How does the giant make such three dimensional characters?

[Scowling Dragon]

Its such a paradox! His characters are LITERALLY 2 dimensional yet they inspire the most philosophical and character debate then any other comic I have read! All the while writing the most cliched archetypes possible!

How do you do it Giant!

[LordofNaught]

One thing he probably does is extensive planning. Ayn Rand, author of the infamous Atlas Shrugged had a full notebook on planning for the book and the characters therein. With all the time between posts, the Giant is no doubt doing the same or a similar thing.

[Scowling Dragon]

Except the Giant doesn't push Objectivism. :smallbiggrin:

(If I need to take this down I will)

[LordofNaught]

Meh, I was referring to the planning, not Miss Rand's philosophy. Yes, I know you were being funny (and I don't mind that), but I had to get this out and clear to anyone reading this thread.

[Steward]

I think one of the hallmarks of great characterization is that a reader can realistically try to predict how a character will act or behave in a theoretical situation.

They seem so real, with their own distinct voices, mannerisms, and outlooks, as if they really existed somewhere and Rich Burlew was just transcribing their words and actions. Even though obviously he's making it all up, it never feels "forced". For example, when V made the soul splice pact with the archfiends, there's clearly a plot reason for that but it also unfolds organically from his/her character; it's the kind of thing that V would do and it doesn't feel as if s/he was just ordered to do it by the author's fiat.

I have no clue how it's done.

[oppyu]

Regular sacrifices to the great Gods of literature and creativity. Seriously, he just heads to one of those nerd-conventions, yells out 'who wants to sleep with the head writer of The Order of the Stick?', and takes the first groupie back to his ritual chamber.

[ferrodoxin]

who wants to sleep with the head writer of The Order of the Stick?
BLASPHEMY!
You seem to imply there are other writers of this comic....

[Omergideon]

I think one of the keys is that the most important thing in the story is the characterisation. The real hallmarks for me of a 3D character is not just that we could predict how they would act. Rather it is that the Giant takes time out to include scenes that are nothing but character moments. Small scenes just of 2 or more characters talking about something and responding. They do not contibute much if anything to the plot, but they SHOW us what the people we are following are like.

For instance, the scene between Celia and Roy talking about the stars. In terms of story or plot it adds almost nothing. It wasn't about the humour or anything else. It was just a scene with 2 characters interacting and showing us how they think about certain issues.

Other than this I would suggest maybe the way the Giant writes is to start with a situation, put his characters into it and just try to figure out "what would Elan/Roy/V/Haley do in this situation"? When I do this I essentially roleplay out what I reckon my characters would do. Maybe the Giant does a written version of this, and then lets the story progress from that.

Otherwise I am not really sure. Probably the short answer is talent and good writing.

[Nightmarenny]

Meh, I was referring to the planning, not Miss Rand's philosophy. Yes, I know you were being funny (and I don't mind that), but I had to get this out and clear to anyone reading this thread.

Putting aside any discussion of her ideology Ayn Rands characters are notoriously one dimensional. It isn't really a good comparison.

[factotum]

He's a good writer. It's that simple. How the characters are represented graphically is irrelevant; there are plenty of highly memorable characters who appear in novels where they have no graphical representation *at all*.

I'm with Steward on the more fundamental reason for it, though: the characters in this comic all have their own distinct voice. We, the reader, don't feel as if the characters are just there to parrot the author's words. That is the mark of a good storyteller--that you forget these characters are fundamentally somebody's fictional invention and start ascribing motives and aspirations to them far beyond what appears in the source material.

[Lvl45DM!]

Pure unadulterated awesome.

[RelentlessImp]

They seem so real, with their own distinct voices, mannerisms, and outlooks, as if they really existed somewhere and Rich Burlew was just transcribing their words and actions.

Many writers feel they do exactly this.

