PDA

View Full Version : How do you prefer to develop well-rounded characters?



WarKitty
2011-03-20, 08:53 AM
I've seen a lot of "help my players have flat characters" threads around here. And there's some different suggestions out there for how to round out characters or encourage well-rounded characters. My question is, for those of us who enjoy having these characters, how do you develop them?

For me, personally, I absolutely have to play with the character a bit. I've looked at the question lists and such, and it just falls flat. However, usually I have a good idea where I want the character to go within the first session or two. Incidentally, this means I appreciate DM's who let me write or edit backstory a little bit into the game.

So, how about you?

The Dark Fiddler
2011-03-20, 09:03 AM
I've found I usually do best if I have a basic background made up when the game starts and expand it as the game goes on. That's also how I prefer to solidify personalities.

dsmiles
2011-03-20, 09:13 AM
I've found that simply asking my players to have a backstory ready when they come to the first session to roll up characters is enough. It could be a 15-page epic, or a few lines scribbled on a greasy napkin for all I care, as long as it's interesting to the player who wrote it.

EDIT: As a player, I write a short background, and have a pretty good idea of the character's personality before I even pick up a die to roll for stats.

KiCowboy
2011-03-20, 09:13 AM
In our crew, we found that many of our best characters came from systems with flaws or drawbacks. It is very common while creating a character to think of what you are good at, but thinking of a few limitations for them can help round out the character. Even if it's not part of the system, we now encourage players to always choose one or two core troubles, then think of how those troubles may have shaped them.

Matamane
2011-03-20, 09:21 AM
Flaws, Drawbacks, a 3x3x3 system, traits, and most important, have a DM that rewards good roleplaying/story elements. If the players try, show them that it is appreciated.

DragonOfLies
2011-03-20, 09:27 AM
How to make a well-rounded character? Take Willing Deformity (Obese) :smalltongue:

I like to play in city environments where my character has an established backstory in including a few important events in their past and maybe even a home and loved ones. This gives the DM something to go on if they want to make the PCs personaslly involved by (e.g.) a villain threatening loved ones or discovering a hidden weakness. The ordeals can help them overcome their weaknesses, drive them to insanity, or cause them to radically change their worldviews.

Kol Korran
2011-03-20, 09:28 AM
i have mostly DMed, but from the little i played as a player, i often used the following guidelines/ tips:

1) the main rule is that whatever i write at first, it is just the basics, the core ideas of the character, on which i build once we begin playing, feeling the party's interaction, the world, the people in it and so on.

2) i asked the DM what sort of a campaign it would be, any major themes. war? exploration? treasure hunting? city based? against a cult? against a political power? and so on. true, the DM can't tell me everything, but usually a little is enough. i try to have elements in may character's background and personality that may influence or be affected by what is happening.

3) i try to ask the other players what sort of characters they have in mind. i'm usually the last to finalize his character. if i can i add some themes to go with/ against the other party members- the more to play with!

4) we mostly play heroic campaigns, but i prefer my character to not be "a hero from birth", risen above due to his/ her abilities, distinction and so on. instead i prefer them to be regular folks, with somewhat exceptional skills who have heroism thrust upon them, till they actively choose it.

5) i'm fascinated by the concept of faith and religion in a D&D world, where gods may exist. i often have my character somewhat religious, be it "just paying her/ his dues"/ moderately religious/ or a zealot.

6) if possible, i try to have some sort of conflict (not a major theme in most cases) with the character.

those are my 2 cps :smallsmile:

WarKitty
2011-03-20, 10:02 AM
I've found that simply asking my players to have a backstory ready when they come to the first session to roll up characters is enough. It could be a 15-page epic, or a few lines scribbled on a greasy napkin for all I care, as long as it's interesting to the player who wrote it.

EDIT: As a player, I write a short background, and have a pretty good idea of the character's personality before I even pick up a die to roll for stats.

