PDA

View Full Version : Character ideas vs group compromise



Weimann
2016-09-07, 06:15 AM
So on the one hand, when you go into a game with a group, you will have an idea of how you want to portray and develop your character. On the other, RPGs are collaborative and everyone has to compromise. This might make it so that your character develops in a different direction than expected (not necessarily worse, but different).

Given this, how much preparation do you put into expected personality exploration and intended character development? Does it provide direction to drive your game forward, or does it frustrate you if you never get the opportunity to do the thing?

Quertus
2016-09-07, 07:56 AM
Much like I think a DM should never have an intention on where the campaign is heading, and should instead simply present scenarios for the party to encounter, and let them deal with them however they choose... I do not plan where I want the character's personality to develop, only where he is right now. Seeing all the unexpected places that journey takes him is no small part of the fun of an RPG. Why in the world would you intentionally sabotage that by having plans for your character's personality development?

Tanarii
2016-09-07, 09:19 AM
So on the one hand, when you go into a game with a group, you will have an idea of how you want to portray and develop your character. Thats far less important than having an idea of what the character's motivations are. What drives her. That way when you are making in-character decisions, aka Role-Playing, you have some method to make decisions for a character that is not you.


Given this, how much preparation do you put into expected personality exploration and intended character development? What I do, and tell my players to do, is provide a short list of motivations. That's the primary preparation needed. Because character portrayal and development will follow naturally from such a list, as you use it to influence in-character decision making.

Edit: As a side-note, I really like the D&D 5e personality system, because that's precisely what it does. 5-6 one sentence motivations covering a variety of sources.

Edit2:

I do not plan where I want the character's personality to develop, only where he is right now. Yep, that's what I'm trying to say. What matters isn't a plan of where the character will go. It's what drives them now. That will naturally lead to where they are in the future as play progresses.

DigoDragon
2016-09-07, 09:24 AM
I do not plan where I want the character's personality to develop, only where he is right now.

This is a good way of doing things. I write out a bit of background and personality for each PC as they stand now, but leave wiggle-room to develop and change as the RP moves along. Maybe one PC helps your character overcome a flaw, maybe another has a certain way of doing things that rubs off on you, etc.

flond
2016-09-07, 12:14 PM
Much like I think a DM should never have an intention on where the campaign is heading, and should instead simply present scenarios for the party to encounter, and let them deal with them however they choose... I do not plan where I want the character's personality to develop, only where he is right now. Seeing all the unexpected places that journey takes him is no small part of the fun of an RPG. Why in the world would you intentionally sabotage that by having plans for your character's personality development?

Because for a lot of people being on a certain type of story is part of the fun. Limits providing the most freedom and all that.

Darth Ultron
2016-09-07, 10:42 PM
Given this, how much preparation do you put into expected personality exploration and intended character development? Does it provide direction to drive your game forward, or does it frustrate you if you never get the opportunity to do the thing?

Personality? If your just talking about personality I don't understand why you can't just make your character be anything you want them to be? There is no compromise with the group.

The only ''comprise'' you must make if for your character actions: you can't be a jerk and you can't go solo.

Cozzer
2016-09-08, 03:33 AM
As a DM, I usually provide a short list of "your character can do whatever he/she wants, but doing this means becoming an NPC". The players control the characters, but the DM controls the spotlight. :P

When I play with my usual group we don't need to give explicit lists because we know each other well enough. For example, in a campaign where I'm a player, a character just became an NPC because he was loyal towards both the PCs and another main faction of the story, and things happened that forced him to choose and he chose the other faction and betrayed the PCs in such a way that it would make no sense whatsoever for them to trust him again, despite him feeling guilty and conflicted over it. The character was free to make his own choice without getting arbitrarily punished by the DM (he's still a pretty major character in the story, it's not like rocks fell on his head to get rid of him), but he was definitely not fit to be part of the main characters' group anymore.

ImNotTrevor
2016-09-08, 03:53 AM
This is why I like making the characters all at the same time, together. It's easier to build character connectiona throughout the group, and you're less likely to find yourself with one or two characters who just plain don't fit in.

So for instance, making a character who utterly and completely hates wizards is well and good... until there's a wizard in the party. Then you need to either figure out why this wizard is an exception, or find a contrived reason to work together anyways. (Just as an example)

If everyone is working on characters at the same time and drawing connections between them, amd shooting ideas off of one another, in my experience it leads to less headaches later.

