Is Development Important For Characters?

[Bartmanhomer]

Hello everyone. I have a question that Involved developing characters during the game: Is development important for characters? For example, I have a character: Tiamat Dragoon (A Lawful Evil Female Human Paladin Of Tyranny) started as Lawful Evil at the beginning of the game. But as time goes by, she changed from Lawful Evil to Lawful Neutral (Never mind losing her Paladin Of Tyranny abilities since she has a change of heart with her moral compass.)

[OldTrees1]

It depends.

Sometimes it is fun to play a constant character and watch the expression of that character.

Other times it is fun to play a developing character and watch their changes.

For the latter sometimes it is fun to play a developing character with no planned development but other times having an intended development can be fun.


For one campaign I played a Hag named Granny that was a constant character motivated by protecting and serving a particular Ratfolk.

In another campaign I played a Thief that gave up that life to become a Paladin, but was being guided by an Elder Evil. As they slowly went insane they twisted otherwise benign concepts.

Multiple models work. Which work for you and your group?

[Bartmanhomer]

It depends.

Sometimes it is fun to play a constant character and watch the expression of that character.

Other times it is fun to play a developing character and watch their changes.

For the latter sometimes it is fun to play a developing character with no planned development but other times having an intended development can be fun.


For one campaign I played a Hag named Granny that was a constant character motivated by protecting and serving a particular Ratfolk.

In another campaign I played a Thief that gave up that life to become a Paladin, but was being guided by an Elder Evil. As they slowly went insane they twisted otherwise benign concepts.

Multiple models work. Which work for you and your group?

I'm not in a group because I haven't played RPG for a few years but I'm planning to come back.

[Pauly]

I take the view that characters are full adults with formed personalities. Therefore my characters will, generally, be constant in their motivations and personality. The scope for change comes from their experiences in the campaign. It will take something fairly substantial to make any significant changes in their personality.

[Bartmanhomer]

I take the view that characters are full adults with formed personalities. Therefore my characters will, generally, be constant in their motivations and personality. The scope for change comes from their experiences in the campaign. It will take something fairly substantial to make any significant changes in their personality.

Yes, Tiamat is 20-years-old. So she's an adult. Yes, I do agree with your statement.

[Vahnavoi]

Reverse the question. How do you avoid developing a character?

The answer to that is that the only way to avoid character development is if gameplay is rote: the player is repeatedly tackling the same problems in same ways, so their character remains the same as well.

On the flipside, character development is natural in a dynamic game where situations keep changing. The only real limit to a character's adaptibility is their player's adaptibility.

Once you realize this, the question becomes: are you happy doing the same things over and over? If yes, you're past the point where character development has utility. If not, then at least some amount of development, and hence changes in the game situation, are still desireable.

[Chronic]

I would make a distinction between character development, and character revealing. The first one is completely optional, the second one will happen through the situations and how the characters will react to them.

[NichG]

I'd generally be more interested in seeing a character develop or seeing them be static than in seeing a character be revealed though. But I have a pet peeve about pre-planned character arcs. To me, the game space is best used for doing things and interacting with things than for presenting things that have already been decided.

[Vahnavoi]

I'd argue development versus revelation is for most practical cases a distinction without a difference. When you're assembling a jigsaw puzzle, the image of it in your mind develops at the same rate as the image on the floor or table is revealed. The same principle applies when you are witnessing a partially unknown character take actions in response to new situations.

Same goes for invention versus discovery. Fite me.

[NichG]

I'd argue development versus revelation is for most practical cases a distinction without a difference. When you're assembling a jigsaw puzzle, the image of it in your mind develops at the same rate as the image on the floor or table is revealed. The same principle applies when you are witnessing a partially unknown character take actions in response to new situations.

Same goes for invention versus discovery. Fite me.

Sure, easy. Take the same character starting point, but play them in two different campaigns by two different GMs. If you're only revealing, the characters end up different from the starting character but the same as each-other at the end of both sequences of events. If you're developing, they end up different from each-other. If you're keeping static, they both end up the same as the start.

The practical version is, can you (as another player in the game, or as the GM) point to things about the character's end point that you caused? This requires more detailed things than stuff like 'generally amoral' or whatever, but in terms of specific things the character hates or loves, specific exceptions to their broad outlook, etc, then its possible for such things to exist. The total absence of things detailed enough to be tracked back to their cause would be the absence of a strong signature of development - not enough to prove 'no development happened', but enough to say that even if development happened it didn't happen in a way that was particularly relevant to the rest of the table.

