The Philosophy of Character Building

How can you use the Socratic Method to create a good character? let me explain how I use a series of questions to help myself and my players create dynamic personalities for their characters.

But wait, Everybody Knows how to make a character for an RPG right? Pick your race, assign your points, pick your special abilities and then come up with a backstory that will explain him/her being in the party. throughout my time as a DM I have heard people explain their characters like this:

“My character is a Brutal Warrior whose only desire is glory on the battlefield. He hates orcs and is chaotic neutral”

“My character is an outcast dwarf who seeks redemption and honor in helping others”

Both of these are excellent starts and are seeds that could grow into dynamic characters. However, these backstories are very broad and while they speak volumes about where the character has been and their large scale goals, they don’t really reveal much of a personality. I think often in games people are told to create a history for their character but not a persona. Where a character has been and what they have done informs their personality of course but it does not define it.

Due to the emphasis on a character’s history instead of personality many characters suffer from an inconsistency of behavior or what I call “situational personality disorder” (SPD). You have all seen this, a character has up until that point not engaged in X behavior or expressed any leanings towards X but since the campaign now requires it in order to overcome a challenge the character shifts his or her behavior to fit the situation. I believe that in many cases this occurs because the player never established what the character would do in morally ambiguous situations. The answers to the questions that follow form a frame of reference which can help the player react to situations in a manner consistent with a dynamic (realistic) personality.

These questions take the character from a collection of characteristics and abilities on a sheet to a unique individual that the players will feel more inclined to play with consistency of behavior, almost like they are doing the character wrong by not following what their personality would desire. These questions also create a framework in which they can think like their characters instead of thinking only in terms of game practicality.

Question Examples:

how does the character feel about killing? is it ever justified? does he feel that monsters can be killed with impunity but not humans? what about Dwarves, Elves, Aliens, etc?

What is the role of the law in the character’s mind? is it for the good of all? does it stifle freedom? is it the tyranny of government? does the character obey the law? what kind of situation does it take for the character to commit serious crimes?

does the character believe in higher powers? what does character believe he owes the gods?

how does the character think of those higher in society? Lower? what does the character think of his/her place?

what about the opposite sex? Strait, Gay/lesbian? are the opposite sex to be protected or to be manipulated?

how loyal is the character to his/her word?

how does the character feel about other adventurers? does he/she seek camaraderie or just the accomplishment of personal goals?

Does the character care about the opinions of others?

does the character want to find love?

does the character have a family? wife/husband/Lover? where are they? what are they doing?

why did the character join his profession? is his profession in line with his class or was he a farmer until he became a fighter to defend his home from bandits?

these questions are just a small sampling of the questions I ask my players to answer when making a character. I tailor them depending on the vague backstory they give me and the setting I plan to run.

I have met with a lot of success using this system. The players have often created memorable characters they love to play. Using this system I have actually seen long time dungeon crawlers try to skip through combat to get to character interactions.

Play a character you can role-play

What I find is that many players choose characters based on back story and combat but never think about whether or not they will be able to effectively roleplay or enjoy that character’s personality. That is not to say you should never role play a challenging character or try anything new but you should consider whether or not you want a challenge or something that comes naturally. In my own games I discourage shy players from playing the party leader until they get more comfortable roleplaying.

Another example of what I am talking about is a friend, she never plays characters that are overly flirtatious or manipulative in demeanor because she can’t keep a straight face and starts laughing. She doesn’t really enjoy tripping over her words and not being able to roleplay it well so she doesn’t play characters with that type of personality.

If you feel that you can't role play the character, you should not even make the character.

My recommendation is to take care when choosing characters for yourself and your players. Make sure to be supportive of players who want to try new things and grow in their roleplaying but also steer players towards personalities you know they will enjoy playing. This way even if the character is difficult for them to roleplay they will be more enthusiastic and likely to try their best.

The Lone Wolf

So you’ve made your character and your so excited for your new rebel without a cause, he’s inspired by Jayne from Firefly or your favorite badass from fiction and he doesn’t take sh*t from anybody. He wanders the world keeping an eye out for number one, he’s probably chaotic neutral and will never do anything without substantial personal gain involved. To put it simply hes a lone wolf, the down to earth self interested hero that we love so much in American pop culture. Well guess what, you just created one of the most notorious problem characters in roleplay, second only to the chaotic evil sociopath.

My judgement of these characters may seem harsh but I know from experience both playing and storytelling that there are fundamental flaws in the lone wolf / self interested character. First foremost the lone wolf does not get along well with others. The lone wolf archetype does not like taking orders and he doesn’t liking people depending on him making him a difficult character that usually throws a wrench in game flow. In many situations you will either have to sacrifice your roleplay to get along with the party OR you will extort the party for extra shares of treasure OR always suggest that whatever you are dealing with isn’t your problem. Many a game I have played where the party couldn’t roleplay to the fullest because they didn’t want to deal with the lone wolf telling them that he had no interest in saving the town from undead without coin.

