From character work to roleplaying: how to encourage?

[Bluepaw]

An interesting challenge to think through -- I recognize it's a good problem to have, but I'm curious how other DMs would approach this:

A (relatively inexperienced) player at my table is brilliant at coming up with character concepts, with quirky and compelling backgrounds, unusual builds, and flaws that could contribute to the story -- but once it comes to playing the characters out in game, a lot of this brilliance goes missing. His play style seems to flatten out into a "be gruff, slash things, and make erratic choices" cycle, but there's a ton of potential in the characters he's created, potential I'd love to draw out and incorporate into how the world responds to the party.

I've presented the party with opportunities for some of this stuff to shine, but he hasn't taken the chance to lean into them. Beyond just suggesting that he milk the character a bit more, what might you do to encourage a player to draw on his characterization in-game? What roleplaying advice would you give to a player who's creative and enthusiastic but pretty new to TTRPGs?

[Quertus]

Have him adventure with me / Quertus, or some other player / character pairing that is clearly all about characterization, so he can see how it's done?

[AshfireMage]

What it sounds like to me is that this guy hasn't quite figured out how to translate a character from "someone who's done xyz" to "how that same person would react in other situations". He (I think you said it was a he?) hasn't figured out how to use the backstories he's created to predict the character's behavior in situations he didn't create. It's actually a fairly difficult storytelling task (here, create this character, now tell me how they might react to any possible situation that could come up), but not an impossible one. Some ideas that spring to mind for how to help him:

* Make sure the kinds of characters he's creating in the first place are appropriate to the setting and game you have in mind. I mean, I'm sure you already do this with your players, but paying special attention to this guy to make sure he's not making it harder than it needs to be by playing someone who would have difficulty fitting into the story you all are trying to tell.

* Make sure you're not rushing ooc decision-making. Give players enough time to decide how their characters will react, or they'll probably default to what you described in your op.

* Is he actually creating characters, or just backstories? This is something it took me a long time to figure out myself, and it vastly improved my roleplaying once I did. A lot of times, the backstories we create for our characters are more a list of things that happened to them, rather than an actual description of the character that would help in the now. So make sure that in along with what happened in the past, these backstories and such include how the character reacted differently than someone else might. To use a personal example, I've had 3 roleplay characters who wound up enslaved to others for significant lengths of time, but all of them reacted differently- one did her best to subvert them at every turn and took every opportunity to try to escape, one did what he was asked and tried to stay under the radar and waited until he saw a really, really good opportunity to get away, and a third simply made the best of it and tried to make her circumstances more pleasant and find happiness where she was. Same situation, three very different reactions that could be extrapolated into the future- the first character is dedicated and brave, but perhaps doesn't always think realistically, the second is patient and can endure hardship, but can be a bit passive, and the third tends to roll with life as it comes and doesn't tend to brood. So make sure that he's not just writing what the characters *did* but how they felt and why they reacted that way instead of another way, if that makes sense.

* It might actually help (if he's up for it) to make a list, mental or physical, of how his character is going to respond to common, vague, general situations. For example, "The way Bob the rogue deals with disagreements with others is..." "Things that make Bob happy include..." "In his downtime, Bob likes to..." "If someone really wanted to piss Bob off, they could..." etc, etc. He doesn't need to plot a contingency for everything, but it's helped me a lot to know general baselines to work from, things like "Vincent is generally respectful and a little bit in awe of people in positions of authority, but he doesn't trust them unless they've thoroughly earned it and is likely to be skittish around them" can go a long way. Now, I know how Vincent is generally likely to react in a situation that involves authority figures, as well as what kinds of authority would likely provoke unusual responses. This is tied into his backstory, but just saying "he's been abused or taken advantage of by a lot of people in authority in the past" doesn't tell me as much, since there's a lot of ways someone could react to that.


Hope at least some of that helps! Also, I'm not sure what system you're using, but remember that roleplaying XP is a thing, and positive reenforcement goes a long way. It's hard for people to learn if they don't know when they're doing it right!

[Jay R]

Add a small amount of it into your description of what happens when he rolls a skill check, attack, or saving throw.

"You successfully climb the walls. It wasn't that hard, after the steep mountains of your childhood."

"Your attack misses by a hair. You've probably aimed as high as you would against your ancestral enemies, the hill giants."

