PDA

View Full Version : Non archetypical NPCs/PCs



Yora
2014-04-11, 08:22 AM
I'm really not a fan of superheroes and I think most of the characters are dumb, but there is one thing you really have to give them credit for. Almost each of them is distinctively different and unique.

When you look at popular fantasy characters... not so much.
They may have some personal quirks, but Boromir and Gimli are still just fighter dudes, Gandalf, Elminster, and Dumbledor are just wizard dudes, Manshoon and Toth-Amon evil wizard dudes, Lord Soth and Arthas evil knight dudes, and so on. They may still be cool or even badass, but they are almost entirely interchangeable with their appearance and powers.

There is one big counter example that comes to my mind, and many of you won't like it: Drizzt Do'Urden may have gotten both whiny and repetitive, but he does have a unique style. He has an exotic combat style (two scimitars), an strikingly unusual appearance (black skin, white hair), and a unique sidekick (magical black panther). Supposedly, every dumb noob wants to play a Drizzt-clone, but that would actually support my point. He's hugely popular because he's unique.
Other cool fantasy dudes are Ilidan and Raziel, who also really don't have direct equivalents.

Now with RPG characters, you always have to stay within the rules of the game system, which do impose some real restrictions about what abilities a character can have. But usually there's a huge range of available weapons and armor for the warrior types, and a greater range of spells than any wizard could ever learn. Instead of going the default route of magic missile, invisibility, fireball, lightning bolt, dimension door and stoneskin, you can create spellcasters based on a specific theme. In a way you'd probably weakening yourself a bit by making "sub-optimal" choices, but I think "swamp witch" and "rock caster" beats "wizard dude" every day.

Thoughts?

Red Fel
2014-04-11, 08:39 AM
I'm really not a fan of superheroes and I think most of the characters are dumb, but there is one thing you really have to give them credit for. Almost each of them is distinctively different and unique.

When you look at popular fantasy characters... not so much.
They may have some personal quirks, but Boromir and Gimli are still just fighter dudes, Gandalf, Elminster, and Dumbledor are just wizard dudes, Manshoon and Toth-Amon evil wizard dudes, Lord Soth and Arthas evil knight dudes, and so on. They may still be cool or even badass, but they are almost entirely interchangeable with their appearance and powers.

There is one big counter example that comes to my mind, and many of you won't like it: Drizzt Do'Urden may have gotten both whiny and repetitive, but he does have a unique style. He has an exotic combat style (two scimitars), an strikingly unusual appearance (black skin, white hair), and a unique sidekick (magical black panther). Supposedly, every dumb noob wants to play a Drizzt-clone, but that would actually support my point. He's hugely popular because he's unique.
Other cool fantasy dudes are Ilidan and Raziel, who also really don't have direct equivalents.

Now with RPG characters, you always have to stay within the rules of the game system, which do impose some real restrictions about what abilities a character can have. But usually there's a huge range of available weapons and armor for the warrior types, and a greater range of spells than any wizard could ever learn. Instead of going the default route of magic missile, invisibility, fireball, lightning bolt, dimension door and stoneskin, you can create spellcasters based on a specific theme. In a way you'd probably weakening yourself a bit by making "sub-optimal" choices, but I think "swamp witch" and "rock caster" beats "wizard dude" every day.

Thoughts?

Drizz't was a fighter-dude.

Seriously, we can break down any character into his core mechanical components and be unimpressed with the oversimplified result, and for good reason - there are basically only three power sets: physical power, magical power, and knowledge/skill power. Any character is simply going to be a balance of the three, so the archetypes are limited.

The question is not the archetype, but the execution. As I mentioned, Drizz't was just a fighter-dude. What made him distinct, at least by your estimate, was the execution - strange appearance, cool combat style, neat sidekick. Illidan was a fighter-wizard-dude. I could compare him with the Balrog rather successfully. Raziel is a militaristic angel fighter-dude. If you can't find an analogue you're not trying. What makes them distinct is what makes Drizz't distinct - not the core mechanic, but the execution. Illidan has a tragic past leading to a demonic surge of power. Raziel is a freaking militaristic angel.

Gandalf, Dumbledore, and Harry Dresden are all wizard-dudes. Saying they are the same is absurd. One is a literal deus ex machina, and as handy with a sword as with a staff; one is a master puppeteer and probably diabetic from all the candy he eats; and one is the only wizard in the Chicago phone book, and his very presence in a given city is considered a magical act of war. They are by no means the same old thing.

The archetypes exist because they are the core concepts on which everything is build. We relate to characters because they tap into these archetypes. But that doesn't mean that everything built on the same archetype is the same.

ImperatorV
2014-04-11, 09:38 AM
Anyone that has studied literature extensively can tell you this: there is nothing new. Ever. Everything is based on something else.

What you quantify as "unique" is either "has not been done in a while" or "recombines several old concepts in an unusual way."

Also, as Red Fel pointed out, everything can be reduced to archetypes if you look deep enough.

Beleriphon
2014-04-11, 09:43 AM
At a base level Gandalf, Dumbledore and Elmister are all the wise old man archtype. Drizzt is the loner archetype just like Batman (note that for loners they have a lot of friends).

I'd avoid the class/profession aspect and work more on the what does of the character actually do for the story to see what archetypal role they fall into. Because Obi-Wan Kenobi in the original trilogy is the wise old man (even when he's dead), but in the new trilogy he's not the wise old man (and its not because he isn't old).

Airk
2014-04-11, 10:14 AM
I agree with the others. I'm not seeing what you're asking for here. There are lots of superhero archetypes and 90% of superheroes can easily be slotted into one of them. That doesn't mean there's no differences. Just because you can fit a fantasy character into an archetype doesn't mean there are no differences there.

Drizzt is an example of a completely stock character concept ("Outcast") with some ridiculous trappings that make him seem unique, but which don't fundamentally change anything about him, but make him seem shiny. This is why there are so many clones and knockoffs - the layer of a glittery paint blinds people to the fact that there isn't actually anything unique there.

Red Fel
2014-04-11, 10:29 AM
Drizzt is an example of a completely stock character concept ("Outcast") with some ridiculous trappings that make him seem unique, but which don't fundamentally change anything about him, but make him seem shiny. This is why there are so many clones and knockoffs - the layer of a glittery paint blinds people to the fact that there isn't actually anything unique there.

Or alternatively, the glittery paint makes people aware of just how generic and easily modified the underlying character is, which is what attracts clones.

And that's the point. Look at most base classes in RPGs. They're generic, and for good reason - it takes a player to make a character into a PC. It takes a personal touch to turn something from "guy who wears armor and uses a sword" to "Hrothgar the Mighty, son of Hrulf the Profound, Champion of the North-Men, Wielder of Brisingr the Skull-Render, Slayer of the Terrible Aelfbjorn and friend to small puppies." It takes detail and history and art to turn "lady who flies a spacecraft and does mildly illegal things" to "Brisetta Anglerider, ace pilot and smuggler, who fled from the slave-pit planet of Ancillon-3 as a child, thugged her way through the streets of Cromit on the planet Zen-Fau, and over time earned the emnity of the Imperial Patrol, specifically her on-again-off-again nemesis Inspector Cho."

As Imperator pointed out, and another oft-quoted source before him, "there is nothing new under the sun." The concepts aren't novel; it's what the player or writer does with them that makes a difference.

Yora
2014-04-11, 10:55 AM
Look at most base classes in RPGs. They're generic, and for good reason - it takes a player to make a character into a PC. It takes a personal touch to turn something from "guy who wears armor and uses a sword" to "Hrothgar the Mighty, son of Hrulf the Profound, Champion of the North-Men, Wielder of Brisingr the Skull-Render, Slayer of the Terrible Aelfbjorn and friend to small puppies."

Yes, and in my experience that usually doesn't happen. Neither with PCs, nor with NPCs in published RPG material. People pick class and race, and that's usually where it ends. After that the character tends to follow the archetype without much, if anything, really customized about it. But there is room for much more.
Even if they fail, heroes and villains in superhero comics at least try to be unique and to be immediately recognizable. Making the big bad of your campaign a death knight or evil sorcerer is a lot of wasted potential. Players will hardly remember him as a character afterwards. A dwarven sorceress who mostly uses spells that manipulate metal and commands an army of animated armors will be much more memorable than an archetypical human necromancer. (Unless the human necromancer wears a giant's skeleton with a dragons skull as a suit and commands huge swarms of undead spiders.)

Red Fel
2014-04-11, 11:08 AM
Making the big bad of your campaign a death knight or evil sorcerer is a lot of wasted potential. Players will hardly remember him as a character afterwards. A dwarven sorceress who mostly uses spells that manipulate metal and commands an army of animated armors will be much more memorable than an archetypical human necromancer. (Unless the human necromancer wears a giant's skeleton with a dragons skull as a suit and commands huge swarms of undead spiders.)

I disagree so strongly.

Now, let me qualify that. If your BBEG is a death knight or evil sorcerer or archetypical human necromancer, full stop, then yes, he's forgettable. If the extent of the PCs' encounter with him is walking into a large room and fighting him until he caves, any BBEG is forgettable.

And in my mind, that's not a failing of the archetype, but of the execution.

Take your archetypical bratty prince. At once annoying and forgettable. Give him the right execution and he's Joffrey Baratheon, and an entire planet of television watchers hates him with a fiery passion.

Take your archetypical necromancer. Boring human who conjures up the dead. Now expand him beyond a single encounter. He is first introduced when the PCs are investigating a zombie outbreak in a small town, a masked, apathetic figure who is more interested in his minions' digestion than in the outraged adventurers ranting at him. He returns some time later, to the PCs' shock, as a cleric in the employ of a local noble, and the PCs have to produce evidence that he is some kind of monster in order to get rid of him. He is further exposed to be an old friend of the party Cleric, and he still seems to be fond of his school chum. Over time, he encounters the PCs again and again, his character expands, his emotions and motivations become more complex. He raises the corpse of the Fighter's lover to taunt her; he debates morality with the Paladin; he shows surprising compassion for the Rogue's illegitimate children.

The party will remember their final battle with him, not because of the fact that he wore a giant's skeleton or commanded undead spiders, but because of how heartbreaking it was that they had to kill him.

All that for an otherwise normal, archetypical human necromancer.

I challenge you, I defy you to come up with a character concept that could not be made memorable with the right execution.

Terraoblivion
2014-04-11, 11:32 AM
Yes, and in my experience that usually doesn't happen. Neither with PCs, nor with NPCs in published RPG material. People pick class and race, and that's usually where it ends. After that the character tends to follow the archetype without much, if anything, really customized about it. But there is room for much more.

Can't say that this has been my experience with decent groups. The people I used to play with in real life would do it a lot, but none of the people I currently play with do. Even when there are strong in-game archetypes, such as when playing Legend of the Five Rings, I've seen a diversity of characters who follow them to various degree. In a recent game, the seemingly very typical Asako scholar was not only a secret revolutionary, she also showed none of the naiveté or asceticism associated with her family, while the Bayushi in the same game was a highly religious, somewhat unassuming man who dealt with everybody in a fair and forthright manner who ended up sacrificing himself to save a baby out of pure compassion. Neither of these characters would be even remotely possible if the people had been sticking to stereotypes or purely sought to reverse them. It all depends on the group, really.

Also, even characters who follow the stereotype can be fleshed out if the group is willing to work with it. You can easily play an honorable, somewhat rigid paladin who has a complex background explaining why they do what they do and a distinct character voice. I've seen it happen multiple times.

Airk
2014-04-11, 11:43 AM
Yeah, I dunno Yora; I feel like you must be doing something wrong. And even if you're "Not" the problem doesn't lie in the "lack of variety" in fantasy archetypes. After all, personality, background, etc are the difference between Superman and "Really Strong Guy who can fly" and the difference between Batman and "Masked gadgeteer crime fighter."