Interesting. Would you allow revisions or further development to the backstory as the game goes on? That's what I've found works best for my group - show up with a brief concept, play the character a bit, then write up how that character got to be where they are now.

dsmiles
2011-03-20, 10:13 AM
Interesting. Would you allow revisions or further development to the backstory as the game goes on? That's what I've found works best for my group - show up with a brief concept, play the character a bit, then write up how that character got to be where they are now.

As long as I got to see the revisions/developments (so I can revise any related plot hooks), I'd probably not have any problems with it. But I wouldn't allow it after...say...probably the third or fourth session. Players should be set in their characters pretty firmly by then, IMO.

OverdrivePrime
2011-03-20, 10:29 AM
My group are all a bunch of literature junkies, so it's an easy thing to impose a minimum 3 paragraph back story for any new character. Bonus exp for a particularly good story, with great depth and stuff that helps the GM flesh out the world and surrounding NPCs. We've also a few artists in our game group, so bonus exp for artwork as well.

Most of the time, three of us (myself included) will have written a five page back story with plenty of hooks for the GM to grab onto and abuse. When I'm GMing, I love this, and craft the story to help the players bring out the flavor of their characters that their back story was hinting at.

And yeah, revising is fine as they develop further and find something really cool that they love.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-20, 10:51 AM
I don't write backstories, personally. I pretty much come up with single motivation or two, and just see what else develops in roleplay. Things that come about because of multiple peoples actions invariably trump something you wrote down once that, if you're lucky, only the GM read.

It's not that writing is at all a problem for me. It's that I don't generally write things I don't see as necessary.

Hyudra
2011-03-20, 01:13 PM
I like to take some of the most common or cliched things of your typical D&D character and then reverse that... and then run with the idea.

Like, most adventurers are orphans? Maybe mine has an extended family that presents a great many problems and hassles. Picture Rosalie Brere, the sole daughter (of thirteen children) of the Don of the Halfling Mafia, with a cousin or uncle in every shady district of every city she comes across, each scheming to either exploit her or win her favor (and her father's).

Or, again, building off the lack of a family: Malcolm Dumont, son of a despot who ruled a small village for a decade, before adventurers deposed him and adopted Malcolm. Malcolm is torn between a loyalty to his biological father and the upbringing of his adoptive parents. Maybe Malcolm was arranged to marry the adventurer's daughter as part of a deal between his father (crippled in battle) and the adventurers... and the young adult Malcolm ran away when he found that, despite what he had thought (and consoled himself with) for the past decade, he wasn't to be heir of the city. Now he adventurers to gather wealth, contacts and power to overthrow his in-laws and take what is rightfully his.

The amnesiac hero? Perhaps my hero, inexplicably, has two disjointed sets of memories, each involving an individual's life up until the day they arrived at the Port City Galifar, where there's a short gap. Both sets of memories show the same face in the mirror, but use different names, involve different professions and drastically different lives.

Hometown razed by bad guys? Maybe my character grew up in a militant nomadic tribe that sustained itself by attacking and razing small villages. My character, Tasha Ninefingers, might have considered that a fact of life up until the point in time where her family slaughtered the small family of Mongrelfolk she had befriended.

Comet
2011-03-20, 01:22 PM
I, too, come up with only the most basic stuff from beginning and expand upon that as the game goes on. The game itself and the influence of the other people at the table are the unique thing about roleplaying games and as such I want to draw as much inspiration as possible from them and the ongoing dynamic of a game in progress.

If I just want to sit at home and write backstories and motivations and pages upon pages of high drama, I'll write a short story for its own sake. And besides, if you work out the entire character before the game begins there's a chance that the character won't fit at all into the other peoples' vision of the game unless you've been very careful about staying in contact with the whole group while writing your backstory and personality.

Set
2011-03-20, 05:08 PM
I usually come up with some interesting goals and ambitions, only to find that the pre-written adventure and / or the GM perversely do everything in their power to make them not only unachievable, but unrealistic or impossible.

Then I retire that character and play a min-maxed munchkin whose entire raison d'etre is 'punch stuff really hard' and have much more fun.

