There are issues with the way you create traits in Quint.  Basically, as it stands, the game requires a huge ammount of trust to function.  I think those of us who've playtested it have all seen how a person can just dump all their points into a certain trait or two that can be broadly applied and then apply it to every situation regardless of whether it is logically applicable.  Basically we have "Open locks the Half-Orc way" taken to the Nth degree.  Which isn't ALWAYS a bad thing, but can upset the balance of power.  I happen to be a fan of "Gather information the Half-Orc way," and "Ride Horse the Half-Orc way." [credit: Daggerella Knifesmore, not a half-orc]

 As talked about previously, if you use the Flashcards from setting creation in character creation for Quintessence,  you have an established form of hierarchy.

Maybe (and I kind of hate the idea, because Quintessence's greatest strength is how free-form it is) what the game needs is a basic list of "Traits" with a chart similar to Tri_Stat or Big Eye Small Mouth that shows how expensive each trait is in various settings.  And then players can add additional traits in another round similar to Flashcards setting creation?

That's all I got. 

since i was kinda blown away by character creation in dogs in the vineyard, and also see how it could tie to quintessence (or mayhem 6), i'll post a thought.

dogs uses a system of resolution that's mad cool.  basically, similar to my other favorite western themed game (dust devils) there are four stats, heart, will, acuity and body.  in the beginning of every conflict scene, you decide which stats you are using based on the type of conflict your intent suggests.  these are hard, fast sets, two stats for each of the 4 types of conflict/challenges.  non-physical, physical, violent but non-murderous, and muderous. pretty self-explanatory.  the cool part is that you get to roll more dice when you escalate the conflict from non-physical to physical, or physical to violent, or violent to murderous.  it's kinda awesome in that way.

as for character creation, you basically design your own traits, relationships, equipment and bonds.  the thing is, in Dogs, you get to allot different dice to each trait. for a 'weak' trait, you give it d4s.  for an awesome one, you give it d10s.   

in any conflict, you can call on any of your traits, etc.  the way Dogs makes it tough on you is by assigning damage (called fallout) based on how many dice it takes you to match your opponents 'attack.'  i could see this work for quintessence. the idea that your relationship/bond blows hurts you when you call on it.  you roll 2d4s, and need both of them to match your opponents 1d6 roll. you take damage.  what you need is not a list of traits, but a limitation on dice and punishment for escalating (ie calling on the extra traits)

The problem is still in the designing of your own stuff. There's little from keeping a player from picking a skill that's generally extremely useful and putting all his points into it at the same cost another player paid to pump his Baking really high. I guess I have to make the decision on some level if I want Baking to be an equally useful skill as Mercenary or Ninjitsu.

Also it's hard to tell someone when they can't use a particular trait for a situation.

In my limited testing, for example, one of the characters owned a mini-mart. That trait, "Mini-mart owner" came up a lot; it gave him a basic knowledge of security systems, let him resist falling asleep, even was kind of handy with a sawed-down baseball bat.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I don't know. But it didn't feel balanced. What I see in flashcards is a set of balances assigned by all players. It also somewhat limits what's available to choose from to the flavor of the setting, since they're the same thing on some level. The weights assigned to parts of the setting creation imply that those things are going to come up more often (probably), therefore traits and such associated with them should be more expensive?

I'm trying to resist having hard, set categorizations, because I want the system to be usable very broadly, as long as you're going for a cinematic feel. The "standard" breakdown of traits doesn't work well if you're doing, say, a courtroom drama or a mech combat game. Right now the quintessence is on the cusp of being able to handle either.

G - have a look at Capes. Whenever you do something, you *will* use a trait (and only one) ... which trait is completely up to the player and informs his narration. It has clear rules on how often you may re-use a given trait, either once per scene or as often as you want but you take "debt" each time you use it.

Capes looks interesting. I've heard about it before, but never realized they had a lite rules version available for free on the site.

We should play that some week. I think minds would be blown.

2 weeks ago. We did. They were.

Puts my game to shame frankly. I think it's brilliant. 

I'm rustling up some people to play Capes with me.  It intrigues me in an odd way.

I'm interested in gaming.

Did I mention I bought the full rules?

Where you at Juju? Are you a Mass-hole?

Nah, I'm down southern way like Viz.  I'm in Austin Texas, y'all.