I think I can tighten it up. However, part of the mess is the format, and that won't change. The Organic NPC model presents information in the order another character is likely to discover it, not necessarily the order it all happened. But within that, there's definitely some smoothing out to be done. Some of it is translating what's clear in my head to the page.
This was sort of banged out on the spot. I asked a friend to throw me a name from a "neighboring country." That also supplied the gender, though in fairness the friend I asked had a 99% chance of responding with a female name. :) I thought of a nickname, then worked the nickname into the idea with the heat absorption. I also used my Delta Factor world for this, the only world I know well enough to bang a character out this quick. :P
I think all the traits except fertility - which frankly I ignored for this project - are there. I'll see if I can more clearly call them out.
You're right about the rival mercenary. Just tacked on. It was the one that gave me grief, and even then I went with "former military rival" instead of "childhood," and used the first code name to pop into my head. :)
The one you didn't see was the rich client who blames her for a theft. I decided she didn't actually do it, and in fact when I thought about it specifically in terms of my game I realized exactly how I will present this NPC in play, because I know which of the PCs actually DID the theft. :) (hint, it was the shapeshifting professional thief.)
Her brother's friend is the contact within the gang. He helped her get revenge and he's the only one who knows it was her who killed the shooter. I imagine his gang thinks it was him who did it, and he's got some fair respect out of it.
The wealth comes from the high paying private contractor job. She was in the army, doing high level stuff, but getting a corporal's pay, so she mustered out, went private, which in real life is very high paying, and I imagine a super powerer private contractor earns a real premium. I can detail that a bit better.
Re: "Dense" it was hard in my head to reconcile "Dense" with "Sensible." I decided - and will try to express better - that she's not dumb, but is also not known as a tactical thinker. Not stupid. Just not known for her planning and forethought. side effect of this is spending her money as fast as she gets it. No planning for the future. She's just a hammer. Needs fleshing out, I agree. I think "supporting" came out in her feelings for her brother and her sending money to her dad. Maybe need to flesh that out more.
Also, side note, the title messed up, post submission, and I can't fix it. There's a bug report, but if it can't be fixed, I'm already planning a delete and re-post maneuver, because the name needs to display right, dammit. 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.