Inter party relationships never work out.

>>50667233
I got a girlfriend out of one once.

>>50667240
Not the players, ya dork. The characters.

>>50667251
Oh, it worked out even better for the characters.

>>50667287
Because they actually got laid?

>>50667233
>Inter party relationships
>Inter
You mean PCxNPC?

>>50667379
You know what I mean

>>50667431
I know the awkward look on the face of my GM when I ask him if the barmaid is cute.

>playing a system with rigid archetypes
>GM decides to make the antagonists inversions of our own characters
>gets flustered when some of the players start hitting on their female opposites

>>50667548
Asking about the breast size of female court members is my favorite.
Anyone with tits C cup or above I can safely assume are mistresses or whores imported from the countryside.
Flat chests are literally patrician taste, because it implies the wealth to afford a nursemaid for breastfeeding.

>>50667755
>Flat chests are literally patrician taste, because it implies the wealth to afford a nursemaid for breastfeeding.
>Infertility is literally patrician taste, because it implies the wealth to afford a mistress for producing offspring.

>>50667311
Naw, they became messiahs.

>>50667787
Hey man, I'm not advocating for washboards. I'm just issuing historical statements. Applying modern sensibilities to the past is a recipe for misunderstanding.

>>50667888
Literally no though. The historical ideal had a little fat on them. Teets included.

>>50667888
>Applying modern sensibilities to the past is a recipe for misunderstanding.
So is applying historical sensibilities to fantasy-land.

File: aphrodite-471x1024.jpg (95KB, 471x1024px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 471x1024px

>>50667914
>The historical ideal had a little fat on them. Teets included.
I'm calling bullshit.

>>50667914
>arguing about tits on the internet
wow dude
but we're headed into the rabbit hole now, so my job here is done.
>>50667926
>implying most creatively bankrupt GMs don't run sessions in not!historicalSetting
>implying asking about tits isn't just a test to determine if the GM has a mental image of his characters (he should) and if he considered fully the purpose of a character.
>implying it's not the same as asking about what the villagers eat, and what animals they raise, what metal their tools are made of, etc.

I don't like being the best-read player at the table. There needs to be more food in a setting that just yams.

>>50667943
Are you calling that flat? Because it's not.

>>50668013
Oh, pardon me. I overlooked the "a".

>>50668012
>implying most creatively bankrupt GMs don't run sessions in not!historicalSetting
This is like a quadruple negative. It's one of the most baffling sentences I've ever read. Seriously. What are you trying to communicate, here?

File: venuss.png (566KB, 640x430px) Image search: [Google]

566KB, 640x430px

>>50668012
I'm not arguing about tits, I'm arguing about historical depictions and preference in tits. I would have left well enough alone if he was just stating fetishes, but now he's trying to say the ancients liked small boobies. Which is just not the case.

>>50667787
>The patriarchy invented flat chests, get with the thicc girls

>>50667233
Is that Varric from dragon age?
I never managed to push trough DA2, but he was one of best companions. How I suffered when I lost my tank brother(that only had daddy problems) and was doomed to use edgelord elf anime swordsman with self esteem issues.

>>50668092
I have no idea. I google searched "dwarf elf relationship" and picked the first one that wasn't The Hobbit related.

>>50668091
>patriarchy
Funny way of spelling "pedophilia" you have there.

I have two players that constantly play opposite gender characters that nearly always develop some sort of romance or heavy underlying sexual tension. They've realized this after the last campaign where their characters got married so this time they've made their characters deliberately incompatible (one was already married and currently in a friends with benefits relationship with a friendly lesbian NPC elf while the other is asexual and hates women because they constantly hit on him) to prevent further sexual tension/romance. So far it's working out.

>>50668092
Yeah it is. That's probably from DA:I though, given it looks like it's him making out with all four flavors of Inquisitor.

>>50668103
>flat chests
>pedophilia


Australian detected.

>>50668060
Not him. I find the sentence extremely simple to understand.

>>50668226
Explain it for me please?

Do unimaginative DMs run historically accurate games or not?

