The Round Stable

(?) · by **Concerned Reader** (?) » Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:06 am

Alright, this thread is for collaborative help on coming up with Character Concepts. There won't be any mechanics help here. This is more for personality and backstory stuff. That means you can get help for any character from any game. Or even characters that don't have a game yet. Any concept is viable, pony or otherwise. Here's some basic stuff edited down from my Stalworth Thread:

Character Creation.
There's the basic stuff:
Race:
Age:
Description:
Background:

But then there's some things I like to focus down on.

Elliot Almond, one of my favorite characters to have played, started out as a mishmash of six different personalities that were all downloaded into his brain. Here's the basics of his personality(s).

Code: Select all: Default: Dapper Dog. A Diamond Dog imprinted with a high class personality. Hates being called a diamond dog Fighting: A heavyweight boxer who was generally an underdog Transportation: A new york noir style cabby. Healing: A field medic during a land grab war in an early era. WW1 style. Social: A bartender during the pony prohabition. Mental: A system mechanic from the near future.

But when I ended up trying to play him, they all sort of merged together into a cohesive whole that was really fun because of how multifaceted it was.

I'm not saying that every character should do something like this, but coming up with four to six personality traits can really help give the character some flavor for different situations.

A lot of RP is very much based on character interaction and development. Characters should change and develop over time through exposure to the story and other players/characters. This could be something as simple as going from hating everything to only hating certain things, or as complex as going from loving life to being bitter and reclusive.

The wants and desires of a character are very important, so figuring out a few of these can be really helpful. Here's some things to keep in mind:

Try and find four to six things that help define the characters personality.
- Are they a neat freak?
- Do they train regularly for a sport or instrument?
- How is their relationship with their parents? With their friends?
- Fears, Loves, and Identity are all very important.
There will probably be combat of sorts in any game, so think of how your character learned to fight. Did they play baseball, and so know how to use a bat? Are they into Autocross, and so know how to do stunt driving? Do they practice a martial art? Etc.

Basically, focus down on the desires of the character and how they change over time.

Negative Traits, Flaws, botched rolls, blunders, and personality
No character is complete without a set of flaws. Some systems like Savage Worlds actively encourage this with Hindrances. But you have to remember that there's no real way for the DM to enforce that you play them. You have to proactively let flaws and hindrances flavor your character. This can come up through character interaction, but another important thing to think about are botched rolls.

Some game systems have a kind of "redo" button that lets you undo a botch. While this can be good, sometimes it's better to let it slide and play out the consequences.
The main thing that separates a min-maxed munchkin Mary Sue from a full and fleshed out character is realistic actions, reactions, and consequences to actions.
If a character accidentally punches a Chimera in the face before giving it a chance to explain itself, don't back down. Deal with the consequences. If you fail your sailing roll and fly off the boat, don't undo it. Let the character deal with it. It builds up a report with the other players, and it builds up your character.

A person is basically the sum of their experiences. Good, bad, it doesn't matter. They all affect the character of a person. This is true for fake people too.

The Separation Between Player Knowledge and Character Knowledge
Always be sure that you don't metagame. At the least it can be annoying, and at the worst it can break a game. If you know something that your character has no way of knowing, Don't Let It Influence them. If your character suspects that a building is a front for the mob, and would normally charge through the door at full speed arms swinging, then have them do that. Even if you, as the player, know that there's really a family of nuns living inside. Then deal with the consequences as they happen.

As always, feel free to post in here for help from me or the other people in the thread.

(?) · by **Concerned Reader** (?) » Sun Oct 30, 2011 10:15 pm

[reserved for whatever use I may find later.]

(?) · by **Godna** (?) » Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:37 am

Alright, Let's Talk villains. What do you look for in a good villain?

(?) · by **Concerned Reader** (?) » Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:43 am

Godna wrote:Alright, Let's Talk villains. What do you look for in a good villain?

The main thing I look for is a motivation beyond just being "evil." Usually a villain has their own Wants and Desires, and they will do whatever they can to accomplish them. They aren't necessarily evil, so much as they have an alternate perception of the world from the main characters. Everything about characters that I posted above still applies.

(?) · by **I Ran So Far Away** (?) » Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:14 am

'Villain' to me does not mean 'evil' necessarily, I prefer villains that simply have interests contrary to the player's, and who will typically disregard conventions to get their way. Basically, ambiguity is the name of the game.

(?) · by **Opposing Farce** (?) » Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:37 am

Concerned Reader wrote:
The main thing I look for is a motivation beyond just being "evil." Usually a villain has their own Wants and Desires, and they will do whatever they can to accomplish them. They aren't necessarily evil, so much as they have an alternate perception of the world from the main characters. Everything about characters that I posted above still applies.

Really, I think it depends on the tone of the story. Oftentimes a villain with a believable motivation is ideal, but sometimes bad guys who are evil for the sake of being evil can be effective, too. A villain who's got a little bit of self-awareness and who really revels in how horrible they are can be lot of fun, especially in a more lighthearted setting or sometimes even in a darker one (although the latter case, when done properly, is usually less 'fun' and more 'terrifying').