Tanarii
2016-09-08, 06:19 AM
The character was free to make his own choice without getting arbitrarily punished by the DM (he's still a pretty major character in the story, it's not like rocks fell on his head to get rid of him), but he was definitely not fit to be part of the main characters' group anymore.That's pretty damn cool.

But that's really only necessary when there's a single 'party' in the campaign. Not even just a single group of players ... a single group of PCs.

If there's more than one group of players, PCs, or even the possibility of splitting the party or or forming a new part around the outcast character, it's easy enough for them to stay a PC. Hell, even solo play in parallel with the main group is a possibility.

Not a criticism of your choice to maintain focus on a single group of PCs like that, because that's a cool way to handle it. Just a clear and obvious play style choice to me, since it's not one that would normally have to occur in any game I play.

BWR
2016-09-08, 07:06 AM
I rarely make much by the way of personality (only bare-bones starting points) when creating a character and even more rarely have an idea of how they are going to develop. Character creation is done always with the thought that this is going to be part of a group. As a GM I expect players to create characters that can work with each other - no bringing in evil ********s in a group of goody-two-shoes (unless everyone agrees to this) - and which will fit in with the stated focus of the game (no bringing in anthropomorphic extraplanar hivemind spiders using high tech weaponry in my stated classic four race D&D dungeoncrawl).
Character development is something that happens in response to the events of the game. Planning development beforehand basically assumes you know what will happen and how, which usually ends up with you being wrong and things getting messy. The benefit of having uncomplicated characters and few expectations when you start a game is that the character can stay a simple character for a game with minimal personality issues or can build and develop in a game with lots of focus on personality.

Cozzer
2016-09-08, 08:51 AM
@Tanarii: You're definitely right, I always play games/campaigns where it's assumed that the focus is on a group of character that cooperates to accomplish shared goals (I tried more "individualistic" games and campaigns a few times, but I could never get into them). If you don't assume that, there's no need to turn the "incompatible" character into an NPC.

Though I sort of think the rule should still exist for other cases. I mean, I think every GM has SOMETHING he doesn't want to have as a character. For example, I have an extremely low tolerance for evulz characters. Even in a game with the possibility of multiple parties, if a player tried to turn his character into a pre-character development Belkar I'd turn him into an NPC before he could finish saying "...but I'm Chaotic Neutral!". :P

Tanarii
2016-09-08, 11:07 AM
In campaigns where I allow opposing parties (even Evil parties), I pretty much draw the line at a PC being transformed into supernatural evil. Lycanthrope, Vampirism, becoming a Lich. Effectively, the PC stops being the person they used to be, and is someone else. So they're an NPC now.

Also in games that allow forced alignment change from magical objects / curses, or some other drastic personality change, that'd be changing over to an NPC for similar reasons.

OTOH if I was running a single Party campaign for some reason, instead of a grognard style open multi-party/session campaign, OR I was running a heroic campaign (ie "no Evil Alignments" or the like), then yeah, going evil / backstabbing the party would qualify for sure.

Also even in an open multi-party style campaign, signing up to serve a Lord / King as a guard, knight, or even right hand adviser might do it. Anything that effectively takes the PC out of play and effectively retires them from adventuring could do it.

Jay R
2016-09-08, 01:46 PM
I always want lots of player/GM and player/player interaction during character creation.

And I don't think of it as "compromise". I don't want to play a character idea that messes up a campaign, or interferes with other characters, so if the party is a bunch of spies, then it's the wrong game for my paladin idea. It's no compromise to abandon a paladin idea when that idea would make the game worse for everybody, including myself.

And if there is a player who wants to play a specific character idea no matter how much it hurts the other characters or the story, then I don't want to play with that player at all.

Fortunately, I have never, in over forty years of gaming, dealt with a player who wanted a character who would screw up the game for others. One of my repeated reactions to many of the stories on these forums is to be grateful at how incredibly lucky I've been in my gaming companions.

JAL_1138
2016-09-08, 02:14 PM
[QUOTE=Weimann;21178121]
I typically have to play a character a while to get more than the barest idea of who they are, e.g., "Silly bard," "Silly-acting bard with hidden depressive tendencies," "paranoid nutcase," "noble paladin," "inquisitive and faithful cleric," "knight-in-sour-armor with chronic hero syndrome," "confidence-trickster and general scoundrel," etc.