[mrmcfatty]

He took the feat "craft epic story" and also has max ranks in "craft:animation" and "perform:webcomic"

[King of Nowhere]

fantasy author Brandon Sanderson (if you don't know him, you should: he writes damn good stuff, and with terry pratchett and rich burlew is one of the guys I'll buy everything they write, because just them having written it is enough to guarantee it will be worth reading) made some lectures on how to write, and they are posted on the internet, and while I never watched them (I don't understand well english from a recored video) some main points are also written down.
That's what he has to say about characterization


Main Points:

Giving depth to your characters is one of the most important ways of increasing character sympathy.
Make your characters care about things other than the plot. Remember that your character’s life doesn’t begin when the book begins.
If everything your character thinks about and does is focused around the plot then your character will feel fake to your readers.
Beware this mistake when it comes to creating love interests for your main character. Rather than being a person, the love interest simply becomes a role in the plot with little true personality. IE Edward from Twilight or Ramona from “Scott Pilgrim vs the World”
Ask yourself of your characters, “What do they want most in life? Particularly if the plot had never happened to them?”
Give your characters random interests, and a couple of big hopes and dreams that extend beyond the life of the plot.
Some of people’s favorite sections of books revolve around the characters focusing on their passions outside the main plot. IE A scene in the WoT where Perrin simply makes door latches, or an episode in Star Trek where Picard is stuck inside an alien probe where he lives an entire life, has a family, learns to play the flute, and so on.
Note: Your job as a novelist is to learn how to work like a stage magician and make coincidences seem plausible.
Note: There are many different types of relation centered plot dynamics besides a romance: Wise mentor and his student, best friends who start out hating each other, the irritable dragon and his tamer, etc.

I have to say, you can see much of that in rich's work.
If you are intersted in those lectures, here is the link: http://www.writeaboutdragons.com/home/brandon_w2012/

Brandon also complained a few times that in a 400-pages novel he don't have enough space for a characterization as deep as he would like.
Well, I still can't figure out how Rich can do a good characterization with a few panels - like Gannji and Enor, or samantha and her dad - but he can.
Also, his characters are not really archetypes, as claimed by the op; or at least, not just archetypes. Many of them certainly dig their roots into archetypes, but they grow their indipendent personality over that.

[SavageWombat]

John Scalzi (in response to the discussion of Dumbledore being gay) once pointed out that he, personally, knew dozens of details about his characters that have not seen print. And he suspects most writers do as well.

[Forikroder]

I think one of the hallmarks of great characterization is that a reader can realistically try to predict how a character will act or behave in a theoretical situation.

They seem so real, with their own distinct voices, mannerisms, and outlooks, as if they really existed somewhere and Rich Burlew was just transcribing their words and actions. Even though obviously he's making it all up, it never feels "forced". For example, when V made the soul splice pact with the archfiends, there's clearly a plot reason for that but it also unfolds organically from his/her character; it's the kind of thing that V would do and it doesn't feel as if s/he was just ordered to do it by the author's fiat.

I have no clue how it's done.

this is how you tell the great authors from the good, when it is no longer a story inked on paper (or pixeled on your monitor) and becomes a window into a different world you know that author is amazing

[Omergideon]

John Scalzi (in response to the discussion of Dumbledore being gay) once pointed out that he, personally, knew dozens of details about his characters that have not seen print. And he suspects most writers do as well.

Indeed. As I said it needs to be about "what would person x do in this situation" rather than "x happens, lets put the characters into their roles here now". And when acting or writing I will always know a hell of a lot about any character that is never put into a story explicitly. That being said some of these detais should be alluded to, or hinted at in quiet ways so that we get a sense for the character outside the story being told here.

[Sunken Valley]

I do not know. Lets hope he comes and answers himself. Do you think if I say his name 3 times he appears. Rich Burlew, Rich Burlew, Rich Burlew! He's not coming til at least next week but still.