I call it 'Craft a Ventrue. Play a Brujah.'

dsmiles
2011-03-20, 05:13 PM
I usually come up with some interesting goals and ambitions, only to find that the pre-written adventure and / or the GM perversely do everything in their power to make them not only unachievable, but unrealistic or impossible.

Then I retire that character and play a min-maxed munchkin whose entire raison d'etre is 'punch stuff really hard' and have much more fun.

I call it 'Craft a Ventrue. Play a Brujah.'
Not a Ventrue Antitribu?

Vemynal
2011-03-20, 07:58 PM
Usually I'll work with my players individually before a campaign begins a couple different times to help them with what characters they want to play. For example one of my best friends is a horrid munchkin who would put little to no thought into a character other than "does the most damage".

In a level 4 campaign he wanted to be "A big dumb human barbarian" and then decided he wanted 2 levels of monk, 1 level of fighter and 1 of barbarian. He asked me if this was ok and I said I'd allow it if he could come up with a back story that incorporated each class. So he decided he was originally from the same monastic monastery as the Monk in the party but left the order because of his differing beliefs (more detail here but dont wanna go into), he joined up with an army but eventually deserted (bit of a plot hook) and eventually became a mercenary (a lot more detail but dont wanna go into it). I had to help him and coax him into coming up with these ideas but it came out with a well rounded character that he enjoyed playing who had plenty of plot hooks and a jaded past despite being "a dumb smash and bash" character.


Mind I personally tend to go off the deep end when designing character to the point where I might give to much detail or my fatal flaw is that I tend to lead towards characters who have seriously suffered from f***ed up situations in life

Shade Kerrin
2011-03-20, 10:56 PM
I personally like to write my character stories in two parts:
First, the character personalty, as well as their history, at least from the character's perspective.
Second, the actual character history, in other words what actually happened.

To me, a character consists of two things: What they are, and what they think they are.

Xuincherguixe
2011-03-20, 11:14 PM
I've found that this is only a challenge when there isn't a lot of setting information to draw on.

I decide what sort of character it is that I want, and consider the sorts of events that would lead to a person being that.

Pisha
2011-03-20, 11:26 PM
For me, the best way to get a well-rounded character is to get excited about playing the character. The more I get into their heads while playing, the more I'll understand about them.

Coming from a LARP perspective, a lot of my characters have "signature" traits - outfits or perfumes I only wear when I'm playing them, ways of speaking or nervous tics that only they have, etc. Putting on that outfit, smelling that perfume, and pitching my voice or moving my body in certain ways are all shortcuts to get into my character's mind - and once there, your characters will surprise you with what they'll let you know about their background and personality. (Note that I'm not suggesting using a costume or a twitch as a substitute for a good character - just as a tool for creating one.)

The same idea can be used in tabletop. Stay in-character as much as possible. Try to work out how your character talks, how she interacts with the other characters. Does she have a shy smile that vanishes a second later, or a saucy lopsided grin? Try it out and see what feels natural. It seems backwards, but once you've figured out the surface stuff, the in-depth parts will fall into place. (And then you find yourself texting your GM at 3 in the morning with "Hey! I figured out why my character hates the church! Call me!" or "You know that guy I keep rescuing from every dungeon? I'm thinking I've gotta be connected with him in backstory somehow. Could he be my long-lost something?" ...Or maybe that's just me.)

Ironically, the characters I've made with the most detailed backgrounds are the ones I have the least fun playing. Because there's no room for deviation! Let's face it, it's hard to know a character when you haven't played her yet, so don't set anything in stone. Give yourself some wiggle room.

(Yes, I talk about my characters as if they are actual people, independent of me. Don't lie. Deep in your hearts, you know you feel the same way about yours.)

WarKitty
2011-03-21, 12:12 AM
This is interesting. A lot of people don't seem to like to come to the table with a full backstory. Perhaps the advice for new DM's should be to run an introductory quest with an easy hook, then ask for a backstory when the initial bit is winding down.

One thing I have found helpful is telling the players in advance what the first plot hook will be. It is then their responsibility to figure out why their characters are involved in the hook. Generally this should be done fairly early.

