ITT: The Do's and Dont's of designing a character in your opinion. Try to get at least one of each in your posts...

ITT: The Do's and Dont's of designing a character in your opinion. Try to get at least one of each in your posts, I wanna get some discussion up in here.

DO: Whenever I make a character, I find a voice that I think fits the character and practice it until I'm happy with it. I find it really helps to get into my character if I have a voice for them. Sure, it limits the female characters I play to the ones I can actually voice, but it works well for me usually.

DONT: Write too long of a backstory. This used to be a huge problem for me. The bigger backstory I write, the more difficult it is to play the character, develop it, and get attached to it.

Also, Character art thread.

DON'T base your character entirely around a gimmicky build. Don't be That Guy sitting in the back of the group of heroes play Sir Bearington the Half-Giant Luchador.

DO give your character a reason why he would take part in the story. If you're playing D&D, your character better have a reason for adventuring.

DO: As a character, react to another party member's actions. Whether it's positive or negative, when you do something and no one reacts, it kinda sucks.

DONT: Attempt to interfere with another character's actions as they're doing it. Of course, if it's a plan or something that happens over multiple turns, then act as your character would. If the dickass thief in the party goes to steal something and your character notices, it's less toxic to confront him then to try to block the party member from doing it in the first place.

Well, it's fine to have a gimmicky build, but as long as the character is a character and not just a build.

I'd play with a belligerent drunk dwarf luchadore that's banned from bars he hasn't even gone to yet from his reputation, but if the character was just dwarven wrestler that wears a mask, probably not gonna be fun to play with.

> react to another party member's actions

This, even small shit in combat like "A fine strike!"

DO: Focus on your character's motivations here and now. Yes, a good backstory would inform their decisions and worldview, but you can get by without one if the character just has a very solid reason to be involved in the adventure.

DON'T: Treat your character's race/species as their entire personality. Just because Dwarves are stereotypically grumpy drunkards, and Elves are smug, aloof assholes, doesn't mean your character should be.

Your Dwarf might hate being drunk because they like to keep a clear head, and try to look on the bright side of life after living through a brief period of poverty. Likewise, your Elf might be modest to a fault, since they are wise enough to recognise their own ignorance and fallibility, and exercise compassion as much as possible, because they've lived long enough to realise just how rare and precious genuine love and kindness really is.

DO come up with a handful of keywords associated with your characters personality, and bare these in mind when playing. If the words are 'Strong', 'Brave', 'Leadership', or 'Doesn't take anyone's shit', maybe consider going back to the drawing board. You've probably already played it four or five times over.

DON'T play the role, play a character. If you have no idea how your character would conduct itself in a conversation, you don't have a character yet, you've got a race and some stats.

Don't restrict your character to their alignment like they need to be a paragon of it. IMO the next disruptive alignment after Chaotic Neutral is Lawful Good, especially when it results in a laser-guided evil smiting paladin. One thing I like to do is think of what alignment my character you change to from their original alignment. Pic related, I had a Fighter(turned paladin) of Tyr that was Lawful Good, and I designed him with the point that he was more likely to become Lawful Neutral over becoming Neutral Good. He was jaded.

Do try to incorporate the worship of a god in your character, even if your character isn't a cleric/paladin/etc. 90% of the time, the worship of gods is very prevalent in every place you go to and every person you come across. Whether it's because people model themselves off of the God's ideals, are in feared awe of their powers, or if only to prevent them from being sent to a terrible limbo-esque afterlife when they die.

Seriously, it's a good inspiration for character development. Try it out.

>even small shit in combat
As long as it's not every goddamn attack.

>Don't restrict your character to their alignment like they need to be a paragon of it. IMO the next disruptive alignment after Chaotic Neutral is Lawful Good, especially when it results in a laser-guided evil smiting paladin. One thing I like to do is think of what alignment my character you change to from their original alignment. Pic related, I had a Fighter(turned paladin) of Tyr that was Lawful Good, and I designed him with the point that he was more likely to become Lawful Neutral over becoming Neutral Good. He was jaded.

Honestly, I just play Lawful Evil for that particular reason because it pretty much means you're only really bound by your own code or equivalent. My DM knows me and trusts me not to go full retard with evil actions.

DON'T: Restrict what you want to do with your character out of embarrassment. Yeah, you aren't gonna be cool or smart or funny all of the time, and sometime's you'll royally fuck up a cool line or a joke and people will laugh at you. BUT, if everyone is worried about what the rest of the players think of you then everyone will just sit there and not roleplay. Even if there's someone in the group that is more experienced at roleplay, just do it. Even if your character isn't the 'face' of the group, interact with NPCs.

DO: Make your character flawed. If you try to make your character flawless, awesomely cool, infallible, etc., people are gonna like it when you fuck up. Give your character weaknesses, and own those weaknesses. You'll have a better time for it, if only because you're stealing the thunder of people trying to make you look stupid.

I feel part of the problem with gimmick builds isn't that they have no personality, but rather that they have no goals.

