Fallen
05-31-2006, 08:57 AM
I'm chiming in rather late on the subject... but... in my view....
There is a difference between a thin character and a failure to roleplay. A failure to roleplay is just that: someone who really has no interest in developing a character at all. Someone with a thin character has given some thought to what the character should be like, but, for whatever reason, just isn't bringing the character to life in a believable, interesting, or effective fashion.
Stereotypes have nothing to do with paper-thin characters. "I'm going to play a devout Luukosian elf from Ta'Vaalor who thinks halflings are the only worthy race because he was kidnapped before he could enter military duty and then suffered torture and brainwashing at the hands of halfling servants of Amasalen for hundreds of years!" Well, that's certainly not stereotypical (though it's kind of spooky), but it's not necessarily deep either. It depends on how you play it out.
The difference between a paper-thin character and a solid character is the difference between a player who focuses on "what would my character do/think/say in this situation?" versus someone who can't think in the mindset of his or her character... or someone who can't do it in a way that anyone else knows about. Roleplay is a two-way street. If you don't ever give a little, no one is ever going to be aware that you have anything to give. This isn't to say that you have to give often, or even every second, but you do have to do it sometimes.
When I believe that I perceive some or all of the following characteristics in a character, they cause me to feel that I am dealing with a character who lacks depth.
- attitudes without reasons
- beliefs without motivation
- failure to react to the social enviroment
- failure to react to the physical enviroment
- fanaticism without the desire to convert
- hostility without temperance
- inconsequential religion (rah rah rah, my god is better than your god)
- lack of a capacity for growth
- pride without the potential of a fall
- self-absorption (not IC self-absorption, but OOC -- see what a great roleplayer I am? see what a great roleplayer I am?)
- strength without weakness
This isn't an exhaustive list. I'm sure people could come up with other things to add to it. I'm sure there are also people who have solid characters that do display one or more of those characteristics, but there are exceptions to every rule.
As many people have pointed out, developing a backstory really isn't the end-all and be-all of character depth. For many people, starting with a backstory on day 1 of character creation helps-- but for others, the important thing is to roleplay off the cuff and then remember how and why every gap was filled in. In either case, the character can have a great deal of depth. In either case, the character can bomb out and fail to have depth.
I don't feel that all my characters are solid. I often start a character (mostly various merchants and NPCs) and then discover that I really can't get past the paper-thin stage. When this happens, the character usually vanishes quite promptly.
I've discovered that, for me, what establishes my paper-thin characters versus my solid characters is whether or not I have success interacting with other people in the early hours of the character's existence. From the moment I start having solid, IC interaction, my character begins to grow in my mind. I react to various stimuli around me, I wonder why my character would have reacted in that way, I file my observations of my own reactions away for future study, and I let the personality grow however seems appropriate.
On the off chance that people will find it interesting, here are a few examples of NPCs that I've played that felt solid to me.
One is a recurring character from the Ebon Gate Festival. Dark Lady Bone became something of an EG signature character for me, and, though she won't be at the next EG, I'm sure I'll find room somewhere for her to come back and interact with people again. I knew Dark Lady Bone's background in strong detail from the first day I played her, but, because she would not discuss her past except under some very precise circumstances, it never came up in conversation. Despite this, her background colored virtually everything she did. Admittedly, as a GM, I had the advantage of being able to shape some amount of physical terrain (Murder's Garden and Fire/Spirit/Shadow, among others) to reflect her background, and she appears in a few loresongs... but if players hadn't reacted in a way that let me know that Bone was an interesting, successful character, I would have shrugged, tossed her away, and found something else to do for the future -- as I've done with quite a few fully-fleshed characters. Background and breathing don't necessarily go together.
On the flip side, a throw-away character of mine has arguably become my most popular merchant. Darva Bluefinch was created as a one-visit wonder in the War of Nations. She wasn't even part of "my" plot -- I was running the v'reen, and she was visiting Solhaven to sell funeral memorabilia related to the death of the Empress. Whether they reacted with pleasure or scorn, everyone around her did react, and I was caught up immediately in the tide of it. Everything about Darva developed from there -- her exceedingly humble origins, her devotion to the city of Vornavis, her pride in her work, her guilty admiration for elves, her easy relationship with children, and so forth.