I don't often put a ton in at character creation, and half the time I don't even have a backstory in mind until several sessions in. Playing them a while lets me get a feel for them and figure out what makes them tick, and how their personality (which wasn't set 'till now) might have come to be.

I almost never plan out how they'll develop (except maybe "will grow as a person in response to adversity," or something generic); I don't know what's going to happen in the game and how it will affect them until it happens.

Lord Raziere
2016-09-08, 02:53 PM
Me on the other hand, I've got strong ideas on what character I want to play, what their abilities are and so on, to the point where I've created characters long beforehand that I want to play but still haven't yet. I'm still trying to find a place to play Nihilon Terminus (a Vetala Nephilim with Nemesis Ki, as well as they Eyes of Death and Existence Eater bloodlines in Anima Beyond Fantasy) oddly enough its the characters I come up with on the spot for a game that catches my interest that get played, while the ones I make ahead of time are still waiting.

JAL_1138
2016-09-08, 03:08 PM
Me on the other hand, I've got strong ideas on what character I want to play, what their abilities are and so on, to the point where I've created characters long beforehand that I want to play but still haven't yet. I'm still trying to find a place to play Nihilon Terminus (a Vetala Nephilim with Nemesis Ki, as well as they Eyes of Death and Existence Eater bloodlines in Anima Beyond Fantasy) oddly enough its the characters I come up with on the spot for a game that catches my interest that get played, while the ones I make ahead of time are still waiting.

To clarify, I might have the build planned out to a T, but the personality is only very loosely worked-out and may be subject to change after I've played them a bit.

kyoryu
2016-09-08, 03:32 PM
I'm of the opinion that if you have a story you want to tell, http://www.literatureandlatte.com/scrivener.php

That goes the same for players and GMs.

Part of sitting at a table with other people is that it's not "your story". It will incorporate some of your elements. It will incorporate other peoples' elements. It will incorporate randomness from the dice.

If you're not okay with that, purchase the software I linked to above and use it.

Tanarii
2016-09-08, 08:23 PM
I almost never plan out how they'll develop (except maybe "will grow as a person in response to adversity," or something generic); I don't know what's going to happen in the game and how it will affect them until it happens.
That's why I think knowing motivations is far more important than backstory or planned character personality development. Because just like in the real world, the character develops in conjunction with in-game events. Knowing how your character generally acts and reacts is more important than past or future, except insofar as how the past effects how you act & react, and how you act & react will affect the future.

Character motivations are the key to all in character decision making. Roleplaying.

JAL_1138
2016-09-08, 08:59 PM
That's why I think knowing motivations is far more important than backstory or planned character personality development. Because just like in the real world, the character develops in conjunction with in-game events. Knowing how your character generally acts and reacts is more important than past or future, except insofar as how the past effects how you act & react, and how you act & react will affect the future.

Character motivations are the key to all in character decision making. Roleplaying.

I don't even necessarily know motivations beyond a general sense of "I'll find a reason to bite the quest hook" or "This character has chronic hero syndrome."

One of my most successful characters started off as a low-grade scam artist whose motives were usually "find a good tavern to cheat at cards in, get a few good meals, sleep indoors for a while, and make a bit of coin before moving on down the line" who ended up being involved with the leadership of a revolution against a tyrant because of a chain of events that started because he happened to be one of the only four schmucks in the immediate vicinity who could use a sword worth a dang and spontaneously (and somewhat reluctantly) grew a conscience when the s#%& hit the fan.

Tanarii
2016-09-08, 11:01 PM
Well then doesn't that just put my hoity-toity 'motivations are key to roleplaying' speech right in its place lol :smallbiggrin:

JAL_1138
2016-09-09, 12:00 AM
Well then doesn't that just put my hoity-toity 'motivations are key to roleplaying' speech right in its place lol :smallbiggrin:

Not really--I still need to know their motivations eventually in order to roleplay them well, I just may not be sure of them at the start. He'd have been a very different character if he was purely in it for the money, or if he'd ever decided doing heroic deeds felt good instead of being something he had to do because he kept getting presented with horrible situations he couldn't leave alone and live with himself.