Maybe you should try a different game system? That could help drive your players to add these sorts of things when it actually becomes part of the game, instead of "something you do when you're not rolling dice."

Beleriphon
2014-04-11, 10:02 PM
Yes, and in my experience that usually doesn't happen. Neither with PCs, nor with NPCs in published RPG material. People pick class and race, and that's usually where it ends. After that the character tends to follow the archetype without much, if anything, really customized about it. But there is room for much more.

I think your problem is that you're looking at essentially the same character, or rather a character that fills the EXACT same role, in several different stories. The authors don't set out to do that, but the archetype is so ingrained its difficult not to create very similar characters. More than that if you make your characters too different they stop being the archetype you want and there's a dissonance with audience expectations. Sometimes that's good, but most of the time you don't want to push the boundaries too far.


Even if they fail, heroes and villains in superhero comics at least try to be unique and to be immediately recognizable. Making the big bad of your campaign a death knight or evil sorcerer is a lot of wasted potential. Players will hardly remember him as a character afterwards. A dwarven sorceress who mostly uses spells that manipulate metal and commands an army of animated armors will be much more memorable than an archetypical human necromancer. (Unless the human necromancer wears a giant's skeleton with a dragons skull as a suit and commands huge swarms of undead spiders.)

See, those things about spiders and bones and what not? Trappings. What you actually have is the evil wizard archetype. Same as Thulsa-Doom. The details are what makes a character sure, but for a game the mechanics of how you play isn't going to make those details any different. It doesn't matter how many skulls you stick on a guy, he's still an evil wizard at a basic level.

Broken Crown
2014-04-12, 04:01 AM
They may have some personal quirks, but Boromir and Gimli are still just fighter dudes, Gandalf, Elminster, and Dumbledor are just wizard dudes.... They may still be cool or even badass, but they are almost entirely interchangeable with their appearance and powers.
Leaving aside the Forgotten Realms characters (about whom I don't know enough to judge), I'm not sure your choice of examples supports your argument very well. Gandalf is, of course, an archetype (the enigmatic counsellor who hides his true power), based on a far older prototype, Odin, so of course his many imitators (like Dumbledore) will be similar to him. But what does Gandalf have in common with the other wizards from the Harry Potter series? Or with, say, Elric of Melniboné?

Boromir is certainly a very standard warrior archetype, concerned with honour, duty, pride, and victory in battle. He's hardly the only such character in Lord of the Rings: Éomer comes to mind. For Gimli, though, being a "fighter dude" is at most a secondary aspect of his character: Gimli's primary character trait is his appreciation of beauty, whether in created things (mithril mail, the old stonework of Minas Tirith), or nature (the Glittering Caves of Aglarond), or people (Galadriel). He fights, and is eager to do so when orcs are involved, but it's not really what he's about.


Now with RPG characters, you always have to stay within the rules of the game system, which do impose some real restrictions about what abilities a character can have. But usually there's a huge range of available weapons and armor for the warrior types, and a greater range of spells than any wizard could ever learn. Instead of going the default route of magic missile, invisibility, fireball, lightning bolt, dimension door and stoneskin, you can create spellcasters based on a specific theme. In a way you'd probably weakening yourself a bit by making "sub-optimal" choices, but I think "swamp witch" and "rock caster" beats "wizard dude" every day.

Thoughts?
I certainly prefer to build characters with a consistent theme in mind, even if it means taking a hit in power (though depending on the system, you may not lose very much power). I don't think there's anything wrong with "wizard dude" as a starting point, though, as long as it's not also your ending point. I've found that characters tend to evolve distinct, consistent personalities fairly early in their careers, even if they weren't planned that way.

jedipotter
2014-04-12, 03:56 PM
I'm really not a fan of superheroes and I think most of the characters are dumb, but there is one thing you really have to give them credit for. Almost each of them is distinctively different and unique.

When you look at popular fantasy characters... not so much.

Superheros, and comics in general, use a simple trick: they don't over do it. Take Iron Man. In the Marvel Universe there is no reason why you could not have a bunch of ''iron people''. But it just never happens. Why? To keep Iron Man unique. After all it would have made sense for the Avengers to all have armor....even just ''striped down, basic armor'' that just had life support, radios, sensors and replusors. But they don't. The 'normal human' Avengers just jump into battle with no armor. You only get a couple 'iron man-like' characters. Not a flood of them.

Most have a thing or two that makes them unique. Thor is a god. But other then Hercules, all the other gods don't hang around on Earth. The Vision is the only artifical life form. And so on and so on.

But in a RPG it can be hard to do a unique character. Depending on your rules. 3E is the worst for example with the idea of ''everything is usable by the players always'' and easy use of everything. Compared to say 2E when it was hard or near impossible to get or use some things. So you get stuck with generic characters.

PersonMan
2014-04-14, 05:40 AM
But in a RPG it can be hard to do a unique character. Depending on your rules. 3E is the worst for example with the idea of ''everything is usable by the players always'' and easy use of everything. Compared to say 2E when it was hard or near impossible to get or use some things. So you get stuck with generic characters.

I'd say it's easier to make more unique characters because you don't have exactly one character for some mechanical ability you want.

In the end, most of what makes characters unique is accomplished beyond the rules, I think. I've recently had the idea for a fighter-type who wields a big axe and loves to fight and kill. What makes her more than just a generic fighter-type is that she believes in a 'Salvation' that will lead her people to infinite war, with everyone. For her, battle is essentially holy, and she looks to teach as many people how to fight as possible, to make the world a better place (which for her means 'more fighting'). To her, those who do not fight are something akin to children - a mass from which new warriors can rise, to protect but not worthy of the same respect as true adults.

On her sheet, there won't be much separating her from the chain-wielding northerner who believes that the spirits residing in every object determine the fate of each person, who searches for a way to lift a curse which may or may not exist from her. The main differences would probably be weapon choice and, maybe, a few feats. But they're clearly very different characters.

To me, something like 'can spin in a circle then run twenty feet forwards, attacking everything in reach' is a good basis for a character's aesthetics - how their combat style looks in-game - but apart from being a source of deeper questions like 'why does she fight this?' it doesn't tell you much about the character. I don't feel that the uniqueness of a paladin of a specific order is reduced by the fact that someone played a character with the same special ability in a different campaign who was otherwise entirely different. If one is a humble paladin fighting against evil and refusing any reward, who is blessed with angelic grace for their sacrifices, but the other is a proud tribal warrior who cannot accept anything they didn't hunt for, kill for or barter for and has a feral dexterity, neither are made less unique by what they (mechanically) have in common.

Obviously, the focus of a game determines a lot of how characters appear. If I'm running a very combat-heavy game, where fighting makes up 80% of most sessions, then combat style will be more relevant most of the time. But if I run a game where there's a fight every 3-4 sessions, and character interactions make up more or less the entire game, then the differences in beliefs and actions in a social setting will make the similarities in fighting styles fade into the background.

Seto
2014-04-14, 07:19 AM
I mostly agree with the objections that people have made, but I'll try and answer the OP all the same.

To get a non-archetypical character, instead of trying to create one ex nihilo, take an archetype and change it. Fleshing it out by giving it a proper execution (as Red Fel argued should be done) makes for a good and memorable, but archetypical, character. The enjoyment that can be derived from such a character comes from the fact that, though archetypical, it isn't just an archetype and it's still unique.
But it also can be done by changing the archetype : that is, take the base concept, keep most of it, just change an important trait. The archetypical dwarven fighter is greedy as hell ? Make yours a Dwarven Monk with Vow of Poverty who has nothing but contempt for money and its disastrous influence on his race. (Of course that's mechanically terrible, but I'm focusing on the concept). The archetypal Paladin is virginal and sublimates every desire into holy devotion ? Make yours hedonistic. The archetypal Fighter is an old boring Joe Normal sword-wielder ? Make yours fight with an unusual weapon such as a whip or a warfan (Roran from Eragon is based exclusively around that, that's the only thing more or less saving him...).

But yeah, apart from that, backstory, personality and execution are pretty much the key.

Rhynn
2014-04-14, 07:48 AM
If you abstract enough, there's only one hero, there's only one story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth), all human actions are based on two instincts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eros_and_Thanatos), etc. If you zoom out enough, everything looks similar.

At even a moderate level of abstraction, there are no original stories or characters. (There are only 34 plots (http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/blueroom/plots.htm) used in RPGs and many kinds of TV shows.) Worrying about that is futile.

The details make all the difference. We watch and read things where we know the final conclusion - indeed, giving up the conclusion at the start is a standard trick in itself - because the details of getting there matter. Just personalize things, add detail, reverse cliches, etc.

NichG
2014-04-14, 08:05 AM
I don't think its as simple as 'anything can be trivialized if you break it down enough'. A 'wizard dude' is a single niche because that niche is so broad, and because there isn't a requirement to specialize. What can magic do? Well... pretty much everything any of those superheroes can do, right? Because its 'magic', which is an incredibly broad concept when you take it to span every single envisioning of magic from any source anywhere.

When it comes to RPGs though, D&D in particular is the one that tends to mess this up and give everyone some way of basically doing everything. Other RPGs tend to have much more well-defined separations within their envisioning of 'the supernatural', whatever that might be. So you don't have the 'wizard dude', you have the guy who can manipulate fire and the guy who can manipulate portals and the guy who can shapechange and the guy who can control the weather and the guy who can read and manipulate fates, and they aren't allowed to take eachothers' powers or anything roughly equivalents.

The other thing that tends to make superheroes more unique is that they have a relatively small power-set, so readers/viewers very quickly become familiar with what they can and can't do. When someone's limits are well-established and their abilities are well-established, they become more memorable and distinctive - the observer can imagine different heroes in different situations and can figure out fairly consistently how they might deal with them. Contrast that with even a Lv20 commoner in D&D 3.5 with PC wealth by level and aside from 'he'll use an item' it'd be hard to really say what they could or could not do in a given situation. A D&D Wizard is even worse since between games he could have picked up a new scroll or whatever and suddenly be casting a completely different spell than anything he's been seen to do beforehand.

I'm sure there's a connection between these ideas and Sanderson's First Law, as well.

AMFV
2014-04-14, 09:45 AM
Superheros, and comics in general, use a simple trick: they don't over do it. Take Iron Man. In the Marvel Universe there is no reason why you could not have a bunch of ''iron people''. But it just never happens. Why? To keep Iron Man unique. After all it would have made sense for the Avengers to all have armor....even just ''striped down, basic armor'' that just had life support, radios, sensors and replusors. But they don't. The 'normal human' Avengers just jump into battle with no armor. You only get a couple 'iron man-like' characters. Not a flood of them.

Most have a thing or two that makes them unique. Thor is a god. But other then Hercules, all the other gods don't hang around on Earth. The Vision is the only artifical life form. And so on and so on.

But in a RPG it can be hard to do a unique character. Depending on your rules. 3E is the worst for example with the idea of ''everything is usable by the players always'' and easy use of everything. Compared to say 2E when it was hard or near impossible to get or use some things. So you get stuck with generic characters.

You are mistaken, sir. There are literally dozens, of armored superheroes in Marvel's stable. Having this vast collection of Superheroes doesn't diminish Iron Man, not because they are not similar to Iron Man, but because they are not Iron Man. His personality (in the comics that of an arrogant ass, in the movies that of a charming ass) is what distinguishes him.

And again you are mistaken, Hercules does hang around on Earth, in fact he is also a member of the Avengers. Hercules is separated from Thor in that he has a different personality (blood knight as opposed to guardian hero) and in that originally he was Hercules and not a human imbued with the power of Thor (as Thor was originally in the comics).

The point I'm making is that you can have completely different characters with the same exact profession or type, just as you could have two plumbers in a story (one of whom is a villain who cheats, steals, and swindles and the other who is honorable and decent and winds up doing something heroic), you can have two Green Lanterns, who are intrinsically so different as to be entirely different characters and fit into differing narrative roles (Kyle Rayner and Hal Jorden for example are as different as two people could be). It's the narrative role that is important.

