Writing and Roleplaying Successful Characters [Archive]

Quietus

2007-10-24, 12:38 PM

In my humble opinion, the most successful characters are organic - I'll use one of my own examples here. You start with an idea ("I want to make a monk who uses the Combat Focus feats, and I'll make him a half-orc because I found this (http://cristle-drake.deviantart.com/art/The-Path-to-You-35713822) picture I like"), and develop that. I generally take it to the mechanical level at this point, because more often than not I work backwards from that. In the case of this charater, Eleak (El-ee-ack), various things happened to convince me to toss aside the Combat Focus feats idea, which at first I resisted, but as I worked on the character, I found that I was getting a stronger feel for who he was, and that those feats wouldn't really suit him.

Where the character really comes alive, however, is in his personality. Take a look at the choices you've made for him : In my case, I made him Lawful Good. I knew that I wanted him to be a nice guy, and surprisingly human for being a half-orc. My class choice required me to be Lawful, but the Good just seemed right. What made him choose the alignment he did? I looked back at his past, and decided to pull on some of my own experiences with bullies when I was young. Eleak got picked on for being different, and he doesn't want to see others have to go through the same. He'll go out of his way to put a stop to things like that. Seems like a Good trait, and helps define him.

Now, Lawful. I'd like to know why he's Lawful, but "He's a monk" isn't a good reason. Tie every mechanical choice into in-character decisions; Eleak is Lawful because of his rash temper. Tying this into the bully problem I decided on from before, I decided that when Eleak was young, he was very much orcish in his temper. His father, however, a low-level Monk himself, helped Eleak to bring that temper under control so he wouldn't always be in trouble. Eleak latched onto that, trying to separate himself from his Orcish heritage, and in the process, learned the beginnings of the Monk's art. Nowadays, he remains Lawful because he keeps a very strict control on himself - he's well aware of what could happen now if he were to lose his temper.

That brought up a minor interesting thing, not likely to come up often during gameplay : His father. Does that mean his mother was the orc? No - Eleak was born of an unfortunate chance meeting of orc raiding party and a caravan. His mother is his biological relative, his "father" is actually his step-father. He's also a member of the adventuring party that rescued Eleak's mother. Not important to the mechanical choices, but good to know for backstory.

Now... at this point, I've basically broken every single half-orc stereotype, and Eleak was starting to feel a little flat to me. His biggest childhood challenge was bullies, he has two human parents that care for him, and he's not a raging maniac. I needed to add something more... so I decided to play on the biggest stretch of all of those, the Lawful alignment, so far removed from "typical" half-orc behavior. I'd already decided a while back that he would worship Fharlanghn, if only because I'd never played a worshipper of the Wanderer before. It also fit, being that his mother was originally a member of a merchant caravan. Tying these together, and combined with his method of conception, I decided that he was anything but perfect in his Lawful alignment. His self-control is admirable, but if he were to be wandering the trade routes and bandits attacked, he'd lose his cool and "rage", though I'd get no mechanical benefits for it. Doubly so if it was Orcish marauders - them, he wouldn't even give mercy if they asked for it.

Now for the most important part - the part that will affect how I play him. Every character should - MUST - have some goal they wish to chase after, some motivation that drives them. For Eleak, that motivation is to follow in his deity's footsteps. Fharlanghn seeks to see everything the entire multiverse has to offer at least once. Eleak is well aware that his lifetime isn't nearly large enough for that, but he DOES intend to visit every area in the world he lives in. If he hears rumors of bandit camps, he'll happily stop and deal with those. And his eventual goal, as it relates to making the world safer, is to open a waystation somewhere along the long, unguarded trade routes, a safe haven of sorts for weary wanderers to come and rest their feet without worry of attacks.

All in all, it took me between an hour and two hours to write all this up for Eleak. Not too bad, really, considering I spent a half hour of that fighting with myself over the Combat Focus feats, which I'd really wanted to use. And now, when I play him, any decision he makes will be informed by the rough background I've laid out for him, and more importantly, his goals and motivations. From there, it's up to the DM to see where these things take me.

Dausuul

2007-10-24, 04:01 PM

As a fledgling writer and avid roleplayer, I'm always interested in the process of character creation -- not just the stats and point-building, but the construction (and subsequent real-time portrayal) of fictional personages with their own personalities and histories. So I'd like to open this one up to the board -- what do you think makes a character successful? (Or unsuccessful (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58028), as I am a firm proponent of leaning from mistakes.) What makes for a really memorable and gripping fellow PC or NPC? Which of your characters are you particularly proud of, and why? I know there are a lot of opinions of this, so I'd love to hear what the board has to say.

I think the biggest mistake a lot of people make is to try to plan out every detail of a character's personality and background before they ever roll a die (or write a word of actual prose).

I find that the best way to create a memorable character with a vivid personality is to start with a simple idea--"My character is a short-tempered sorceror who loves fire magic." Maybe toss in a few bits of background; nothing like a concrete timeline, though, just a couple of things that happened to your character back in the day. Then develop the rest as you go. Give the character a chance to evolve.

If you find your character is doing things you wouldn't have expected, that's a good sign. If you're constantly having to say to yourself, "No, my character wouldn't do that," maybe you're trying too hard to force him into a pre-determined mold.

Tequila Sunrise

2007-10-24, 05:26 PM

I find that good characters and bad characters both happen spontaneously. My prefered method of character development is to come up with a very simple background and personality, and then just see where the character takes me. I've found that a lot of my memorable characters have their own voices, such as an accent or a certain way of speaking.

