Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="superstition" data-source="post: 7377507" data-attributes="member: 32866">Some of the revisions have the same number of words, or the addition or one or two. &quot;Wordy&quot; is only meaningful if it can be proven that the additional words can be cut. Proof is particularly needed when it comes to things like:A) flaws that aren't flaws in the first placeB) absolutist statementsC) flaws that would require the character to not have a good alignmentD) flaws that have a mechanic, like Rage, built into them (seemingly unintentionally)Of course you do. It is what is written. If you decide to change the wording in your mind or somewhere else then you are houseruling.Still an example of houseruling. Rules are stated as they are stated. They are not several rules combined into one, depending on how the reader decides to apply anecdotal subjective experience, et cetera. How is the hyperbole useful? If the intention is to show that the character is prone to making jokey hyperbolic statements then the flaw could be written in a manner that actually suggests that, like: &quot;I would really kill to get a noble title, really!&quot;That's a rather stupid-seeming flaw but if the idea is to show that the person speaks hyperbolically and likes the idea of having a noble title without actually being serious about the threat then that's the kind of thing you get.Buzzwords like &quot;pithy&quot; and &quot;direct&quot; don't fix the problems I identified.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="superstition, post: 7377507, member: 32866"] Some of the revisions have the same number of words, or the addition or one or two. "Wordy" is only meaningful if it can be proven that the additional words can be cut. Proof is particularly needed when it comes to things like: A) flaws that aren't flaws in the first place B) absolutist statements C) flaws that would require the character to not have a good alignment D) flaws that have a mechanic, like Rage, built into them (seemingly unintentionally) Of course you do. It is what is written. If you decide to change the wording in your mind or somewhere else then you are houseruling. Still an example of houseruling. Rules are stated as they are stated. They are not several rules combined into one, depending on how the reader decides to apply anecdotal subjective experience, et cetera. How is the hyperbole useful? If the intention is to show that the character is prone to making jokey hyperbolic statements then the flaw could be written in a manner that actually suggests that, like: "I would really kill to get a noble title, really!" That's a rather stupid-seeming flaw but if the idea is to show that the person speaks hyperbolically and likes the idea of having a noble title without actually being serious about the threat then that's the kind of thing you get. Buzzwords like "pithy" and "direct" don't fix the problems I identified. [/QUOTE]

Verification