Which brings me to my next point: even in games where the players aren’t intrinsically ”good” the party will usually get wrapped up in a quest or arc that involves sacrifice, selflessness, and periods without direct rewards for their actions. The lone wolf character is hesitant to trust in his allies and undertake dangerous quests that seem hopeless or overly risky compared to the rewards. Now most of my anger about this archetype is because players model these characters after their favorite anti heroes without watching the end of the movie. In westerns for example the lone wolf who never cared about anybody but himself has an epiphany. After which he decides to make a stand for the weak and the helpless even at great personal risk. It is this transformation from a very flawed and selfish character to a hero that makes the anti hero so attractive to the American psyche, the anti hero is accessible and human.

So my advice to you is that if you like to play lone wolves remember that there are other people at the table besides you. Remember that you chose to stay with the party so you should roleplay your character accordingly, don’t act like the party has to convince you to stay. Finally remember that the characters of any roleplay game are heroes and while they may be good, evil or neutral they are always doing great deeds. A character who walks through the campaign uttering the phrase “it’s not my problem” will rarely do great deeds.

6 Ways D&D is not Like Medival Times

One of the things I always enjoy thinking about are the subtle ways in which D&D worlds must be more like our modern one than like the medieval Europe they are frequently patterned after. Here are 6 ways D&D worlds are like our own.

1. Time
Historically knowing the hour of the day was being very accurate. In D&D there are many common magics with times measured in minutes or seconds. Adventures would have a sense of time that was absolutely unheard of historically.

2. Literacy
How often do you meet an illiterate person in a D&D world? Usually infrequently enough that it really stands out. Of course, in the real world outside of nobility and clergy being literate was uncommon.

3. Accuracy
One of the things that goes hand in hand with literacy is the demand for accuracy. In oral cultures it is expected that stories will change with each teller; the point of stories is not to give an exact retelling, but rather to evoke similar emotions. But in most D&D worlds there is a very modern notion of accuracy.

4. Freedom
Slavery in D&D worlds is usually a plot point that spells E-V-I-L, and serfdom is unheard of. Both were very common and not frowned upon historically.

5. Money
I know there are some DMs who do an awesome job at bring real barter into the game; most, including me, just let the coinage do all the work. Moreover, I frequently just tell player to pay the book price for items rather than try to role play each shop keeper. Obviously having store that deal only in money at standardized prices is not historical.

6. Racism
Though I won’t deny there are certain types of racism in D&D, in another way it is really limited. Basically, all the good races are incredibly chummy. Sure the dwarves and elves get on each others nerves, but you don’t see the elves wearing white sheets or the dwarves running death camps. Considering that historically people have started killing each other over the tiniest of differences, this niceness is unreal.

Player Responsibilities

I’ve known a fair number of gamers who believe that the DM is the person almost entirely responsible for a gaming group’s good time. If a group is faltering or not as fun as expected, fingers point toward the DM before anyone else. But what about the players and our responsibilities to the group?

Players outnumber the DM, and while the DM may set up the paths through the world, players decide where to go, what the tone of the game will be, and create the story being told through our actions. So in that vein, I’d like to present a list of my most important player responsibilities.

1) Be a team player. Gestalt has already written about the futility of lone wolves, and I couldn’t agree with him more. Those characters may seem really cool, but they just don’t work in a group setting. If your character’s opinions are constantly at odds with the rest of the party, every minor action becomes a struggle. You can have an independent spirit, but a true lone wolf wouldn’t ever join an adventuring party, so you will need to cooperate and work as a team. Digging in your figurative heels at every party decision, though, ends up being childish and can ruin a good campaign.

2) Don’t create a character that is more powerful than the others in the group. I realize that there is vast potential in the character creation systems (especially with loopholes) for becoming a mighty steamroller of enemy-smiting, and that some cannot resist that siren song. If all the others players in your campaign roll this way too, then more power to you. However, if your group’s other players prefer to roll characters with flaws, or simply don’t like to min-max, your steamroller character will now give your DM migraines. You create an impossible situation in which the DM can either make enemies challenging for you and risk killing the other players, or make the enemy difficulty balanced for the rest of the team and let you shred them like tissue. Either way, for the balancing difficulty, it’s a situation where you have ruined the fun for the other players, who now either die or don’t get to feel useful the party anymore.

3) Know yourself, and know the type of game you’re getting into. For instance, Pensive has extreme dislike for any and all White Wolf systems. Clearly, knowing this about himself, it would be a terrible idea to join a group playing any of those systems. Think about the tone of the game and the personalities of people involved. If you like a game that has more social and puzzle aspects than combat, talk to the members of your group to find out if their campaign fits with what you like about gaming. You don’t want to find out 10 sessions in that they prefer a straight dungeon-crawl and will never get around to your favorite bits. This doesn’t mean that anyone’s play style is superior or inferior, but if you aren’t a good fit for the game being run, it’s best for you and for everyone to know that ahead of time. And the most important part of knowing yourself is knowing when you’ve stopped enjoying an aspect of the game you’re in, and figuring out how to make it fun again. Often for me this is realizing that the new character class that looked intriguing is not my style. Talking to the DM is always the best course here. You can always just have the DM kill off you character with style as Pensive once mentioned, and start fresh with something more fun.

I could add more to this list, but these are my most important three. So how about the rest of you? Are there things that you would think are player responsibilities to make a campaign great for everyone?

Happy gaming,