ArmorArmadillo

2007-10-24, 05:41 PM

I think Dausuul has a pretty good grasp on one of the keys of RPG character creation.

People confuse character with backstory; the biggest mistake is thinking that the big backstory events are supposed to be the tracks which solidly determine all of your actions.

You can have a pretty amazing backstory of longing, fear, and betrayal. You walk into your first gaming session, and nobody is going to see any of that...and if the end result of your character is a moody ranger who doesn't talk to anybody except to slash them with his double weapon, people are going to dismiss you as "boring emo Drizzit ripoff."

Start with a personality, who you think it would be fun to play and to play with. Think up a few good lines, think up some interesting things that are going to come up right away.

Then, start thinking about what emotions drive you; (Not backstory or "Avenging my father", something basic like short-tempered or wise) then add some basic goals. Then add long-term goals.

Mostly, though, let it evolve. Give it time, let the character interact, and see how it develops.

Remember that you are the character, don't treat it like some sort of seperate existence that decides things on its own, it's not.

Ultimately, though, remember that your character is meant to play the game, if the end result of your character is a self-centered evil who refuses to go on any quest because he doesn't care, or a lawful neutral monk who always decides against anything that isn't entirely logical; that'll just make the other players mad.

p.s. Read "Making Tough Decisions" by the Giant

Grynning

2007-10-24, 05:42 PM

Something else that I find helpful is to think about the non-adventuring qualities of your character...what are they like when they're not fighting monsters and counting treasure? Do they have hobbies? Likes? Dislikes?
For example, I recently got done with a game where I played a very stereotypical brash loudmouth fighter. However, as I played him, I realized he needed vulnerabilities to be interesting, and I found one - his mother.
The mom character came up in a completely innocent role-playing encounter, but because of my good relationship with my DM, we were able to really cut loose and show this fearless, adamantine-clad 500 pound face-smasher turn in to an abashed little puppy dog when all his adventuring exploits weren't enough to please his mommy.
In a Rifts game, I was playing a kid with super-powers, but that was too generic, so I decided he was a fan of the Beatniks and was obsessed with the Americana/road-trip ideal. He carried around a note-book and a harmonica, wrote poetry, etc., which was a total contrast to the gun-toting mercs and crazy demon wizards in the rest of the party, and I had a lot of fun being the foil to their macho antics.
You see this in any good story, like OOTS. Adventurers are people, they have relationships outside of their career and interests beyond monster bashing and puzzle-solving.
Anyways, hope that helped.

Ravyn

2007-10-24, 09:37 PM

Sometimes you have to just get the basics in, then play them a bit and let them happen to you. I have a few such characters.

My favorite, my oft-referenced Tuyet, was originally a master spy being blackmailed by an old flame of hers. Cool, without an ounce of human empathy (though the entire group knew she was designed for the sole purpose of having that condition fixed) and entirely practical. Only.... well, first I discovered she had a stronger sense of duty than I thought. Then that she was an absolute snarkmaster. Then that she was indeed desperate enough to use even a hereditary enemy as an agent as long as she figured it would stick. And then somewhere along the line she got desperate enough to yell at an army as a last-ditch tactic... and it worked.... and she's been an inspirational figure with a mild addiction to calculated "stupid heroics" ever since. (She finds this fact amusing when it isn't nearly getting her killed. Sometimes even when it is.)

On the other hand, I ended up in a freeform in which I was playing someone who was supposed to be a researcher of the local magical mineral and self-proclaimed misunderstood genius (it surprised me as much as it surprised everyone else when it turned out he was right), but ended up being the brains of the group when it came to spycraft related matters because nobody else had any idea what they were doing and he'd learned a thing or two from his tendency to borrow books without permission. (In his defense, he did always put them back.)

A similar case is one of my current PBP projects, a charming young lady named Taraneh whose main focus in life is spending as much time as possible with arcane hearing up and finding new and interesting uses for the music. Oh, and serving the cause of destiny, but it can wait a couple seconds while she finishes jotting this piece down. With her, a lot of it was "Try to deal with the situation now, then figure out why I did what I did afterwards"; turned out she was actively trying to stay as naive as possible for as long as possible, and took "disarmingly sweet" to entirely new levels. And almost ended up recruiting the entire party to become elite demon-hunting musicians because it was a way to explain herself that wouldn't destroy her cover and sounded so cool.

....then there was the one for whom I discovered the servant-of-Death equivalent to a fascination with bugs and dinosaurs...

In general, start with a personality and a concise summary of their history, then whatever you do, particularly if it wasn't in your original image but feels right, try to ask yourself why. Works like a charm.

malusmalus

2007-10-24, 11:38 PM

Wow, thanks guys! My husband and I both DM, so I really love seeing this variety of character-building -- no two players think the same way, and having a variety of methods laid out like this is really cool (and a great reference for the next time we set up a campaign!).

Quietus: I really like your numbers-up method. You make an especially good point of trying to match feats with personality. I was always a fan of having a consistent character over an uber-optimized one, so I like seeing other folks do the same sort of thing. :smallbiggrin: I also like that you build the backstory around the personality, not vice-versa. Kudos to Dasuul and ArmorArmadillo for pointing this one out, too.