"Searching the room, you nearly miss it, but you suddenly recognize a stone slightly discolored, and it reminds you of the hiding place in your parents floor where you were saved from the goblin invasion. Sure enough, it's the latch to a secret door in the floor."

"You successfully save against the cold attack. Frankly, it seems tame compared to the blizzard that killed off most of your village in your youth.

[FreddyNoNose]

An interesting challenge to think through -- I recognize it's a good problem to have, but I'm curious how other DMs would approach this:

A (relatively inexperienced) player at my table is brilliant at coming up with character concepts, with quirky and compelling backgrounds, unusual builds, and flaws that could contribute to the story -- but once it comes to playing the characters out in game, a lot of this brilliance goes missing. His play style seems to flatten out into a "be gruff, slash things, and make erratic choices" cycle, but there's a ton of potential in the characters he's created, potential I'd love to draw out and incorporate into how the world responds to the party.

I've presented the party with opportunities for some of this stuff to shine, but he hasn't taken the chance to lean into them. Beyond just suggesting that he milk the character a bit more, what might you do to encourage a player to draw on his characterization in-game? What roleplaying advice would you give to a player who's creative and enthusiastic but pretty new to TTRPGs?

Just come out and tell him he is playing the game wrong according to your system of playing. Then tell him the merits of the correct way of playing.

[scalyfreak]

Suggestion: Create a list of questions along the lines of "what would your character do if...?" and make your players answer these questions either as a part of the backstory, or on a separate sheet that they have to show you. That forces the player to think about how to translate that back story into actually playing the character, and hopefully carries over at least somewhat into the actual game sessions.

Similar to one of AshfireMage's suggestions, I know, but turned into a mandatory part of the character creation process. (Also, it's fun.)

[goto124]

I'm the newbie player who's scared of roleplaying. Can't give much advice, but I can be the one who states my reaction to various advice here.

Well, I'm worse off. I'm super dry on character concepts. But nevermind.

Why am I scared of roleplaying? Because I remember the times when I tried. I remember seeing my players get upset when I roleplayed out what I thought was in-character. I remember that playing out a flaw not only landed me in such hot water, the consequences were the exact opposite of fun or enjoyable to play out. I remember how actually roleplaying caused me to cry in real life (... I cried again while typing this). I remember that if I just remained generally quiet and friendly and useful, while it didn't feel like roleplay, I felt much better than if I roleplayed.

I would write a novel about my flawed characters. I wouldn't impose them on other players. For me, it's not worth the emotional pain.

The point is, he probably WANTS to roleplay, but is too afraid to actually do so, perhaps from previous experience with bad players or GMs. You'll have to ease him into it. Start small and work up from there.

Positive reinforcement is a must. Unlike combat, there isn't much direct rewards for good roleplay, while bad roleplay leads to a ticked off group. Like what Jay R suggested, make backstories feel like it benefitted his character.

From here on... I got nothing. I'm the one with issues. Would love to see how I could help myself plan a personality and actually play it out, honestly.

[Quertus]

Hope at least some of that helps! Also, I'm not sure what system you're using, but remember that roleplaying XP is a thing, and positive reenforcement goes a long way. It's hard for people to learn if they don't know when they're doing it right!

A lot of good in this post. The one thing I'd like to add is my personal belief in making things like RP rewards into a group XP thing. This way, everyone is invested, everyone is rewarded, everyone is incentivized to want the player to do well.


I'm the newbie player who's scared of roleplaying. Can't give much advice, but I can be the one who states my reaction to various advice here.

Well, I'm worse off. I'm super dry on character concepts. But nevermind.

Why am I scared of roleplaying? Because I remember the times when I tried. I remember seeing my players get upset when I roleplayed out what I thought was in-character. I remember that playing out a flaw not only landed me in such hot water, the consequences were the exact opposite of fun or enjoyable to play out. I remember how actually roleplaying caused me to cry in real life (... I cried again while typing this). I remember that if I just remained generally quiet and friendly and useful, while it didn't feel like roleplay, I felt much better than if I roleplayed.

I would write a novel about my flawed characters. I wouldn't impose them on other players. For me, it's not worth the emotional pain.

The point is, he probably WANTS to roleplay, but is too afraid to actually do so, perhaps from previous experience with bad players or GMs. You'll have to ease him into it. Start small and work up from there.

Positive reinforcement is a must. Unlike combat, there isn't much direct rewards for good roleplay, while bad roleplay leads to a ticked off group. Like what Jay R suggested, make backstories feel like it benefitted his character.

