mélanchon (the leader of a prominent leftist party) THE DEVIL. Look. I know some people don't like Mélenchon even on the left. But he's NOT EVEN PART OF THIS ELECTION. Besties: he's not a candidate anywhere. And even less for French people abroad. And even worse: the NFP has NEVER said who they'd send as Prime Minister if they get the majority in the assembly. This is FAKE.

He pretends French people abroad will be doubly taxed because of the NFP wants to put back the "exit tax", and that the NFP is obsessed with the universal tax (aka paying taxes for your country even when you work abroad). The exit tax is a specific tax that affects only people who own A LOT in assets. I have no idea how to even reach to that kind of criteria. I don't think neither me nor any of the French people I know in Dublin have the assets required to have to pay the exit tax. I wish I had that amount of money so I could get taxed on it! Alas, Vincent Caure and I don't live in the same world because it's not even remotely a worry for me. As for the universal tax, it's nowhere in the NFP's program so I guess they're not as obsessed with it as Vincent claim they are.

He offers to put more procedures online such as passpot renewal online whereas the NFP offers nothing. Ok slay king, then run your campaign on that instead of telling lies. Unless this is your only good point?

He claims that the NFP wants to end nuclear energy, which would make us depend on Russian gas. Nowhere is this written on the NFP program. There are only 4 mentions of the word "nuclear" in the NFP program and none of it is associated to the word "stop" or "end", half of them are not even about nuclear energy itself... I don't see where he got that from.

He does agree that the NFP wants to make railways more accessible but argue that they didn't vote for a law making mobility within France easier. Fair! He forgets to mention most of the supporters of this law were his party only and BOTH LEFT AND RIGHT voted against, citing lack of funding for this law as an issue, that the Prime Minister back then brushed away, so take that what you will. Also want to note his only point for this program is that they're going to use the funding for transport that they already have so... ok good? that's not revolutionary. That's just expected.

He also claims that:

the left is the one who led to the far right taking the lead when it's his own party who called for an election. Like. The move no one expected nor wanted except the far right. That was all Macron. That was all your party. You guys flirted so much with the far right that you led them right in, that is NOT the left's fault and even less your favorite scapegoat, Jean-Luc Mélenchon - who, I'd like to remind everyone, is not a candidate for this election oh my god shut up about Mélenchon already I don't care about Mélenchon why are you obsessed with Mélenchon

The left wants a Frexit because of their tax policies (debunked above) and nuclear energy policies (also debunked above). The left is notoriously pro-EU, his opponent is a British-French citizen who probably saw the shitshow of Brexit from the front rows. And even if the left wants to tax VERY rich people trying to avoid being taxed on their huge assets out of France (fun fact: it's for the people who try and get their assets moved to Dubai not to pay taxes on them lmao) and wanted to reduce the use of nuclear energy, that does not equate Frexit, like, I... I don't see the correlation.

The left is planning for 300 billion more expenses and intends to cover for those expenses by taxing people the most. The thing he's not saying is that they intend to tax the richest. It's the rich the target. The very VERY rich. Not you, regular French immigrant to Ireland who struggles with the cost of life in Dublin and cry for a better flat.

ALL IN ALL: Vincent Caure is a liar who ment comme un arracheur de dent et fait sa campagne dessus, ce qui est un peu dégueu.

He cries about potential taxes that would only affect a very, very tiny minority of French people who were probably trying to evade said taxes anyway and tries to frame it as "double taxing French people abroad"

The left wants to tax the rich and good for them and good for us who are not playing in the targeted tax bracket AT ALL.

Macron's party is the one who's fucked us all over; Attal is a notoriously impopular Prime Minister; they're a party for the rich (as proven above by trying to act as if a tax on the rich was gonna be a double tax for everyone like... lmao how out of touch are you) and love to frame themselves as the only right solution QUAND C'EST EUX QUI NOUS ONT MIS DANS LA MERDE

As with the rest of his party, he's obsessed with Mélenchon, who has nothing to do with this specific election since the opposition is initially from the Green Party.