>>50668064
Those are pretty small though.

>>50668237
Not historically *accurate*. Otherwise they didn't need to pretend it's not inspired by history. That's what the "not!" is about.

>>50667233
Literally have a fiance, and I cyber sexed with a woman whom we had inter party relationships play out

so, yeah

>>50668237
most creatively bankrupt GMs run sessions in blatant rip-offs of historical settings

>>50668237
Unimaginative GMs tend to run "medieval" games as an example, but they've actually never read anything about the time period. Tolkien did a great deal of research, and even Edgar Burroughs did some.

I think all the negatives cancel out.

>>50668120
>because they constantly hit on him
>she doesn't hit on him therefore he has no reason to hate her
>she has already proven to not be very faithful to her marriage vows
I can see where this is going.

>>50667233
Yeah, trying to roleplay a long-term relationship with a character in another campaign is difficult as hell, I don't know why anyone would try it.

>>50668322
I don't think it's the rip off part he was getting at, but more so that they don't build a setting and just look a few power metal covers and have their viking setting complete.

>>50668391
All fresh GMs add not!Rome, not!Vikings, not!England or something along those lines to their settings. It's much easier to steal a real culture than make your own.

>>50668459
Cool, but what do the Vikings eat in his setting?

>>50668468

Irrelevant, as only the biggest aspies will ever care about such a thing. Most people won't even think about it, let alone ask.

File: CyYtW6dXUAEPIym.jpg (29KB, 500x290px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x290px

>>50668459
>>50668514
>I want my DMs to make a new culture for me to completely ignore
I sure hope these two posts are different people.

>>50668012
>not!historicalSetting
>>50668459
>not!Rome, not!Vikings, not!England

I don't understand. Are these double negatives? Like, "non-ahistorical" or something?

>>50668514
>GM starts us in a tavern
>"What's on the menu?"
>GM needs to improv a response because he didn't plan a menu

You don't even consider the water being used in the ale and what effect it has on the brew.

>>50668540
Not! Usually indicates/references a blatant ripoff, usually in a superficial way.

File: 2987C278-5A77-4CA4-BF4E-06565E8C891D-8676-00001136C6236D8C_tmp.jpg (24KB, 312x412px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 312x412px

>>50668468
You'd be lucky to get that sort of description from most GMs. The not-vikings might as well be eating purina brand viking chow.

>>50668540
not![historicalSetting] would be the proper syntax, methinks.

It's a generic term.

>>50668568
>>50668585
Wouldn't you usually just hyphenate the word, though? With the !, it seems to parse as "not not historical" or "not not Rome".

>>50668574
>Skyrim came out five years ago
>the GM almost certainly ripped his setting out of the game
>he can't even say rabbit or even some leeks because he didn't eat anything while playing the game

>>50668629
I think it's because just calling something !Rome would confuse people, while notRome doesn't stand out enough on the page.

Proper coding terms don't seem to be the intent.
Regardless, Not! has been in use for at least a half dozen years, doubtless longer than that, and isn't going anywhere.

>>50667233
>Inter
For fuck's sake, it's INTRA-party
INRTA
FUCKIG WITHIN, NOT FUCKING BETWEEN

>>50668717
I'm sorry, Anon.

I hope you can forgive me

>>50668731
In grimdark internet of 3rd millennium there is no forgiveness, only hate

>>50667914
The historical ideal has shifted a lot. Though flat chests have never been ideal, unless you consider greek homolust to count

>>50669170
are we talking about male beauty standards, or female ones?

>socJUST
Nah, but things hit a point especially among the French and Italians with women gossiping about each other and deriding some as "looking like peasants," that is to say, having large breasts.

>>50668717
It should be interparty.
>not exclusively fucking girls from separate playgroups
Don't shit where you eat, anon.

>>50668355
>Tolkien did a great deal of research
I'd call authoring the definitive translation of Beowulf, among other contemporary texts, and charging toward his lecture in mail, brandishing a mace in screaming the opening lines in the original text at the top of his lungs to be a little more than "great deal of research".

>>50668468
Hi, Shamus