Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8999326" data-attributes="member: 29398">If a fantasy book doesn't contain a map in it somewhere I see that as a fail.&nbsp; That said, the maps in many fantasy books are legitimately awful; sometimes in their presentation but more often in their attempts to depict things that at face value geologically couldn't exist, where such disparities are never explained in the text.I mean, if there's an explained-in-story reason for those rivers to flow uphill, that's cool - but if there isn't, that's pretty poor world design/mapping.My &quot;entertaining&quot; often involves taking something just a bit over the top, be it a personality aspect, a quirk, sheer gonzo-ness, or whatever.&nbsp; This - particularly the gonzo aspect - sometimes tends to see them die quickly.The most entertaining and funniest character I've ever seen was a completely nutso crazy Mage from my current campaign.&nbsp; He packed more entertainment into his 17 sessions of existence than many characters provided in their entire multi-hundred-session careers; and we'll tell his stories forever.&nbsp; But, inevitably he flamed out.My usual benchmark is this: a character is entertaining enough if - like a TV show - it makes the other players (and-or the DM) want to come back next week for more.No.&nbsp; I'd agree that a person is likely very interested in the actions of his enemy, but not that he cares.&nbsp; Caring implies sympathy, empathy, maybe even love; things which one doesn't often have for an enemy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8999326, member: 29398"] If a fantasy book doesn't contain a map in it somewhere I see that as a fail. That said, the maps in many fantasy books are legitimately awful; sometimes in their presentation but more often in their attempts to depict things that at face value geologically couldn't exist, where such disparities are never explained in the text. I mean, if there's an explained-in-story reason for those rivers to flow uphill, that's cool - but if there isn't, that's pretty poor world design/mapping. My "entertaining" often involves taking something just a bit over the top, be it a personality aspect, a quirk, sheer gonzo-ness, or whatever. This - particularly the gonzo aspect - sometimes tends to see them die quickly. The most entertaining and funniest character I've ever seen was a completely nutso crazy Mage from my current campaign. He packed more entertainment into his 17 sessions of existence than many characters provided in their entire multi-hundred-session careers; and we'll tell his stories forever. But, inevitably he flamed out. My usual benchmark is this: a character is entertaining enough if - like a TV show - it makes the other players (and-or the DM) want to come back next week for more. No. I'd agree that a person is likely very interested in the actions of his enemy, but not that he cares. Caring implies sympathy, empathy, maybe even love; things which one doesn't often have for an enemy. [/QUOTE]

Verification