Somewhere between the two, there is the Dreamwalker. I always hesitate to say too much about this character because I know that some players still value an aura of secrecy around her. From day one, I knew that she was Vaalorian, but the precise nature of the conflict that led her to worship Ronan resolved from fuzzy to distinct over time. (About half the details in "that song" were developed before the character's creation, and about half were developed afterward.) It didn't hurt that she was particularly close-mouthed about her own nature and that people are unlikely to question a spirit about its past. It did pose a problem because, if I had sorted things out in more detail in advance, I could have seeded information in advance rather than using the (admittedly somewhat silly) spell-blocked memory concept to explain why people didn't remember the Larrinthe family scandal. Ah, well; too late now....
In the end, the most important question is not "do other people feel that my character is solid?" but, "do I feel that my character is solid?" Ask it honestly of yourself, and don't be defensive -- if the answer is "no", it's all right. Look at what you've done in the past with your character and ask yourself what you can do in the future.
Running through parts of that list again... here are some suggestions for improvement.
- Attitudes without reasons: Find reasons. Why does your character hold those prejudices and stereotypes? Keep those reasons in mind when you display your attitudes. When you display them, look for mitigating or enhancing circumstances that relate to those reasons.
For example, someone who's always roleplayed "warriors are stupid" could decide that his own father was a particularly stupid warrior. What race was his father? What did he look like? Moderate the character's prejudice based upon the target's physical resemblance to the stupid warrior father, and it presents greater depth even if you never explain exactly what produces the reaction.
- Beliefs without motivation: Find motivations. Why does your character hold the beliefs that he believes? Turn anything that you mouth reflexively into something that has a motivation. Of course, your character's motivation may not be what he says it is, or what he believes it is, but at least it exists.
For example, someone who's always roleplayed "learning is important" could have been raised in a library. He's heard it so many times that it's just ingrained in his psyche. Being raised in a library, however, carries a whole host of other implications -- keep your voice down inside, make a point of keeping books and scrolls scrupulously clean -- and all of these can become facets of the developing character.
- Failure to react to the social or physical enviroment: React. There isn't much else that can be said. It doesn't have to be fancy, but failing to react when reaction would be appropriate causes you to miss opportunities to subtly display facets of your roleplay. Don't let the text scroll by without paying attention to what it actually says unless you are not in the presence of other people.
For example, if you see a room message about a dog wandering past, ask yourself: does my character like dogs? If so, what kinds of dogs (mutts, hunting dogs, lapdogs?) If not, what is it about dogs that he doesn't like (smelly, dirty, savaged in the past by dobrem at the hands of Jantalarian guards, just really a cat person?)
- Fanaticism without the desire to convert: This isn't necessarily religious; it can be any kind of conversion. Look at the convictions that you've established that your character holds. People are innately social creatures -- if they have a fanatically strong opinion, they usually want other people to share it.
For example, if your character is serious about being in the Order of Voln and really cares about freeing the undead, encourage other people to go hunting with you -- or figure out why your character doesn't want to do it. A character who saw service to Voln as an intensely personal matter or wanted to face up to an inner fear of undead might very well not want other people along, but it wouldn't make sense for a character who just wanted to free as many souls as possible to turn a blind eye to the possibility of help.
- Hostility without temperance: In real life, most people recognize mitigating factors to hostility. If you have already established that your character is extremely hostile under certain circumstances, consider whether your character will express that hostility under all situations. The obvious mitigating factor is fear (it's not a good idea to snipe verbally at someone who has eight muscle-bound thugs on his side), but many people have others.
For example, an elven bard who has always expressed a hatred of dwarves might not act particularly unpleasantly toward a dwarf who displays a cultured attitude toward music.