Additionally, while I realize that you are most likely referencing the films rather than the comics, it is worth pointing out that even in that context you are still mistaken vis a vis Iron Man, since War Machine is present in the films.

Palanan
2014-04-14, 10:26 AM
Originally Posted by Red Fel
Seriously, we can break down any character into his core mechanical components and be unimpressed with the oversimplified result....

Gandalf, Dumbledore, and Harry Dresden are all wizard-dudes. Saying they are the same is absurd.

This exactly.

At best, at very best, Yora is conflating a reductionist approach to these individuals' game-equivalents with their full existence as literary characters, which goes far beyond any trivial parallels involving tabletop combat roles.

Gandalf and Dumbledore are entirely different individuals. They're written as unique characters and they need to be recognized as such. Otherwise there's no point to saying anything more.


Originally Posted by Yora
Even if they fail, heroes and villains in superhero comics at least try to be unique and to be immediately recognizable.

And at best, at very best, you seem to be commenting on roleplaying approaches you've seen at the table, or perhaps DM style, which is completely different from assertions about universal archetypes and the essential interchangeability of characters in fantasy literature.

You're conflating different things here, and need to clarify what you're trying to discuss.

Beleriphon
2014-04-14, 10:51 AM
I have some further thoughts here. The big one is that use archetypes is fine. It helps to immediately let the audience know what the character is about. If you take Elminster, Gandalf and Dumbledore (admitedly two of those are characters from literuate and not meant to work as NPCs in a game) they all fill the wise old man role. They are all "wizards" either by class, profession or description. They all have long beards and robes, they all are old men. Why? Because that's the archetypal look for the wise old man. Why you ask? Because Odin appeared that way as a wise old man, and Gandalf is to no small degree inspired by Odin. Dumbledore and Elminster are in no small part inspired by Gandalf.

The problem is that when you look at characters from different stories and start to say that nobody makes interesting characters you're forgetting what you're lookin at. Elminster is Forgotten Realm's version of Gandalf. He's got a different personality and does things for a different reason with a different history. But the general purpose of the character in the setting is the same.

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-04-14, 11:15 AM
The other thing that tends to make superheroes more unique is that they have a relatively small power-set, so readers/viewers very quickly become familiar with what they can and can't do. When someone's limits are well-established and their abilities are well-established, they become more memorable and distinctive - the observer can imagine different heroes in different situations and can figure out fairly consistently how they might deal with them.

Unless you're Rogue of the X-Men, or Peter Petrelli from Heroes, in which case you can potentially have anyone and everyone's powers.

At least with Rogue, they gave her the massive downside of no physical contact without potentially killing the person she's touching.

Jay R
2014-04-14, 12:36 PM
Paradoxically, I make my characters unique by starting with an archetype or a specific character in mind.

But then I explicitly find some way to make him different - put him in the wrong genre, change one thing, etc.

I had a super-hero character based on Robin, right down to the circus origin. But there was no Batman, so he had no detective skills, and relied on more circus skills.

My latest D&D character started with a vague Tarzan feel - lived in the woods, avoided civilzation, and he became a unique 2E elven thief / mage.

I based a Flashing Blades rogue on Disney's Aladdin - a diamond in the rough who climbed buildings and stole - and carried a rapier.

Rhynn
2014-04-14, 06:07 PM
Paradoxically, I make my characters unique by starting with an archetype or a specific character in mind.

Same deal. I'm also lazy - I don't want to write more than a paragraph, preferrably more than 1-2 sentences, before play starts, but if I have an archetype in mind, that's plenty. Then I play the character and they distinguish and define themselves by actions during play - as a bonus, other players actually pay attention and care about those, unlike pre-written background...

INDYSTAR188
2014-04-14, 06:51 PM
Am I the only one who occasionally enjoys a purely generic 'old-school' dungeon crawl type adventure? I generally agree with most of the respondents in the thread and I can also see where OP is coming from too. The dwarven sorceress she describes would be a great and very memorable BBEG but I think Red Fel's necromancer is just as compelling. I think it's maybe at heart a matter of personal style preference? Or maybe just pure subjectivity?

NichG
2014-04-14, 08:07 PM
Am I the only one who occasionally enjoys a purely generic 'old-school' dungeon crawl type adventure? I generally agree with most of the respondents in the thread and I can also see where OP is coming from too. The dwarven sorceress she describes would be a great and very memorable BBEG but I think Red Fel's necromancer is just as compelling. I think it's maybe at heart a matter of personal style preference? Or maybe just pure subjectivity?

In generic 'old-school' dungeon crawl, the focus isn't actually on the protagonists in the same way that it is in a super-hero story. It's a bit more about their situation, how they deal with the uniqueness of the scenario they find themselves encountering than their own particular idiosyncracies. That goes hand in hand with the higher lethality rate.

And this is actually a general phenomenon - different types of stories put focus on different things. A super-hero story (or action-hero story) is all about the protagonist and the cool stuff they can do and the decisions that that one person (or small set of people) have to make given a circumstance is completely unique to themselves. Its the 'special snowflake' thing, and goes beyond simply having a distinctive personality.

Next to that you have what might be called 'character stories', where the protagonist doesn't have super-hero-esque superpowers but has a very extreme/anomalous personality - things like biographies of prominent people who had strange circumstances (Beautiful Mind for example), or fictitious extreme personalities like Monk or House or Dexter or White Collar. Some but not all sitcoms would sit around this level I think.

Next to that you have classic fantasy, where there's a bit more focus on the setting and character uniqueness is often through archetype instead of individual quirks - Conan isn't incredibly distinctive on a personal level, but he has become a representation of an entire subgenre of fantasy.

Somewhere in the middle you have things like war stories and psychological dramas, etc - probably the closest analogue to old-school dungeon crawl. Characters might have detailed personalities, but they tend not to be extreme personalities. The goal is often to make them as human as possible, to give the observer a connection to the extreme events that relatively normal people have had to deal with. 'I know a guy like that' rather than 'wow, what did he do this time?!' This tends to make them less distinctive though and also less archetypal, since the aim is to find something familiar in the audience.

At the far end of not having distinctive protagonists be the focus, you have things like horror/slasher movies where the characters are thin veneers painted on to standard archetypes and are considered fairly disposable - so you get 'the blonde', etc. The villains on the other hand tend to get a lot of focus and unique coverage in this case, almost as much as super-heroes get in the super-hero stories.

Dimers
2014-04-14, 08:20 PM
See, those things about spiders and bones and what not? Trappings. What you actually have is the evil wizard archetype. Same as Thulsa-Doom. The details are what makes a character sure, but for a game the mechanics of how you play isn't going to make those details any different. It doesn't matter how many skulls you stick on a guy, he's still an evil wizard at a basic level.

On the other hand, if you stick spiders and skulls on a cheerful, upbeat skilled archetype and take a few minutes to think about why she'd want those trappings, you're likely to end up with a character rather than just another archetype. Like Red Fel is saying, it's about execution, not concept. EDIT: Riffing off what you said, not disagreeing with you.


Gandalf is, of course, an archetype (the enigmatic counsellor who hides his true power), based on a far older prototype, Odin, so of course his many imitators (like Dumbledore) will be similar to him. But what does Gandalf have in common with the other wizards from the Harry Potter series? Or with, say, Elric of Melniboné?

Yeah, Raistlin and Gandalf are really not the same character. They're both wizard-dudes powered partly by a connection to something otherworldly -- whoops, spoilers! -- and they both sacrifice themselves, but they're not at all identical.


Am I the only one who occasionally enjoys a purely generic 'old-school' dungeon crawl type adventure?

I don't want my game TOO complicated or TOO individualized. I'd like both a well-executed, unique hobgoblin sorcerer with a limp keeping my interest as a recurring villain AND a bunch of faceless green-skinned mooks to mow down. Balance is good.

----------------------------------------------------

What I'm learning from this thread: the examples of superheroes I've seen are poorly executed, because they all seem pretty similar to me. I have the converse of Yora's problem.

INDYSTAR188
2014-04-14, 08:30 PM
It's a bit more about their situation, how they deal with the uniqueness of the scenario they find themselves encountering



In my opinion this is how you create develop a 'unique' character. Great post, I agree and appreciate your input!

Terraoblivion
2014-04-14, 08:32 PM
Same deal. I'm also lazy - I don't want to write more than a paragraph, preferrably more than 1-2 sentences, before play starts, but if I have an archetype in mind, that's plenty. Then I play the character and they distinguish and define themselves by actions during play - as a bonus, other players actually pay attention and care about those, unlike pre-written background...

Having a clear idea of what you're character is like can help for a lot of people. It gives you material to work with for in-game reactions and can build investment in advance, before game even starts. That said, I also consider background the absolutely least important part of coming up with a character. It can matter, of course, but it's far less important than having an idea of personality and aesthetics in most cases and when it does matter, it will likely be something that does come up in game.

And, of course, different things work for different people.

Tengu_temp
2014-04-14, 08:52 PM
That said, I also consider background the absolutely least important part of coming up with a character. It can matter, of course, but it's far less important than having an idea of personality and aesthetics in most cases and when it does matter, it will likely be something that does come up in game.

Very much this. Character background serves mostly to provide plothooks, and NPCs, and context for your actions. Parts of it that never come up in the game might as well not be there.

But the character's description, personality, habits, beliefs? This stuff is very important. This is what makes your character interesting and flavorful.

Yora
2014-04-15, 02:08 AM
Backstory for characters is the same as backstory for settings. If it has no direct impact on the actual play, it does not need to exist. As a player, you can of course add as much backstory to your own PC as you like. As a GM, there are much better uses for your time than creating parts of NPCs that never will get mentioned.

MonochromeTiger
2014-04-15, 02:49 AM
Backstory for characters is the same as backstory for settings. If it has no direct impact on the actual play, it does not need to exist. As a player, you can of course add as much backstory to your own PC as you like. As a GM, there are much better uses for your time than creating parts of NPCs that never will get mentioned.

in counter to that, why won't they get mentioned? yes it's similar to backstory for setting, everything backstory based has some connection because backstory takes about as much importance in world building as the actions being taken by characters that exact moment do.

your random trader in the village will be nothing more than a means of buying and selling equipment if you don't have some personality and story to them, your adventurers little more than the numbers on their character sheets, your monsters nothing but their xp and treasure listings. for anything to have any purpose beyond "well it's there" or any depth beyond some generic archetype you have to actually treat it as such.

you don't want character background? ok, the character shows up, you throw out a fight for them, they win and mark xp or they lose and make a new character, that will become all there is since there isn't any allowance of story beyond the very basics.

the superheroes you mention at the very start of this thread are able to be "unique" as you said because they have history. they have origins showing why they became what they are, they have personality that can make people like or dislike them, and they are put in a world with other characters that usually hold as much history and personality as them so that interaction and character growth can happen. take away those things and that superhero might as well be a generic stick figure as they lose any appeal as a character they may have had.

NichG
2014-04-15, 03:04 AM
I think pretending its all about the personalities and backstories is disingenuous. Its both. The various ninja from Naruto, for example, get a lot of detailed backstory and development treatment, but they also have power-sets that are each very unique; if you took either side of that equation away, it'd lose a lot. If you replaced the power-sets of every Marvel superhero with Iron Man's power set, they wouldn't be 'just as unique' - they'd be a lot less unique. If you stripped away the personalities and backstories, sure, they'd also be less unique.