Ultimately, I think the most important thing about a villain- especially in an RPG- is that they should be interesting to fight. Part of that is being a good character in their own right, of course, but the other part of it is that they should give the protagonist (and, by extension, the audience) a very strong reason to want to bring them down while also creating a unique challenge. If the main character is smarter than they are strong and mainly gets by thanks to their quick wits and silver tongue, give them an opponent who can out-think and out-talk them- or, perhaps, one who can't be reasoned with at all. If the main character believes in justice and the rule of law, give them an enemy who's an anarchic nihilist- or maybe one who takes crime and punishment to an unreasonable extreme. If you can create that sort of natural animosity between the protagonist and the antagonist, if it really feels like they would be enemies even if the narrative hadn't placed them in those roles, they'll have a much better dynamic.

The trick, however, is to make sure that the villain feels like a character in their own right; we should get the sense that they're an independent entity with their own goals and beliefs and that you didn't create them specifically to contrast with the main character. It's not really true, of course, but being able to hide the strings is a large part of storytelling.

(?) · by **Godna** (?) » Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:40 am

I'm aware of villain motivation being critical, but thats not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is, what makes a villain memorable to you? Is it the way he speaks? Is it the dispicable acts that he performs?

I know what I look for in a villain and how I write them. I just figure since this is the thread and it was looking slow that I'd ask.(I'll still take an advice of course.)

edit: Nicely put OF. :golfclop:

(?) · by **Opposing Farce** (?) » Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:50 am

Godna wrote:I'm aware of villain motivation being critical, but thats not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is, what makes a villain memorable to you? Is it the way he speaks? Is it the dispicable acts that he performs?

Villains are like any other character in that what makes them memorable is the emotions they elicit. We remember the villains who make us laugh, or cry, or curl up in the corner and hope they don't notice us. How you want to achieve that is up to you, but the key is that you do it. If you want us to remember the villain because they were so despicable, then make us really hate that fucker. If you want us to remember them because we felt bad for them, then bring on the tear gas. If you want them to scare us or amuse us or make us feel uncomfortably like we're looking into a mirror, know that's what you want to do and make it happen.

And, of course, not every story needs to- or should- have a memorable villain. Batman wouldn't be half as interesting without the Joker, but the mice are far from the first thing that comes to mind when you think about The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

(?) · by **Godna** (?) » Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:57 am

Now I have a specific question that you kind of made me curious of.

You mentioned the feel bad for them villain. I've never really tried that particular archtype. I'm curious how do you time the introduction of the sad elements of the character?

I mean if you do it too early you can easily wind up decrediting them as a villain,or to late and it might fail to have the desired effect.

(?) · by **Opposing Farce** (?) » Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:12 am

There isn't really an easy answer for that, because it's never really going to be the same for any two given stories. Sometimes you want to do it almost right away, the first or second time we meet them, but sometimes you want to put it in the middle or closer to the end. In some cases, you'll get the best results out of putting it right at the very end, after they've already been defeated, and occasionally you actually do want to put it right at the beginning.

Ultimately, it just comes down to where you have room for it in the plot, where it works best within the pacing of the story, and where it's going to have the most emotional impact. You don't have to do it all at once, either, and there are plenty of different ways to dole out exposition in pieces; for example, The Incredibles gave you Syndrome's backstory before you even knew it was his backstory, and it made the eventual reveal much smoother than if they had to stop in the middle of the movie and explain the whole thing.

(?) · by **In West Fillydelphia** (?) » Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:45 am

Take, for example, a kind of "villain" I played in an RP outside of ponygoons. Beardius, the goat leader of the cyberponies. His concept was simple, he forced ponies to become droids in typical cyberman/borg fashion. That's what made him villainous. However his reasoning for doing so was pure. He genuinely believed that the cause of most suffering was the "flaws" of pony nature. Vulnerability to disease, squishy skin that made you feel pain whenever it was damaged.... Most of all the weaknesses of emotion. He also despised the inequity between the different pony types, wishing all to be as powerful as the unicorns (well, more powerful than). He used technology to try and better the pony quality of life, but was so convinced that what he was doing was the best for everyone, that he would not offer anypony a choice whether or not to receive enhancement.

He was a brilliant scientist, and the party never had the heart to kill him. Instead they tried to talk him out of doing this kind of thing unwillingly. However he is simply locked on to that one slight behaviour. The way he goes against will makes all the difference between his ingenuity being something marvellous and it being something detrimental to ponykind. He only made an empty promise to the party that he wouldn't do it, because that's supposedly his end of the bargain of them using time travel to raise him from the dead (long story). However, in true cyberman style, his idea remains untouched. This is the origin of "cyberponies do not make promises. Such concepts are irrelevant."

It's kind of sad, I suppose? I just thought I'd throw this out there.