Doc Roc
2011-03-21, 01:04 AM
This is interesting. A lot of people don't seem to like to come to the table with a full backstory. Perhaps the advice for new DM's should be to run an introductory quest with an easy hook, then ask for a backstory when the initial bit is winding down.



This. I like to strum on my six-string, run players through how they met up in a small adventure, play for a session or two, then ask for backstories. Barriers to entry are dumb.

absolmorph
2011-03-21, 06:17 AM
I've played 6 characters to date, all in various editions of DnD.
The first (a 3.0 human Paladin) only developed a backstory after the campaign he was in died.

The next two (a Sorcerer and Expert, 3.0 again) were essentially just stat blocks and ideas.

The fourth (a Sorcerer again, 3.5 this time) started with a basic idea (CN pyromaniac) and gradually gained a full personality and became a bit of a memetic badass (he can light fire on fire, for Pete's sake!). He'll likely never get a back story, but is one of the most intricate characters I've RPed.

The fifth (a Bard in a 2e game) has a back story and a glimmer of personality, but is honestly not much of a character.

The sixth (a Paladin in a 4e game) has a personality and the ending of his back story, and is about as good of a character as my fourth, in terms of how much RP I use with him.

So, my characters tend to be personalities and stats, and sometimes get a back story. Ironically, my bard is one of the most developed characters in the 2e game, and my paladin is around the middle of the road in that game. On the other hand, I'm the most vocal player in the 4e game, so I have the most time in the spot light, and I'm quiet in the 2e game, so my bard has only shined when shoved into the spot light.
Different people create characters in different ways. I prefer to create the character as the details are needed, with a few ideas for personality in my head and little else to go on. I'd have a lot of trouble putting together a back story before rolling up the character, like some people have said they do.

dsmiles
2011-03-21, 07:10 AM
This is interesting. A lot of people don't seem to like to come to the table with a full backstory. Perhaps the advice for new DM's should be to run an introductory quest with an easy hook, then ask for a backstory when the initial bit is winding down.

One thing I have found helpful is telling the players in advance what the first plot hook will be. It is then their responsibility to figure out why their characters are involved in the hook. Generally this should be done fairly early.See, I like to have my players come with full backgrounds. Character generation s usually a full session for us, so it gives me time to read said backgrounds and put the appropriate plot hooks into the adventure I have planned. Personally, I feel it's better to know where the character came from before I get started. (Which is why I always show up with a complete background when I am a player.

WarKitty
2011-03-21, 07:29 AM
See, I like to have my players come with full backgrounds. Character generation s usually a full session for us, so it gives me time to read said backgrounds and put the appropriate plot hooks into the adventure I have planned. Personally, I feel it's better to know where the character came from before I get started. (Which is why I always show up with a complete background when I am a player.

See, that's the way the current game I'm playing in worked. And honestly, I absolutely hate it. The backstories never fit the character that actually comes out in play, and it's impossible to work in plot hooks because the character I wrote the backstory for and the character that comes out in play are essentially two different characters. Which just leads to frustration all around.

obliged_salmon
2011-03-21, 08:06 AM
The trouble with backstories is that they tend to be full of awesome play material. I say, why just write it down on a piece of paper attached to your character sheet when you can play it out?

That being said. I suggest letting the players invest in the game. Let them help build the world, the setting, the conflict central to the story. Then, when they make characters to fit into that world and conflict, they KNOW who those characters should be. They KNOW what the characters' motives are. They can build relationships for their characters based on prominent figures in the setting. Once you have all that, the interlocking pieces just turn together. Voila, well-rounded characters.

hewhosaysfish
2011-03-21, 08:42 AM
My usual MO is to:
1) fail to think of an interesting concept at chargen
2) pick a mechanic I like to build a character around
3) add some sparse biographical details
4) declare I'll develop the rest in play
5) play a very bland character for the rest of the campaign

I'm getting better though. Now that I've noticed this trend, I make it a point to at least come up with a significant "blind-spot" for my character; some circumstance where there's something that my character would do/say that makes me think "No, I shouldn't do/say that. It's stupid."