Coming at D&D from a literary standpoint, one of the first things I learned is that while in writing, you can count on a page or two of the reader's patience to get through absolutely vital exposition or backstory, you do not have nearly the same luxury of a long lead-up to a big payoff while roleplaying. A roleplayed character is competing with the DM's plot, the preoccupations of all the other characters, jackass comments, and Doritos. Characters in an RPG need to be even more bright and exaggerated than written ones, but still resist edging over the fine line into absurdity. In short, it's not wise to think of your character in 'main character' terms, but rather as an extremely well-fleshed out secondary character. Because if your persona isn't distinct enough to be easily identified by your fellow players -- who are already preoccupied with killing monsters, solving puzzles, figuring out and/or trying to derail the DM's schemes, and the main character in their minds (namely, them) -- they won't waste the effort trying to figure you out.

This is pretty much why most sullen, withdrawn characters fall flat on their faces. In my house we refer to this as the Batman Rule: your traumas should be springboards for gripping change and development, not something you fixate on but do nothing with. Batman experiences a significant family trauma and becomes the ****ing Batman. A lot of D&D characters experience personality-defining traumas and just become whiny emo kids. Don't do this, guys. Nobody wants to be friends with the emo kid.

That said, I'm a big fan of backstory and setting. I pretty much start every character with three roughly simultaneous ideas: their sex, their occupation/class, and their culture. The third I find pretty indispensable as far as determining a rough idea of history and attitudes; the oral historian (bard) gypsy woman I'm currently playing has some unique attitudes toward men and states of cleanliness that have almost nothing to do with her individual upbringing.

Grynning: I love your point about individualization. That always struck me as the sort of thing that's loads more important in-game than a detailed history. Who cares about your tragic daddy issues? Assuming you have those, you're not going to talk about them anyway. A few quirks go a long way.

ArmorArmadillo: Awesome post. I highly approve of the ever-so-vital points of getting along and owning your character. Doubleplusgood. :smalltongue: While I've seen some good RPers 'let the character do what it wants,' there are also times where it turns into illogical flying-by-the-seat-of-your-pants or outright obnoxiousness. I've always been of the opinion that if it seems like your character 'does things without your permission,' you probably don't know your character well enough.

Jannex

2007-10-25, 12:52 AM

It seems that I find myself as something of the minority opinion here, in that I like to have fairly well-developed backstories for my characters prior to game start. When I come up with a character concept, I start with the character's personality--who I want him or her to be--and then figure out some details about his past--how he got to be that person. When writing backstories, I often find myself starting with the character's parents, simply to provide context for the way the character grew up.

That doesn't mean that I expect every detail of a character's backstory to come up in game; most of it probably won't. But having that context means that I have a framework that provides a basis for my character's preferences, preconceptions, and prejudices--even those that I didn't specifically outline during character creation. I like to have a vivid enough character that, when unexpected events come up in game, I don't have to stop and think about "how should my character react to this?"--the character can react immediately and naturally, because I have enough other details from which that reaction can flow. I actually like it when my characters surprise me with their reactions to in-game events, because invariably the unexpected reaction highlights an aspect of the character's personality that had existed all along, but that I simply hadn't stopped to think about consciously. I learn more about my characters that way.

For me, roleplaying characters are very dynamic; they're constantly confronting new, unexpected, and dangerous situations, which is an almost inevitable formula for character growth and development. That doesn't mean, however, that the character was a complete blank slate prior to the first session. A backstory provides a starting point, and shows the development that the character has experienced up to the point where game begins. That doesn't necessarily imply a dramatic and angsty Dark Past (TM), either. Growing up as part of a happy and loving family can affect a character just as much (albiet in different ways) as having been abused or orphaned.

I may as well describe the process of creating the character I made for the D&D game one of my friends is running this semester. I knew generally the sort of character I wanted to play: a skillmonkey type (because I have a hard time playing anything else in D&D), probably female, either human or half-elf. Specifically, I wanted to try out an idea that I'd had a while ago, but hadn't gotten to play through completely: a traveling performer who used her roguish skills (sleight of hand, tumble, perform, and such) to earn an honest living, juggling and doing acrobatics. Next, I familiarized myself with the setting materials for the DM's homebrew campaign setting, and decided that my character would be from the country with rather modernist sensibilities (a parlimentary government rather than a monarchy, slavery outlawed, etc.), whose major strengths were its navy and its cavalry. This choice allowed me to sharpen my concept a little more. My character would be human, and have family involved with one of those major trades.

At that point I started fleshing out her backstory. I gave her a name: Hannah Marsden. Her father had been an officer in the navy, but retired when his wife died so that he could take care of their children. She died when Hannah was fairly young, and so she doesn't remember her vividly. Hannah grew up as the youngest of three children, and the only girl, so she learned to play up her role as "the baby of the family" to charm her father and brothers. I'd rolled well enough to give her a 16 Charisma, after I'd placed her Dex and Int. I settled on Rogue for her class at this point, as it made more sense than Scout or Ranger (she's more familiar with urban settings than wilderness), and I didn't see her as the magical type right away, leaving out Bard or Beguiler--though to leave my options open for multiclassing, I decided that her oldest brother was a student at the country's magical academy, and that in childhood she'd shown an interest in his studies. Her other brother followed in their father's career path, and entered the navy. The sea stories told by her father and brother inspired Hannah's sense of adventure, and the culture in which she was raised instilled in her a certain idealism, the combination of which led to the other major decision I made about her character: Hannah participates in a sort of Underground Railroad-esque group that helps demihumans escape slavery in the neighboring human-supremacist country. I briefly detailed a couple of contacts within this organization to provide the DM with plot hooks, and finished off her stats appropriately, and the character was done.