EDIT: I suppose what I'm saying is, one way of making a villain sad is to have them inches away from being one of the best things that could happen to this world. Another idea on a similar page is to have some powerful good force fall from grace, either in a blatant change of heart, or (to increase the sadness) out of circumstances that force them to do evil. The best way to make a sad character credible as a villain: make sure that they are still dangerous, and doing nasty things, even when they're doing whatever it is that makes them sad.

(?) · by **Concerned Reader** (?) » Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:15 pm

And of course all the really good discussion happens at 2am while I'm doing stupid stuff and can't think straight.

Godna wrote:Now I have a specific question that you kind of made me curious of.

You mentioned the feel bad for them villain. I've never really tried that particular archtype. I'm curious how do you time the introduction of the sad elements of the character?

I mean if you do it too early you can easily wind up decrediting them as a villain,or to late and it might fail to have the desired effect.

It's an extension of what OpposingFarce said earlier. They should feel like a character. And like he also said, it's not an easy thing to do, because there are a lot of different motivations or lack of such that can be used.

If you think about the story from the Villains perspective, suddenly he's the protagonist. He has goals he wants to accomplish, and the party antagonistically gets in his way. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, so Like West Filly said, someone can have a simi-noble goal. They're just willing to do anything to accomplish it. Something else that can help add emotional depth is to make it so that their reason has nothing to do with them. Perhaps they have a sick mother, or a dead sister, or whatever, and that's what drives them to do what they can, no matter the cost. It's especially helpful if the player characters can see a bit of themselves in the villain. Just a hint that they may not be so different after all.

Another type is the forced villain. These usually aren't the main villain for obvious reasons, but that may not become clear to the party until later. And I don't even mean Brainwashing, but even something as simple as just blackmail. Some even greater force has taken the 'villains' only son/daughter, and the only way to keep her safe is to do what they ask. etc.

Then you can also get into the more esoteric villains. Stuff like the spirit of the earth rising up and rebelling against it's inhabitants because they have forgotten about it.

Really, I haven't played many villains. Probably because I'm not very good at it. Come to think of it, I haven't really written a proper villain in a while either, so take all of my words with a grain of salt.

(?) · by **Aramek** (?) » Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:12 pm

I had a single 3.5 campaign that lasted all four years in college, a feat in and of itself, but, we had a lot of awesome baddies. I tried to have a lot of different reasons for each of the main baddies in the plot, one was a crazy scientist who knew he was dying, so, he tried to machinate himself, in order to save himself. His faithful golem shield guardian, seeing his master in such pain, took it upon himself to continue the experiments in order to save his "father" who was, for lack of a better term, being kept in some sort of tank. The Shield Guardian was starting to send the clockwork horrors to the nearby town to get more bodies to experiment on, after they ran out of animals in the forest. The PCs went to investigate, and ended up having to defeat the golem who was frantically, and with a desperation one had never seen in an unliving constuct trying to protect his master.

After they did, it was apparent that the old man had been dead for years. :fluttersmith:

"Do you think it had a soul? A soul of silicon...but a soul none the less?"

And that was the first of many baddies I had in this large four year plot. :iamapony:

(?) · by **Artificer** (?) » Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:21 pm

And now I am sad because as a DM I will never top that. :fluttersmith:

(?) · by **Aramek** (?) » Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:22 pm

Looking back on it, that was when I was still a bad DM. My games were cheesy and clunky, but, I think my players liked it, and, in the end, that's the whole point. I do say that I think I'm pretty good at writing badguys, though. Because I too have an endless supply of hate and wretchedness within me that I keep bottled up, so, I think I can make them pretty realistic.

----

Another baddie I made! The classic theme of a fallen angel (Diva) but he wasn't evil or vindictive at heaven for kicking him out. He was defiantly Lawful, not Good. So, upon falling to Earth, he took it in stride, and resolved to make the world a better place. That is to say, the Lawfulness of a Diva is a bit more hard-nosed than most citizens are used to, however they really didn't have bad lives, and, to them, it was better than the old ruler. What got the PCs into it, is that the largest and most powerful Bandit clan had been kind of reformed "By da new boss!" and were clearing out all the other bandit clans by assimilating/eliminating them. A lot of the Bandits were still kind of bad guys, but, now they had been converted to the infallibility of Law. In a way, these thugs were making a new nation, not a bad nation, however, but, from the outside, it certainly looked like suddenly the Mafia took over.

The fallen Diva truly believed he was making the world a better place, and, maybe he was right. Maybe, if left alone, his new "nation" would have become a beacon of justice the high-fantasy medeval world had never seen. Or it would have been an authoritative hellhole that even the Thayans would be all "Dude, that's harsh."

:pinkieshrug:

(?) · by **Aramek** (?) » Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:22 pm

How about a character I made that wasn't a baddie?

