Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="superstition" data-source="post: 7365895" data-attributes="member: 32866">I don't think my post suggests that the flaws system is a bad idea. What I tried to convey is that there are imperfections in the current flaws (although not every one of them) that can be remedied.• duplications and no-shows. Some flaws are identical to others or are very similar. There are better ways to encourage certain things to be more common than to barely reword a few of them. Meanwhile, there are plenty of other possible flaws in character that aren't there.• flaws that aren't flaws but are something else, like baggage or — depending on the context and character – boons• flaws that are very weak mixed in with flaws that can be debilitating as written• flaws that have specific cultural bias• flaws that can come across as Puritanical (e.g. the pretty face and carnal pleasures one)• flaws that only work well for certain alignments (e.g. those that are clearly the outlook/behavior of someone evil)• flaws using unnecessarily absolutist language (language that can usually be easily avoided)• flaws that would create characters that irritate the others at the table too much• flaws that don't seem to realize they're the Rage mechanicand so onThe flaws system is a good idea. What's not a good idea is to be sloppy about it. Given that I was able to make very significant improvements to some of them in a short time suggests to me that a bit more work should have gone into these. The redundancy, alone, doesn't seem to have any point. Why are there three flaws about alcoholism? It seems like lazy oversight.Perhaps I should post all the notes after all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="superstition, post: 7365895, member: 32866"] I don't think my post suggests that the flaws system is a bad idea. What I tried to convey is that there are imperfections in the current flaws (although not every one of them) that can be remedied. • duplications and no-shows. Some flaws are identical to others or are very similar. There are better ways to encourage certain things to be more common than to barely reword a few of them. Meanwhile, there are plenty of other possible flaws in character that aren't there. • flaws that aren't flaws but are something else, like baggage or — depending on the context and character – boons • flaws that are very weak mixed in with flaws that can be debilitating as written • flaws that have specific cultural bias • flaws that can come across as Puritanical (e.g. the pretty face and carnal pleasures one) • flaws that only work well for certain alignments (e.g. those that are clearly the outlook/behavior of someone evil) • flaws using unnecessarily absolutist language (language that can usually be easily avoided) • flaws that would create characters that irritate the others at the table too much • flaws that don't seem to realize they're the Rage mechanic and so on The flaws system is a good idea. What's not a good idea is to be sloppy about it. Given that I was able to make very significant improvements to some of them in a short time suggests to me that a bit more work should have gone into these. The redundancy, alone, doesn't seem to have any point. Why are there three flaws about alcoholism? It seems like lazy oversight. Perhaps I should post all the notes after all. [/QUOTE]

Verification