What the custom powers do, among other things, is it makes the particular situation of that superhero incomparable. No one else can know what, say, Dr. Manhattan is going through because not only is his personality/backstory distinctive, but his circumstances are absolutely unique. No rules, no standard operating procedure - whatever he makes of his existence and whatever decisions he has to deal with, they're customized to him. Because you can throw out the usual rules, there's a larger range of things you can have the character deal with in distinctive ways. Another thing that the powers make possible is to have large separations between types of story - a superhero who can handle cosmic-level stuff and a superhero who deals more with human-level crimes can both fit into the overarching story, and the powers help identify them with particular tiers and ranges of challenges. This basically gives the illusion that the universe is bigger and helps keep things mentally separated.

Rhynn
2014-04-15, 03:12 AM
Having a clear idea of what you're character is like can help for a lot of people. It gives you material to work with for in-game reactions

A base archetype can do that, though. "Evil grand vizier -type wizard" or "fiery duelist" is plenty to start on, for me; I can easily react to things based on a one-liner, and when some reactions and actions start to break from the archetype, the character emerges as an individual. A very simplified example: "he's your typical dwarven berserker, but he really like kids."


and can build investment in advance, before game even starts.

That can be an advantage, if you're playing a game where it's an advantage. I play games where PCs don't get special protection outside of the rules (and the rules usually provide little enough), so getting all invested in a PC isn't a great idea; 2/3rd of PCs died in the first session of our current campaign.


That said, I also consider background the absolutely least important part of coming up with a character.

There's one kind of background I like: background developed during play because it was relevant. "We need to go to the Dwarfhalls at the Hammering Mountains? Oh, you know, I think my dwarf character is from the Dwarfhalls." And even further: "Well, the dwarves of the Hammering Mountains fought a great war against the goblins of the Mudpile Mountains when my dwarf was young, and they killed his brother, so he hates them with a vengeance."


Parts of it that never come up in the game might as well not be there.

Exactly. It combines several bad traits, for me:
- First, large parts of background may be completely useless. (At the very most, I like lists. "List three people your character likes and three people he hates.")
- Second, many players don't like writing it. (A lot of people are really gung ho about the whole "every part of play" should be fun, and it seems like that principle should apply here, too.)
- Third, as a perennial GM I don't want to wade through pages of badly-written prose! If I was gaming with Terry Pratchett, hey, sure, he can write as much background as he likes, but most people can't write prose.


But the character's description, personality, habits, beliefs? This stuff is very important. This is what makes your character interesting and flavorful.

Sure. By using archetypes, you can bundle a lot of that into a few words, and then you can develop the differences that distinguish your character during play.


Backstory for characters is the same as backstory for settings. If it has no direct impact on the actual play, it does not need to exist. As a player, you can of course add as much backstory to your own PC as you like. As a GM, there are much better uses for your time than creating parts of NPCs that never will get mentioned.

I absolutely disagree. edit: I fail at reading and actually agree! /edit
No part of my settings needs to exist unless it somehow shows up in play. The only history that exists is history that directly explains how things are right now, and is accessible to players. If the players would have no way to learn something (or it's not somehow otherwise directly affecting how things play out), I don't need an answer. This sort of "observer-based world creation" done right has the benefit of creating a world that doesn't feel academical and completionist (see basically all AD&D 2E and D&D 3E-4E settings, where you know everything about all the Outer Planes and every corner of the Underdark), but rather organic and mysterious; there's no "orcs were born from...", but rather a "you think orcs come from..." It might seem a subtle difference, but the effects are far-reaching.

James Maliszewski over at Grognardia (http://grognardia.blogspot.fi/) wrote a good deal about this kind of "just in time" GMing and world-creation, including involving players in the process during play, and the results can be pretty great. Best of all, it makes the GM's job easier and less work.

MonochromeTiger
2014-04-15, 03:14 AM
oh I'm not trying to say that backstory is the entirety of a character and you don't need powers or something like that, as you mention NichG a unique character is a mix of the two, personally my response was out of confusion that yora stated a desire for unique characters and then decides that the story aspect isn't worth it if it doesn't directly impact gameplay. powers and actions alone are a temporary novelty, story alone might as well just be reading a book, for anything of value in a game they need each other.

Avilan the Grey
2014-04-15, 03:20 AM
I must agree that I am not sure what the point is since the only differnce the OP manages to give between "boring archetypical" characters and non is roleplaying.
My only real advice is to encourage roleplaying in your group, and to roleplay yourself.

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-04-15, 03:39 AM
Backstory for characters is the same as backstory for settings. If it has no direct impact on the actual play, it does not need to exist. As a player, you can of course add as much backstory to your own PC as you like. As a GM, there are much better uses for your time than creating parts of NPCs that never will get mentioned.

As a DM, how do you know what's never going to be mentioned? Players go off into some very strange areas sometimes.

If they're a one-shot deal, then yes, minimal detail is fine. But if they're going to be recurring, then the more detail they receive, the more likely the players are to respond to them. After all, as a DM, it's your responsibility to make the world as vibrant as possible for the players to enjoy.

And of course, you can then game the players expectations by having a shallow description of the main villain (hey, not everyone's in possession of a deep and involved personality), and detailed descriptions of a one-shot. :smallbiggrin:

NichG
2014-04-15, 03:49 AM
oh I'm not trying to say that backstory is the entirety of a character and you don't need powers or something like that, as you mention NichG a unique character is a mix of the two, personally my response was out of confusion that yora stated a desire for unique characters and then decides that the story aspect isn't worth it if it doesn't directly impact gameplay. powers and actions alone are a temporary novelty, story alone might as well just be reading a book, for anything of value in a game they need each other.

The main problem is this tone in a lot of the replies that sort of suggest the idea that 'oh, but my barbarian likes kittens and is nice to kids' is somehow all the distinctiveness you need, and it doesn't really matter if he's one out of four guys in the group who gets loud and hits things with an axe. Perhaps its because I think the OP's point is self-evidently true, and so many people are trying so hard to actually fight it, but the argument just seems kind of weird since somehow it became about roleplaying and not ability design.

Yes, the superhero genre is really good at making power-sets for its characters unique, and D&D is not, and there's a lot of discussion to be had about that. It seems odd to me that we're getting sidetracked into debates about RP when they're really separate issues. Yes, you should make your characters have distinctive personalities, but that doesn't mean let down the game mechanical side of things or that the game mechanical/character abilities side is irrelevant.


I must agree that I am not sure what the point is since the only differnce the OP manages to give between "boring archetypical" characters and non is roleplaying.
My only real advice is to encourage roleplaying in your group, and to roleplay yourself.

Roleplaying is another component that is important, but I can't see that it has anything to do with the OP's point.

To put it another way, imagine you're building game mechanics for an MMO and you're trying to make characters feel unique. The players can choose to roleplay their characters or not, but you have no control over that. What you do have control over is creating a set of mechanics that allows for a lot of different functional character types with the ability to customize in a way that comes across to the players, and thats really the main point here I think.

AMFV
2014-04-15, 08:28 AM
The main problem is this tone in a lot of the replies that sort of suggest the idea that 'oh, but my barbarian likes kittens and is nice to kids' is somehow all the distinctiveness you need, and it doesn't really matter if he's one out of four guys in the group who gets loud and hits things with an axe. Perhaps its because I think the OP's point is self-evidently true, and so many people are trying so hard to actually fight it, but the argument just seems kind of weird since somehow it became about roleplaying and not ability design.

Yes, the superhero genre is really good at making power-sets for its characters unique, and D&D is not, and there's a lot of discussion to be had about that. It seems odd to me that we're getting sidetracked into debates about RP when they're really separate issues. Yes, you should make your characters have distinctive personalities, but that doesn't mean let down the game mechanical side of things or that the game mechanical/character abilities side is irrelevant.

As I pointed out in my response, the Superhero genre is terrible at producing unique power sets. But great at producing unique characters. Even if we look in the microcosmic universes we have dozens of characters with the same archetype, for example in X-Men, we have three psychic mysterious characters (Emma Frost, Xavier, Jean Grey, probably more even), two shapechanging folks (Morph, Mystique), three characters who have powers that make them exceptionally inhumanely tough (Beast, Sabretooth, and Colossus), I could go on, if we include archetypes it gets even muddier for example in Spiderman, characters with a similar power set who are slightly stronger than Spiderman (Venom, and the Scorpion), characters who know Peter's secret and attack his family (Green Goblin, The Vulture, venom, The Lizard (in the new film at least), Carnage, and many more. In Batman, Villains who are driven mad by a disfigurement (Killer Croc, The Joker, Penguin, Two-Face, The Red Hood (debatable)).

The point s that it's the personality and background that makes those characters unique, none of the characters I listed are similar enough to be expies and are generally not considered to be rip-offs of one-another, they just have similar abilities, but other factors make them very distinct.

Jay R
2014-04-15, 10:40 AM
That said, I also consider background the absolutely least important part of coming up with a character. It can matter, of course, but it's far less important than having an idea of personality and aesthetics in most cases and when it does matter, it will likely be something that does come up in game.

If the personality and aesthetics are integral to the character, rather than tacked on for no reason, then there is a backstory that explains it.

My Flashing Blades rogue Jean-Louis was an orphan left on the steps of Notre Dame. Since he grew up in a place with lots of ladders and ornate architectural features, he became a climber, and is always seeking the high ground. He also gets quiet when people start talking about family. I may never say "Notre Dame" during the game, but the backstory is still the essential part of the personality.

Dr. MacAbre, my mystic superhero in Champions, is John MacAubrey, Ph.D. He put himself through school as a stage magician (under the name Dr. MacAbre), before he knew what real magic is. He has dedicated his life to exposing frauds, knows prestidigitation as well as real magic, and is interested in finding out how the villains did what they did, not just defeating them. The backstory helped me choose his powers, skills, personality, and goals.

Treewalker is a 2E elven thief/mage, who grew up among humans. He knows nothing about being an elf, seeks out elves, and wants to learn about his own people. Without a backstory, that's all meaningless.


And, of course, different things work for different people.

Agreed. I don't see how to have a character personality without a backstory, and you don't see a need for it. Have fun playing your way. But say that it's the least important part of coming up with the character for you.

NichG
2014-04-15, 10:40 AM
As I pointed out in my response, the Superhero genre is terrible at producing unique power sets. But great at producing unique characters. Even if we look in the microcosmic universes we have dozens of characters with the same archetype, for example in X-Men, we have three psychic mysterious characters (Emma Frost, Xavier, Jean Grey, probably more even), two shapechanging folks (Morph, Mystique), three characters who have powers that make them exceptionally inhumanely tough (Beast, Sabretooth, and Colossus), I could go on, if we include archetypes it gets even muddier for example in Spiderman, characters with a similar power set who are slightly stronger than Spiderman (Venom, and the Scorpion), characters who know Peter's secret and attack his family (Green Goblin, The Vulture, venom, The Lizard (in the new film at least), Carnage, and many more. In Batman, Villains who are driven mad by a disfigurement (Killer Croc, The Joker, Penguin, Two-Face, The Red Hood (debatable)).

In this case, you're particularly listing the ones that end up being similar, but if you do a breadth-based list I think you'll find it to be quite wide even just in the 'different power-sets' view. For example, the TV series Heroes had a very large list of distinctive, solitary powers (http://heroeswiki.com/List_of_abilities) - there's some duplication on that list, but really not much.

In any event, even what you've listed is a much richer set of variations than, say, D&D. In D&D, you can have characters who are exceptionally inhumanly tough (okay). You can have characters who shapechange... except they also can do every other thing druids do since they have access to the entire spell list, which means they can also be a beastmaster type (have pets), summon things, raise the dead, cause trees to come to life, heal other people's wounds, ... And for the 'psychic mysterious characters', sure, you can do that in D&D too, but you get a whole lot of different things lumped together. Its hard to be 'just a telepath', for example. Or 'just a telekinetic'. And of course the Wizard can also be a telepath and a telekinetic if he wants to.

Its not that there are more interesting powers in the superhero genre than we have in D&D, its that one character rarely gets more than a small handful of powers in the superhero genre, whereas in D&D a significant subset of classes get access to a large set of powers.