Absolute proof is hard, but strong examples and counter-examples are definitely possible. A rogue in an undead-heavy campaign chooses to take a feat that lets their sneak attack work on undead - its reasonable to conclude with high probability that they did that 'because of all the undead they kept having to face' even if, yes, the player could have secretly planned it.

And if you really want to make sure, have campaigns where certain options aren't communicated to the players before they show up in-game. In that case, you have hard proof that a choice of one of those hidden options could not have been planned (at least in detail).

[OldTrees1]

Reverse the question. How do you avoid developing a character?

The answer to that is that the only way to avoid character development is if gameplay is rote: the player is repeatedly tackling the same problems in same ways, so their character remains the same as well.

On the flipside, character development is natural in a dynamic game where situations keep changing. The only real limit to a character's adaptibility is their player's adaptibility.

Once you realize this, the question becomes: are you happy doing the same things over and over? If yes, you're past the point where character development has utility. If not, then at least some amount of development, and hence changes in the game situation, are still desireable.

I disagree with the assumption that a constant character must be in a "rote" game where situations don't change. Situations changing does not necessitate the character change and when a situation changes a constant character's response to the situation can change without the character changing.

The circumstance is an input and the character is a function. Different input gives a different output. Development is when the function changes.

How do you avoid a character developing? Avoid exposing them to a sufficient reason to change their function.

Consider a paladin with a firm moral code comes across children trapped in a ground water well during a heavy rain. The paladin could do many things but probably starts with either lowering a rope or sending for help. If the paladin lowers the rope and evidence points to sending for help first would have risked the lives of the children, the paladin is unlikely to change their response in future. On the other hand if lowering the rope by themselves results in them being attacked by wolves and thus risk the children's only lifeline (since no help is coming), then they might consider changing their response in future.

I think you assumed the character's response function has a limited domain, and you assumed a dynamic game would eventually run into an input that is undefined for the character's response function*. That would force them to adapt their function to handle the new input domain. However some character's response functions already cover a larger domain than the dynamic campaign will.

*Consider the function f(x)=x^0.5 encountering x=-2 before imaginary numbers were coined

[Composer99]

I can't agree with Pauly's assessment. Real-world adults change significantly over time - how many people do you know who are exactly the same at 60 as they were at 25? A lot stays the same, but a lot changes.

Sometimes those changes are slow but cumulative, sometimes they're rather more sudden. I know I changed the day my son was born, and also as a result of my late wife's death last year, even as I can see plenty of similarities between how I am today and how I was, say, fifteen years ago.

Also, at any rate, characters in an RPG are not real-world adults, and there's no requirement to treat them as such.

So the answer to the question posed in the OP is, as OldTrees1 put it, "it depends" - it depends on what you want for that character, and it also depends on the kind of game you're playing.

Do you want a character who stays stable over time, with little or no shift? Do you want a pre-planned character arc? Or do you want to see how things go and allow character development to proceed organically from events in the game?

The former is suitable for more classic/old-school play, where the focus of the game is challenging the player. The middle is more suited for games with more emphasis on story beats and narrative arcs - so character arcs match the way gameplay works. The final path is a good middle-of-the-road solution, and I'd personally suggest it as a good "when in doubt" solution.

[Tawmis]

I can't agree with Pauly's assessment. Real-world adults change significantly over time - how many people do you know who are exactly the same at 60 as they were at 25? A lot stays the same, but a lot changes.
Sometimes those changes are slow but cumulative, sometimes they're rather more sudden. I know I changed the day my son was born, and also as a result of my late wife's death last year, even as I can see plenty of similarities between how I am today and how I was, say, fifteen years ago.
Also, at any rate, characters in an RPG are not real-world adults, and there's no requirement to treat them as such.
So the answer to the question posed in the OP is, as OldTrees1 put it, "it depends" - it depends on what you want for that character, and it also depends on the kind of game you're playing.
Do you want a character who stays stable over time, with little or no shift? Do you want a pre-planned character arc? Or do you want to see how things go and allow character development to proceed organically from events in the game?
The former is suitable for more classic/old-school play, where the focus of the game is challenging the player. The middle is more suited for games with more emphasis on story beats and narrative arcs - so character arcs match the way gameplay works. The final path is a good middle-of-the-road solution, and I'd personally suggest it as a good "when in doubt" solution.

Pretty much agree with this.
To answer the OP - you bring to the table what you want to get out of the game, and if need be, work with the DM to help accomplish some of those goals, and see if the DM can insert things to help those things happen.

For me as a DM, character development is huge. I don't want people to have stagnant characters who just roll dice to hit, miss or make saves. I want story in there that impacts the characters. Not every adventure is there to make characters grow - some are, "Go do XYZ just because doing XYZ is the right thing to do." But I have done adventures that I have pulled from character backgrounds, and helped grow / change the characters.

And in regards to what Composer99 said above - I agree. Because, it's true that you and I may not change much as adults. But things do change us - relationships (new, existing, or the depature of such), loss (of family, friends, pets) - all of these things can change us. But over all, we may not change a lot.

But imagine, if most of your life was being a soldier in a war. You'd see and do things that would surly change you forever.

And that is, in essence, that's what most D&D adventures are.

Adventurers are like soldiers. Seeing and doing things most people don't.

[Elvensilver]

I'd argue that how characters develop and change is very much influenced by the typ of game a table plays:

If a group only gets together every month or less often, everyone will need some time to get back into character in the beginning of the game and players might rely upon key factors of their character's demeanor, goals etc. as a short-hand in their character's portrayal (which are thusly not easily changed). Also, if they already come together only rarely, maybe the players want to focus on bigger arcs that affect all characters equally.

If, on the other hand, a group plays weekly, there is much more time and room for character-development - and character-focused story arcs might be a welcome change from big, overarching story arcs that effect everyone.

[KorvinStarmast]

I can't agree with Pauly's assessment. Real-world adults change significantly over time - how many people do you know who are exactly the same at 60 as they were at 25? A lot stays the same, but a lot changes.

*raises hand* Yep, at 60+ am for sure not the same guy as I was at 25, but we'd both recognize each other if we met in one of those weird movie situations.

Or do you want to see how things go and allow character development to proceed organically from events in the game?

I tend to prefer that.

[Stonehead]

I don't think character development is necessary, in that there are some games in which characters remain functionally the same which would not be improved the the characters had changed.

At the same time though, I don't think it's unimportant. It's pretty annoying when a character encounters situations that would normally lead to a drastic change, or at least a moment of self reflection in a person, only for the player to keep the exact same characterization up. How many sessions can the naive farmboy remain unaware ignorant to the harsh realities of the world? How many innocent people does he need to watch get eaten before he starts to mature? You don't need to pull a 180 and turn into some grimdark edgelord, but it's annoying to the DM and other players when you're still just as blindly optimistic as session 1.

I think no-selling in wrestling is a good analogy to ignoring character development. When a wrestler gets fake-punched, and doesn't fake-flinch at all, because he's too prideful to have his character take a hit, it ruins some of the immersion for everyone involved. In the same way, when the apprentice cleric literally witnesses her patron God die, it ruins the immersion for everyone else if she is completely unfazed because the player is uncomfortable not being in total control.

Now, if you never witness farmers being burned alive, then you don't need to have a crisis of faith or anything. I don't think you need to seek out or force situations that change your character, but when they happen, don't try to weasel your way out of them.

[Olffandad]

In the example of seeing a god die or seeing others in pain... I think that depends on if the player/character is involved with it in some emotional way.

Heh, I can see my friend's first question would be if the gods death affected his spellcasting mechanically, because he's not involved in any of his characters that way. Likewise, if any of his characters saw victims of cruelty suffering, he would see it as a problem to solve (they are all the same character, even after 30 years of roleplaying games).

So I think it's very cool to have some emotional journey for a PC to avoid them being just a robotic room-looting machine. Do they shut out the horrors and focus on looting? Will they risk their mission to save others? Do they embrace evil and torment others? A great step in roleplaying is having the character learn and change emotionally, instead of just writing some new class abilities on a paper.

[LecternOfJasper]

I think it's important for my characters. I generally hope my characters were prominently effected by the experiences that they've been through over the course of play.

I also generally assume that the premise of the campaign is something my character would take a special interest in or not have experienced many times over, though. As in, I actively make a character likely to be changed by the new experiences they have.

[False God]

I mean, if your game supports it and your group is into it, yes. Having a character that doesn't grow or change can be annoying, especially when the rest of the group is. On the other hand, if the point of your game is to say, enter a strange land a kill the evil vampire, the game doesn't really have much room for character development and growth. The party can certainly add it for their own enjoyment, but it's not really necessary for the game to function.

Personally I think it is important to have characters that grow and develop, as I find it makes for more interesting gameplay. That doesn't mean they need to shift away from their alignment or expand into new areas, it just means they become deeper. They may gain greater insight into their own drives, they may gain a deeper appreciation for the things they already like, or just the opposite may happen.

But this kind of thing needs dedicated table time, a gameworld that responds to it, and ideally it should have support from within the system.

Lacking one of those elements can be worked around, lacking two or even all of them is probably a sign that this just isn't the place for it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Personally, I prefer when characters are open to change. Not required to change, but not closed off and immutable.

And I third the idea that adults change too. I'm not who I was 5 or even 10 years ago. And very thankfully so. Not drastic changes but notable ones nonetheless.

One campaign had a character retired because he was just one note. No real mysteries or goals or unanswered questions. With really nowhere to grow or change without completely shattering the established characterization. So the player and I both agreed to put him out to pasture and switch to one who had a lot more scope for the unexpected.

[Stonehead]

In the example of seeing a god die or seeing others in pain... I think that depends on if the player/character is involved with it in some emotional way.

Heh, I can see my friend's first question would be if the gods death affected his spellcasting mechanically, because he's not involved in any of his characters that way. Likewise, if any of his characters saw victims of cruelty suffering, he would see it as a problem to solve (they are all the same character, even after 30 years of roleplaying games).

So I think it's very cool to have some emotional journey for a PC to avoid them being just a robotic room-looting machine. Do they shut out the horrors and focus on looting? Will they risk their mission to save others? Do they embrace evil and torment others? A great step in roleplaying is having the character learn and change emotionally, instead of just writing some new class abilities on a paper.

Yeah, assuming this is somewhat a response to my post, I used the example of the naive farmhand, and the apprentice cleric, because they would be the type of characters you would expect to change based on those events. If a rogue or wizard or whatever witnesses a God they don't have any particular fondness for die, it's totally reasonable for them to react in a cold, rational way. I didn't mean to imply that some scenarios could cause any character to undergo some change, only that for most characters, there exists a scenario that could trigger such a reaction.

[Quertus]

Is development important for characters? Well, is development important for people? I'm... not actually sure about that answer, tbh. But development certainly does happen to people (yes, I join the chorus of "even adults").

Is the character's development important to the group? Depends on the group.

Special Case: compatibility. If the campaign is about X, and the character develops from "compatible with X" to "not compatible with X", this is a generally bad thing, in a "time to retire the character" kind of way. SO, if you're looking for how to set up your game, maybe don't include events designed to make the character incompatible with the premise of the game. Or with the other PCs (I'm looking at you, "deity telling their cleric to initiate PvP").

Is the character's development important to the player? Depends on the player.

Is the character's development important to me? Well, yes. It's not the only important thing. It's not even the most important thing. But I certainly do want a world rich enough to actually care about, to present impetus and opportunities for characters to grow. However, I do not want content custom-tailored to attempt to make my character grow, or to make them grow in particular ways. I want organic growth, not ((likely failed) attempts at) railroaded growth.

To clarify that last bit, this isn't a "blame game". "You failed to grow" / "you failed to present content to make me grow"? Completely out of line. "This character is completely incapable of growth"? None of my characters are that inhuman (unless they are), so leveling that complaint at me would just be the GM showing off how stupid they are. "This campaign had no content that my character connected with"? Fair. "This campaign had no content that any character would ever connect with"? If I leveled that complaint, and it wasn't hyperbole, I would (hopefully) just be showing off my ignorance.

I prefer worlds with high levels of "easy to form connections with", "worth my time to interact with". My characters run a wide gamut of ranges and frequencies at which they form such connections, such avenues for growth. Finding a character that matches the frequency range at which the GM broadcasts can be a chore, exacerbated by the fact that most GMs are ignorant of every aspect of the problem, from detection to discussion to testing to resolution.

But it certainly is of value to me when a GM actually succeeds in creating a world worth caring about, and my character not only forms connections (good by itself), but grows because of them. Preferably in a way that doesn't immediately require their retirement.

[Faily]

I would say yes, to a certain degree.

Like a one-shot game (like those played at conventions), or a more silly type of game (like Paranoia or Toon)... character development isn't important. One-shot characters exist in a moment, and silly games' characters are supposed to be more of a caricature.


But a character that you're playing in a proper campaign, over multiple sessions, who interacts with other PCs, NPCs, and the world... if they remain permanently in the same state of mind, I personally find that disappointing, because people are not in a permanent state of mind. Especially when you consider the circumstances that PCs in these games find themselves in, they are often situations that will either challenge their worldview or make them reconsider some stances. And since the other PCs are usually other big personalities too, there might be something there too that makes them change - usually finding friends, or rivals, maybe even love. All these are things that change a person in some way. Maybe the usually calm and serene Paladin grows increasingly frustrated with the recklessness of the Sorcerer, just to name an example.