Most of Hannah's backstory hasn't come up explicitly in game, but it has provided me with a framework from which her actions in-game arise. The other PCs don't know that Hannah's mother died early and that she grew up in a family full of men, but knowing about the character's family background has given me a basis for the character's willingness to use emotional manipulation to improve her situation (such as bursting into feigned tears to unbalance a bandit who was trying to rob the party, or flirting with a shopkeeper to get the party a better deal on gear). She certainly has plenty of room to grow and change as a result of the events of the story, but a lot of the fun I've had with the character is as a result of knowing who she is and where she's coming from; it makes roleplaying her feel more natural to me.

Jarlax

2007-10-25, 01:49 AM

your memorable PCs will be defined in the game after several weeks of play or even 30 seconds of play, but rarely before they begin.

a successful PC is one who has a background and personality which creates an interesting dynamic within the party without being to the determent of the game.

my most memorable PC was a Ranger. i started with a simple concept, that his racial enemy (undead) had grow to a level of paranoia, bodies of foes needed to be burned, buried and the parts separated to remove the chance of becoming undead, this was not to defame the corpse but out of respect (he would not wish undeath on even his enemies). he would press for the same burial for dead party members (but not to a point of conflict) and when he finally died he was buried in the same way.

in the party was a cleric who had chosen several feats related to turning. so they became good friends, bonding over a hatred for undead (it was the cleric who fulfilled his final wishes about burial) they became a strong team over time.

but his defining moment was in-game, several cloaked figures were approaching the party and wearing the symbols of a undead army they were facing. what they were could not be seen under the cloaks, so my ranger shot one to see if he would get his racial damage bonus, the cloaked cultists screamed in pain, confirming they were living beings.

Lemur

2007-10-25, 02:10 AM

I think the concept of organic growth has been expounded fairly well, and my best characters have followed similar principles.

On the other hand, a surefire way to make an unsuccessful character is to make him too linear. If you decide that your character is destined for some specific thing, or on the other hand, can avoid his fate, you're risking disappointment. The key difference between an RPG character and a storybook character is the lack of plot armor, so trying to make your character look cool all the time will only backfire on you.

The second key difference is shared main character status. Another way to make a bad character is to assume that your character stands in spotlight, or should stand in the spotlight, over the other characters. These characters usually try to one up other party members and compete rather than cooperate, trying to do everything better than the other characters. It's easy for beginning players to fall into this trap, since it's only natural to model characters after fictional heroes, who more often than not, operate fairly independently, and even if they travel in a group, they fight alone rather than using teamwork.

I seem to be the only person with experience playing bad characters >.>

Grynning

2007-10-25, 02:32 AM

Oh no...I think we've all had bad characters too, I certainly have...sometimes you just can't get it right, and they either turn into caricatures, stereotypes, or just, nothing :smalltongue: If you can't get a feeling for your character's personality, they just aren't fun to play, no matter how well constructed they may be.

Machete

2007-10-25, 02:47 AM

I usually start out by finding a concept I like. Generally I like most anything that doesn't involve vancian spellcasting. How about a message runner turned adventuerer? Really fast, going the distances of wild lands between settlements. Maybe a Catfolk, since they are tribal and fast. Throw in the Quick trait from UA and a feat to capitalize on speed such as Run, Expedient Dodge, or Endurance to represent the distance running done. Class choice. Barbarian and Scout look good. Ranger, Ninja, or even Swashbuckler would work but have the wrong flavor and abilities. Maybe just dip Barbarian and go Scout. This all makes sense growing up as the fast kid in a tribal setting. From there, fill in history and decide alignment when done.

OneWinged4ngel

2007-10-25, 02:49 AM

Hah, I just realized that I still have a half-written guide to writing better characters in my comp that I never really followed through with... back from when I was giving out background advice and dozens of people were telling me I should write a guide. I could probably salvage some points from that for here.

A few random snips, since it's actually quite long even in its unfinished state, with lots of sections and subsections.

*Snip*

At the core of the game of D&D for any player is his PC, and a well-developed character can go a long way to contributing to a rewarding game experience, especially in a roleplay-heavy game.

But how do you make a truly engaging character, who will be consistently rewarding to roleplay and watch evolve over many levels or months or even years of gaming?

I've outlined a few things that I've found contribute to better character development, both at creation and some as gameplay progresses, as well as some pitfalls some people fall into.

-General
-Background
-Personality
-Physical Appearance
-Motivations
-Hooks
-Views and opinions
-Relationships
-Growth
-The Little Details
-Getting into Character: Becoming Someone Else

To help illustrate my points, I have an example character designed with these methods in mind. Aerlyn Lovoth, Paladin of the Silver Flame (http://www.sylnae.net/3eprofiler/view.php?id=22305)
Most of the relevant character information is listed in the notes at the bottom of the sheet.

General: The first thing you have to realize is that the purpouse of a backstory and character bio isn't in demonstrating your writing skills or putting up an entertaining narrative. The purpouse of it is to enhance your character IN GAME, by giving a basis for roleplaying.