Classic fantasy is a more difficult comparison to make, but from a rough mental inventory I'd guess one could name more 'functionally' distinctive (as opposed to personality/backstory distinctive) characters from superhero sources than from classic fantasy sources. However given that there is more superhero stuff out there than classic fantasy stuff, it might be hard to normalize.



The point s that it's the personality and background that makes those characters unique, none of the characters I listed are similar enough to be expies and are generally not considered to be rip-offs of one-another, they just have similar abilities, but other factors make them very distinct.

Whether personality can make power-wise similar characters stand apart doesn't really have anything to do with actually looking at the total set of cases and how many differences there really are. As far as game mechanics go, there's a lot to be learned from looking at a genre that has a tendency to be very creative with powers and also have very good niche protection compared to other things. The players are going to determine the personality side of the character no matter what, but good game system design can provide a lot of fodder to really kick things up and guarantee that every character will be distinctive in some way.

toapat
2014-04-15, 12:02 PM
Illidan

Illidan is actually very Archetypical of a Greek hero, with the downfall that he also has the curse of failure like Texas in RvB. His one instance of actually being evil, he is given a willing deformity feat but all that does is fuel his return to the side of good. His actions, above everyone else's in the lore, result in the night elf victory in the War or the Ancients, and, despite being narrow minded, Illidan is in fact the greatest hero in azeroth's history. The burning legion was going to return anyway. The Leylines still existed so magic wasnt impossible. His actions in Frozen Throne and TBC are because hes not nearly as wise as his brother, but hes still doing it sfor the right reasons.

Edit in about 2 hours: Need to travel

AMFV
2014-04-15, 03:14 PM
In this case, you're particularly listing the ones that end up being similar, but if you do a breadth-based list I think you'll find it to be quite wide even just in the 'different power-sets' view. For example, the TV series Heroes had a very large list of distinctive, solitary powers (http://heroeswiki.com/List_of_abilities) - there's some duplication on that list, but really not much.

Well that depends, if you include specific archetypes then you wouldn't really have as fine tuned a list, for example the Thing and the Hulk have very different powers but they are in many respects similar characters, as is Colossus. Wolverine often fills the same or a similar role to Batman, the Green Lanterns can fill different roles.



In any event, even what you've listed is a much richer set of variations than, say, D&D. In D&D, you can have characters who are exceptionally inhumanly tough (okay). You can have characters who shapechange... except they also can do every other thing druids do since they have access to the entire spell list, which means they can also be a beastmaster type (have pets), summon things, raise the dead, cause trees to come to life, heal other people's wounds, ... And for the 'psychic mysterious characters', sure, you can do that in D&D too, but you get a whole lot of different things lumped together. Its hard to be 'just a telepath', for example. Or 'just a telekinetic'. And of course the Wizard can also be a telepath and a telekinetic if he wants to.


Well that's a question of scale, it is very easy in D&D (3.5 is what you are discussing, I assume) to build a thematic character, there is a tendency on charop pages to get lost in the fact that you can easily selectively reduce your abilities and still have a valid contribution, you can a focused specialist Evoker wizard who focused primarily on fire spells, and still contribute to the party. In the same way that Rogue or Batman can in the hands of the right (wrong) writer overwhelm a story because they possess too many powers (or special abilities in the case of Batman, just read some Frank Miller and you'll see Batman overwhelm a story by being too powerful)



Its not that there are more interesting powers in the superhero genre than we have in D&D, its that one character rarely gets more than a small handful of powers in the superhero genre, whereas in D&D a significant subset of classes get access to a large set of powers.


Batman, batman can replicate practically any power with technology and sufficient time. Superman, has thousands of powers, particularly Silver Age Superman, Green Lantern is unfathomably powerful. They all have dozens of powers beyond what we see, they are limited primarily narratively, which would be the same thing as a player choosing



Classic fantasy is a more difficult comparison to make, but from a rough mental inventory I'd guess one could name more 'functionally' distinctive (as opposed to personality/backstory distinctive) characters from superhero sources than from classic fantasy sources. However given that there is more superhero stuff out there than classic fantasy stuff, it might be hard to normalize.



Whether personality can make power-wise similar characters stand apart doesn't really have anything to do with actually looking at the total set of cases and how many differences there really are. As far as game mechanics go, there's a lot to be learned from looking at a genre that has a tendency to be very creative with powers and also have very good niche protection compared to other things. The players are going to determine the personality side of the character no matter what, but good game system design can provide a lot of fodder to really kick things up and guarantee that every character will be distinctive in some way.

The problem is that the depth of a character is at best a tangential relationship to their powerset. There are vastly unique characters (Like the Dazzler or Eros) who are terrible, and non-unique ones (Captain Marvel, Supergirl) who have proven to have a great deal of depth, uniqueness does not equal depth of character, not even a little bit.

Avilan the Grey
2014-04-15, 03:46 PM
I agree that the powersets for superheroes are fairly non-unique. Telepaths, Flying Bricks, Mighty Glaciers (and Non-flying bricks) etc.

NichG
2014-04-15, 07:28 PM
Well that depends, if you include specific archetypes then you wouldn't really have as fine tuned a list, for example the Thing and the Hulk have very different powers but they are in many respects similar characters, as is Colossus. Wolverine often fills the same or a similar role to Batman, the Green Lanterns can fill different roles.


Except that this is missing the point that Wolverine would play very differently in a tabletop game than Batman, whereas a Barbarian doesn't play very differently from a Fighter. The Green Lantern would still play very differently than other people who can 'resolve the same situation', and furthermore would even have stories that contain an extremely different scope.

Wolverine vs Batman - Wolverine can walk up and tank something, let people hit him until they're blue in the face, basically be threat agnostic. Batman is squishy so needs to be hyper-aware of threats. Wolverine basically has two things - ignore harm and cut through anything, whereas Batman has 'whatever tech toy I need I have' and 'super-wealth'. These characters would be completely and utterly different experiences to play in a game, personality and backstory totally ignored.



Well that's a question of scale, it is very easy in D&D (3.5 is what you are discussing, I assume) to build a thematic character, there is a tendency on charop pages to get lost in the fact that you can easily selectively reduce your abilities and still have a valid contribution, you can a focused specialist Evoker wizard who focused primarily on fire spells, and still contribute to the party. In the same way that Rogue or Batman can in the hands of the right (wrong) writer overwhelm a story because they possess too many powers (or special abilities in the case of Batman, just read some Frank Miller and you'll see Batman overwhelm a story by being too powerful)


The issue in D&D 3.5 compared to the superhero genre is that the system doesn't enforce building a focused/thematic character. Its not about overwhelming a story or anything like that, but rather how many distinct niches exist in the system. In D&D, a person basically has to choose to play a character who has limits, but can intentionally or accidentally make a character who can literally do everything - thematically speaking, not in terms of situations they can resolve. That possibility means that the niches of focused characters aren't protected, so you end up getting arms races, generic characters, things like that.

In the superhero genre, even when there are large power gaps between characters in the same group, you still don't tend to have niche violation. The things that Superman can deal with compared to other heroes in that continuity mean that Superman is a trump card and can basically do everyone else's job. But the way he would do so is very distinct from how Batman would solve things. The D&D equivalent example would be if Batman could buy a dose of Superman-blood-transfusion every game and borrow supe's powers for that session.



Batman, batman can replicate practically any power with technology and sufficient time. Superman, has thousands of powers, particularly Silver Age Superman, Green Lantern is unfathomably powerful. They all have dozens of powers beyond what we see, they are limited primarily narratively, which would be the same thing as a player choosing


And congrats, you've found the places where the superhero genre starts breaking down and begins to have problems. How many people complain about Superman being a Mary Sue? But even then, the way that the results would be achieved are still kept thematically distinct. Green Lantern is going to do things with environmental manipulation and object creation - the solution is 'summon up a structure from imagination that solves this problem'. That will play very differently than someone who has the ability to 'invent a power whenever I feel like it for why I'm awesome' (which I suppose is the cynical view of how Superman would play in a tabletop game). And for someone playing Batman, it's 'I have a laundry list of gadgets I can play with, let me go find the one that helps'.



The problem is that the depth of a character is at best a tangential relationship to their powerset. There are vastly unique characters (Like the Dazzler or Eros) who are terrible, and non-unique ones (Captain Marvel, Supergirl) who have proven to have a great deal of depth, uniqueness does not equal depth of character, not even a little bit.

I feel like somehow we're arguing what heroes you personally enjoy, rather than what an entire genre has to say about game design. 'I don't like the Dazzler' doesn't mean that somehow a genre where most of the characters have a solitary, narrow, thematic set of powers is doing exactly the same thing as a genre where powers are broad and granted by archetype.

The fact that one can cherry pick to such a degree and have so many varied opinions about the span of heroes that we can find one to perfectly suit any argument we personally want to make is, in fact, indicative of the OP's point.

Tengu_temp
2014-04-15, 07:35 PM
If the personality and aesthetics are integral to the character, rather than tacked on for no reason, then there is a backstory that explains it.


I disagree. Not every part of my personality, preferences or talents is a result of a specific part of my background. Many of them are simply who I am. I am like this because I am me, and further explanation is not necessary.

At the very least, writing justifications for every aspect of your character into the backstory will clutter it with lots of stuff nobody at the table but you cares about.

Mr Beer
2014-04-15, 08:39 PM
What I take from this thread is that the difference between boring & standard and new & interesting is a matter of fluff rather than crunch.

Avilan the Grey
2014-04-16, 06:16 AM
I disagree. Not every part of my personality, preferences or talents is a result of a specific part of my background. Many of them are simply who I am. I am like this because I am me, and further explanation is not necessary.

At the very least, writing justifications for every aspect of your character into the backstory will clutter it with lots of stuff nobody at the table but you cares about.

On the other hand from a practical standpoint "Who you [your character] are" and "backstory" tend to be the same thing.

NichG
2014-04-16, 07:26 AM
On the other hand from a practical standpoint "Who you [your character] are" and "backstory" tend to be the same thing.

Thats only one particular way to create a character. Backstory is history, but characterization is personality - you can decide upon a personality and the like without ever tying it to particular biographical causes.

For example 'This character has a strong sense of pride and self-assurance; once he asserts something, it becomes more important for him that he be seen to be right than to actually be correct, which means that he may strongly disagree with people on the basis of the fact that what they said contradicts something he asserted to be true. The other side of it however is that he tends to be decisive, and before he's committed himself to something he tends to honestly listen to what others have to say and goes with the consensus. He's bad at being manipulative or subtle in actual conversation, but he understands strategic deception and the idea of tricking the enemy. He has very strong feelings about loyalty and betrayal, and puts those feelings above his emotions and humanity - if a close friend betrayed him, he would unhesitatingly condemn them and would not assume that he had heard wrong.'

While you could tie those things to a history, you can generate them without the history just as well. None of them really have to be stated explicitly before game in any particular fashion either, it can all come through in play.

Jay R
2014-04-16, 04:26 PM
I disagree.

Feel free to disagree with how I create characters all you like. Makes no difference to me.


Not every part of my personality, preferences or talents is a result of a specific part of my background. Many of them are simply who I am. I am like this because I am me, and further explanation is not necessary.

You've taken my words to mean something really silly, which I did not intend. There is no exact one-to-one relationship between specific incidents in the past and specific qualities of my character. But the past I have lived is absolutely integral to who I have become.

Most specifically, in the real world, learning to read, being on a swim team, learning to fence, being a Philmont Ranger for two summers, running a planetarium, choreographing fights for the stage, reading Tolkien at age 13, having an older sister, living in Texas, earning a Ph.D in Operations Research, and many other parts of my background absolutely have affected who I am, what I like, and what I am capable of.


