> This is an interesting point. It seems that, to some extent due to the
> fact
> that you can tailor keywords, that all abilities are implicitly
> optional. So
> I've always been intrigued by the fact that personality traits are
> explicitly optional.
>
> What do people see this as meaning?
I see it as reflecting frequency, and the need for player justification.
Most keyword abilities are things that it would be surprising to lack,
or which are true by definition (a cavalry soldier must be able to ride,
for instance). If the player doesn't want his hero to have one of these
abilities then fine, but he should have a good reason in mind. 'Can I
lack this ability? ' asks the player - 'Yes, but...' says the GM. There
can be an interesting story as to why a Heortling has no relationship to
his own clan, and this can help drive the game, but the reason should be
more than 'just because'.
Personality traits, by contrast, define a national stereotype, religious ideal, or similar. The Seshnegi may prize piety and obedience as virtues, but many people fall short of the ideal. Doing so requires no special justification beyond the fact that the hero is atypical, non-virtuous, or whatever. (Which isn't to say they can't have a special justification if they want one, of course!) Now, if you want to become a hero receiving the acclaim of his community/cult, it may be quite hard if you don't have the virtues that they value. But if that isn't the player's aim, that may not be a problem. An impious Seshnegi would be far less surprising to encounter than a hunter who lacks Wilderness Survival. It's also worth noting that, on some occasions, the listed personality traits can include opposites, because there's more than stereotype of the group in question - presumably there are few Farmers who are both Cheerful *and* Dour, for example.
-- Trotsky Gamer and Skeptic ------------------------------------------------------ Trotsky's RPG website: http://www.ttrotsky.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail