Ah. Dwfinitely not sexual advances. When she is working she is looking for threats. You don't want to be on her radar at all in that situation. I'll ponder a bit and see if I can find better phrasing. Go to Comment
Additionally, I should work to clarify "She discourages approaches..." in the context of working means any approach to whatever she's being paid to not let you approach, or any form of approach to her that isn't related to the business at hand. Essentially, that "zone of contention" I mentioned elsewhere. Go to Comment
Like Axel, I think maybe a bit more. But the idea... it's wacky and zany, and deserves a good vote.
You use names I'd associate with Fantasy worlds. Are all of the babies human? Are they all of uniform ethnicity? Or are those random as well? Or appropriate to the finder? Of course, I could decide for myself, but I'm really very lazy. Go to Comment
He's not a Bard. He's a Fighter. But he's always dreamt of being a Bard. He wields weapons he thinks a Bard should use. Quarterstaff, probably. He carries an instrument. He can play... some. He can sing... okay. He tells people he's an "entertainer." He isn't lying... except maybe to himself.
For best effect, stat out the best Fighter you can, being sure to neglect at least one and preferably two key Bard stats, then spend all secondary skills on "Bard" skills like singing and playing. Go to Comment
I meant the example to sort of stand for that, but then decided to put the example in each step. Would you suggest pulling it all together at the end like the original draft, or a completely separate summary? Go to Comment
In fairness, I asked people to tell me how it could be better. I care less about the score (though I love my score!) than I care about knowing I did the best I could do. The bullet point summary was a great idea for improving the readability and utility of the sub. Go to Comment
It certainly could for some parts. The real question is, should it?
There are many hard, objective "facts" about each character which won't be revealed in a description, but in RP. In particular, the deeper layers of a character aren't found in a box of text you read to the players. Instead, these details come out naturally in RP. When that happens, the PCs' (and players') will provide their own context and interpretations. Instead of *telling* them different, the players and PCs will perceive differently, filtered by their own experiences. Let them do the heavy lifting here. It's more natural and less work for you.
Now the first two layers ARE just descriptions to read out, and could easily provide vastly different observations to different characters. There's a lot of room for subjectivity, here. But weigh this authenticity against playability and your own valuable prep time. Sure, you COULD write up six different descriptions to give to six different PCs. And if you have the time and your players don't mind, go for it. But I bet not many of us have that kind of time. :) My suggestion of providing one detail tailored to each PC in your group was intended to provide some subjectivity without bogging down play or requiring too much prep time. Go to Comment
I think the voting as it stands is fine. This isn't a place where we scientifically determine who's best (It's me, BTW). It's a place where we share ideas, get feedback, and (at least in my case) learn ways to improve. The voting is just a cool way to add experience and get a general sense of how you're doing, but it's also highly subjective.
The real value as a writer here is the honest feedback. Don't get me wrong, I love me some 4 or 5 ratings, but the single most valuable feedback I've gotten here came with a lower vote and some honest criticism. And you can't formalize or granularize (it's a word because I say so!) honest feedback.