From here on... I got nothing. I'm the one with issues. Would love to see how I could help myself plan a personality and actually play it out, honestly.

Hmmm... Role-playing =/= flaws. Role-playing should be equated to personality. Yes, humans are inherently flawed beings, but, if, say, your mother and father have different personalities, do you inherently view every difference as a flaw in one or both?

I like to give new roleplayers a brief series of "what would your character do in this scenario" questions, to help them get into character, outside the rush of battle, with no one's eyes on the player waiting for a choice, no one else's character's life hanging in the balance.

[scalyfreak]

Even worse... remember that guy who used to be in the group, who would do really stupid things that got everyone in trouble? You know who I'm talking about.That guy who would always be the opposite of helpful, whether in combat or outside of it, and constantly cased OOC friction becuase his IC actions made everything so much more difficult than it needed to be, often with real danger to the other characters... And whenever anyone asked him to tone it down or complained that he was playing against the team instead of with us, what did he say?

"I'm just roleplaying! It's what my character would do!"

That might be a form of roleplaying, but I think I speak for all of us when I say that the rest of the group saw it as a form of sabotage of everyone's fun. Better not to roleplay at all, than to be that guy.

[Jay R]

Yup. Role-playing is a tool. Like a sword or a fireball, it can be used to help the party or to hurt the party.

I wish more players could role-play well. But I'll take the persona-free ally at my side over the good role-player who's working against the rest of the party any time.

[Quertus]

So, to flip this on its head, the way to encourage role-playing is to make the character's decisions not be life and death, not get the party into trouble, but simply be a form of self expression - or, other expression, perhaps? Would you like to wear the red dress, or the blue dress? What would you like to eat today? Draw out the character of the character through simple, no wrong answer interactions, to create a safe environment in which to roleplay. Once they have the hang of it, they can start branching out into broader roleplay.

Quertus, by the way, would like some chips. He's not in the mood for fish today. and they're robes, dagnabbit, not dresses!

[goto124]

Hmmm... Role-playing =/= flaws. Role-playing should be equated to personality. Yes, humans are inherently flawed beings, but, if, say, your mother and father have different personalities, do you inherently view every difference as a flaw in one or both?

How would you help a newbie player who has no sense of personality? As in, has difficulty describing her closest family members, or even herself, with little idea as to how to have a personality that isn't off-putting?

[scalyfreak]

How would you help a newbie player who has no sense of personality? As in, has difficulty describing her closest family members, or even herself?

I would say that her problem isn't that she doesn't have a sense of personality. It's that she has a serious problem translating that sense into words, and from there into a character at the table. To put it a different way, if you can interact with your close family members without unintentionally ticking them off every time you open your mouth, you have a sense of their personalities. Your inability to put those personalities into words doesn't change that facts.

As far as roleplaying advice for a newbie I would say, keep it as simple as possible. Don't try to be complicated, cute, or smart about your "realistic" character concept. Pick your favorite obvious cliche, and then do your best to have fun while acting like you think that cliche would act in various situations.

Congratulations, you're roleplaying. :smallsmile:

[goto124]

To put it a different way, if you can interact with your close family members without unintentionally ticking them off every time you open your mouth, you have a sense of their personalities.

She unintentionally ticks them off every time she opens her mouth, though.

And she can describe herself, but not in any positive sense.

[scalyfreak]

She unintentionally ticks them off every time she opens her mouth, though.

And she can describe herself, but not in any positive sense.

Honest comment? No sense of personality isn't the problem here.

More diplomatic comment: A person who struggles with social interaction outside TTRPGs will not be very good at the social/roleplaying aspect of TRPGS. They can certainly learn, if they are willing to do so, and have the ability to follow up on that willingness, however, this hobby is by definition one that relies heavily on social skills. A person incapable of learning those will not find it nearly as easy as someone who is naturally talented in that area. This includes the ability to successfully roleplay a character.

[Quertus]

How would you help a newbie player who has no sense of personality? As in, has difficulty describing her closest family members, or even herself, with little idea as to how to have a personality that isn't off-putting?


I would say that her problem isn't that she doesn't have a sense of personality. It's that she has a serious problem translating that sense into words, and from there into a character at the table. To put it a different way, if you can interact with your close family members without unintentionally ticking them off every time you open your mouth, you have a sense of their personalities. Your inability to put those personalities into words doesn't change that facts.