- Inconsequential religion: Arkati are not sports teams. If your character is converted to one of the Arkati, but you've never paid any particular attention to what the Arkati stands for, or your character has established friendships with worshippers of an opposing deity, take some time and think about what that means.
For example, if your character is a cleric that you converted to Charl for the crits, pause and consider it from a roleplaying perspective. What aspects of Charl appeal most to your character? What aspects appeal least? Do you want to wear a symbol? If so, why? If not, why not? Does your character do things of which Charl would approve? What does your character do of which Charl would least approve? Remember, no matter how great you are, it doesn't make sense for you to constantly be the apple of your deity's eye... and it may be that your character really is jaded enough in faith that he doesn't care. If so, even that can be interesting -- there's a certain bitterness associated with drawing on the power of a god without caring about what the god wants that can be useful in roleplay. Think about it.
- Lack of a capacity for growth: Many of the problems above are really this problem expressed in different ways. People change. You as a player will change, and your character as a person will change. Some of the changes in your character's personality and outlook will be deliberate, but others will be accidental. Look for opportunities to change. Decide whether or not to take them. Wild shifts overnight should be rare, but over the course of years, you have years to develop and establish direction for your character. Don't be afraid to have direction. Use what feels right.
- Self-absorption: If lacking a capacity for growth is one categorical problem, self-absorption is the other. Interaction is a two-way street. If all you want to do is display the coolness of your character to other people, then you aren't really interacting... you're performing. It has its place, but if you're concerned about having a paper-thin character, you probably want to interact rather than performing. Don't let your own excitement about others' interest in you take you too far. There's no need to dump information unless people ask for it. Establish relationships with other characters at whatever speed seems appropriate to your character. Don't babble unless it's appropriate to your character. Over time, you will have your opportunity to shine. Let everyone else do it, too. The night is more interesting with many stars than with only one.
I'm sure everyone reading this is more than happy to see my signature in the near distance. That went on far longer than I expected!
In closing: these are the opinions and beliefs of one GM. This post is not intended to represent the global GM perspective or the opinion of Simutronics as a corporation.
~Jharra
There is a difference between a thin character and a failure to roleplay. A failure to roleplay is just that: someone who really has no interest in developing a character at all. Someone with a thin character has given some thought to what the character should be like, but, for whatever reason, just isn't bringing the character to life in a believable, interesting, or effective fashion.
Stereotypes have nothing to do with paper-thin characters. "I'm going to play a devout Luukosian elf from Ta'Vaalor who thinks halflings are the only worthy race because he was kidnapped before he could enter military duty and then suffered torture and brainwashing at the hands of halfling servants of Amasalen for hundreds of years!" Well, that's certainly not stereotypical (though it's kind of spooky), but it's not necessarily deep either. It depends on how you play it out.
The difference between a paper-thin character and a solid character is the difference between a player who focuses on "what would my character do/think/say in this situation?" versus someone who can't think in the mindset of his or her character... or someone who can't do it in a way that anyone else knows about. Roleplay is a two-way street. If you don't ever give a little, no one is ever going to be aware that you have anything to give. This isn't to say that you have to give often, or even every second, but you do have to do it sometimes.
When I believe that I perceive some or all of the following characteristics in a character, they cause me to feel that I am dealing with a character who lacks depth.
- attitudes without reasons
- beliefs without motivation
- failure to react to the social enviroment
- failure to react to the physical enviroment
- fanaticism without the desire to convert
- hostility without temperance
- inconsequential religion (rah rah rah, my god is better than your god)
- lack of a capacity for growth
- pride without the potential of a fall
- self-absorption (not IC self-absorption, but OOC -- see what a great roleplayer I am? see what a great roleplayer I am?)
- strength without weakness
This isn't an exhaustive list. I'm sure people could come up with other things to add to it. I'm sure there are also people who have solid characters that do display one or more of those characteristics, but there are exceptions to every rule.