*/Snip*

*Snip from Background*

First thing, length doesn't mean quality. As a DM, I've found both very short backstories with little effort involved, and extremely long ones that span many pages with no more merit. I've seen players do things like describe how a fight went down for 3 pages, which could have been covered just as effectively in a sentence or two. What matters is substance, and relevance to how it's made your character who she is now. You have to ask yourself some questions: What was the character's lifestyle like at different points in her life? What sort of things have shaped the person's views and opinions, or what significant events are there? Are there any important relationships in her life? Are there any unresolved conflicts in the character's past? Where did she gain her class abilities and skills? How has this person's life led up to who they are now?

These are all things that should be answered. Through all this, try to develop answers to these questions that promote an engaging character with as much room for growth as possible.

What not to do: Keeping it shallow or empty is bad, and so is including irrelevant information. Furthermore, keep information to things your character knows and has experienced. If you're creating a warforged character, you don't need to go on for two paragraphs about the origin of warforged in Eberron... odds are the DM knows what warforged are already! Also, if your character doesn't know who her father was (like Aerlyn), you don't need to put it in! If you do cover it, it's putting in metagame knowledge for you as well as taking away a tool for the DM to work with. Leaving hooks for the DM to work with are a very good thing, as I'll explain in more detail later. Finally, don't do a backstory that merely covers a single event in detail, as this gives a narrow view on the character. For all that 5 page narrative story of the horrible massacre of your village by orcs, we still don't know anything about the rest of your character's life.

*/snip*

*Snip from The Little Details*

There is always more to your background than you've ever written. Your character has years of experiences before the game ever begins, and certainly have their share of anecdotes and lesser details. You don't actually have to write down any of these when creating the character, as they're probably not too important for the DM to know. However, thinking about some interesting little details that might come up can certainly contribute to RP down the line.

What not to do: Don't fill your backstory with tons of minor details that the DM can't do anything with; it's generally little more than clutter, and it's nice to keep the writeup neat. Further, since you can totally just throw in little details later, there's really no reason to restrict yourself by setting it in stone with the DM if it won't serve any real purpose.

*/Snip*

Should anyone actually care, I could possibly finish it.

Temp

2007-10-25, 03:56 AM

I usually start with a character's failure. Flaws are always the aspects of characters that make them interesting and unique (they're the reason people still read Moby **** or go to Macbeth). For example, the character who's been trying to become a wizard, but for some reason continues to fail. He goes as far as carrying a text and a spellbook with him to study when he has the time. Generally I try to be a bit more subtle, but this idea is currently striking my fancy.

Then I try to define the character's mental attributes. In this case, I'd go with high intelligence without too many specifications for the otehr two--I'd rather him mechanically have the ability to achieve his goal whether I direct him toward it or not. In this case Charisma and Wisdom don't play too big a part yet.

Then I try to optimize along the restriction of his failing and the mental stats. In this case I'd probably go with Factotum.

Once I've done that I go back to flesh out his background.

I don't know how good a method this is for most people, but it's gotten me out of the one-personalitied-Bard/Swashbuckler/Rogue rut I used to fall into.

[Edit:]Wow. Censor-botted.

TimeWizard

2007-10-25, 06:38 PM

I view flaws as an excellent thing to run a character around: they say more about him/her then a tragic backstory ever could, I used subtle arrogance and overcoming predjudice. Motivation is a foundation, I prefer one short term goal, one longterm goal, and a sort of back-burner goal. For instance, Kill the Lich, Become a master (reach level x), prove a magic thesis with info obtained by adventuring. Remember that sometimes the simplest characters are the best- look at Sam Vimes, no cursed prophecy or evil artifacts. Don't worry if a character idea has been done before, with enough research you'll learn that every idea has been done before.

But most of all, have fun trying a character free to act differently than you do.

OneWinged4ngel

2007-10-25, 06:49 PM

On the subject of detailed backstories vs quirks and all that...

The thing is, backstories are primarily useful for the sake of *hooks* and *characterization.* Backstories provide some background on any personality quirks or other personality elements you may have, and gives them context and depth. If you have a tragic backstory or whatever, it should have a purpose that you can explain. It should have an impact on your character. And hooks are always wonderful to have. DMs will love you for them (at least, if they put any emphasis at all on character development). Backstories are NOT for the sake of demonstrating your narrative ability or whatever. And, ultimately, PERSONALITY is going to generally be the most important of the three sections I usually suggest players write (Backstory, personality, physical description) as far as making a compelling, memorable, and really lasting (as in, doesn't get boring to play or interact with after many, many sessions of play. Character growth is a very important aspect in achieving that) character goes. Backstory exists in large part to support the personality (as well as provide hooks).

valadil

2007-10-25, 07:04 PM

I don't have methods for developing good or bad characters. Instead I have litmus tests that are indicative of whether or not a finished character is good or bad.

The first is the alignment test. Does the character fit neatly into one of the nine alignments? If not, they're almost always an interesting character. Characters that do fit can be interesting too, and there's something to be said for playing an archetype right down the middle. But the characters that don't fit are almost always interesting.

For a character to be dynamic he has to have somewhere to grow. You don't have to have this planned out necessarily, but there needs to be room for improvement/growth/change somewhere in the character. My personal favorites were a spy who really wanted to side with the PCs but chickened out and killed them instead, a cleric who thought he was a wizard and went downhill from there, and a total straight edge fighter/gish who had to learn to lighten up if he was going to lead the party.

Finally, how close is the character to me? Too close and I'll get bored. What's the point of roleplaying if I'm not even trying. Too far and I won't relate to the character at all. That's equally boring. I need a character at arm's reach, but no closer, if I'm to find him worth playing.

