>> A note on format is in order... to aid Digest members in figuring out the
>> character write-ups, I have chosen to highlight the important categories
>> by bracketing them with special characters as follows: /core concept/,
>> [abilities], (goals), \supporting cast\ and <flaws>.
>
>Let's try one of these for fun...
>
And another:
Quackenbush, /Duck Lord of Death/ is <feared by all> for his [flaming
breath], [glance of death], [vorpal razor flipper move] and [instant multi
teleport] abilities. The fact that he is [wealthier than Bill Gates] makes
him [welcome in anyplace] and liable to be elected [lord Duck of
everything]by \everyone he meets\. He can [cast any spell known] and is
adept at [succeeding at impossible tasks]. He is [immortal] and
[omniscient]- he [knows the Godlearner secret]- and intends to (challenge
Orlanth for the Middle Air).
Geez - that's only 85 words. Methinks there's some potential for abuse here.
Any system is open to misuse, granted; the above is (for anyone on serious
drugs who hasn't figured it out yet) a humorous example of slavering
minmaxing. I hope this really *isn't* possible? But what are the
guidelines here? I mean, how do you adjudicate that "Close combat" is fair
but "Adept with all weapons" isn't - or is it? What about "Master of every
weapon"? How does the system address this?
>FWIW, no player character has yet died in combat in
>the two local playtests...
Can I suggest this might be a flaw?