Also responding to John’s post “In Response…” (the second half, regarding archetypes).
“This may seem harsh…”
Ah good, a mature response. I’ve been told I can be a trifle harsh (“you just told him his baby is ugly!” “it’s got three eyes and two noses, I think that qualifies” – during a particular code review I was part of) so I figured I’d try to soften it a little.
I find the same thing you do – as long as it’s treated respectfully (where the definition of ‘respectful’ can vary quite a bit by audience; I’m a member of a forum where conversation might be described as ‘very robust’ (and by some as downright rude or vulgar), but I have to admit that the lack of formality is refreshing) I’m quite okay with people pointing out flaws in my reasoning or design, especially if they can suggest ways to improve the product. That’s why I look for feedback; as gratifying as “this looks good” can be, a reasoned negative response helps me find and fix flaws in my work.
Regarding the Archetypes Section
Ah, this is more an analysis exercise than a design exercise. That explains much. I’ll leave off examination of this section for now then.
Actually, I think the feedback and suggestions in my review of the Talents section may be more useful than my response to the Archetypes section because most of my issues in the Archetypes section stem from issues I see in the Talent definitions and Talent list.