As far as roleplaying advice for a newbie I would say, keep it as simple as possible. Don't try to be complicated, cute, or smart about your "realistic" character concept. Pick your favorite obvious cliche, and then do your best to have fun while acting like you think that cliche would act in various situations.

Congratulations, you're roleplaying. :smallsmile:


She unintentionally ticks them off every time she opens her mouth, though.

And she can describe herself, but not in any positive sense.


Honest comment? No sense of personality isn't the problem here.

More diplomatic comment: A person who struggles with social interaction outside TTRPGs will not be very good at the social/roleplaying aspect of TRPGS. They can certainly learn, if they are willing to do so, and have the ability to follow up on that willingness, however, this hobby is by definition one that relies heavily on social skills. A person incapable of learning those will not find it nearly as easy as someone who is naturally talented in that area. This includes the ability to successfully roleplay a character.

Wow. Kudos on your bravery and honesty. Obviously, this problem is larger than role-playing. But where do we go from here?

Well, let's start with the roleplay side of things. Perhaps find some trusted friends who can help you with a little experiment. Take a look at some characters from common media - Harry Potter, Avengers, Mike the Knight, Lord of the Rings, whatever. Come up with your description of a character's personality, then ask your friends to describe that character's personality. Pay attention to the differences, and especially how their descriptions are similar to each other yet they're different from yours. Work to try to see the world their way, through their eyes. If necessary, get them to explain / give examples of why they feel character X had Y personality trait.

Look at the movie / story / whatever as an example of how to play a character with that personality trait. Except Pippin. Don't learn to be a fool of a Took.

Perform this experiment repeatedly. Over time, your results in describing a character should slowly begin to bare more semblance to that of your friends.

As to the larger issue... Well, it's clearly related to your issues role-playing, so hopefully the mods won't mind us discussing it. If they do, a) I'll stop if they ask; b) would it be against board policy to continue the discussion in private chat?

But, I think this could be helpful to a lot of people out there, struggling with role-playing, so here goes.

Obviously, you are able to craft a nice, boring, fluffy bunnies and rainbows persona to wear at the gaming table, and perhaps in life, as well. This means you clearly have role-playing down, for at least one personality. The question is, how to build other, inoffensive personalities?

If all you do is tick people off every time you open your mouth, advice on role-playing that involves, "start with yourself, except..." obviously isn't going to do you any good.

So, instead, I recommend getting into a series of one shots, and experimenting with personalities based on Aragorn, or Hawkeye, or Mike the Knight.

Or perhaps not go that far at first. Perhaps start with fluffy bunnies and rainbows, but add in a single trait or two from the various characters you've been studying.

And, if the mods don't warn me that this is too far from role-playing related (which I think it's fine, but I'll pause, just in case I'm wrong), I'll see if I can add more later.

[goto124]

So, instead, I recommend getting into a series of one shots, and experimenting with personalities based on Aragorn, or Hawkeye, or Mike the Knight.

Or perhaps not go that far at first. Perhaps start with fluffy bunnies and rainbows, but add in a single trait or two from the various characters you've been studying.

Back on topic, Bluepaw's new player may benefit from this advice. Is there a need to be careful when choosing a character as a base for a PC? Are characters from stories not bad choices because they're made to fill specific roles in a pre-scripted linear narrative that has special accommodations for them, while RPGs don't have pre-scripted narratives?

Which may also be why a new player is afraid of roleplaying - the fear of not knowing what appears to be a harmless personality trait biting them in the butt due to unknown circumstances.

[scalyfreak]

Back on topic, Bluepaw's new player may benefit from this advice. Is there a need to be careful when choosing a character as a base for a PC? Are characters from stories not bad choices because they're made to fill specific roles in a pre-scripted linear narrative that has special accommodations for them, while RPGs don't have pre-scripted narratives?

Actually, most of the time they aren't. Fiction writing, according to the writers themselves, doesn't work that way. In fact, when classes on creative writing and books with advice for aspiring writers talk about how to create believable, their advice is almost identical to how to create a believe able character to roleplay.

The difference is that that the author puts it into writing instead of acting it out at the table with friends.

Bluepaw's player has everything down except for that last part. Casual one-off sessions, perhaps with blatantly cliche characters with only a single distinguishing character trait, can help with that. As for your situation, roleplaying with a group of trusted friends means questions can be asked and reassuring answers given before the session actually starts. That should always be done in anyway, but in a situation where one of the players is new, and for any reason uncertain of what expected of them that becomes even more important. Ultimately, roleplaying is a skill that can be learned. Sometimes that becomes more difficult, but it's never really impossible.

[Quertus]

Back on topic, Bluepaw's new player may benefit from this advice. Is there a need to be careful when choosing a character as a base for a PC? Are characters from stories not bad choices because they're made to fill specific roles in a pre-scripted linear narrative that has special accommodations for them, while RPGs don't have pre-scripted narratives?

Which may also be why a new player is afraid of roleplaying - the fear of not knowing what appears to be a harmless personality trait biting them in the butt due to unknown circumstances.

Üomer: What business does an Elf, a Man, and a Dwarf have in the Riddermark? Speak quickly!
Gimli: Give me your name, horsemaster, and I shall give you mine.
Üomer: I would cut off your head, dwarf, if it stood but a little higher from the ground.
Legolas: [taking out bow] You would die before your stroke fell!

Legolas is fiercely loyal to his friends. This is a great trait to have. Yet, as the movies demonstrate, even this is not always advantageous.

Playing Gimli all but requires a quick wit.

Playing Aragorn requires many things; one of the hardest may be aiming for diplomatic solutions, while constantly delivering diplomatic lines with a stark lack of charisma.

Don't play a fool of a Took.

Playing Gandalf requires a willingness to use people as tools some may find distasteful.

Personally, I would never try to play an existing iconic character, as I'm too self critical of failure to be true to the source material.

Whatever path one takes, I cannot overstate how useful answering simple questions as the character, and trying them out in one-shots can be to finding a character that fits.

Oh, and I'd like to think, by dent of it being potentially useful to the OP, that everything we've been discussing actually is on topic. :smallwink:

[Bluepaw]

Oh, and I'd like to think, by dent of it being potentially useful to the OP, that everything we've been discussing actually is on topic. :smallwink:

I'd agree -- I'm really grateful to see all your suggestions so far. From AshfireMage's early suggestions for the player to JayR's suggestions for my narration to the more recent conversation around attending to existing characters in fiction in order to overcome anxieties around improvisation (easier to imitate than to invent, indeed), this is all very helpful. Certainly some concrete things I can try out here.

More generally, I really get the anxiety around not wanting to role-play flaws because they come with detriment to the rest of the party. I've seen this before but I suppose I've been fortunate in recent years to have players more excited about telling a collaborative story than prioritizing their personal success. I don't mean that to sound elitist or anything -- I know what it feels like to feel cheated because some doof at your table is leeeroy jenkinsing your carefully laid plans because it obliquely fits their backstory. But the group I've got now takes enjoyment even from setbacks when they're narratively interesting -- which I'm thrilled about. It's not at all about a player who's out of synch with the group, more just that he seems to need help delivering on what he'd like to contribute to the story. These suggestions are a fantastic start. Will roll up my sleeves this weekend!

[scalyfreak]

More generally, I really get the anxiety around not wanting to role-play flaws because they come with detriment to the rest of the party.

Easy solution: Don't roleplay them. Or if the group/GM forces you to, imitate a flaw in a well known iconic character. As you say, imitation is easier anyway.

Roleplaying the character does not automatically mean to play up in-character flaws to the point they impact everyone's success. In fact, both roleplaying and creative writing is far too fixated with "flaws", as if they by themselves add depth and complexity to a character. That's not true. What is true is that in the hands of the wrong player, a tragic flaw becomes a hindrance to the whole group. Depending on the group I can easily see how the reaction of everyone else around the table would make that player nervous about roleplaying out character flaws again.

Once again, my advice is to not bother trying. The game is supposed to be fun, and to be anxious at the thought of having to actually roleplay something at some point during a session just doesn't sound like fun to me.

[90sMusic]

If you really want to draw it out of him, and the other players are doing well and understand that he is new, what I would do is give him his own major plot point or storyline. Use elements or characters from these backstories he is creating and make them pivotal to whatever the party is currently engaged in so he has a vested interest.

Make him the major focus of things going on so he is forced to interact and roleplay and can't just take a backseat and be indifferent about everything. Make the NPCs talk to him and engage him directly. Make him have to imagine what it is like to be that person and react as they would. Put him in situations that make him ask questions about who is character really is as a person.

Assuming your other players are experienced RPers, they'll understand the value in giving him the extra spotlight time in order to bring him up to speed. Once he sort of settles into it, you can even things out again.

[goto124]

Roleplaying the character does not automatically mean to play up in-character flaws to the point they impact everyone's success. In fact, both roleplaying and creative writing is far too fixated with "flaws", as if they by themselves add depth and complexity to a character.

I'd just realized that my mindset had always been "it's not really roleplay unless my character has a flaw that at some point prevents success". Not an uncommon mindset, especially among newbies who see other players play up their characters' flaws and call it 'best RP session ever!', and think 'oh no I have to keep up to their standards'.

I'd also just realized that I'm not entirely sure what roleplaying withough flaws would entail.


to be anxious at the thought of having to actually roleplay something at some point during a session

I'm that anxious person.

[Quertus]

I'd also just realized that I'm not entirely sure what roleplaying withough flaws would entail.

What would you like to eat today? How do you eat your food? Where would you like to go today?

What makes you, you?

Quertus is a verbose academic. He is generally very focused on his research, and is much more comfortable lecturing in a great hall than out on the battlefield or exploring musty old tombs. Quertus appreciates the finer things in life. He will entertain small children with feats of Prestidigitation - when no one is looking, of course.

Quertus really only adventures because his friends drag him along on their adventures, and because there really isn't anyone else with his skills around to save the world when it needs saving (he's up to triple digits for number of worlds that owe him their existence). Quertus longs for the day when he finally trains an apprentice who is competent enough to take his place as defender of reality. It's been nearly 200 years, and all attempts at apprenticeship have been... disappointing.

I'm not very good at describing things, but hopefully that gives you some idea what "character, besides flaws" looks like.

[goto124]

Quertus is a verbose academic. [snip]

I had to read all the way to the adventuring bit before realizing you mean Quertus the PC you name yourself after, not you IRL.

I thought Prestidigitation was a fancy way of referring to real-life magic tricks...

[Quertus]

I had to read all the way to the adventuring bit before realizing you mean Quertus the PC you name yourself after, not you IRL.

I thought Prestidigitation was a fancy way of referring to real-life magic tricks...

Haha, point. Naming my account after my signature character does lead to confusion, at times. IRL me is a **** that way.

Describing myself, without flaws... hmmm... I suppose I'm only a little bit like Quertus. I'm a genius, and can be quite verbose at times, but I'm not terribly academic, and would feel more comfortable out killing monsters than lecturing in some great hall. I love kids, and don't just ignore them like most adults, but don't have Quertus' sense of keeping pretenses of being a stodgy academic. I mostly enjoy the simple things in life. So... I'm not terribly similar to my signature character, IMO.

Oh, and I certainly won't admit to hunting for an apprentice for the past two centuries. :smallwink:

Why do I say all this? Well, because you said you have trouble describing anyone, especially doing so without focusing on flaws. I think this type of exercise, practicing describing people and characters charitably, could be helpful to you, and to roleplayers in general.

[scalyfreak]

I'd just realized that my mindset had always been "it's not really roleplay unless my character has a flaw that at some point prevents success". Not an uncommon mindset, especially among newbies who see other players play up their characters' flaws and call it 'best RP session ever!', and think 'oh no I have to keep up to their standards'.

Saying it's only real roleplaying if a character flaw makes it more difficult for the group to achieve their goal, is a bit like saying people only have a personality if they're the kind of person who makes life harder for the people around them.

If this is how your group sees roleplaying, you might benefit from either finding a new group, or at least finding someone who can provide a different perspective. If nothing else because if that is what they see as real role playing, but only when they do it and not when you attempt to follow suit, the group has an unfair double standard you shouldn't have to put up with.


I'd also just realized that I'm not entirely sure what roleplaying withough flaws would entail.

Someone else in this forum started a thread with the title What would your character do on their week off? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?528835-What-would-your-character-do-on-their-week-off) that might give you some ideas both on how to describe characters and how to roleplay them.

If you're going to start practicing describing personalities the way Quertus suggested, make sure you set a firm rule to yourself to pick anything other than a flaw. If it's difficult, start with yourself. What is something that makes you uniquely you, that is a positive?

[ImNotTrevor]

Here's my 5-step process to creating a character with aspirations, problems, something to do, and how they do it.

It is by no means a replacement for more in-depth character creation, but it supplies a solid foundation to build from. So here we go:

1. Name your character and describe what they do with a word or phrase.

2. What does this character want to have and/or achieve more than anything else?

3. What stands in the way of that goal?

4. Pick a part of this character. (Nose, gut, brain, heart, stomach, nobility, faith, grief, etc.) This is the part that this character follows around.

5. Based on number 4, what does your character plan to do about number 3?

Here's how that works for a character of mine:

1. Errant, Faceless, Last Paladin of the Forgotten God

2. He wants for the world to remember "The Forgotten God," who to him is the divine rebirth of his dead wife.

3. Incompetent leaders, secluding the Gift that God bestowed upon mankind to themselves. (A wellspring of pure, healing water.)

4. Errant follows his Pain around.

5. With 4 in mind, Errant plans to make these incompetents feel his emotional pain as physical pain, and in their overthrowing show the power of his god.

This is not an all-encompassing view of Errant, but it does display his most probable character arc. (Which will likely involve PvP at some point, but the system is good for that kind of thing and my group is OK with it.)

[Bluepaw]

Saying it's only real roleplaying if a character flaw makes it more difficult for the group to achieve their goal, is a bit like saying people only have a personality if they're the kind of person who makes life harder for the people around them.

I'd agree strongly with this -- I think some of the confusion results from a (reasonable) resistance to crafting characters with no shortcomings, a power-gamey approach that many people who play because they care about storytelling and interesting characters find shallow. But it's too easy (and disruptive, as you point out) a fix to avoid mary sue characters by loading oneself up with flaws that make life harder on the rest of the party. I don't think it needs to be an either/or situation: either role-play in such a way that the party suffers or play a bundle of stats that aims at the most strategic choice in every circumstance. For me, character flaws are about texture, about three-dimensionality -- and so much the better (for everyone) if they too can be used to the benefit of the party. The manual for Story Engine has a fun example of using quirks and flaws as one might use skills: "I'm so nearsighted that I think I would be safe against the Medusa's glare..."

[scalyfreak]

For me, character flaws are about texture, about three-dimensionality -- and so much the better (for everyone) if they too can be used to the benefit of the party. The manual for Story Engine has a fun example of using quirks and flaws as one might use skills: "I'm so nearsighted that I think I would be safe against the Medusa's glare..."

Personally, I find the best flaws are the ones are simply takes one of the character's virtues a step too far.

Take the Legolas example earlier in this thread. Legolas pulls an arrow and threatens to kill Eomer, because Eomer threatened his friend. That's a sign of loyalty. It's also a sign of that loyalty causing him to behave rashly without any thought to the consequences of his actions. Eomer is the crown prince of Rohan. In that particular scene he has an army several hundred strong, fanatically loyal to him personally, sitting their horses right behind him. It is possible that threatening their prince keeps the army from attacking. It's also possible that it's suicide.

Loyalty to one's friends is a virtue. However, that loyalty sometimes makes Legolas do stupid things that puts the entire group in danger. If that scene had been played out around a table, it would not have been good role playing because the player of Legolas emphasized and played up the flaw "poor judgement when his friends are threatened". It would be good role playing because he took the virtue "loyalty to his friends no matter what" to its natural conclusion, despite the player himself knowing that it was not as smart thing for the character to do.

The difference is minor, but that doesn't make it less important. Or obvious.

[goto124]

Legolas pulls an arrow and threatens to kill Eomer... he has an army several hundred strong, fanatically loyal to him personally, sitting their horses right behind him. It is possible that threatening their prince keeps the army from attacking. It's also possible that it's suicide.

If this were played at a table, the player must've put a lot of trust in the DM, or not mind if the PC was to die.

And while many people I see here often have stories of their flawed-to-the-point-of-suicidal PCs who stuck to what they thought was right in the face of danger, it came up only after the PC had build up a considerable story and the death of the PC was significant. And it takes skill to pull off.

Either way, it doesn't seem suitable advice for a newbie learning the ropes of RP.

[scalyfreak]

Either way, it doesn't seem suitable advice for a newbie learning the ropes of RP.

It's not intended to be.

It's an example, a description of a scene in a movie, just like it was earlier when it was mentioned, and it was used to illustrate my point about how a good flaw is a virtue taken a step too far. As such, for one it should only come up after the virtue has been firmly established. For another, one of the most fundamental facets of human nature is to try and hide one's flaws, which is another reason why they shouldn't come up until later in the campaign.

But if the player does all that then, when the time finally comes to introduce that flaw, it will come naturally. It might even be good role playing at that point, as long as the player isn't an idiot about it.

That was advice. See the difference?