Phillip Tarrant
057b83679b
The fragment's closing clause — "you have stopped claiming to know whether
it is your hands or the Warden that does the saving" — restated the thesis
of the blurb the player is reading at the same moment, inches above it in
the calling detail panel. The blurb's whole argument already IS the
unresolved-Warden question: it states it outright ("distant and does not
explain himself") and dramatises it with its doubled "Often enough." The
fragment took that artful implicit doubt, said it flat, and put it in the
emphatic final position of the composed DM line. Different words, same beat.
It also collided lexically with the beastfolk race fragment, which the
composition can place directly before it: "You stopped taking that
personally" / "you have stopped claiming".
Keep the front clause — "you are the one they wake at the third hour" is the
best image in the set and gives the player a position in a village that
nothing else on the screen supplies. Rewrite the back clause to say the next
thing instead of the same thing: what the failed nights cost, and that the
job does not release you for failing. The fragment no longer mentions the
Warden at all, so it cannot re-argue him; it now makes a claim about the
player's life rather than about a god.
Also avoids "carry", which the composition template itself supplies ("Now
you carry a Bonesetter's work"), so the rendered sentence no longer risks
repeating its own verb.
Client suite 255/255. content_build --check exit 0.
2 lines
370 B
JSON
2 lines
370 B
JSON
{ "id": "bonesetter", "name": "Bonesetter", "blurb": "The Warden is distant and does not explain himself. Still — you set the bone, you say the words, and often enough the rot does not take. Often enough.", "fragment": "you are the one they wake at the third hour, and when it goes the other way you wash the body yourself and answer the door again the next night." }
|