Also, I just now, ten years later, realized he basically had the same arc as Han Solo, when described as in the prior post...my character wasn't nearly that cool (of course), and I guess I didn't make the connection because the personalities were so different. He sort of kept getting in deeper and deeper because he couldn't bring himself to say "not my problem" when the chips were down if he wanted to be able to look at himself in the mirror again. He started off as a snarky goof like your typical charming trickster, and instead of developing into a roguish hero-archetype, pretty much stopped even cracking a smile after the third quest or so unless he needed to put on a diplomatic façade--he was kind of wrecked by the whole experience, because he never really felt heroic--there was always another problem, always another responsibility, and he'd gone too far to quit without it costing lives.

So I do agree that knowing what makes the character tick is critical to roleplay. There's a huge difference between, for example, the valiant knight who seeks to vanquish injustice out of principle and honor, and the schmuck in armor with a sword who only fights because seeing horrible things happen to good people feels like getting kicked in the teeth and he has to do something about it.

kyoryu
2016-09-09, 10:32 AM
Well then doesn't that just put my hoity-toity 'motivations are key to roleplaying' speech right in its place lol :smallbiggrin:

Not really. It depends on the type of game you're playing.

In a fairly linear adventure that's mostly pre-planned, your motivations are basically irrelevant. You're gonna get on the train, so "chronic hero syndrome" is sufficient.

In a less linear game, your motivations will drive what happens, so they're important.

RazorChain
2016-09-09, 09:34 PM
So on the one hand, when you go into a game with a group, you will have an idea of how you want to portray and develop your character. On the other, RPGs are collaborative and everyone has to compromise. This might make it so that your character develops in a different direction than expected (not necessarily worse, but different).

Given this, how much preparation do you put into expected personality exploration and intended character development? Does it provide direction to drive your game forward, or does it frustrate you if you never get the opportunity to do the thing?

Well I'm not a method actor so usually I don't go to a game wanting to explore certain feelings or personality.

I usually make up a character and some basic personality (honorable, just or mischievous etc) and just take it from there. I don't show up with a backstabbing loner who is greedy and callous to boot because it's never going to mix well with a group. People who scream "You can't make me compromise my character concept" while ruining group dynamics get hanged, drawn and quartered.

If your character concept is ruining everything and doesn't fit into the group you either have to compromise or show up with another character. GM's who are too lenient on this are going to reap what they sow.

HidesHisEyes
2016-09-10, 08:40 PM
So on the one hand, when you go into a game with a group, you will have an idea of how you want to portray and develop your character. On the other, RPGs are collaborative and everyone has to compromise. This might make it so that your character develops in a different direction than expected (not necessarily worse, but different).

Given this, how much preparation do you put into expected personality exploration and intended character development? Does it provide direction to drive your game forward, or does it frustrate you if you never get the opportunity to do the thing?

I have a concept for who my character is when I start playing as them, and I take it from there and just see what happens. I find this a lot more fun than being precious about fulfilling some kind of plan for my character's development. If you expect the game's overall story to serve your character's pre-conceived story then you're going to spend so much fretting and trying to control things and miss the story that actually IS unfolding in front of your eyes.

Jay R
2016-09-11, 07:42 AM
Having an exact character I want to play without taking into account the DM's description of the game or the other players' ideas doesn't even make sense to em.

First, there's never only one book I could enjoy reading, nor only one movie I could enjoy watching.

More importantly, having a complete idea before learning about the context seems too much like trying to run a dragon-slayer in a world without dragons, or the lone ninja on a Viking longboat.

Lord Raziere
2016-09-11, 04:14 PM
Having an exact character I want to play without taking into account the DM's description of the game or the other players' ideas doesn't even make sense to em.

First, there's never only one book I could enjoy reading, nor only one movie I could enjoy watching.

More importantly, having a complete idea before learning about the context seems too much like trying to run a dragon-slayer in a world without dragons, or the lone ninja on a Viking longboat.

I mostly wait until the day when a context comes up for the character I want to play then try to put them in.

Which is why Nihilon Terminus hasn't been played yet; no context has come up where his specific character concept makes sense. Its heavily dependent upon that context being an Anima Beyond Fantasy game, or at least a very anime-esque fantasy world with dark martial arts, two bloodlines and souls of vampires that reincarnate inside normal humans, all combining into one incredibly cursed character.