As many people have pointed out, developing a backstory really isn't the end-all and be-all of character depth. For many people, starting with a backstory on day 1 of character creation helps-- but for others, the important thing is to roleplay off the cuff and then remember how and why every gap was filled in. In either case, the character can have a great deal of depth. In either case, the character can bomb out and fail to have depth.
I don't feel that all my characters are solid. I often start a character (mostly various merchants and NPCs) and then discover that I really can't get past the paper-thin stage. When this happens, the character usually vanishes quite promptly.
I've discovered that, for me, what establishes my paper-thin characters versus my solid characters is whether or not I have success interacting with other people in the early hours of the character's existence. From the moment I start having solid, IC interaction, my character begins to grow in my mind. I react to various stimuli around me, I wonder why my character would have reacted in that way, I file my observations of my own reactions away for future study, and I let the personality grow however seems appropriate.
On the off chance that people will find it interesting, here are a few examples of NPCs that I've played that felt solid to me.
One is a recurring character from the Ebon Gate Festival. Dark Lady Bone became something of an EG signature character for me, and, though she won't be at the next EG, I'm sure I'll find room somewhere for her to come back and interact with people again. I knew Dark Lady Bone's background in strong detail from the first day I played her, but, because she would not discuss her past except under some very precise circumstances, it never came up in conversation. Despite this, her background colored virtually everything she did. Admittedly, as a GM, I had the advantage of being able to shape some amount of physical terrain (Murder's Garden and Fire/Spirit/Shadow, among others) to reflect her background, and she appears in a few loresongs... but if players hadn't reacted in a way that let me know that Bone was an interesting, successful character, I would have shrugged, tossed her away, and found something else to do for the future -- as I've done with quite a few fully-fleshed characters. Background and breathing don't necessarily go together.
On the flip side, a throw-away character of mine has arguably become my most popular merchant. Darva Bluefinch was created as a one-visit wonder in the War of Nations. She wasn't even part of "my" plot -- I was running the v'reen, and she was visiting Solhaven to sell funeral memorabilia related to the death of the Empress. Whether they reacted with pleasure or scorn, everyone around her did react, and I was caught up immediately in the tide of it. Everything about Darva developed from there -- her exceedingly humble origins, her devotion to the city of Vornavis, her pride in her work, her guilty admiration for elves, her easy relationship with children, and so forth.
Somewhere between the two, there is the Dreamwalker. I always hesitate to say too much about this character because I know that some players still value an aura of secrecy around her. From day one, I knew that she was Vaalorian, but the precise nature of the conflict that led her to worship Ronan resolved from fuzzy to distinct over time. (About half the details in "that song" were developed before the character's creation, and about half were developed afterward.) It didn't hurt that she was particularly close-mouthed about her own nature and that people are unlikely to question a spirit about its past. It did pose a problem because, if I had sorted things out in more detail in advance, I could have seeded information in advance rather than using the (admittedly somewhat silly) spell-blocked memory concept to explain why people didn't remember the Larrinthe family scandal. Ah, well; too late now....
In the end, the most important question is not "do other people feel that my character is solid?" but, "do I feel that my character is solid?" Ask it honestly of yourself, and don't be defensive -- if the answer is "no", it's all right. Look at what you've done in the past with your character and ask yourself what you can do in the future.
Running through parts of that list again... here are some suggestions for improvement.
- Attitudes without reasons: Find reasons. Why does your character hold those prejudices and stereotypes? Keep those reasons in mind when you display your attitudes. When you display them, look for mitigating or enhancing circumstances that relate to those reasons.
For example, someone who's always roleplayed "warriors are stupid" could decide that his own father was a particularly stupid warrior. What race was his father? What did he look like? Moderate the character's prejudice based upon the target's physical resemblance to the stupid warrior father, and it presents greater depth even if you never explain exactly what produces the reaction.
- Beliefs without motivation: Find motivations. Why does your character hold the beliefs that he believes? Turn anything that you mouth reflexively into something that has a motivation. Of course, your character's motivation may not be what he says it is, or what he believes it is, but at least it exists.