SVP SI VOUS ÊTES DANS LA 3E CIRCONSCRIPTION DES FRANÇAIS À L'ÉTRANGER, VOTEZ CHARLOTTE MINVIELLE AU MOINS POUR NE PAS ÊTRE REPRÉSENTÉ PAR UN CANDIDAT QUI VOUS MENT SANS HONTE POUR AVOIR DES VOTES

and for my English speaking friends: please pray for us all (at least here the far right is not gonna pass but I'd rather not have such a liar for deputee please and thank you)

ET COMME TOUJOURS, ON EMMERDE LE FRONT NATIONAL!

[chic-a-gigot]

La Mode nationale, no. 26, 2 juillet 1898, Paris. Notre patron découpé (Grandeur naturelle). Jupon de dessous. Bibliothèque nationale de France

Explications du Patron découpé:

Ce modèle très élégant se fait en soie, avec volant coupé en forme et plissé; il peut se faire également en alpage, moire de laine ou satin de laine avec volant uni ou garni de dentelle.

Il se compose de 4 morceaux:

No. 1. — Lé du devant; se taille double sans couture, c'est-à dire le milieu du devant au lacé sur le plis de l'étone.

No. 2. — Lé de côté; se raccorde au lé du devant à AB.

No. 3. — Lé du dos entièrement droit fil; se raccorde au lé de côté par CD.

Un pointillé sur chaque lé marque l'endroit où doit être cousu le volant.

No. 4. — Volant; se raccorde au lé du devant à E, au lé du dos à F.

Ce morceau est donné en patron d'une seule pièce; mais comme il est impossible de pouvoir le couper d'un seul morceau dans les étoffes de petite largeur, nous donnons sur le croquis la façon de le prendre dans une étoffe de 0m,56 de large.

1re partie; se taille double droit fil, le milieu du devant sur le pli de l'étoffe.

2e partie GHIJ; se prend entre les deux lisières.

3e partie IJ; se prend sur la lisière.

Ce volant pour être en plissé devra être posé sur l'étoffe préparée d'avance, les plis plus larges dans le bas que dans le haut.

7 mètres de soie en 0m,56 avec volant plat; 11 mètres avec volant plissé.

Le patron n'étant donné que jusqu'à la monture du volant, ajouter pour continuer le bas du jupon: 1er lé milieu du devant FK 0m,29; couture du côté LB, 0m,31. Largeur du bas, 0m,27.

2e lé: couture LB, 0m,31; couture MD, 0m39. Largeur du bas 0m,44.

3e lé: couture MD, 0m,39; couture FN, 0m,52. Largeur du bas, 0m,44.

—

This very elegant model is made of silk, with a shaped and pleated ruffle; it can also be made in alpine, wool moire or wool satin with a plain ruffle or trimmed with lace.

It consists of 4 pieces:

No. 1. — Front strip; is double cut without seam, that is to say the middle of the front laced on the folds of the etone.

No. 2. — Side strip; connects to the front strip at AB.

No. 3. — Back strip completely straight grain; connects to the side strip via CD.

A dotted line on each strip marks the place where the ruffle should be sewn.

No. 4. — Steering wheel; connects to the front strip at E, to the back strip to F.

This piece is given as a one-piece pattern; but as it is impossible to be able to cut it in a single piece in fabrics of small width, we give in the sketch how to take it from a fabric 0.56 m wide.

Part 1; cut double straight grain, the center of the front on the fold of the fabric.

2nd part GHIJ; is caught between the two edges.

3rd part IJ; gets caught on the edge.

To be pleated, this ruffle must be placed on the fabric prepared in advance, with the pleats wider at the bottom than at the top.

7 meters of silk in 0.56 m with flat ruffle; 11 meters with pleated ruffle.

Since the pattern is only given up to the flounce frame, add to continue the bottom of the petticoat: 1st center front strip FK 0m.29; seam on LB side, 0m.31. Bottom width, 0m.27.

2nd strip: seam LB, 0.31 m; MD sewing, 0m39. Bottom width 0.44 m.

3rd strip: MD seam, 0.39 m; FN seam, 0m.52. Bottom width, 0.44 m.

[wuhuha]

Just drawing Dak'kon and realized not all gith depictions have the face spots. Tbh. I feel like they look a bit naked without them.

To be fair Planscape: Torment's game-models were limited in what level of facial details they could depict

Gonna have to give Bg3 props for making githyanki look diffrent from elves, but with facial hair. The one thing I try to avoid when drawing them.

The more alien look from 1e-3e would have been rad as a face preset too though.