These are a lot harder for me, because, well, I don't really like roleplaying. At least not in the way many others do. I love dnd, I love playing with my friends and solving puzzles and accomplishing tasks and all that, but, I just don't think it is all that important to really build the character beyond what it is you are doing. I think, like many things, neckbeards ruined it for me.

Even though I now know that no gaming is better than bad gaming, I was starved for some dnd, and I joined a group of people that I kinda knew. And, if you guys know anything about me, is that I really try to be a nice guy. I'm really friendly, outgoing, and I can tolerate a lot of crap, but, there's something about losers, and I mean like those super losers that you assume have some sort of medical condition that just makes my skin crawl. This was a whole group of them. Mouthbreathing neckbeards, the lot. To top all of this off, the DM was a petulant manbaby that was outright advesarial when anyone tried to deviate from "MY STORY", but he at least tried to hide it the best he could. He was unfunny, annoying, was afflicted with the "DM vs the players" mentality that all the fuckheads seem to possess, and, worst of all, I hated his voice.

FORGIVING all that, they wanted me to write this obnoxious PC backstory. One player even had a couple pages of her tracically Livejournally history. "Fuck this noise" I resigned. DnD is about having fun. Having fun and using kung fu moves to punch dragons right in their faces. So, I made a monk.

Name: McPunchin. Fisto McPunchin. He was covered, from head to toe in bandages. A thick, total body layer of wrappings. When he was but a youth, he was the victim of "a horrible smelting accident" that left his body without any outer skin or fat or hair. I was a kung fu mummy.

The Grognards had a bit of a chuckle and mercifully decided that, indeed, that was a good enough RP backstory for their game. They then proceeded to play exactly like you think they would, by speaking in-character the whole time, and arguing, in-character the whole time about everything we ever did until it wasn't fun to be there anymore.

:facehoof:

Fisto, to me, is the second coolest character I've ever made.

(?) · by **Opposing Farce** (?) » Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:58 pm

See, I've always kind of been the opposite way. Truth be told, RPGs generally don't really interest me on a mechanical level; I've never been terribly fond of dice rolls and stats and so on, and while I do enjoy building a character it's always been more along the lines of "what does this character do and how can I represent that within the game system?" For me, the appeal mainly comes from the kind of off-the-cuff communal storytelling aspect of it and in the challenge of having to essentially write your character on the fly.

Really, though, that just makes it even worse when when your DM refuses to allow even the slightest deviation from "MY STORY" (which is a silly idea in the first place) and the other players are all playing stupid/terrible characters.

(?) · by **Aramek** (?) » Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:14 pm

In a way, you're more of a RPg fan, than an RPG. :v:

I have nothing against really fleshing out characters, rather, all the people I dislike always have these Tragig McTragicPants stories are are just so damned...boring to me. But, it may stem from I don't really care where you came from, or who you were. I like to focus on who you are, and what will you do. Gaming or not. For my last game I, for the first time in forever, was not the DM. My roomie, who had never DMed before, but, it was 4e so he was fine, made a really cool homebrew campaign, and we all loved it to death. I felt I needed to step it up in the character department, so, I wanted to, not only try roleplaying (yet still have it be fun and lighthearted) but I wanted to play a character type I'd never before. I'm usually tanky dudes. I just "get" them in all these games, and I have a lot of fun being a meaty steel wall.

I was a squishy ass 4e Wizard, and I loved every minute of it. To start, I wanted to think of a cool character name and image to begin to shape him in my mind. I combined Travis Touchdown (from some Wii game called No More Heroes, I think?) Old, fat Elvis, and Hunter S Thompson. My character was a fat old, retired rockstar/mage that had done way too much shit back in the day, leaving him occassionally addled. In fact, the group RPed it that, everytime I "missed" they just saw my character awkwardly do some drunken genture, only to have nothing happen. My spells either worked well, or I fucked it up.

They even wanted me to try to talk in character for the campaign, so, I put on my best slurred Elvis voice with the funny...pacing that...Depp did in the, uh, movie about...Thompson. Then, to put a cherry on top of my magnum sundae, I had to come up with a fantastic name. Beauford Agustus III was the character's stuffy given name. But, his stage name from when he was a rock legend was Maximillian Fightmaster.

Maximillian (Max) Beauford Agustus Fightmaster III. He was under the impression that two of the other PCs were his hired bodyguards, and so the Human Barbarian (Whose name was Keith Stone, if I recall) and the Dragonkin Warden just kinda played along with it. Good times. It was my first and only time playing a controller and it was really fun and challenging.

(?) · by **Opposing Farce** (?) » Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:27 pm

Aramek wrote:I have nothing against really fleshing out characters, rather, all the people I dislike always have these Tragig McTragicPants stories are are just so damned...boring to me. But, it may stem from I don't really care where you came from, or who you were. I like to focus on who you are, and what will you do. Gaming or not.

Yeah, I can get behind that. I've never been a huge fan of elaborate backstories myself; I like to have an idea of where a character's been and what kind of things they've done so that I can draw upon that when needed in context, but I've never been a fan of introducing a character via a big text dump about their tragic past or whatever.

(?) · by **Raindrops** (?) » Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:29 pm

Aramek wrote:In a way, you're more of a RPg fan, than an RPG.

I have nothing against really fleshing out characters, rather, all the people I dislike always have these Tragig McTragicPants stories are are just so damned...boring to me. But, it may stem from I don't really care where you came from, or who you were. I like to focus on who you are, and what will you do. Gaming or not. For my last game I, for the first time in forever, was not the DM. My roomie, who had never DMed before, but, it was 4e so he was fine, made a really cool homebrew campaign, and we all loved it to death. I felt I needed to step it up in the character department, so, I wanted to, not only try roleplaying (yet still have it be fun and lighthearted) but I wanted to play a character type I'd never before. I'm usually tanky dudes. I just "get" them in all these games, and I have a lot of fun being a meaty steel wall.

This. Most, if not all of my characters don't have a tragic background of any sort. They're usually just young, impressionable folks looking to either make a name for themselves, or have a job doing what they do. I don't think you need a huge backstory filled with traumatic events to play a good character, because I think your character is defined by your actions in the actual game and not the single paragraph of history I wrote for them. Though as of late, I've been trying to make some rather ridiculous characters work, or borrowing pre-existing characters (Lenneth from Valkyrie Profile, etc.)

And playing character types you havent' tried before can be fun, but the last time I attempted it...it really didn't go over too well. I didn't really like defenders in 4e after playing a Paladin. However, some people are suggesting I try a Swordmage or Warden, and that I might like it better with one of them.

(?) · by **Concerned Reader** (?) » Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:01 pm

I really wish I wasn't on the phoneternets for this, but I'll try my best and keep it short.

I'm basically in the same boat that I usually create a character with a really vague idea of his backstory, and then the details get filled in as the game goes on. Character interaction is a huge part of it, because other characters will ask you questions that you wouldn't have thought of. It really helps to not be locked into a ridgid character archerype as well.

I love character development as a player, so usually I focus on the present and future state of the character, rather then the past.

When building a character, I usually don't try and max the stats, but rather craft it after the concept in my head. Which has resulted in some broken characters before, but I still had a lot of fun playing them.

(?) · by **WhitemageofDOOM** (?) » Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:11 pm

*Invokes the spirit of old school* "Charecter background is level 1-3"

Right now that i got my grognarding out of the way.

The best backgrounds are the one you develop in play, the best characters are the one you develop in play. Making a really extensive background defeats the point of roleplaying, shit that happens on screen is important. Even if your character is supposed to be super experienced and done a bunch of shit, you don't need to pin down what exactly until it comes up in game.

(?) · by **Aramek** (?) » Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:12 pm

Min/Maxing and Role Playing don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Sadly, some people who think they are good at Roleplaying, end up purposely gimping their character to the point of actually impacting the gameplay, and thusly, everyone's enjoyment thereof. None of us claim to be 100% wargamers here, but, seriously, don't make a shitty character because you're a unique snowflake.

Make a super badass character because you're a unique snowflake. :black101:

Now, this is a really poor example, because one shouldn't ever think of dnd under the guise of videogames, but, in an RPG video game, does it really make you like a character more if they are worthless in combat? If the game forces you to have the wrong feats/gear just for flavour? Think of battle as a killswitch, you can have the coolest character out of combat, and still have him be a murderball within the mechanics of whatever system you are playing.

Right now that i got my grognarding out of the way.

That's the opposite of being a Grognard! :ohboy:

That gives the players more freedom and makes them feel important/wanted.

They tend to be the "DnD should be hard, the DM should be trying to kill the PCs and the DM's word is law, even if I say things just to fuck over my playthings players! :smuggo: "

(?) · by **WhitemageofDOOM** (?) » Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:04 pm

Aramek wrote:Now, this is a really poor example, because one shouldn't ever think of dnd under the guise of videogames, but, in an RPG video game, does it really make you like a character more if they are worthless in combat? If the game forces you to have the wrong feats/gear just for flavour? Think of battle as a killswitch, you can have the coolest character out of combat, and still have him be a murderball within the mechanics of whatever system you are playing.

I reject that i will stop roleplaying while murdering faces.
Combat banter is the best. :yay:

That's the opposite of being a Grognard!

It's literally a quote from old geezer, who played with gygax.

(?) · by **Walkin Goon** (?) » Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:25 pm

OpposingFarce wrote:Yeah, I can get behind that. I've never been a huge fan of elaborate backstories myself; I like to have an idea of where a character's been and what kind of things they've done so that I can draw upon that when needed in context, but I've never been a fan of introducing a character via a big text dump about their tragic past or whatever.

I'm an up and coming terrible offender of this, I think know.

Most of it comes from me trying to justify why my character's there doing whatever with what-have-you, and then proceeding by writing too damn much in relation to what the game's story actually needs. I suppose I'm uncertain or confused about that last thing, leading to overcompensation with a groan-inducing back-story that will never come up in session.