--

I saw the topic of backstory come up. I loooove writing backstories, and require it of my PCs. Plot hooks aside, a backstory is a chance to get in character before playing the game.

To me, nothing is worse than starting the game with a bunch of players sitting at a table in a bar. They describe themselves and sometimes give names. I'm sorry, but I want my characters to have a memorable first impression.

The problem is that with a new character you're not always ready to give off that impression. With a good backstory you've already felt out the character a little bit. It's far more important to throw some dialog into the backstory than to list a character's siblings. This is because in writing dialog you get to practice speaking in character, but not in real time and not with other players watching. You can delete things that don't come out right and make your character as clever or witty as you like. It's like a dress rehearsal. By the time game runs around you've actually gotten to know the character a little bit better and can roleplay correctly and with confidence.

OneWinged4ngel

2007-10-25, 07:27 PM

The problem is that with a new character you're not always ready to give off that impression. With a good backstory you've already felt out the character a little bit. It's far more important to throw some dialog into the backstory than to list a character's siblings. This is because in writing dialog you get to practice speaking in character, but not in real time and not with other players watching. You can delete things that don't come out right and make your character as clever or witty as you like. It's like a dress rehearsal. By the time game runs around you've actually gotten to know the character a little bit better and can roleplay correctly and with confidence.

There's a logical error in your statements. Including the dialog in your backstory is an unnecessary step to achieve the benefits you described (getting into character), and thus your statements in no way demonstrate dialog in a backstory as "far more important than listing your siblings." The backstory writeup is there for the DM, and he doesn't need to see your recital, though the members of your family could prove to be useful information. You can totally practice dialog without ever writing anything in your backstory about it. I know I did for my last character. Heck, I had him have full conversations witty quotes, and reactions to various situations (including ones in my backstory) before I ever played a single game. The DM never saw any of that. But he sure as hell knew the names of my family members, because that's actually relevant.

Thus, there is actually NO REASON to put dialog in your backstory for practice, since you can do that exact same practice without putting the dialog in your backstory.

Temp

2007-10-25, 08:13 PM

The backstory writeup is there for the DM, and he doesn't need to see your recital, though the members of your family could prove to be useful information.

This point seems to vary between groups. A couple of my DMs have been too preoccupied by their own plans to consider the players' backstories in their campaigns at all. Were they the best DMs? Nope. Did we the players allow ourselves to be railroaded? Yeah--it was still entertaining and we were there primarily to socialize anyway.

Anxe

2007-10-25, 10:03 PM

I don't think there's any guaranteed way to make a character successful. All of my favourite characters are ones that have evolved, rather than being made to order.

However, I think there's an easy way to know when a character's become successful - it's when they've developed their own personality and nature, so that you know almost without thinking what they'd do in any situation. Playing characters like this is loads of fun, because you actually find out more and more about what they're like just by playing them in a game.

A really good way to develop a character is to write a campaign diary for them, describing what happened in the game from their point of view. I've been keeping a diary (the one in my signature) for one of my characters for almost a year, and I've gotten to really enjoy doing it. It's on the group's message board, so everyone else can read it and throw in comments.

Obviously, this only works if your characters live long enough to actually have any kind of coherent story to tell. :)

- Saph

That's exactly my opinion. A character is successful if other people besides the creator can tell what he would do in any situation.

valadil

2007-10-25, 11:10 PM

There's a logical error in your statements. Including the dialog in your backstory is an unnecessary step to achieve the benefits you described (getting into character), and thus your statements in no way demonstrate dialog in a backstory as "far more important than listing your siblings." The backstory writeup is there for the DM, and he doesn't need to see your recital, though the members of your family could prove to be useful information. You can totally practice dialog without ever writing anything in your backstory about it. I know I did for my last character. Heck, I had him have full conversations witty quotes, and reactions to various situations (including ones in my backstory) before I ever played a single game. The DM never saw any of that. But he sure as hell knew the names of my family members, because that's actually relevant.

Thus, there is actually NO REASON to put dialog in your backstory for practice, since you can do that exact same practice without putting the dialog in your backstory.

Rude.

Umm. I don't just put in dialog for the sake of dialog. It's part of the character's story. Usually I like to write out a chapter of the character's life leading up to right before the game starts. These chapters include dialog. My GMs like reading it and they like seeing that I'm willing to put in the extra effort to illustrate what happens rather than just say "some thugs threatened my dude when he got to town."

I've conversed as my character too just for practice, but doing the backstory is simply part of my ritual in defining a character. I always start it off with biographical facts and then move on to the juicy bits. The biographical stuff has never mattered, but the rest has given me a much better defined character and made sure that the GM understands the character. From a purely selfish point of view, this kind of backstory doesn't just provide plot hooks for me to ride, but it hooks the GM on my character moreso than the names of irrelevant siblings ever could. I don't give a damn if you say it's illogical or even if it actually is illogical, it works and it works well.

OneWinged4ngel

2007-10-26, 01:41 AM

Rude. Since when is pointing out an error and explaining one's reasoning RUDE? I find the whole "hey, you can't tell me I'm ever wrong or give me constructive criticism or I'll tell you off in one word" thing far more rude. I mapped to a logical fallacy for ya, and all you can say is "rude!" And then completely change your statements around, as if to say that you never made the mistake I demonstrated. To reiterate, you had the...

Conclusion: Dialog is far more important in a backstory than including important details about your character (such as who their siblings are)

Reasoning: Dialog helps you practice, and get into character.

Fault: That can be accomplished without doing anything to the backstory, and is thus is not far more important than including details for at least that reason. The reasoning does not logically lead to the conclusion.

So, how exactly is pointing out a logical fault and trying to put it in words you can understand for your benefit and that of everyone else reading RUDE? In fact, how is it not entirely progressive and constructive by virtue of trying to maintain a trace of logic and reason in forum discussions? What would be polite? :smallconfused:

This point seems to vary between groups. A couple of my DMs have been too preoccupied by their own plans to consider the players' backstories in their campaigns at all. Were they the best DMs? Nope. Did we the players allow ourselves to be railroaded? Yeah--it was still entertaining and we were there primarily to socialize anyway.

Of course, hooks and the like are going to be more rewarding to put into your backstory if your DM chooses to take advantage of the tools you've provided him with. Creating a good roleplaying experience is entirely cooperative, after all, and it takes a good roleplaying group to get the full benefits of a good backstory.

Really though, the point just is a reiteration of the principle behind "Hey, if no one else roleplays in a hack and slash group, you're not going to get a lot out of your great character personality." It doesn't mean that it's not a primary point of creating a good character in any storytelling medium for you to have a compelling personality, it just means that you're getting less out of it by virtue of your chosen companions who also contribute to the way the story unfolds.

valadil

2007-10-26, 08:08 AM

Since when is pointing out an error and explaining one's reasoning RUDE? I find the whole "hey, you can't tell me I'm ever wrong or give me constructive criticism or I'll tell you off in one word" thing far more rude. I mapped to a logical fallacy for ya, and all you can say is "rude!"

It wasn't so much that you found a potential error, it was the way you broke it down and attacked. There was nothing constructive about your criticism, and you didn't map a logical fallacy for me, you mapped it at me. Well, that wasn't entirely fair. Suggesting that players practice dialog on their own is perfectly constructive and a good idea. Suggesting that because of this they should never include dialog in a backstory is an illogical jump on your part. I just don't see the need to separate the dialog from the backstory. What purpose does that serve? I've even found written dialog useful beyond character creation time. Ever gone back and played an old character again? Having dialog preserved from a character you haven't played in years is a great way to reconnect with them and get back into the character's head after several years. A list of siblings' names and ages doesn't do that for me.

kamikasei

2007-10-26, 08:18 AM

OneWinged4ngel was responding to:

It's far more important to throw some dialog into the backstory than to list a character's siblings.

Which claims that you should put dialog into a backstory in order to practice the character's voice, at the expense of other information that might be more helpful to a DM. His point was that your argument was fallacious: the benefits of practicing the voice by writing dialog will come whether the dialog is put into the backstory or not, but the DM can't make any use of information about your character - things like siblings - if they're not included there.

It really did not read as an attack, and you will have problems if any claim that your arguments contain fallacy comes off that way to you.

Oh, and...

Suggesting that players practice dialog on their own is perfectly constructive and a good idea. Suggesting that because of this they should never include dialog in a backstory is an illogical jump on your part.

...is again a fallacy - or just an error. He didn't say that dialog shouldn't be included in a backstory. He said that your argument for including dialog over other content doesn't hold water.

Zim

2007-10-26, 08:32 AM

One of the best things about the old Harnmaster RPG was that it introduced me to the concept of the pre-game. This was basically a short mini-adventure about your character in their formative years and touched upon their choices of career, relationships, background etc... This was often a good source of plot hooks, personality development and long-term goals to give the newly-minted characters some depth.

Good role-playing opportunities also depends strongly upon the attitude of your gaming group. If you've got a bunch of roll-play oriented players who are more interested in the crunch of their character build than personality development, then you'll find it a greater challenge to RP your character in a fulfilling way. OTOH, if you have a group who are really focused on cooperative storytelling and roleplay, you'll probably have an easier time forging relationships, developing personalities, and generally getting under the skin of your imaginary alter ego.

valadil

2007-10-26, 09:27 AM

Which claims that you should put dialog into a backstory in order to practice the character's voice, at the expense of other information that might be more helpful to a DM.

I think this is why you're having such a problem with what I'm saying. The italicized section isn't something I said. I do include the biographical stuff. Dialog is not at the expense of a list of siblings - it's in addition. I don't cut out biographical fluff to make room for more dialog. Maybe I'm lucky for having GMs that enjoy 3-5 pages of backstory when they expected 1 page. I've never met a GM who told me I included too much backstory and asked me to cut it down so he could read it. When I GM I get much more interested in the backstories that tell a story than just list some names and numbers.

The point I apparently failed to make is that I find dialog in backstories to be more beneficial than a list of siblings. I really don't care if a GM looks up the name of my character's kid brother, makes it up on the spot, or asks me to make it up on the spot. I've had all three happen and they all play out the same.

And with that I'm done with the thread. Hopefully I'll have the willpower to hold to that and not spend the day lurking.

kamikasei

2007-10-26, 09:50 AM

I think this is why you're having such a problem with what I'm saying.

I don't have any particular problem with what you initially said, I just think your reaction to OneWinged4ngel was unwarranted. Treating criticism as rudeness makes for unproductive discussions.

The italicized section isn't something I said. I do include the biographical stuff. Dialog is not at the expense of a list of siblings - it's in addition. I don't cut out biographical fluff to make room for more dialog. Maybe I'm lucky for having GMs that enjoy 3-5 pages of backstory when they expected 1 page. I've never met a GM who told me I included too much backstory and asked me to cut it down so he could read it. When I GM I get much more interested in the backstories that tell a story than just list some names and numbers.

The point I apparently failed to make is that I find dialog in backstories to be more beneficial than a list of siblings. I really don't care if a GM looks up the name of my character's kid brother, makes it up on the spot, or asks me to make it up on the spot. I've had all three happen and they all play out the same.

Okay, so you wouldn't drop relevant information. That's good. I misread you. I apologize. OW4's points still stand, though: there's no real reason to put "practice" dialog into the backstory. Further, I think you're creating a false dichotomy between backstories "that tell a story" (presumably including parts written in character voice) and those which "just list some names and numbers", which is something of a straw man.

And with that I'm done with the thread. Hopefully I'll have the willpower to hold to that and not spend the day lurking.

:smallconfused: Have I given offense?

OneWinged4ngel

2007-10-26, 02:40 PM

Treating criticism as rudeness makes for unproductive discussions. QFT. Indeed, the ability to accept and act on criticism is critical to the process of improvement.

it was the way you broke it down Ah, so breaking down a point to explain it is a bad thing now.
and you didn't map a logical fallacy for me, you mapped it at me. Oooooo....kay... that made no sense. :smallconfused:
Suggesting that players practice dialog on their own is perfectly constructive and a good idea. Suggesting that because of this they should never include dialog in a backstory is an illogical jump on your part. Actually, this is a straw man argument (as kamikasei already pointed out), which is a logical fallacy and makes you wrong again (because that's how logic works. If you make a logical error, your argument *doesn't work.* No ifs ands or buts. They're hard and fast rules; as surely as 2+3 = 4 will always be wrong, a straw man argument will always be wrong since it misrepresents the opponent's position and does not actually refute anything the opposition says). I never suggested that you should never include dialog in a backstory (Heck, I include it myself sometimes). I said that your reasoning for doing so didn't hold water. Now, I hope you won't consider it "rude" for me breaking it down for you, but a straw man argument is when you set up an easily defeatable argument that your opponent did not actually make, then argue against that instead of the opposition's actual points. I never made that "illogical jump" you mentioned, you merely misinterpreted and misrepresented me and claimed that I did. As kamikasei was so kind to point out already.

I am not attacking you, I am pointing out a mistake you made, and explaining it to you so that you can actually learn from your mistakes. And you are reacting in a very hostile manner to that. :smallfrown:

Jannex

2007-10-26, 03:22 PM

I really shouldn't jump into the middle of this. Unfortunately, I very seldom heed my better judgment in situations like this.

Here's how I perceived the situation. The OP asked for individual, personal experiences, ideas, and opinions about what makes a good character. Valadil, in his initial post to the thread, discussed his personal approach to character evaluation and the construction of backstory. He even used the specific qualifier, "to me..." signifying that he was describing an approach that works well for him. To cite the relevant passage:

To me, nothing is worse than starting the game with a bunch of players sitting at a table in a bar. They describe themselves and sometimes give names. I'm sorry, but I want my characters to have a memorable first impression.

The problem is that with a new character you're not always ready to give off that impression. With a good backstory you've already felt out the character a little bit. It's far more important to throw some dialog into the backstory than to list a character's siblings. This is because in writing dialog you get to practice speaking in character, but not in real time and not with other players watching. You can delete things that don't come out right and make your character as clever or witty as you like. It's like a dress rehearsal. By the time game runs around you've actually gotten to know the character a little bit better and can roleplay correctly and with confidence.

Note that in the second paragraph, he appears to be using the nonspecific, rhetorical "you," much as one might use the word "one," as I have done in this sentence. When I read this passage, I did not have the impression that valadil was asserting a comprehensive and absolute One True Way of writing backstories, but rather describing a formula that works for him. When he mentions "listing a character's siblings," I, at least, had the impression that he meant to refer to irrelevant and pedantic details that would never come up in game; presumably, if a character had a very close relationship with his siblings and they were likely to become important NPCs or plot hooks, they would merit more attention. Regardless, the take-home point is that valadil is describing the way he does things, what works for him. Discussions of whether or not it can be valuable for a GM to see a scene with some dialogue, to get an idea of the character's personality and how he reacts to certain types of situations before game start, are tangential to this point.

That is why, I think, valadil had such a strongly negative reaction to being told, in so many words, "you've made a logical error; there's NO REASON to do what you describe." In this sort of discussion, that type of response was rather unexpected, and may have seemed somewhat out-of-place. I know I was a bit surprised when I saw OW4's first response to valadil. Had this been a mechanics discussion, with more objective elements under debate, it may have made more sense. However, being told "you're wrong" in a discussion about "what works for you?" may have been seen as somewhat inappropriate.

That doesn't mean there was no room for discussion or disagreement, by any means. Saying, "Does a person really need to include dialogue in his backstory to get a sense of the character? Why couldn't he do that sort of practicing separate from the backstory?" would have made the point just as well, and possibly been more in keeping with the tone of the discussion. At least, it might have avoided the (probably unintentional) connotation of "there's a logical fallacy (i.e. "something wrong") with the way you make your characters," which I think is where much of the offense is originating.

Everyone here probably already knows this, but I think it bears repeating anyway: how a thing is said, especially on the Internet where we lack tone of voice and nonverbal cues, can contribute just as much to whether a statement is deemed offensive as what is actually said.