Goonthegoof
2011-03-21, 08:58 AM
I build all the mechanical elements of a character first and then use that as a skeleton to build a character around. Usually works out pretty well, and means I never have to worry about the crunch matching the fluff.

Comet
2011-03-21, 09:02 AM
One thing I have found helpful is telling the players in advance what the first plot hook will be. It is then their responsibility to figure out why their characters are involved in the hook. Generally this should be done fairly early.

This is amazingly good advice and deserves to be quoted and repeated a bazillion times over. It's just that easy, zero chance of players feeling disapointed or mislead when they show up for the actual game.

DeadManSleeping
2011-03-21, 09:04 AM
Play Spirit of the Century (or another FATE system, I suppose). Seriously, in trying to come up with 10 non-redundant Aspects, you'll find that character depth is inevitable. Pretty surprising for a game based on high-action pulp adventure, but there it is.

Fhaolan
2011-03-21, 09:26 AM
My basic pattern to come up with well-rounded characters is to come up with two or three things the character is interested in that has nothing to do with adventuring per se, and a primary reason as to why they are adventuring in the first place.

For example, a full-orc ranger character I had once was:
1) interested in music, and played a recorder fairly well.
2) was the second son of his tribal chief.
3) has an ongoing, and acrimonious, rivalry with his sister.
and adventured because he was trying to get away from his tribe, and was avoiding his responsibilities at home.

From there lots of more details came out during the game.

If I'm *really* stuck, or just for giggles, I run the character through Central Casting, an old 'character background' rulebook that has a tendency to be really stupid. However, as long as you're willing to toss out more than half of the results due to insanity or boringness, what's left can be interesting.

Yora
2011-03-21, 09:30 AM
Being a bit pseudo-socratic: What is a well rounded character?

Goonthegoof
2011-03-21, 09:35 AM
A character that responds in an internally consistent way to outside stimulus.

Britter
2011-03-21, 09:44 AM
I ask for three beliefs. In the context of my games, one belief should be about another PC, one belief should be about the current conflict and situation (my players always know this before we get into character creation, i.e. they are aware of the circumstances under whch play will begin), and one belief should be a philosophy or ideal that they wish to espouse or embody.

The players beliefs should have have some common elements, and we discuss this until we are all satisfied.

Then we play, and I try like heck to challenge what the players say the characters believe in.

From there, we meet the characters through play.

I am not a fan of long backgrounds. At most, a paragraph without a lot of detail is best, though I honestly prefer no written background. That way you are free to let the character develop as you play.

I don't think my approach works very well in DnD, thugh it can be shoehroned in. It works wonderfully in the systems I took it from (Burning wheel/Mouseguard).

Delwugor
2011-03-21, 10:14 AM
My best characters where when I come up with a personality, general ambitions, some flaws and maybe a 2 sentence background to start. Then develop the character full fledge interacting with the campaign, environment and other players. I do tend to change the background and sometimes the ambitions and flaws but rarely do I change the personality. In fact I prefer to do another character than change the personality.

dsmiles
2011-03-21, 01:35 PM
See, that's the way the current game I'm playing in worked. And honestly, I absolutely hate it. The backstories never fit the character that actually comes out in play, and it's impossible to work in plot hooks because the character I wrote the backstory for and the character that comes out in play are essentially two different characters. Which just leads to frustration all around.As a player, I'm exactly the opposite. The character that comes out in play is the character that I wrote. I usually do extensive research (by asking the DM questions for a couple of weeks before a new campaign) about the campaign world, what type of adventures he/she is likely to run, etc. I design a character around these bits of info, and when the DM challenges my character's beliefs/reactions, I stick to my guns with the character's personality/beliefs/reactions/etc. The character may develop over time, but that's only through extensive game time (months and years of game time). And only as much as a normal person would be expected to change under extreme circumstances (such as living an adventurer's life).