Here are some conspiracy theories:

1. Rich is the head writer of OOTS. The whole thing is a joint endeavour run by his family and friends. That is one of the reasons why he kept everything about them hidden (apart from the obvious reasons). This explains the recent emphasis on family in the comic (arguably a time bomb waiting to go off from the beginning although).

2. Rich Burlew is a robot. This is why he has never been seen in the last 5 years. A robot is carrying out the comic. The robot gained more of a free will in July 2011 (four years after its takeover). Notice the recent replying on forums after that time, the use of twitter and kick starter and in his "interview" with Jidasfire, he never uses a single syllable he did not use in his last interview.

3. Rich Burlew is using a soul splice. Charles Dickens, William Shakespeare (or Arthur Miller) and Akira Kurosawa are attached. Rich lost Kurosawa in 2007 and he went in hiding to maintain the other 2. When the IFCC take their reward, they will be able to appear in our world for a combined 24 years. :smalleek:


None of these are actually true (although 1 probably has parts of the truth). Apologies if Rich was offended.

[prufock]

Its such a paradox! His characters are LITERALLY 2 dimensional yet they inspire the most philosophical and character debate then any other comic I have read!

Not to take anything away from the author (he is a good writer with the ability to craft interesting characters, plots, and humour), but it's not like most webcomics set the bar very high for philosophical and character debate. I'd say 99% of webcomics are drivel.

[Forikroder]

Not to take anything away from the author (he is a good writer with the ability to craft interesting characters, plots, and humour), but it's not like most webcomics set the bar very high for philosophical and character debate. I'd say 99% of webcomics are drivel.

its not like Webcomics are a very good medium for storytelling, its pretty hard to actually make your webcomic popular enough to pay the bills so msot of the time people do it as a fun way to kill time and tell jokes

[LadyEowyn]

It's impressive that he's able to craft such a strong story and engaging characters out of what's a very basic and limited medium, but what's even more interesting to me is how steep the strip's rise in quality over time has been. The first "book" is basically crap, where the drawing is poor and the characters basically exist for jokes about D&D, whereas Don't Split the Party and the current book have great drawing, complex and deep characterization, and - particularly in the current book - increasingly complicated plots. Books 2 and 3 are sort of in between, where Rich seems to be getting the hang of this "writing" thing.

I've seen good writing and bad writing, but rarely such a steep and evident learning curve.

[lio45]

It's impressive that he's able to craft such a strong story and engaging characters out of what's a very basic and limited medium, but what's even more interesting to me is how steep the strip's rise in quality over time has been. The first "book" is basically crap, where the drawing is poor and the characters basically exist for jokes about D&D, whereas Don't Split the Party and the current book have great drawing, complex and deep characterization, and - particularly in the current book - increasingly complicated plots. Books 2 and 3 are sort of in between, where Rich seems to be getting the hang of this "writing" thing.

I've seen good writing and bad writing, but rarely such a steep and evident learning curve.

FYI, the learning curve isn't that steep when you realize how many years there are between Book 1 and and Books 4 & 5.

But yeah, Rich's an incredibly talented writer.

[Devils_Advocate]

1. "How would a real person of this character's description act in this situation?"
1(a). "Wait, first off, what would a real person of this character's description be like?"

2. "What would be the sensible decision for the character to make at this point?"

A lot of deconstruction can happen when the answers to 1 and 2 are the same, because lots of cliches involve fictional characters acting in inhumanly foolish ways (as opposed to engaging in foolishness that we recognize as all too human).

I don't know that Rich deliberately seeks to answer these questions per se, but I think that a lot of his good writing (and a lot of good writing in general) involves answering them.

One could probably come up with other such questions.

[Capt Spanner]

I don't tend to find quizzing my characters work. I find it works better to put a character in a situation and ask only one question: "Why did they do that?" Repeat until you can't answer any more.

Actually, it works better to ask "Why did you do that?" and get the answer in their own voice. This also gets to the other tricky thing of how do they justify their reactions to themselves.