At the very least, writing justifications for every aspect of your character into the backstory will clutter it with lots of stuff nobody at the table but you cares about.

A. You have twisted my words into making the process exactly backwards. I don't write justifications for aspects of my character into the backstory; I write a history, and use it to help develop a character. The character's past is not tacked on as a justification; it's an integral part of who the character is.

B. Yes, of course nobody cares about my character as much as I do. And nobody cares about your character as much as you do. That has nothing to do with how we create them.

I will continue to create characters as I do, and it makes no difference at all that you "disagree" with the process.

Avilan the Grey
2014-04-17, 01:31 AM
Thats only one particular way to create a character. Backstory is history, but characterization is personality - you can decide upon a personality and the like without ever tying it to particular biographical causes.

My point is that from a practical viewpoint the two are the same. Most even use both. If you write down a long backstory and your character's reaction to it, you GET a personality out of that. If you describe a personality it is very common to come up with a backstory that fits. That's why a mix is most common ("She learned in early years to hunt her own food, since being the sole capable person on the tundra, responsible to find food for her aging grandmother makes it neccesary. That or death. It has also made her very practical and has given her a bit of a hoarder personality, still at the age of 32, living in a large town, she still instinctively go for a good deal if she sees one"). Etc.

Yora
2014-04-17, 02:50 AM
And I agree with the statement that the two are not the same. You can have one without having the other.
What's the backstory of Gimli, Han Solo, or Ripley? They don't have any (in the primary story). All we have about them is how they are acting now.

Red Fel
2014-04-17, 07:21 AM
And I agree with the statement that the two are not the same. You can have one without having the other.
What's the backstory of Gimli, Han Solo, or Ripley? They don't have any (in the primary story). All we have about them is how they are acting now.

Somewhat true. In some cases, we don't need to know the backstory; the character is the character.

However, backstories, like any form of history, tend to catch up with you - and that informs the character as well. Han Solo is the perfect example. When we meet him, he's a smuggler offering to ferry the heroes for the right price. Shortly thereafter, we learn a slice of his backstory - he was smuggling for Jabba, ditched his cargo, and is now in debt up to his eyeballs. That informs us not only about who he is now, but why he does what he does, to a certain extent.

I disagree with the notion that backstory is a mandatory or prescriptive component of personality, but I happen to feel that it's a very powerful descriptive tool, to help clarify and inform personality.

That said, you can have two characters with identical or near-identical backstories with two vastly divergent personalities. In fact, that's the classical (and often tragic) illustration of the foil - it's often used to show "what if" with the protagonist. A great example is the dichotomy of Valjean and Javert from Les Miserables. Both spent time in the prison system. Both came from nothing. One was a man who became a criminal, and when his faith was tested he became a good man. The other was a man who became a law enforcer, and when his faith was tested he shattered. Their stories run parallel, and for good reason - to show the audience that we are more than the sum of our experiences.

Tengu_temp
2014-04-17, 06:19 PM
I will continue to create characters as I do, and it makes no difference at all that you "disagree" with the process.

Feel free to create your characters the way you want to. I suspect it leads to ones with decent, distinct personalities, though perhaps with backstories a bit too much on the tl;dr side for my tastes.

However, this is not a process I recommend when advising other people on how to write their characters better.

There is one problem with long character backstories: if your backstory is too long, the DM might not read it, just skim it over at most. All the potential plot hooks, NPCs, little things you hoped will appear in the game will never be there unless you specifically ask for them (and they won't be as surprising then, which is a pity because a nice surprise is better than something equally nice but expected). You wrote the backstory only for yourself, when instead you could've wrote it for everyone at the table.

Jay R
2014-04-19, 01:59 PM
Feel free to create your characters the way you want to. I suspect it leads to ones with decent, distinct personalities, though perhaps with backstories a bit too much on the tl;dr side for my tastes.

You still don't get it. Understanding his background was a tool for creating the character. Most of the notes I make when creating anything aren't for anybody but me.

When researching the Online Scheduling Problem, I took a lot of notes that aren't included in my dissertation. But it was necessary for completing it.

When creating a non-blocking all-optical switching network dynamic data scheduling system and implementation method, most of my work and equations didn't end up in the final patent.

When I sold Lou Zocchi prototypes for a 48-, 60-, and 120-sided dice, I didn't include the math, just the three dice.

When I write a poem, there are lots of lines that don't make it into the final version.

When I plan a D&D scenario, most of what I write down along the way is never seen by the players.

And for the same good reasons, most of the notes involved in creating a character aren't included in the final version.


However, this is not a process I recommend when advising other people on how to write their characters better.

That's fine. Recommend what works for you.


There is one problem with long character backstories: if your backstory is too long, the DM might not read it, just skim it over at most. All the potential plot hooks, NPCs, little things you hoped will appear in the game will never be there unless you specifically ask for them (and they won't be as surprising then, which is a pity because a nice surprise is better than something equally nice but expected). You wrote the backstory only for yourself, when instead you could've wrote it for everyone at the table.

I'm well aware that if the character background isn't interesting enough to hold the DM's attention, then he or she won't read it.

The solution is to write an engaging description. That's the last thing written, after I've firmed up the character design. So far, I've had pretty good luck with it.

(And no, the private aspects of the character's life are not for everybody at the table.)

Avilan the Grey
2014-04-19, 02:45 PM
I'm well aware that if the character background isn't interesting enough to hold the DM's attention, then he or she won't read it.

The solution is to write an engaging description. That's the last thing written, after I've firmed up the character design. So far, I've had pretty good luck with it.

(And no, the private aspects of the character's life are not for everybody at the table.)

Not to mention in the groups I have been in, the backstory and history of the characters is a collective effort, at least involving the DM / GM and the player, and often at least one other character. The DM, after all, provides the world, and can have a problem with your character losing his father to a haunted tomb in the northern fishing village of Whatever Pier... There might not BE any tombs there... or the local population is so superstitious that they simply refuse entering them no matter what... etc. Or the DM might just have a problem with you inheriting your grandfather's dragon slaying sword + 25...

Jay R
2014-04-20, 10:18 AM
Not to mention in the groups I have been in, the backstory and history of the characters is a collective effort, at least involving the DM / GM and the player, and often at least one other character. The DM, after all, provides the world, and can have a problem with your character losing his father to a haunted tomb in the northern fishing village of Whatever Pier... There might not BE any tombs there... or the local population is so superstitious that they simply refuse entering them no matter what... etc. Or the DM might just have a problem with you inheriting your grandfather's dragon slaying sword + 25...

Exactly. Most of the parts of the backstory that the GM reads, he or she reads long before the character is firmed up. In a particularly satisfying game of Flashing Blades (roleplaying in Paris in the time of the musketeers), I wrote the following for Jean-Louis's secret and advantage. (A Flashing Blades character gets one of each. The advantage Contact is a normal one, for which I wrote the following backstory. Secret Origins is one that is not listed in the rules, although you are certainly encouraged to invent your own.)

Secret Origins

Jean-Louis was a foundling, left at Notre Dame in a basket. Nothing is known about him except that he was left with a satin blanket with the monogram "JL". Is it a clue to his parentage? Is he the bastard son of a noble with those initials? Or was he born to a servant girl who stole the blanket? Is he the inconveniently legal heir that somebody wants dead? He does not know, although he still has the blanket.

Note to GM: Neither the character nor the player has any idea what this means. If you choose to clear up the mystery, the secret could easily develop into a Secret Identity, Sworn Vengeance, or Blackmailed, depending on the details. Feel free to use it any way you choose. A monogram cannot be traced (how many JLs are there?), but it might be recognized by a family member, washerwoman, or the original embroiderer. It could also be a blind to the child's identity.

Contact

Master of the Fencing School
Jean-Louis, at age 14, was climbing and exploring. Finding an open window, he entered the lavish rooms. He was surprised in one room by a middle-aged man in a nightgown who grabbed a sword off the wall and challenged Jean-Louis.

Although Jean-Louis had a rapier, he had only fought untrained street ruffians like himself, and had an entirely unjustified high opinion of his own fencing skills. Drawing his sword and attacking, he was astounded to be:

1) parried,
2) sidestepped,
3) swatted on the butt with the flat of the blade, and
4) admonished to "Point your toe forward, don't lean over, hold the pommel up, keep your point on line, don't telegraph your blows."
Jean-Louis had no idea what was going on, and charged again, with similar results. This time he was told that he had managed to combine the elegance of a plough horse with the killer instinct of a milk cow. After the next pass, the man screamed, "Point your foot at me, fool!" Rather to his own surprise, Jean-Louis did. For the next five minutes, he was subjected to his first fencing lesson, at two in the morning, in a house he'd broken into, from a man in a nightgown.

It broke up when Jean-Louis's stomach rumbled. The fencing master asked him when he'd last eaten, and Jean-Louis said three days ago. (A flat lie -- he'd had a perfectly good crust of bread a day and a half ago. But street urchins always say they haven't eaten in three days, even when they're hopelessly overstuffed.)

The master fed him, and asked many questions. (Maítre Francis Toquin is involved in politics, and was frankly wondering which of his enemies had sent so hopelessly incompetent an assassin.) Deciding that Jean-Louis was too foolish to be a spy, the fencing master offered to teach him at the Toquin Fencing School.

Jean-Louis couldn't find the place the next day, since he had been too embarrassed to admit that he couldn't read. He next saw Maítre Toquin three weeks later, and was escorted to the school.

Several years later, Jean-Louis is an assistant at the school, and has the friendship of the master.

The GM approved them, and wrote a great plot around the Secret Origin, involving the nobility, bastardy, and the Huegenots. Meanwhile, Jean-Louis started with only skills that could be learned in a fencing academy, or as a ruffian on the streets of Paris. And growing up in Notre Dame gave him an interest in climbing that affected his usual tactics.

The other players slowly learned about his Secret Origin as the plot unfolded, but they never learned how Jean-Louis met Maítre Toquin.

Beleriphon
2014-04-21, 02:41 PM
And I agree with the statement that the two are not the same. You can have one without having the other.
What's the backstory of Gimli, Han Solo, or Ripley? They don't have any (in the primary story). All we have about them is how they are acting now.

We do after a fashion. Gimli lets on to quite a bit through out Lord of the Rings. He's the son of Gloin, his cousin is Balin and he came from the Erebor. By and large that's quite a bit given the amount of exposition that Tolkein tends to use. Han Solo has reasonable amount of backstory that we hear about but never directly see, as noted previously. Even Ellen Ripley has some backstory that is used as exposition to explain the situation but is never directly seen.

In fairness saying characters, especially NPCs in published settings, aren't differntiated from other characters in other media by their backstory is disengenious. Elmister by his backstory is different than Raistlin is different then Dumbledore is different then Harry Dresden is different then Gandalf. The backstory is one of the few ways people can interact with said characters since they are entirely the product of the author's imagination.

If you look at Drizzt and say Wolverine they arent that different. They're loners (that have a big group of friends) fight in a relatively unique way, have funny haircuts and generally get the super power of Dues Ex Machina. Other than the costumes one might claim they are the same character, but we all know better.

From the perspective of the GM writing a novel's worth of backstory that never really gets used is probably a bit of a waste given the game aspect of RPG, but having some idea as to how the character is going to behave and why is probably a good idea. Many characters share the same broad stroke, but the fine details are what differentiate them. There's only so many colours after all, its just a matter of how you use them.

AMFV
2014-04-21, 04:56 PM
Except that this is missing the point that Wolverine would play very differently in a tabletop game than Batman, whereas a Barbarian doesn't play very differently from a Fighter. The Green Lantern would still play very differently than other people who can 'resolve the same situation', and furthermore would even have stories that contain an extremely different scope.

They fill the same party role, to a degree.



Wolverine vs Batman - Wolverine can walk up and tank something, let people hit him until they're blue in the face, basically be threat agnostic. Batman is squishy so needs to be hyper-aware of threats. Wolverine basically has two things - ignore harm and cut through anything, whereas Batman has 'whatever tech toy I need I have' and 'super-wealth'. These characters would be completely and utterly different experiences to play in a game, personality and backstory totally ignored.


Again they fill the same party role, loner possibly with more gray areas morally. they have the same narrative role which is the same thing as having the same party role effectively. In fact if you compare Avengers to the Justice League, Superman fills the same role as Captain America, the morality of the group, leadership, just because they work differently in fights (slightly) doesn't exclude the fact that they have the same effect on the plot, they fill the same role.



The issue in D&D 3.5 compared to the superhero genre is that the system doesn't enforce building a focused/thematic character. Its not about overwhelming a story or anything like that, but rather how many distinct niches exist in the system. In D&D, a person basically has to choose to play a character who has limits, but can intentionally or accidentally make a character who can literally do everything - thematically speaking, not in terms of situations they can resolve. That possibility means that the niches of focused characters aren't protected, so you end up getting arms races, generic characters, things like that.

That's a problem with your playerbase, if people are having arms races then that's a player issue, not a game issue. If you create a character that can overwhelm the game, that's a player issue, not a character issue, the player should resolve that.

Also I'm not convinced that distinct niches are as important as a feeling of contribution and I'll touch on this further in a second.



In the superhero genre, even when there are large power gaps between characters in the same group, you still don't tend to have niche violation. The things that Superman can deal with compared to other heroes in that continuity mean that Superman is a trump card and can basically do everyone else's job. But the way he would do so is very distinct from how Batman would solve things. The D&D equivalent example would be if Batman could buy a dose of Superman-blood-transfusion every game and borrow supe's powers for that session.


Well the problem is that in a comic you can create a sense of accomplishment for everybody, there are things that Batman can do better than Superman (investigation for example) so everybody gets their moment of glory in good writing, of course there's Frank Miller's "Batporn" where basically he has Batman solve every problem and then you have the same issue.



And congrats, you've found the places where the superhero genre starts breaking down and begins to have problems. How many people complain about Superman being a Mary Sue? But even then, the way that the results would be achieved are still kept thematically distinct. Green Lantern is going to do things with environmental manipulation and object creation - the solution is 'summon up a structure from imagination that solves this problem'. That will play very differently than someone who has the ability to 'invent a power whenever I feel like it for why I'm awesome' (which I suppose is the cynical view of how Superman would play in a tabletop game). And for someone playing Batman, it's 'I have a laundry list of gadgets I can play with, let me go find the one that helps'.


You're referring to a brief period in the 70s where Superman existed in that fashion, you'll find that in Modern comics that is exceedingly not the case. It was with Batman for a while, when he literally had gadgets for any problem conceivable, but that's toned down particularly since ASBAR got pretty heavy ridicule in the community.



I feel like somehow we're arguing what heroes you personally enjoy, rather than what an entire genre has to say about game design. 'I don't like the Dazzler' doesn't mean that somehow a genre where most of the characters have a solitary, narrow, thematic set of powers is doing exactly the same thing as a genre where powers are broad and granted by archetype.

The fact that one can cherry pick to such a degree and have so many varied opinions about the span of heroes that we can find one to perfectly suit any argument we personally want to make is, in fact, indicative of the OP's point.

I would disagree with the idea that heroes become better if they have unique powers, or that unique powers necessarily make a hero more unique. Just look at the skew of 90s anti-heroes with incredibly unique powers that were all identical plot-wise and personality wise. I don't dislike the Dazzler on principle, but she was never a popular character, her solo line failed, so others dislike her as well. Wolverine, people like him, he was popular, and while popularity isn't the end-all be all, it's certainly an indicator.

It's indicative of the opposite of the OP's point which was, if you'll recall: "Diverse Powers make Diverse and interesting characters" which is categorically untrue, just review the 90s there were dozens of diverse powered characters that were the same personality and plot-wise, that is the point, they aren't related at all, there's not even a tangential relationship. That's why you can have Jean Grey be completely different as a character from Emma Frost (And for the record I detest both characters, but they are both original and unique despite having almost identical powersets). Uniqueness stems from writing and personality, which would be equivalent of roleplay and backstory.

HeadlessMermaid
2014-04-25, 09:01 PM
It is, of course, entirely possible to make a fascinating and unique character without writing (or thinking of) a background. It's even possible to do so without bothering with personality and the like pre-game, but simply plunge in and make things up as you go along. I've seen it happen.

...But very rarely. I believe it takes a lot of talent to do that, and above average improvisational skills. In my experience, most people who haven't thought about their character beforehand end up either roleplaying themselves, or falling back to a simple archetype "without any customization". Or a combination thereof.

In such cases, a personality sketch or a background might be of great help. If your characters feel bland, try to think about who they are before grabbing a sword or a staff and marching into the dungeon. This also applies to recurring NPCs and BBEGs.

Personality sketch or background? That's a matter of preference, of course. Both of these are great tools. And if you try the one and it doesn't work or you don't like doing it, you can give a shot at the other.

Personally, I prefer backgrounds, because I enjoy the procedure immensely, and because I find it gives me a much better grasp of the character than a list of quirks in bullet points would. I mean, my roleplaying is dramatically different when I'm bossy (has served as sergeant in the army for 3 years) and when I'm bossy (has 3 unruly children to discipline).

And I often compare it to Method Acting. The background itself may never come to play. But by knowing my character's past experiences, I can get into their shoes more easily, and I'm better equipped to come up with a reaction for any given situation. I can act and improvise easier and better, because I have a lot of information about that character in my head. Said information may be irrelevant to the adventure, but it doesn't matter. A good background is context, texture, immersion, fodder for the imagination. So it makes me a better roleplayer, and it makes me enjoy the game so much more.

On the downside, I get so invested that I'm heartbroken when my character dies.

On the plus side, I get really invested, and that's worth getting heartbroken when my character dies. I'm basically in this for the intense emotions. And in RPGs and fiction in general, memorable is good, even when it breaks your heart. :)

tl,dr;
1 - Jay R, I'm with you.
2 - Yora, and anyone who finds PCs/NPCs too archetypical to be interesting: don't stick to the archetype. Try a distinct personality sketch. If that doesn't work, try a background. If that doesn't work, try a better, more detailed background (assuming that doesn't bore you to tears). If nothing works, eh, just focus on plot, world-building, and inter-party relations. Or do dugneon-crawls. It's perfectly acceptable.

erikun
2014-04-26, 07:54 AM
I'm really not a fan of superheroes and I think most of the characters are dumb, but there is one thing you really have to give them credit for. Almost each of them is distinctively different and unique.

When you look at popular fantasy characters... not so much.
They may have some personal quirks, but Boromir and Gimli are still just fighter dudes, Gandalf, Elminster, and Dumbledor are just wizard dudes, Manshoon and Toth-Amon evil wizard dudes, Lord Soth and Arthas evil knight dudes, and so on. They may still be cool or even badass, but they are almost entirely interchangeable with their appearance and powers.
I would not send off Gandalf to take care of some of the things Elminister deals with.

As for superheroes, they tend to be visually unique, or at least interesting. But I'm not that sure they are really all that distinctive beyond that. How many strong invulnerable flying superheroes do we have? How many psychics and mind readers of different flavors? How many gruff gritty down-to-earth powerless resourceful gadgetteers are there? I mean, there's a lot of overlap in superheroes running around, especially when you factor in different authors and the tendency to forget what a specific character can and cannot do. (I cannot count the number of times a pure telepath has tossed out a "psychic energy blast" because that's what Psylocke can do.)

As for the rest, note that a lot of such fiction is intended to be human people, and so they wouldn't display the same kind of variance as giant green aliens or animated symbiote spider suits. Still, I'd have a hard time confusing Boromir with Conan with Lancelot, or Sauron with Voldemort.


There is one big counter example that comes to my mind, and many of you won't like it: Drizzt Do'Urden may have gotten both whiny and repetitive, but he does have a unique style. He has an exotic combat style (two scimitars), an strikingly unusual appearance (black skin, white hair), and a unique sidekick (magical black panther). Supposedly, every dumb noob wants to play a Drizzt-clone, but that would actually support my point. He's hugely popular because he's unique.
Other cool fantasy dudes are Ilidan and Raziel, who also really don't have direct equivalents.
I've seen D&D novels with one characters being a Yuan-Ti blooded Psion, one starring a half-maedar, one with a sphinx as a character, and a whole bunch of dragons. A LOT of people who ended up being dragons, for various reasons.

Oddly enough, the strange details didn't seem to mean as much as the personality of the character. Does the elf transformed into a were-dolphin to live with sea elves in The Dargonesti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dargonesti) deserve a mention? If so, it is probably due to her actions while kidnapped and living as a slave of the sea elves, not because of her unique appearance.


Now with RPG characters, you always have to stay within the rules of the game system, which do impose some real restrictions about what abilities a character can have. But usually there's a huge range of available weapons and armor for the warrior types, and a greater range of spells than any wizard could ever learn. Instead of going the default route of magic missile, invisibility, fireball, lightning bolt, dimension door and stoneskin, you can create spellcasters based on a specific theme. In a way you'd probably weakening yourself a bit by making "sub-optimal" choices, but I think "swamp witch" and "rock caster" beats "wizard dude" every day.

Thoughts?
D&D tends to be pretty bad at this sort of thing, which is why I've been preferring systems that allow more functionality. I can run my berserker wizard who flies into a rage to increase his spells' power in a system like Fate or HeroQuest. I can play the divine warrior in no armor who relies on his white magic to produce a mystical barrier and grant him healing while he fights. I can play the scholar who uses his knowledge of mechanics and alchemy to work as a rogue. And none of these choices end up sub-optimal.


Yes, and in my experience that usually doesn't happen. Neither with PCs, nor with NPCs in published RPG material. People pick class and race, and that's usually where it ends. After that the character tends to follow the archetype without much, if anything, really customized about it. But there is room for much more.
Sure, this can be the case. However, simply giving these players more interesting classes or powers does not automatically make their characters any more memorable. A player might make what appears to be a very interesting character on paper, but when they get at the table, they'll just be using the same "I attack the orc for 12 damage" that they did when they were the human fighter.

Mind you, with a bunch of unusual concepts you'll have a bit more interest and a bit less falling into the "just roll for damage" mindset. But a big list of superhero superpowers isn't really much different than a big list of unusual fantasy races. In the end, it's up to the player to actually play the character in an interesting manner.

NichG
2014-04-26, 10:03 AM
Sure, this can be the case. However, simply giving these players more interesting classes or powers does not automatically make their characters any more memorable. A player might make what appears to be a very interesting character on paper, but when they get at the table, they'll just be using the same "I attack the orc for 12 damage" that they did when they were the human fighter.


Just a comment: if this happens, then you didn't actually give them a more interesting class or power. You gave them something that refluffs 'attack', but was otherwise the same.

I think game designers get stuck in certain ruts and make sort of lazy design decisions like this - having four classes where the only difference is what their attacks look like, for example, or taking some concept and boiling it down into attack form. It'd be an interesting game design challenge - come up with a set of mechanics for a game where you can still have things like fights (possibly based on specific win conditions rather than being the last one standing), but you are forbidden to have a direct 'attack' action of any sort in the system.

For example, you could absolutely have a character who can control fire, but they cannot actually just 'throw fire at someone - roll to hit and damage'. Instead they can maybe cause objects/areas to be on fire or not, where the fire expands each round, such that if an enemy cannot avoid being in an area that is on fire they automatically take fire damage. Or a character who can control ice, but they can't just 'throw an ice ray at someone - roll to hit and damage'. Instead they can freeze people (or even effects, words, who knows what) in place temporarily or at the high end permanently, preventing them from moving; or they can sculpt anything they want out of frozen water.