Developing a character and letting their personality grow is part of the roleplaying experience, imo, and I feel that is often what separates roleplaying games from computer games were things like personality is more set in stone. Of course, you can play characters in a dungeon-crawl hack'n'slash adventure that does minimal roleplaying and that is fine as long as everyone's having fun. But I personally find that to be missing out on the unique experience that is to roleplay in a game.

[kyoryu]

It's important if you and the group think it is.

[Tanarii]

I take the view that characters are full adults with formed personalities. Therefore my characters will, generally, be constant in their motivations and personality. The scope for change comes from their experiences in the campaign. It will take something fairly substantial to make any significant changes in their personality.

Fairly substantial is the bread and butter of what most characters in RPGs experience.

Do you want a character who stays stable over time, with little or no shift? Do you want a pre-planned character arc? Or do you want to see how things go and allow character development to proceed organically from events in the game?

The former is suitable for more classic/old-school play, where the focus of the game is challenging the player. The middle is more suited for games with more emphasis on story beats and narrative arcs - so character arcs match the way gameplay works. The final path is a good middle-of-the-road solution, and I'd personally suggest it as a good "when in doubt" solution.

This is closest to the old-school way to play:
"Or do you want to see how things go and allow character development to proceed organically from events in the game?"

Old school is almost Tabula Rasa, with virtual all development either arising in play, or being revealed to have been part of a characters history during play. Only basic outlines of the personality are determined during character generation.

[Kurt Kurageous]

The answer depends on your players and what kind of fun they want.

This is in the exploration pillar of DnD, but instead of outside, they discover things on their inside.

I ask my players for a one, two, or short phrase motivation. Why are they explorers/big risk-takers when, given their physical and mental gifts beyond the commoners, they could live comfortable lives trading on that the rest of their days?

I keep these goals in mind (actually on my management sheet for the party) and try to work them in in a way that asks the question, "Is this still what you are all about?" This gives the player a chance to reconnect with their character and see if anything has changed. If the player has learned something their personality traits, they make the change and I award them inspiration. I generally ask the players to leave those blank, fill them in as they confirm them in play, and receiving inspiration when this happens. Choosing them in character creation is not the best way to go if the player is evolving in their understanding of their PC.

If all you want is a stereotype 2d hero, then that's what you'll play. It's your fun, so go for it.

If you want an outer and inner journey of discovery, then that's what you'll play. It's your fun, so go for it.

[Xervous]

I consider it in much the same light as story. It’s something best observed after the fact rather than planned for. If people have communicated they’re interested in such game features, opportunities may present themselves.

[Ixtellor]

Depends how you view D&D. If your the type of person who views it as a puzzle solving game and can enjoy playing whatever character is plopped down in front of you --- no development doesn't matter, as the character is just a tool to solve the adventure.

If you play D&D as I prefer, as a role playing game based on the characters -- then yes its essential.
1) Real humans change over time.
2) The human brain isn't even fully developed until around age 25 and as was said earlier --- older version of people will have several changes (50 IRL here). Yes a lot is the same, but there will be substantial diversions from your younger self as well.
3) IF players aren't changing then I don't think you're going on very interesting adventures. The most interesting characters to me are the ones who change significantly and its not because of anything the DM planned, but because the character responded profoundly to something on their own.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's important if you and the group think it is.

Wins thread.

As an aside: if you get a chance, Jon Peterson's The Elusive Shift does a great job of digging into the origins of the hobby and the tensions/debates over simulation, gamism and just what "role-playing" even meant. Good stuff, and it covers a lot of the ground that you were trying to address with 'authored' and 'emergent' classifications. I think you'll like his deep dive on how that kind of tension informed how RPGs slowly morphed out of the protoplasm and into what we see today.

[kyoryu]

Wins thread.

As an aside: if you get a chance, Jon Peterson's The Elusive Shift does a great job of digging into the origins of the hobby and the tensions/debates over simulation, gamism and just what "role-playing" even meant. Good stuff, and it covers a lot of the ground that you were trying to address with 'authored' and 'emergent' classifications. I think you'll like his deep dive on how that kind of tension informed how RPGs slowly morphed out of the protoplasm and into what we see today.

Thanks. It's really just the answer 95% of the time for "is it important" in the same way that "if it's okay with the group" is the answer 95% of the time when "is this okay" is asked.

I'll check that book out too.

I'd also say that I don't really consider authored and emergent to be "classifications" in the sense of "it makes sense to use those terms as top-level divisions of games". Instead, I'd think of them as attributes or tags, and a game can have them, along with many, many others. Some people may not even care about those, and care more deeply about other aspects of the game entirely.