[Game Chef 2011] Hammlet & The Book of William

<< < (2/2)

Hans Chung-Otterson:
Quote from: ADGBoss on July 16, 2011, 05:59:08 AM



I am leaning towards Option 2 with a simple caveat: "Players are free to make their three traits as absurd or mundane as they wish, but they should try and remain plausible. The Poet and the other players have the right right to say 'Ok maybe that is too outlandish or impossible.' if the trait stretches possibility too much."

Thoughts?


I like leaving the traits open. I have a question, though: why plausability? I'm not saying that's a bad thing to need for your traits, but tell us what plausability in the traits does for the game, and then we'll know why we should try and remain plausible, as opposed to just being told to "do it".

ADGBoss:
I see plausibility as the last thin hold on reality that makes the absurdities that do occur have more impact. It also creates a unique image for each type of animal that cannot necessarily be copied by another animal. Other than their improved human like vocal chords and intelligence, the animals in the world have not undergone mutations. They are still chickens and pigs and goats and cows. So some level of plausibility is needed to keep things just grounded enough.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page