That's mostly why I prefer to have full histories as a DM, I kind of hold my players to a high standard of knowing their characters inside and out. Make no mistake, though, I don't hold them to any standard that I'm not capable of achieving. I don't expect anything from them that I haven't done, or can't or won't do, myself.

But character development is an entirely separate issue from character backstories. Everybody grows and changes based on their experiences. Anyone who says their experiences haven't changed them, well, I call their bluff (as a one-time psych major). I expect personalities and outlooks to change over the course of a campaign. Be it shifts in alignment, a different outlook on tactics, whatever. Whole separate issue.

Not trying to be offensive, here, I'm just trying to get my POV across.

EDIT: Also note I said I "prefer" full histories. That doesn't mean that they're mandatory to play in my games. Like I said earlier, a few notes on a greasy napkin will do (I keep using that example, because it's happened, and turned out to be the most well-RP'd character I've ever seen).

absolmorph
2011-03-21, 01:49 PM
A character that responds in an internally consistent way to outside stimulus.
Is a general MO of "Burn it, poison it or stab it until it dies, then take its precious bodily fluids/organs and reanimate it." an internally consistent response to outside stimuli?

WarKitty
2011-03-21, 01:55 PM
As a player, I'm exactly the opposite. The character that comes out in play is the character that I wrote. I usually do extensive research (by asking the DM questions for a couple of weeks before a new campaign) about the campaign world, what type of adventures he/she is likely to run, etc. I design a character around these bits of info, and when the DM challenges my character's beliefs/reactions, I stick to my guns with the character's personality/beliefs/reactions/etc. The character may develop over time, but that's only through extensive game time (months and years of game time). And only as much as a normal person would be expected to change under extreme circumstances (such as living an adventurer's life).

That's mostly why I prefer to have full histories as a DM, I kind of hold my players to a high standard of knowing their characters inside and out. Make no mistake, though, I don't hold them to any standard that I'm not capable of achieving. I don't expect anything from them that I haven't done, or can't or won't do, myself.

But character development is an entirely separate issue from character backstories. Everybody grows and changes based on their experiences. Anyone who says their experiences haven't changed them, well, I call their bluff (as a one-time psych major). I expect personalities and outlooks to change over the course of a campaign. Be it shifts in alignment, a different outlook on tactics, whatever. Whole separate issue.

Not trying to be offensive, here, I'm just trying to get my POV across.

EDIT: Also note I said I "prefer" full histories. That doesn't mean that they're mandatory to play in my games. Like I said earlier, a few notes on a greasy napkin will do (I keep using that example, because it's happened, and turned out to be the most well-RP'd character I've ever seen).

It's more that one of the common mistakes I've seen and made in DM'ing is assuming that what's easy for the DM to do is also easy for the players to do. I have people like you who prefer to write out backstories in advance, and find it comes quite easily to them. I've asked for things that would be easy for me to write and gotten an earful when some of my players found them difficult; I've also had problems where what's easy for the DM to write out is very difficult for me.

And honestly that's a problem I've seen in a lot of threads here. Many times when the DM says "I never have a problem doing this," it doesn't mean some of the players aren't having problems with it. It's just a function of having a diverse group of people.

Kiero
2011-03-21, 02:19 PM
There's a fundamental problem here. From the GM's perspective, you will not get a well-rounded character out of a player who has no interest in developing one. That's the real issue, you can't make someone turn a set of stats into a character if they don't want to.

John Campbell
2011-03-21, 04:15 PM
I develop RPG characters the same way I develop characters for solo fiction. I reach into the back of my head and pull out their skin, put it on, and get to know them through the way we act. And I get really, really irritated with people who want me to preserve them in amber before I've had a chance to get to know them.

And from what I've seen, demanding this does not prevent people from playing the same Chivalrous Noble Knight Mark XVIII or Pyromaniac (Half-)Elven Sorcerer Mark XXIV that they always play, with perhaps lengthy histories that differ superficially from previous ones, but no distinguishing marks on their one-dimensional personalities, who we half the time can't even remember the names of any particular iteration of.