Lord Raziere
2014-04-26, 10:26 AM
eh. commonality is in the eye of the beholder.

all those who try to kill uniqueness by reducing all what others consider unique, is insulting the other person's sense of wonder. Yora has a right to consider whatever he/she (I forgot or I don't know) thinks is unique, and your all just clinging to pre-existing forms of classification to use to try and destroy his/her viewpoint of it unnecessarily, when I could pretty much do the same but with different archetypes I could make up myself.

I for one say that commonality does not kill uniqueness. in fact, it is in the comparison of commonalities and differences that we discover uniqueness, for example: Drizz't Do'Urden like many characters fights people with swords, but unlike most characters he dual-wields scimitars and has magical panther to help him, and thus he is unique.

to say that there is nothing new under the sun, is to forget there are more suns than we could possibly know what to do with and that there are probably a lot of new things under them.

Alberic Strein
2014-04-26, 12:58 PM
I might be going on a tangent, but I find that, compared to litterature or comics, PC's and NPC's are both unique and never truly so. For they are limited, not by their backstory nor abilities, but by their players, by the definition of fun for their players.

I lay heavily on the "tl;dr" side when it comes to backgrounds, and I enjoy making each character I create unique.

Kain is an average corporate driver in shadowrun whom suddenly has his ID deleted, flees, joins, for lack of a better option, criminals, and tries to fit in by emulating criminals from sitcoms, to hilarious effects.

Uldar is a war veteran, who killed whomever was against him on a battlefield, including women and children, culminating in his more or less accidental murder of wife and child.

Jack is a camarillan vampire whom lived his whole life trying to find his girlfriend's murderer, failed, incidentally got turned, and decided to stop giving a damn and enjoy what was left of his life.

That's the character building part, you could argue about their uniqueness, but those three are not the same character.

Then we start playing and Uldar dies buying time for another team member to escape, Jack gets captured whilde doing the exact same thing, and Kain ends up in a desperate hand to hand battle against a berserk ghoulified troll with unlimited adrenaline pump to buy time for his teammate.

Because I play a paladin. Even when I'm playing a mundane office worker, I play a paladin. When the chips are down, it's towards this archetype that I lay, and this is what my characters are, in the end, even if their powers, backstory, their fluff and their crunch, their "form" in the end differ, as long as they are "my" characters, it's what they are.

I play a campaign with only one other player, he changed three times his character, but fluff and crunch be damned since day 1 he played a selfish jerkass.

Because that's what he enjoys.

On paper every single character is different. During a game? Not so much.

tl;dr : Characters follow achetypes : ourselves.

TheCountAlucard
2014-04-26, 03:30 PM
Kain is an average corporate driver in shadowrun whom suddenly has his ID deleted, flees, joins, for lack of a better option, criminals, and tries to fit in by emulating criminals from sitcoms, to hilarious effects.Reminds me of one of my old PCs, "Silverscreen." A B-movie trideo actor who ended up with a side career in the shadows. :smallamused:

erikun
2014-04-26, 09:39 PM
It'd be an interesting game design challenge - come up with a set of mechanics for a game where you can still have things like fights (possibly based on specific win conditions rather than being the last one standing), but you are forbidden to have a direct 'attack' action of any sort in the system.
Perhaps I just have unusual experiences, but this doesn't matter one bit. It won't make much difference if a character needs to roll d20+5 to hit something with a sword, or needs to roll 20d6 and roll above 50 to collapse a wall onto an opponent. A player can easily boiled it all down to a "hit" and just recite how much damage they do. They're rolling different dice, and technically doing something different in-game, but I've seen a lot of people just reduce their power set down to one or two "attacks" to just use against everything.

I suppose you could change it enough to where players aren't attacking anything, and are literally doing completely different things to achieve victory. However, at that point, the players are basically playing combat independent of each other, minus the few global changes that affect everyone.

NichG
2014-04-26, 10:20 PM
Perhaps I just have unusual experiences, but this doesn't matter one bit. It won't make much difference if a character needs to roll d20+5 to hit something with a sword, or needs to roll 20d6 and roll above 50 to collapse a wall onto an opponent. A player can easily boiled it all down to a "hit" and just recite how much damage they do. They're rolling different dice, and technically doing something different in-game, but I've seen a lot of people just reduce their power set down to one or two "attacks" to just use against everything.

I suppose you could change it enough to where players aren't attacking anything, and are literally doing completely different things to achieve victory. However, at that point, the players are basically playing combat independent of each other, minus the few global changes that affect everyone.

In any campaign in a system with a reasonable degree of mechanical complexity there are often actions taken that do not take the form of 'attacks' in the direct damage sense. Battlefield control, buffs, mobility alteration effects, healing, summoning, etc are all very distinct from your 'd20+5 to hit' example.

Maybe your experiences are different though - you can of course have a party of blaster wizards, straightforward melee warriors, etc in D&D even if the system lets you do a lot more. It depends in part on your players, but also what sort of challenges you throw at the party and how close to the red line those challenges are, as well as how elaborate the challenges are (e.g. whether or not there's a bit of dancing back and forth to figure out what the enemy is immune to).

Thats kind of why I suggested the no-attacks thing as a game design challenge. It forces you to think outside of that box and see if you can encourage certain sorts of atypical problem solving in players.

Garimeth
2014-05-01, 09:56 AM
Exactly. Most of the parts of the backstory that the GM reads, he or she reads long before the character is firmed up. In a particularly satisfying game of Flashing Blades (roleplaying in Paris in the time of the musketeers), I wrote the following for Jean-Louis's secret and advantage. (A Flashing Blades character gets one of each. The advantage Contact is a normal one, for which I wrote the following backstory. Secret Origins is one that is not listed in the rules, although you are certainly encouraged to invent your own.)

Secret Origins

Jean-Louis was a foundling, left at Notre Dame in a basket. Nothing is known about him except that he was left with a satin blanket with the monogram "JL". Is it a clue to his parentage? Is he the bastard son of a noble with those initials? Or was he born to a servant girl who stole the blanket? Is he the inconveniently legal heir that somebody wants dead? He does not know, although he still has the blanket.

Note to GM: Neither the character nor the player has any idea what this means. If you choose to clear up the mystery, the secret could easily develop into a Secret Identity, Sworn Vengeance, or Blackmailed, depending on the details. Feel free to use it any way you choose. A monogram cannot be traced (how many JLs are there?), but it might be recognized by a family member, washerwoman, or the original embroiderer. It could also be a blind to the child's identity.

Contact

Master of the Fencing School
Jean-Louis, at age 14, was climbing and exploring. Finding an open window, he entered the lavish rooms. He was surprised in one room by a middle-aged man in a nightgown who grabbed a sword off the wall and challenged Jean-Louis.

Although Jean-Louis had a rapier, he had only fought untrained street ruffians like himself, and had an entirely unjustified high opinion of his own fencing skills. Drawing his sword and attacking, he was astounded to be:

1) parried,
2) sidestepped,
3) swatted on the butt with the flat of the blade, and
4) admonished to "Point your toe forward, don't lean over, hold the pommel up, keep your point on line, don't telegraph your blows."
Jean-Louis had no idea what was going on, and charged again, with similar results. This time he was told that he had managed to combine the elegance of a plough horse with the killer instinct of a milk cow. After the next pass, the man screamed, "Point your foot at me, fool!" Rather to his own surprise, Jean-Louis did. For the next five minutes, he was subjected to his first fencing lesson, at two in the morning, in a house he'd broken into, from a man in a nightgown.

It broke up when Jean-Louis's stomach rumbled. The fencing master asked him when he'd last eaten, and Jean-Louis said three days ago. (A flat lie -- he'd had a perfectly good crust of bread a day and a half ago. But street urchins always say they haven't eaten in three days, even when they're hopelessly overstuffed.)

The master fed him, and asked many questions. (Maítre Francis Toquin is involved in politics, and was frankly wondering which of his enemies had sent so hopelessly incompetent an assassin.) Deciding that Jean-Louis was too foolish to be a spy, the fencing master offered to teach him at the Toquin Fencing School.

Jean-Louis couldn't find the place the next day, since he had been too embarrassed to admit that he couldn't read. He next saw Maítre Toquin three weeks later, and was escorted to the school.

Several years later, Jean-Louis is an assistant at the school, and has the friendship of the master.

The GM approved them, and wrote a great plot around the Secret Origin, involving the nobility, bastardy, and the Huegenots. Meanwhile, Jean-Louis started with only skills that could be learned in a fencing academy, or as a ruffian on the streets of Paris. And growing up in Notre Dame gave him an interest in climbing that affected his usual tactics.

The other players slowly learned about his Secret Origin as the plot unfolded, but they never learned how Jean-Louis met Maítre Toquin.

May I say, as a GM for 15 years over several systems, that THIS is EXACTLY what I encourage my players to do, and that is no where near being TL;DR. I do it for every major NPC, I do it for the world/city's recent history, and sometimes I do it for the setting's creation mythology. It makes for a more believable setting, more believable characters, and a great guidepost for how that character will behave, which makes the game feel "lived in" rather than simply played.

I think some people's problem may be the system they use does not give them a good mechanical way of representing something or incentive for doing so (I'm thinking of skill points). In our current system, 13th Age, the game is very much set-up to accomodate this.

Lastly, and not to you, but to the thread: alot of this is up to the player and the GM. As a GM I ask my players these things, and we come up with this together, because, you know, I built the world and cooperative story-telling means I want to have fun too. I think though, you definitely have some players who either:

a.) Don't care,
b.) Are not comfortable enough with their roleplaying
c.) Don't see the purpose, or don't feel its been rewarded in the past.

Now player type A probably wants to get more into the tactical aspects of the game or a kick in the door game. They probably want to kill/loot stuff with some RP thrown in...maybe.

Player B likes the "idea" of in detail roleplay, but is either uncomfortable with the interaction or lacks the creativity to come up with something satisfying for them (the GM and play time can help with both.)

Player C, while at first glance similar to player A, does care, but to a lesser extent - or on different things. This is the player who may just see his guy as the fighter with the spiked chain - that's his thing. This could also be the player who is used to character life being cheaper than the paper its printed on, and just doesn't create a "defined" character personality or back story because he is just used to not doing it. This could also be the character that has spent time in the past coming up with character defining things that never got utilized by the DM and so they just see it as a waste of time now.

There are more I am sure, and my language may not be as precise as some here would like - but in my experience my players fall into one of those 3 categories. As a GM/leader I can influence B and C, by showing them the rewards in narrative that I can give them for doing these things, and by helping them be more comfortable with doing them (for example - if a PC says something it's IC, not "Bill tells harry to go outside" but instead "Harry, go outside.") Player A however, I can't do much about. I can throw him scenarios in the game to scratch that tactics or murder-hobo itch, but I just don't run those games, I don't have much fun running them, or playing in them. I like problem solving and social/skill intaraction games though - so maybe I'll put the PCs in charge of a siege, or make them officers or part of a squad in a military campaign. (Although we tend to avoid that last one since my group is all military IRL.)

TL;DR: JayR's background is what I like in a player. Some GMs and players have different playstyles, and the amount of detail desired or needed varies based on the GM, the Player, the system, and the setting.

Garimeth
2014-05-01, 10:01 AM
To say that there is nothing new under the sun, is to forget there are more suns than we could possibly know what to do with and that there are probably a lot of new things under them.

This was quite the unexpected gem in this thread. We would do well to remember this not just in gaming, but life in general. May I sig? Also, did you make this up or is this a quote from somewhere else? Because I may make this my e-mail signature block at work as well.

Well said.

Lord Raziere
2014-05-01, 10:40 AM
This was quite the unexpected gem in this thread. We would do well to remember this not just in gaming, but life in general. May I sig? Also, did you make this up or is this a quote from somewhere else? Because I may make this my e-mail signature block at work as well.

Well said.

I made that up. your welcome. :smallsmile: