I am a picky reader. I have a habit of getting disappointed by a book within its first chapter. "The Fifth Season" hooked me within minutes and kept me fascinated until the very end. Longer actually, because I bought the next book of this three-part series immediately after finishing the first.

The less livestock we require the better. Eating no or less meat and dairy is the ethical choice. But why again? Which ethical goal is the import one? Animal suffering is the most visible argument for veganism. It is also the one that will lead us into a dead end.

When I realized I couldn't define a fundamental concept of humanity, I felt damaged. More so, pretending to love as it looks all around me, hurts me. All the well-known routines - rituals, songs, movies and stories, even vocabulary - promote behaviour that would be dishonest if I mimic it. I still don't know how to make it work.

A couple of days ago Christof Heimhilcher blogged about his style of play (in German) and it resonated with a couple of observations I made over the years. Roleplaying games allow for a broad spectrum of interests to overlap and being catered within the same game. Not all combinations work well though. So, what is my style of play and how does it affect the games I play and write?

When I started working on my own roleplaying game, my main intent was to avoid switching systems whenever I wanted to play a different genre. And I wanted to keep it simple because maybe I could play it with my kids. Within these broad guidelines, I picked whatever I liked, improved what I thought needed improvement and filled the gaps with a lot of ideas that seemed convincing at the time. I did put together some playable versions. We had fun playing them and some players even used it for their own games, but it never really convinced me. After years and years of writing, playtesting, re-writing, I finally understood what I did wrong. I created what I liked at the moment, but didn't follow a clear purpose.

Comparing attributes between systems I see a lot of similarities but as much differences as well. Sometimes the list of available features is more or less convincing. Isn't there a universal answer to the question, which attributes are necessary for gameplay and which could be dispensed? Can we check suitability before starting a campaign or picking a new system?

I worked on the Terrorgheist over a very long period. I was abroad during the week for two years and this is not the kind of model that is easy to travel with. I continued painting only sporadically and concentrated on other miniature in between. The Terrorgheist has great dynamics and it immediately strikes as a great bat, which is a fun alternative to the good old dragons.

I bought this one at Warhammer World in Nottingham in 2017. A friend recommended it because of its value on the battlefield, but I really like the looks of the model, no matter how it performs. I must confirm, it rocks. My friend probably never recommends anything like it again. And with much more ghosts available by now, it is much easier to combine in an army.

I wanted the second unit of wolves to be easily discernable from the first. And I was curious to compare different techniques. Instead of repeating to wet blend wolves in different colours, I went with dry brushing.

Would somebody tell Games Workshop their Dire Wolves stink? Luckily they have some Fenrisian Wolves that can easily compensate as companions for vampires and other forces of death.

After finally deciding to go with variations of a winter theme for my miniatures of the undead, I wanted to give ice a try.

This unit of Skeleton Warriors had a bit of a mishap during construction. I struggled with connecting the spine with the hip bone. They lean forward as if marching in a blizzard. The opposing wind must be awful.