Xanmyral
2011-03-21, 04:51 PM
My method when trying to create a character is kinda relaxed. I always feel that if you try to force out a character, you will get something hashed and hackneyed. My starting point can be from multiple positions, be they fluff, mechanical, or what I want to do. I usually start at fluff or what I want to do, but there are occasions I see some interesting thing I wouldn't mind working in.

One of the easiest things for me would be to craft a background. It's not that hard for me to do. Something that is hard for me however is crafting a personality, as I tend to find my self leaking into my characters much more than I would like, to where it's frustrating at times. :smallannoyed: It could just be me thinking this though... :smallconfused:

Yora
2011-03-21, 05:01 PM
I don't think I've ever put much effort into coming up with a characters personalty.
But then, in the 12 or so years of playing RPGs, I basically play always the same two character-concepts. The details depend on the camoaign and the game, but the mindset is basically always the same.

Kiero
2011-03-21, 05:12 PM
I don't think I've ever put much effort into coming up with a characters personalty.
But then, in the 12 or so years of playing RPGs, I basically play always the same two character-concepts. The details depend on the camoaign and the game, but the mindset is basically always the same.

Does that not get boring? I mean I say this as someone who sticks to a very short list of archetypes in terms of capability, but each character is their own person with a distinct personality. One which I develop at the time.

Yora
2011-03-21, 05:19 PM
It's always a very different backstory and in a completely different environment. But every character I come up with turns out to be another variation of either one or the other archetype.

Narren
2011-03-21, 08:18 PM
A character that responds in an internally consistent way to outside stimulus.

My attack roll comes after every initiative roll. :smalltongue:

Nah, I'm kidding. I once played a coward that refused to help in combat unless he felt totally safe. I wanted to optimize, and my group is notoriously unoptimized, so it seemed like a good balancer.

Beowulf DW
2011-03-21, 09:21 PM
Just throwing this out there as a possible example:

In the Pathfinder campaign that I'm playing with several of my friends, our characters were working for a theocracy and got betrayed by said theocracy. I am playing an Inquisitor and one of my friends is playing a Paladin, both of whom were devoted to the theocracy. Both of our characters are lawful good. However, ever since our betrayal, the paladin has been clinging more and more to his code, while my character is shifting towards Neutral Good and clinging to his loyalty for his paladin friend. The other PCs, however, have little connection to the theocracy we were originally working for, and haven't really changed much at all.

I suppose that the point I'd like to put forward is that the more a PC is connected to the central conflict of the campaign, the more that character grows over the course of the campaign.

Natael
2011-03-22, 02:06 PM
I usually come up with a base concept of what I'd like to be able to do (sword fight, control plants, teleport, be a linguist etc....), then spend time poking around the disadvantages chapter thinking about what would make for an interesting personality (as well as some that I just tend to use based on my own personality, like curious). After that and building the character, I generally develop my character based on how I react to what happens in the first session, as often something dramatic happens and it gives me something to work with. Most of the time, I get something expressive and interesting.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-22, 02:33 PM
I like to develop well-rounded characters on a diet of bacon and ice cream.

Knaight
2011-03-22, 02:34 PM
I prefer to gradually develop well rounded characters. Start with a few traits, build up from there, responding to the game as it is being played.

For example, my most recent sword and sorcery character was a spy named Mynra. She started out with the following traits, and little else.
She is an extremely gifted liar, and extremely dependent on this ability, with no qualms about lying.
Her little country has been destroyed, and she is collaborating with surviving leaders scattered around to try to revive it.
She has deluded herself into believing that she is extremely selfish and detached.
She prefers to avoid risks when possible, and considers being difficult to predict and being difficult to access key parts of this.
She is a spy.


Its not much, just the barest outlines of a character, but it grew into a fully developed character easily, as the other players had similarly developed characters, and the GM had a similarly developed world with developed NPCs, and the interactions between all these elements caused each and every one of them to receive more depth.

Otogi
2011-03-22, 02:41 PM
What is presumably the Gurren Lagann way: make a concept I think is cool, then fill in the cracks, shape it to fit the campaign and cover them in hooks.