All I wanted to do was play as an "educated but clueless gentleman in the savage wild west," or a "drunk-happy white knight" for the enjoyment of juxtaposition, honest!
In the case of the latter, I have a good mind to go back and rewrite it before that game starts and I can work on an actual play style.

I will say that the pony-game I've signed up for is helping me with the basics of character creation, though. Detailed back stories feel far out of line with a "cartooney setting," and my questions are more to the effect of which personality I should use, and how will I balance them in relation to the system's mechanics.

Anyway, really appreciating the discussion about this and related topics here,
Thanks.
:crack:

(?) · by **Opposing Farce** (?) » Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:03 am

Aramek wrote:Min/Maxing and Role Playing don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Sadly, some people who think they are good at Roleplaying, end up purposely gimping their character to the point of actually impacting the gameplay, and thusly, everyone's enjoyment thereof. None of us claim to be 100% wargamers here, but, seriously, don't make a shitty character because you're a unique snowflake.

Make a super badass character because you're a unique snowflake.

Now, this is a really poor example, because one shouldn't ever think of dnd under the guise of videogames, but, in an RPG video game, does it really make you like a character more if they are worthless in combat? If the game forces you to have the wrong feats/gear just for flavour? Think of battle as a killswitch, you can have the coolest character out of combat, and still have him be a murderball within the mechanics of whatever system you are playing.

Isn't that really a problem with the game mechanics themselves, though? Having to build your character a certain way to be any good in combat strikes me as kind of defeating the point.

Like, I realize it's impossible to make sure that everything you can possibly do is effective, but I feel like a lot of games tend to pigeonhole you into certain roles (i.e. healer/tank/dps) and I always thought that was kind of lame. If I want to play something that's out of the ordinary and doesn't fit one of the defined skillsets I should be able to, y'know?

(?) · by **Concerned Reader** (?) » Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:50 am

OpposingFarce wrote:Isn't that really a problem with the game mechanics themselves, though? Having to build your character a certain way to be any good in combat strikes me as kind of defeating the point.

Like, I realize it's impossible to make sure that everything you can possibly do is effective, but I feel like a lot of games tend to pigeonhole you into certain roles (i.e. healer/tank/dps) and I always thought that was kind of lame. If I want to play something that's out of the ordinary and doesn't fit one of the defined skillsets I should be able to, y'know?

This is part of the reason I went without a dedicated system for Stalworth. Every rpg system seems to try and push the players into a limited number of archetypes. Especially when it comes to skills.

I'm not advocating sabotaging the parties chance to win by making a horribly gimped character. The first rule of any game should always be to have fun. But, sometimes it's easy to get lost in all the numbers and lose sight of where the character is actually headed. More often then not the failures of a character are what define them. Not how well they can hit something with a sword of +890 Zelotry.

walkin goon wrote:Most of it comes from me trying to justify why my character's there doing whatever with what-have-you, and then proceeding by writing too damn much in relation to what the game's story actually needs. I suppose I'm uncertain or confused about that last thing, leading to overcompensation with a groan-inducing back-story that will never come up in session.

Having a big backstory isn't always a bad thing. the important bit is that you stay flexible. Things are gonna change as the game goes on, and your character should change with them. Use the backstory as the jumping off point. A lot of people think that character development means explaining the past of the character to explain their actions, and while that can be good as well, I like to think of it more of how the character changes over time.

(?) · by **Warp** (?) » Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:00 am

I dunno, I'm not really bothered by people coming up with fairly elaborate backstories for their characters. It can really help to give a jumping off point once you actually start playing the game. I know I'd be having a hell of a lot more trouble in Iran's latest game if I didn't bother to actually give some thought as to what my character was doing before the game's events took place. I think the key is: go ahead and make your backstory elaborate if you want, just make sure you're able to give others a condensed version. The elaborate backstory, in my eyes, is meant more for the player themselves to get into the mindset of how to play that character, and I think posting a paragraph size short version and then linking to the full version is totally fine.

OpposingFarce wrote:Isn't that really a problem with the game mechanics themselves, though? Having to build your character a certain way to be any good in combat strikes me as kind of defeating the point.

Like, I realize it's impossible to make sure that everything you can possibly do is effective, but I feel like a lot of games tend to pigeonhole you into certain roles (i.e. healer/tank/dps) and I always thought that was kind of lame. If I want to play something that's out of the ordinary and doesn't fit one of the defined skillsets I should be able to, y'know?

This is exactly one of the reasons why I absolutely adore hybriding in 4e. I feel like there are so many more character concepts that can be fleshed out and actually made mechanically effective by being able to mash together two or more classes. It's SO much more fun to me, both mechanically AND flavor-wise to be able to do something like that. I was able to make Applejack in 4e as a hybrid cleric/rogue, and she was AWESOME :chillin:

FAKE EDIT: God dammit CR quit sniping my points with your posts :applejargh:

(?) · by **WhitemageofDOOM** (?) » Thu Nov 24, 2011 4:06 am

Concerned Reader wrote:This is part of the reason I went without a dedicated system for Stalworth. Every rpg system seems to try and push the players into a limited number of archetypes.