But stories aren't just characters - they are about how those characters influence the world around them and how they are influenced by the world around them. I find the best thing to do is to choose my ending (e.g. Luke Skywalker's mastery of The Force allows him to overcome Darth Vader, and his master of himself allows him to do so without falling to the Dark Side, and in doing so causes Darth Vader to redeem himself), then choose my start (e.g. Luke Skywalker is a farm boy constantly dreaming of becoming a pilot and having adventures). Then work out how to link one to the other - what must the character go through to become what they are at the end.

[prufock]

its not like Webcomics are a very good medium for storytelling, its pretty hard to actually make your webcomic popular enough to pay the bills so msot of the time people do it as a fun way to kill time and tell jokes

True enough. It depends on the intentions of the author and illustrator. Intentions could be: funny, cute, thoughtful, nerdy, artistic, epic, slick, etc.

I still feel that most fall short of any sort of intention, though.
OotS manages to accomplish good story, good characters, some humour, and an obvious sense of style. I can't think of any other webcomic that accomplishes this.
I would say "humour" is probably the most common goal of webcomics, yet the only one that consistently makes me laugh is Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal. I know humour is subjective, and other comics make me laugh from time to time, but SMBC is the only reliable one.

[ti'esar]

True enough. It depends on the intentions of the author and illustrator. Intentions could be: funny, cute, thoughtful, nerdy, artistic, epic, slick, etc.

I still feel that most fall short of any sort of intention, though.
OotS manages to accomplish good story, good characters, some humour, and an obvious sense of style. I can't think of any other webcomic that accomplishes this.
I would say "humour" is probably the most common goal of webcomics, yet the only one that consistently makes me laugh is Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal. I know humour is subjective, and other comics make me laugh from time to time, but SMBC is the only reliable one.

I feel this is pretty unfair (as well as extremely off-topic - I'd rather this thread not get into a debate of this sort). Not many webcomics I've read match OOTS in quality, but there's a heck of a difference between that and being 'drivel'. I've read drivel, and I'm pretty sure that I've never read any webcomics that qualify - although I only read those I've seen recommended, so that's not saying much.

[Steward]

I feel this is pretty unfair (as well as extremely off-topic - I'd rather this thread not get into a debate of this sort). Not many webcomics I've read match OOTS in quality, but there's a heck of a difference between that and being 'drivel'. I've read drivel, and I'm pretty sure that I've never read any webcomics that qualify - although I only read those I've seen recommended, so that's not saying much.

Well, yeah. That's like saying, "I only read books that are well-recommended, therefore no books are drivel". Because of the low barriers to entry for webcomics (there are geocities-like sites that enable anyone to post a new webcomic in less than fifteen minutes), it's pretty easy to get a bad webcomic out there and it's easy to make a webcomic that's basically something you made in Microsoft Paint in three minutes and put about that much thought into it.

That doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of great webcomics out there, but it does mean that for every Order of the Stick there are twenty webcomics that were dashed off in a couple of minutes.

[ti'esar]

Well, yeah. That's like saying, "I only read books that are well-recommended, therefore no books are drivel".

My objection is to prufock's claim that 99 percent of webcomics are drivel. Obviously there are some bad ones out there, but I think his depiction of OOTS as virtually the lone light in a sea of utter incompetence is unfair.

[Steward]

My objection is to prufock's claim that 99 percent of webcomics are drivel. Obviously there are some bad ones out there, but I think his depiction of OOTS as virtually the lone light in a sea of utter incompetence is unfair.

I thought it was just meant to be a reference to Sturgeon's law, commonly paraphrased as, "90% of everything is crap". I don't think he meant that OOTS is virtually the only good webcomic and the rest are utter drivel, only that the "bad" webcomics far outnumber the "good" ones (just like how there are more bad books than there are classics) simply because there's really no quality control and it's easy for someone to publish a webcomic without really putting any time into it, so a lot of people do it.

