The 5e Flaws list, my editorial changes (to correct flaws in the flaws)

[superstition]

I assume those alcoholism flaws are each in different backgrounds.

Then use the same wording so it's clear it's just the same flaw. That makes it easier for everyone because it's a lot less confusing than three of the same flaw with different wordings.

Nor does it look lazy to me; the writers just had a different goal than you would've.

The Flaws list is very flawed, in multiple ways. It's clear to me, at least, that not enough work was put in.

Many of your changes look good.

Thank you. Please let me know which ones don't so I can edit them if necessary.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't actually use the lists, much.

Favorite flaw:

"Some people say you suffer from a casual, unthinking arrogance. They're wrong, you're not suffering."

 

[Satyrn]

Thank you. Please let me know which ones don't [look good] so I can edit them if necessary.

I don't think I can provide any helpful advice or feedback in your endeavour. I like that the flaws work through implication. I like that some are near identical but flavoured toward the specific background where it's found.

I'm not really inclined to help shape it away from that. But good luck.

 

[Eltab]

A positive feature of the original flaws, which many of the revisions (and my sentences) lack, is being concise / pithy / straight-to-the-point.

Another positive feature is that they indicate the person knows they are flaws that need worked on - even if they don't want to.

 

[superstition]

A positive feature of the original flaws, which many of the revisions (and my sentences) lack, is being concise / pithy / straight-to-the-point.

Flaws that aren't flaws miss the point.

Flaws that are, if interpreted straightly, debilitating aren't straight to the point. They require mental adjudication/adjustment.

Hyberbolic language isn't straight to the point. It requires mental adjustment to compensate for it (more words produced internally).

Fewer words doesn't mean concision. Concision really involves how much time/energy it takes to deal with the rule, not just how many words it has in a book.

If you can cite specific revisions of mine that can be rewritten with fewer words then I'm happy to see these changes. It's better to have a few more words if it saves more time.

Another positive feature is that they indicate the person knows they are flaws that need worked on - even if they don't want to.

Which of my revisions take that away? I added notes like that to several because, otherwise, they would rule out a good alignment — or because the flaws were too severe without that bit.

Since they're labeled flaws it may be that the GM determines that characters are aware of them as being flaws they have unless otherwise noted in the specific flaws' descriptions. One reason for only embedding "character is trying to resist the flaw" in the flaw description is to deal with alignment issues. Some flaws imply a neutral or evil alignment without such an embedding. However, I think it's very questionable to claim that most, or all, of the flaws need such an embedding. It depends on the strength of the flaw. Putting in a "trying to correct/resist the flaw" clause into a weaker flaw unbalances the flaws list more than only putting it into the more severe ones. So, I think it should be used on a case-by-case basis. It's also a matter of character, not just alignment. Some characters will be more introspective, insightful, and self-critical. Some will be more confident and less concerned about things in their characters others see as flaws. So, it does depend on those things, plus how much the flaw is perceived as being a flaw by the character. I think a GM/player conversation about these things is a good idea, especially if you really favor having the flaws written with fewer words.

 

[superstition]

I like that the flaws work through implication.

I'm not seeing your point. Please clarify. Most of them don't work through implication. They overstate their case. Some aren't even flaws. I suppose those could work through implication if someone decides to create a flaw to go with the "flaw" that actually isn't a flaw.

I like that some are near identical but flavoured toward the specific background where it's found.

Why? Why aren't there three copies of other flaws, or two copies of each? It sounds to me like some are trying to just justify the flaws in the flaws list.

It's one thing to rebut my claims about the flaws of the flaws list being flaws or not. But, "I like X" isn't a rebuttal. Some kind of logic needs to be exposed that supports liking X better than Y.

 

[superstition]

Another positive feature is that they indicate the person knows they are flaws that need worked on - even if they don't want to.

Here is just one example of how my revision adds that:

original: “I would kill to acquire a noble title.”

my revision: “I often dream about killing to acquire a noble title, a dream I find startlingly appealing. However, I refrain because it’s an evil act.”

This one was awkward to revise but my revision is a big improvement because it can be actually used by someone with a good alignment, unlike the original.

Implications don't matter to the person who wrote the original because the word "always" fits right into the sentence, as with many of the other flawed flaws.

Concision isn't there either because any player who fancies himself good or neutral is going to have to have a significant conversation with the GM about this flaw, maybe more than one.

 

[MNblockhead]

I prefer the writing of the flaws as written over your wordy revisions. Your revisions read to me of a player's interpretation of a flaw as fleshed out in the character's background.

For example, you call out this flaw in a recent post:

"I would kill to acquire a nobel title."

You don't have to take this literally. When I hear people say "I would kill to ... [instert a desirable possession, activity, or desired status]" I understand it to be hyperbole. A lawful-good person could make this statement. I think that the LG's character would be struggling less with dreams of literally killing someone for a title and more with covetousness. An evil or maybe even a neutral character may, however, be willing to actually kill for the title.

The pithy and direct flaw as written gets the point across and the players can interpret it how they want for their characters.

I do, however, appreciate your principles and suggestions. I think those give some good role-playing guidance.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

These are not improvements, they are straight-jackets. You are simply removing the players' ability to interpret the vague suggestions into your own personal interpretations. Good examples, but not what I would consider a needed improvement for the game.

Edit: Reading over the list again. They're not very good examples. I was just being nice. You litter strong writing with vague, weak descriptors, like "very", "sometimes", and "often". Then you include your own personal motivations, like "Because I grew up in a violent environment", or "I won't because it is considered evil". That is taking away the player's ability to define motivations for his own unique character.

For example, the one you wrote about wanting to kill to be a noble. What if the character's home was ruled by corrupt and evil senate? He knows killing one or several would only make room for others ready to take his place. It won't change anything. But to become part of that government and bring change from within...? Now that is an interesting motivation, but you can't impose it on every character. Let the players expand on the ideas.

I hope this is viewed as intended, as constructive criticism.

 

[MNblockhead]

I hope this is viewed as intended, as constructive criticism.

I want to second this. You obviously put a lot of thought and work into this and I think this work is very useful to help you better play your characters and your NPCs. For players who are new to role-playing, it can help them get the most of their flaws.

I just do not think that the flaws as written (FAW?) are broken.