By definition all games have a limited number of viable archetypes, the only question is how many and how explicit they are.

(?) · by **Pink Himalayan Salt** (?) » Thu Nov 24, 2011 11:04 am

Warp wrote:I dunno, I'm not really bothered by people coming up with fairly elaborate backstories for their characters. It can really help to give a jumping off point once you actually start playing the game. I know I'd be having a hell of a lot more trouble in Iran's latest game if I didn't bother to actually give some thought as to what my character was doing before the game's events took place. I think the key is: go ahead and make your backstory elaborate if you want, just make sure you're able to give others a condensed version.

I learned a valuable lesson about long character backgrounds in the last game I played (GURPS Fantasy) - it means jack shit if it never gets revealed to the other players.

I came up with such a backstory, and the GM loved it - but all the other players knew was that my detective guy was hunting some infamous criminal across the lands and he wouldn't stop until one of them was dead. I passed by some opportunities to just tell them. First because we had that classic party meeting where you run into each other and decide to work together, and then when we were a party it never occured to me to bring it up.

Basically what I got from that experience is if I make part of my background in advance, and hide some of it from the other players, I should work with the GM to have a suitably dramatic moment where it gets revealed so they can be in on it as well.

I hope this makes sense it is five in the morning fuck

(?) · by **In West Fillydelphia** (?) » Thu Nov 24, 2011 6:48 pm

I know what you mean, Colt. I had a great backstory for a witch I played. I'll try and condense it as much as I can.

She ran a pharmacy with her husband, who happened to be a powerful mystic theurge trying to lie low from some evil deeds. The local cleric sensed the man's evil and threw holy water over him, destroying his disguise. The cleric was about to murder the evil theurge with his God's favoured weapon, when an interrupting guard said it would be better to go through legal process. So the theurge was locked up, where he spent days painfully searing at the initial touch of holy water, and was eventually burned at the stake. His spirit lingered, possessing an raven through which he instructed his wife in how to become a witch.

Years later she tainted the water of the font of the chapel. This was the night before the Guard's firstborn son would be baptised. The potion she mixed in the waters caused the child and the cleric to burn to death. Thus started the town witch hunt. In true mythical medieval style, our witch was sentenced to a trial by water. She had the ability to breathe underwater, and so everyone suspected her to be innocent when she didn't surface for hours. The hunt continued with no new leads. When my witch re emerged from the lake she was spotted by the female blacksmith, who tried to impress a W brand on the witch's forehead. Our witch managed to turn the brand on the blacksmith, thereby framing her. She then destroyed the rest of the town, killing all other inhabitants, then left.

The neighboring town had two witch hunters. One real, who had been drawn in by the witch hunt. One false, who happened to live there. The false witch hunter is famous for his "witch hunting", the real one an unknown lone ranger. When the branded blacksmith rolled into town the famous witch hunter declared her the witch. When she stated that my character was alive, he said that was impossible, as she was drowned. The real witch hunter could sense the blacksmith's innocence, but fame beats sense in politics. She was sentenced. When the real hunter stepped up and proclaimed that he would find the real witch, the false one said that he would go with him to "prove that this lunatic is wrong." The blacksmith has been locked up, but not yet burned.

Yeah, that's just the condensed version. I went to all this fucking trouble, and none of the many possible characters came up, not even once. The GM was too busy railroading us toward his dragon demon to bother.

(?) · by **Aramek** (?) » Fri Nov 25, 2011 3:01 pm

MY favourite single panel from any webcomic ever, was from that DM of the Rings comic. If you are unfamiliar, this fellow made a comic about a bad dnd game out of stills from the LotR movies.

DM: "You see tracks leading to the east..."
Gimli: "Yeah...railroad tracks..."

Makes me giggle everytime.

(?) · by **Aramek** (?) » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:32 pm

Been reading a lot of that "Worst Experiences in Tabletop Gaming" thread, and all of it is :gonkity:

.

Especially on the issue of DMPCs. The rule is: Don't. But, My group has always been super small and I've always had a character while DMing and not once did I ever try to outshine or out RP the other players, etc. Still a bit of a sticky pitfall, but, this session we have coming up, I took the easy road.

Being the Striker. Easiest, stratezy-wise, compared to the rest of the roles, and this way, not being the tank or healer, I won't be in any sort of leadership role.

But, being as how I haven't gamed in forever, I'm super stoked for this, and my roomies/brother are really excited. Our roster as of now.

Me: Striker - Human Dual Blade Ranger.
Roomie: Defender - Half-Elf (or Dragonborn) Battlemind.
Roomie: Controller - Human Witch or Invoker. He is trying to pick. A Hunter would be cool too.
Brother - Leader - Warforged Artificer.