[King of Nowhere]

I thought it was just meant to be a reference to Sturgeon's law, commonly paraphrased as, "90% of everything is crap". I don't think he meant that OOTS is virtually the only good webcomic and the rest are utter drivel, only that the "bad" webcomics far outnumber the "good" ones (just like how there are more bad books than there are classics) simply because there's really no quality control and it's easy for someone to publish a webcomic without really putting any time into it, so a lot of people do it.

I like that law. I came to the same conclusion several years ago, but that law sums it up much better than i would have done. I guess it's a natural consequence of striving for excellence and setting one's standards accordingly.
And I agree with the rest of the post too: because of the low entry barrier for webcomics, the crappy webcomics are even more than the expected 90%.
There are so many webcomics that, for the law of great numbers, there's a significant amount of good ones even if so many are bad. However, I tried several of those recommended as good ones and always stopped reading after a while. Oots is much better than other good webcomics.

[jonathan_sicari]

{Scrubbed}

[ti'esar]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I don't believe that's an accurate use of 'hack'.

[oppyu]

{Scrubbed}

[jonathan_sicari]

I don't believe that's an accurate use of 'hack'.

He doesn't make his living writing a periodical?

[JaaSwb]

He doesn't write rushed, low-quality work to order.

[Anteros]

I guess I'll be the voice of dissent here. First of all, don't get me wrong...I love OOTs. However, I think the only really deep character in the whole series is Roy. The rest are all kinda cliche and 2-dimensional. Yes, there are hints at deeper characters, but they're not exactly fleshed out.

And no, I don't blame him for that, because that's the reason most of the jokes work. OOTs style simply doesn't lend itself well to fleshing out deep, realistic characters.

[Scowling Dragon]

I mean all the Redcloak/ Taquin discussions.

[oppyu]

I guess I'll be the voice of dissent here. First of all, don't get me wrong...I love OOTs. However, I think the only really deep character in the whole series is Roy. The rest are all kinda cliche and 2-dimensional. Yes, there are hints at deeper characters, but they're not exactly fleshed out.

And no, I don't blame him for that, because that's the reason most of the jokes work. OOTs style simply doesn't lend itself well to fleshing out deep, realistic characters.
Alert! Someone on this forum is expressing anything less than total adoration for Order of the Stick! Send in the genetically-engineered, carnivorous hamsters! I'll lower his morale and distract him with scathing insults!

{Scrubbed}

[ti'esar]

OOTs style simply doesn't lend itself well to fleshing out deep, realistic characters.

If by style you mean the art style, then I flatly disagree.

[Anteros]

If by style you mean the art style, then I flatly disagree.

No, I mean the joke a day and general pacing. We just don't get enough insight into most of the characters to call them deep. Art style has little to do with storytelling.

I'm not knocking Rich's work here. I love his work. I just disagree about the point on character depth. Oots is great, but it's for different reasons like humor, plot, and the ability to constantly surprise the reader.

[Iranon]

He keeps his characters fleshed out beyond what we see and maintains a good grasp on how his characters think and act, instead of focusing too much on the intended effect on the audience.

This allows larger-than-life characters without jarring inconsistencies and avoids problems where the author's interpretation of a character (sympathetic or not, hero or villain) differs from the reader's.

[Omergideon]

I guess I'll be the voice of dissent here. First of all, don't get me wrong...I love OOTs. However, I think the only really deep character in the whole series is Roy. The rest are all kinda cliche and 2-dimensional. Yes, there are hints at deeper characters, but they're not exactly fleshed out.

And no, I don't blame him for that, because that's the reason most of the jokes work. OOTs style simply doesn't lend itself well to fleshing out deep, realistic characters.

