And I'd agree.
> I'd say that was a path to pissing-off your players, ..
> If the player *wanted* to create a
> character who's disrespect for authority got them into trouble, they
> could have chosen 'Disrespectful of Authority (flaw)'. That they did not
> should be significant. The narrator gets to control all the NPCs; let
> the players control their characters.
And that sounds like an interesting difference in playing style. The way we do things is collaberation, not competition. I'm about to point out to one of my players that his "Good Looks 5W2" (yes, I let him have it, because that's how he saw the character, and why not?) could be a serious Flaw under the current circumstances. If he likes the conflict that will be created by it, we'll go ahead. And if he decides that's no fun, we won't.
"We" control the entire universe, as a team. If the players have ideas for an NPC, I set some boundaries, then hand them the NPC. And if I have ideas on how to trigger some new conflict for the PC, I check with the player first.
Though you have just explained my character generation system to me, so thanks. I knew it made intuitive sense.
All abilities can be flaws. Yes, all of them. So they're all free. That's what we're doing, and it seems to be working, so far. And the players are happily dropping themselves in more trouble than I'd have ever dreamt of :)
Powered by hypermail