More character information to come as we finalize our plans.

(?) · by **In West Fillydelphia** (?) » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:45 pm

The best DMPCs are humble, lovable characters. Ones that aren't as good as the rest of the party ability wise (keep em a level or two back if you have to) but that have some limited significance in the story.

Old sages just making their way down the trail, thankful that the party are lending a hand. Holding the sacred artefact that can't be dirtied with the touch of non clerical hands, or believers in another deity.

The gnome pack rat, who seems to have everything context sensitive in his bag of holding.

An oracle, who waits to surprise the thief on the doorstep of the inn at night, to give him a disapproving look before they go to sleep.

(?) · by **Concerned Reader** (?) » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:51 pm

Aramek wrote:Been reading a lot of that "Worst Experiences in Tabletop Gaming" thread, and all of it is .

Especially on the issue of DMPCs. The rule is: Don't. But, My group has always been super small and I've always had a character while DMing and not once did I ever try to outshine or out RP the other players, etc. Still a bit of a sticky pitfall, but, this session we have coming up, I took the easy road.

A DMPC falls under the same category as a Mary Sue or Self Insert Character. They can be done well, and they can be a big assist to the story, but more often then not they're just the character running around being "cool." Something I've seen in a session was that the DM thought the party was having trouble with an encounter, so he had a random rogue just run in and start wailing on the boss. Which kinda pissed off the players, because they wanted to do it themselves.

(?) · by **In West Fillydelphia** (?) » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:54 pm

That's why I'm saying that the best DMPCs are servants.

(?) · by **Aramek** (?) » Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:56 pm

"GRAM! Make with the killing!" and then I'll be all "Way ahead of ya!"

In that way, yes, I am a servant.

To add, we have always had a DMPC, since we even started gaming, way back in second edition. So, we've been lucky to avoid all the pitfalls that tends to happen when powerhungry DMs also play. I guess, from day one, I've never had the "I need to defeat the players" mentality, which was, in hindsight, progressive.

(?) · by **Aramek** (?) » Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:46 pm

Fluttershy here has made an awful character.

(?) · by **Aramek** (?) » Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:20 pm

We've finalized our party, and our first session will either be Tonight or next Friday! :yay:

To quickly sum up our characters:

Me, Human Two-Blade Ranger, Gram. Think a Khornate Berserker that crash landed on this planet, is seperated from his brothers, and without his power armour. Many 40K fans may think that all the Khornates are simply crazy, this is not so. They still have brilliant tactical minds, and, out of combat, would sit around and talk to each other the same as any other soldier would. But, in combat, fast, furious, and HOPING to be bloodied themselves. Makes them truly feel alive.

Roomie, Dwarf Battlemind...I forget his name. Something Dwarfy, though. Like, Kron Ironkeg or something. He's going to be a really mobile Dwarf. Very clan-proud, all of his actions he sees as feats of strength meant to impress NPCs/the party/other dwarves. Earning perks in his mind, even though his family doesn't pay much attention to him. Teleports a lot, and, surprisingly, is faster than some of the party.

Other Roomie, Human Mage, Enchanter Specced. (A new controller class from those new Player Essentials books.) His name is مصير الطبيب . Which, literally, means "The fate of the Doctor", but was as close to Doctor Fate as I could get. As far as I, and my brother could tell, it is pronounced something like "Maseer Ahtahbiib." Which is what I wrote on the sheet. If any of you have played Baulder's Gate, he is, in attitude very similar to the Thayan Edwin. Thinks everyone is much less smart than him (he's right), and calls them "Simians" with a sneer. Think like Dr. Bones McCoy from original Star Trek, but, even more angry at everyone else. He sees the world, maybe even existence as a series of magical/mathematical formulae. And since the Mage class chooses a specialization at level 1, he chose Enchanter. It doesn't mean the same a "makes magic items" more like "controls the fabric of reality". He can control the battlefield, and force enemies to attack each other, etc. Is incredibly bored doing so, and sees all of his actions/abilities as so easy to understand, yet hates us for not getting it ourselves.

And, finally, my brother's character.

Warforged Artificer, Bezaubern, which kinda means Enchanter in German. From what I remember from college, it is used as a sort of sleazy term. Like "charms the pants off of you" sort of charm. Literally enthralling. As for character concept? Well, this one is a lot easier to explain I think. Basically, look at this picture, and listen to the song I link and just let those two things combine in your mind. That's pretty much how he's going to play this character. and he smokes. A Warforged that smokes. And tells us what to do. He's our Leader after all.

Click here to view video.

(I'm at work, and can't see youtube, so I hope that is working/is the right link.)

(?) · by **Pink Himalayan Salt** (?) » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:50 am

Aramek wrote:and he smokes. A Warforged that smokes.

Obviously he does it because It makes him look cool.

The Round Stable

[Resource]CR's Character Concept Creation Corner

[Resource]CR's Character Concept Creation Corner

Who is online