Oh they all started out VERY 2 dimensional, with Roy as the most complex. However I do believe they have moved far beyond that. The hints I would say are certainly fleshed out in most cases. For instance the Darth V arc more expertly fleshed out the nature of V's drive for power, his flaws and has been extended to a new redemptive line that frankly I think matches any in fiction. Elan has in some ways served as a deconstruction of the innocent man child, and how they need to grow up. And has done it with more and more depth.

Those things you say are hints I would say mostly act as revelations of the deeper nature of the characters and are often called back to or reinforce the jokes. The fact they get layered subtly into the characters reactions and actions, whilst not detracting from humour, is a strength.

Granted not all are so 3-D. Belkar is relatively simplistic, as is Xykon. Durkon is.....Durkon. And few secondary characters (Lien, O'Chul, Hinjo, Jirix) get more than a little detail. But people such as Redcloak, MiTD, Haley or even (and I dislike him still) Tarquin and Miko were very complex people. I think a mark for this is how you could take most of these people, put them into a wide variety of situations and get a reasonable and in character set of stories with depth.

But such is just my opinion of course.

[averagejoe]

The Mod They Call Me: Please be reminded, everyone, that while criticism of Rich's work is generally welcomed, insults against Rich are not. Please try to keep your comments to the work itself and not the person behind it. Thank you.

[prufock]

My objection is to prufock's claim that 99 percent of webcomics are drivel. Obviously there are some bad ones out there, but I think his depiction of OOTS as virtually the lone light in a sea of utter incompetence is unfair.

I'll add a couple caveats.
First, I can only judge based on the webcomics I have read. That may not be a representative sample, but it's impossible for me to read all webcomics or get an accurate sample.
Second, it's entirely opinion. You might disagree, and that's cool; I'm sure not everyone shares my tastes.
Third, "99%" might be an exaggeration, so let me lower it to, say, 90%. One good comic in ten, that sounds about right.
Finally, by "drivel," I mean not engaging, not funny, not thoughtful, not entertaining, not particularly interesting in any way.

I'm not saying Oots is the "lone light" (I even mentioned one other comic that I like: SMBC; one that I probably enjoy even more than Oots), but it is one of the better ones I've seen.

[skaddix]

Oh they all started out VERY 2 dimensional, with Roy as the most complex. However I do believe they have moved far beyond that. The hints I would say are certainly fleshed out in most cases. For instance the Darth V arc more expertly fleshed out the nature of V's drive for power, his flaws and has been extended to a new redemptive line that frankly I think matches any in fiction. Elan has in some ways served as a deconstruction of the innocent man child, and how they need to grow up. And has done it with more and more depth.

Those things you say are hints I would say mostly act as revelations of the deeper nature of the characters and are often called back to or reinforce the jokes. The fact they get layered subtly into the characters reactions and actions, whilst not detracting from humour, is a strength.

Granted not all are so 3-D. Belkar is relatively simplistic, as is Xykon. Durkon is.....Durkon. And few secondary characters (Lien, O'Chul, Hinjo, Jirix) get more than a little detail. But people such as Redcloak, MiTD, Haley or even (and I dislike him still) Tarquin and Miko were very complex people. I think a mark for this is how you could take most of these people, put them into a wide variety of situations and get a reasonable and in character set of stories with depth.

But such is just my opinion of course.

not sure its fair to complain about secondaries, how many stories have 3d secondaries?

[Omergideon]

Oh I was not complaining about less than 3D secondary characters. With them 2D is an achievement. Secondary characters who are more than window dressing is pretty good. Few authors achieve that with regularity. And 8/9 fully fleshed out 3D characters is a decent achievement for a story like this.

[thereaper]

First you add one dimension. Then you add a second. Finally, you add a third.

Of course, strictly speaking, all of the characters in the strip are two-dimensional (except for that short time when Belkar was depicted as a line).

[King of Nowhere]

i disagree with the idea that just because many characters are archetipes they are not deep. there are so many archetypes, it is utterly impossible to write something that don't fit with any of them. there's something about the characters in oots that make me want to know more of them

[Maxios]

Making three-dimensional characters is, surprisingly, easy. There are numerous steps I use in the process, which I shall list below.