For example, someone who's always roleplayed "learning is important" could have been raised in a library. He's heard it so many times that it's just ingrained in his psyche. Being raised in a library, however, carries a whole host of other implications -- keep your voice down inside, make a point of keeping books and scrolls scrupulously clean -- and all of these can become facets of the developing character.
- Failure to react to the social or physical enviroment: React. There isn't much else that can be said. It doesn't have to be fancy, but failing to react when reaction would be appropriate causes you to miss opportunities to subtly display facets of your roleplay. Don't let the text scroll by without paying attention to what it actually says unless you are not in the presence of other people.
For example, if you see a room message about a dog wandering past, ask yourself: does my character like dogs? If so, what kinds of dogs (mutts, hunting dogs, lapdogs?) If not, what is it about dogs that he doesn't like (smelly, dirty, savaged in the past by dobrem at the hands of Jantalarian guards, just really a cat person?)
- Fanaticism without the desire to convert: This isn't necessarily religious; it can be any kind of conversion. Look at the convictions that you've established that your character holds. People are innately social creatures -- if they have a fanatically strong opinion, they usually want other people to share it.
For example, if your character is serious about being in the Order of Voln and really cares about freeing the undead, encourage other people to go hunting with you -- or figure out why your character doesn't want to do it. A character who saw service to Voln as an intensely personal matter or wanted to face up to an inner fear of undead might very well not want other people along, but it wouldn't make sense for a character who just wanted to free as many souls as possible to turn a blind eye to the possibility of help.
- Hostility without temperance: In real life, most people recognize mitigating factors to hostility. If you have already established that your character is extremely hostile under certain circumstances, consider whether your character will express that hostility under all situations. The obvious mitigating factor is fear (it's not a good idea to snipe verbally at someone who has eight muscle-bound thugs on his side), but many people have others.
For example, an elven bard who has always expressed a hatred of dwarves might not act particularly unpleasantly toward a dwarf who displays a cultured attitude toward music.
- Inconsequential religion: Arkati are not sports teams. If your character is converted to one of the Arkati, but you've never paid any particular attention to what the Arkati stands for, or your character has established friendships with worshippers of an opposing deity, take some time and think about what that means.
For example, if your character is a cleric that you converted to Charl for the crits, pause and consider it from a roleplaying perspective. What aspects of Charl appeal most to your character? What aspects appeal least? Do you want to wear a symbol? If so, why? If not, why not? Does your character do things of which Charl would approve? What does your character do of which Charl would least approve? Remember, no matter how great you are, it doesn't make sense for you to constantly be the apple of your deity's eye... and it may be that your character really is jaded enough in faith that he doesn't care. If so, even that can be interesting -- there's a certain bitterness associated with drawing on the power of a god without caring about what the god wants that can be useful in roleplay. Think about it.
- Lack of a capacity for growth: Many of the problems above are really this problem expressed in different ways. People change. You as a player will change, and your character as a person will change. Some of the changes in your character's personality and outlook will be deliberate, but others will be accidental. Look for opportunities to change. Decide whether or not to take them. Wild shifts overnight should be rare, but over the course of years, you have years to develop and establish direction for your character. Don't be afraid to have direction. Use what feels right.
- Self-absorption: If lacking a capacity for growth is one categorical problem, self-absorption is the other. Interaction is a two-way street. If all you want to do is display the coolness of your character to other people, then you aren't really interacting... you're performing. It has its place, but if you're concerned about having a paper-thin character, you probably want to interact rather than performing. Don't let your own excitement about others' interest in you take you too far. There's no need to dump information unless people ask for it. Establish relationships with other characters at whatever speed seems appropriate to your character. Don't babble unless it's appropriate to your character. Over time, you will have your opportunity to shine. Let everyone else do it, too. The night is more interesting with many stars than with only one.
I'm sure everyone reading this is more than happy to see my signature in the near distance. That went on far longer than I expected!
In closing: these are the opinions and beliefs of one GM. This post is not intended to represent the global GM perspective or the opinion of Simutronics as a corporation.
~Jharra