Step One: You come up with a base concept, like an arrogant wizard.

Step Two: You design numerous personality traits. Perhaps this character is passive-aggressive to people, or he he's always nice and polite.

Step Three: You figure out how this character interacts with the other main characters. Perhaps this wizard is best friends with the cleric due to the fact they both cast spells; but he dislikes the fighter, accusing him of being a moron who doesn't think before he acts.

Step Four: You come up with the character's. Did the character have a happy childhood filled with apple-pies, happy parents, and a dog named Rex? Or did he have an unhappy childhood with a father who ran off, an alchoholic mother, and severe poverty?

Step Five: You come up with the character's goals. Does he want world domination, money, or something else?

Step Six: Edit your character.

And bam, you have a three-dimensional character. I'll post how the process on how I created a character in a book I'm writing later.

[Euodiachloris]

I think the solution to the problem is very simple. It's called "roleplaying for years". :smallamused:

If that doesn't teach you to flesh out a base character with secondary and tertiary traits in a workable fashion, nothing will. :smallwink: You don't need a system if you develop the gut. :smallsmile:

[ti'esar]

I think the solution to the problem is very simple. It's called "roleplaying for years". :smallamused:

If that doesn't teach you to flesh out a base character with secondary and tertiary traits in a workable fashion, nothing will. :smallwink: You don't need a system if you develop the gut. :smallsmile:

Only if we're talking about roleplaying roleplaying.

[King of Nowhere]

Making three-dimensional characters is, surprisingly, easy. There are numerous steps I use in the process, which I shall list below.


Step One: You come up with a base concept, like an arrogant wizard.

Step Two: You design numerous personality traits. Perhaps this character is passive-aggressive to people, or he he's always nice and polite.

Step Three: You figure out how this character interacts with the other main characters. Perhaps this wizard is best friends with the cleric due to the fact they both cast spells; but he dislikes the fighter, accusing him of being a moron who doesn't think before he acts.

Step Four: You come up with the character's. Did the character have a happy childhood filled with apple-pies, happy parents, and a dog named Rex? Or did he have an unhappy childhood with a father who ran off, an alchoholic mother, and severe poverty?

Step Five: You come up with the character's goals. Does he want world domination, money, or something else?

Step Six: Edit your character.

And bam, you have a three-dimensional character. I'll post how the process on how I created a character in a book I'm writing later.

building a skyskraper is easy. you just have to build the first floor. then the second floor. and the third, and so on. just make sure you have big enough pillars to sustain the wheight.

Also going on the moon is easy. put some people in an airtight can, lift them by lighting a big fire in a pipe and discharging the hot gases on one side, and you sent thgem to the moon. remember to store extra fuel for the return trip.

Just because you can describe something in an easy way or with a straightforward process, it don't mean it's easy. the principles behind making good characters are easy, applying them with a good result is difficcult.


I think the solution to the problem is very simple. It's called "roleplaying for years". :smallamused:

If that doesn't teach you to flesh out a base character with secondary and tertiary traits in a workable fashion, nothing will. :smallwink: You don't need a system if you develop the gut. :smallsmile:

to some poeple roleplaying will teach to make a believable character with an intersting tragic past that left marks on his development. to some others, it will teach that having a tragic past may grant bonus xp (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0125.html)

[lio45]

Also going on the moon is easy. put some people in an airtight can, lift them by lighting a big fire in a pipe and discharging the hot gases on one side, and you sent thgem to the moon. remember to store extra fuel for the return trip.

Lol! Well said, but strictly speaking, putting people in an airtight can and lighting a big fire in a pipe (with its exhaust on the side opposed to the Moon) far from guarantees they'll be reaching our satellite. :-P

Limiting ourselves to the way you've described it, I would be betting on "cooking the crew" as the most likely result.