In the classic example of Sir Bearington, we have a bear who is bizarrely adept at passing for a human, but no reason *why* he bothers to do this. While funny on its own, the character could be vastly more compelling if there was a reason behind this behaviour.

Maybe Sir Bearington is trying to protect his forest from Evil, and to do that, he needs to go among the humans and rally them to his cause. Maybe Sir Bearington wishes to climb the political ladder, and one day be crowned King Bearington. Maybe Sir Bearington realised that humans are more willing to part with their fish, berries and honey if they believe he's a human too, and only goes on adventures because breaking his knightly vows would blow his cover.

These are all good motivations for Sir Bearington, and they all paint him as an actual character, instead of a quirky combo of stats and stealth skills. They give context to his actions, and give him reasons to show off a full emotional range, which is the key to creating a deep and engaging psychology.

Sir Bearington was a joke character for a joke campaign. Making him more complex ruins the joke. Do not be an autist.

I don't have many DOs, but Jesus fucking Christ...

DON'T: make your character's backstory involve some grand feat akin to someone of high level and/or skill. You're an insignificant piece of the puzzle when you start, deal with it.

I play a LARP and the shear number of characters who have killed an army's worth before entering the game, there should be no one left in the world.

DON'T: Play a character that, if given the opportunity, you would bang.

DON'T: Describe how "toned" or "endowed" your character is.

DON'T: Flirt with the GM. In character or by proxy, just don't.

You sound like this is from personal experience

Don't repeat your old character again and again if you're playing with the same group of players for each campaign

Do offer to DM a one shot once a year so your forever DM can murk some goblins

When the action gets slow, or your character isn't relevant...

DON'T: Pull out your goddamn phone.

DO: Doodle pictures of the party

Not everything is D&D, you know. Not every system has progression.

I get that he was originally a joke character. My point is that it wouldn't be hard to turn him into a semi-serious character, for a semi-serious campaign, without losing his humour. King Bearington and reluctant-adventurer Sir Bearington both have a lot of comedy potential. The fact they also have solid goals is just icing on the cake.

Oh, this is just about character creation. Uh

DO: Design your character and all his skills, advantages, attributes to make sense with each other. That your backstory explains how such a character can be. That it feels rounded and has depth to it.

DON'T: Hodge podge random skills and stats with no correlation to each other or to the character's backstory.

DO: Write your backstory to include some characters or mysteries that the GM can include in his quests. Express your desire for them to be included too.

DON'T: Write so much that the GM has no freedom to include them in what he already is planning.

>DON'T: Write so much that the GM has no freedom to include them in what he already is planning.

That is, if you really want your backstory to be a big part of the plot that is.

>DONT: Write too long of a backstory.
this is true. it's backstory, not your entire autobiography. have some hooks for yourself and dm in there, but don't chronicle your entire goddamn life up to that point.

Alternatively don't write one paragraph that just says where you've been. A backstory should be like drawing the construction lines of the character, you put forward a tiny bit of history, your motivation, and most prominent personality traits, and from there you develop as you go along.

DO: Pick a name that fits your character and the setting. If your character is down-to-earth, don't name him Zinzboople. If your character is a fancypants mermaid, don't name him George Smith.

DON'T: Use a Random Hobbit Name Generator

>DON'T: Use a Random Hobbit Name Generator
That's a bit specific. Any reason as to why you feel that way?

just dont

Is toned really a big deal? I've definitely used that before if I'm playing a nimble ranger with high strength, or some type of thief with high strength then I figure toned is just a good word to describe them. Is there a better word?

Shut up. That's not what you posted. A gimmick build can have a goal as you just admitted. Fuck off.

Fucking hell, dude I know your pain. In my LARPs we've got hundreds of these fuckers and it drives me around the fucking bend.

Oh, cool you fought off three bandits single-handedly when you were still a fetus and you graduated Mary Sue school before you could walk or read? THEN WHY THE HELL AM I ABLE TO BEAT YOUR ARSE INTO THE GROUND WHEN I'M PLAYING A MOOK ON THE MONSTER TEAM?!

reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

First one I got was "Jolly Chubb"

Yo, who's the artist?

Would play a character Jolly Chubb.

Toned is just one of those sort of salacious leaning words. It has a sexual edge to it. Like plump or perky.

Exactly.

Reverse image search.

DON'T : Make your character uncooperative and a loner. Quieter less socialized characters acceptable, but relying on everybody else to give a shit to actually keep your dickhead loner engaged is both placing an unfair burden on them and expecting far too much from them.

DO : Family life, ideals, goals and triggers. I don't mean triggers in the modern meme way, but coming up with things that strike a special chord with your character or that you just can't accept are good ideas that can lead to good interparty conflict and drama. These can usually come from family life and childhood or else from their ideals and goals. Saying that you're a paladin or what have you shouldn't define your character, how that interacts with you backstory and goals is what makes your character realistic and interesting.

I like the triggers thing, that's cool.

I second abstaining from the Hibbit name generator
This! As a one shot dm and a player i'm rumpled when someone comes to the table with twelve pages of backstory and hates the rest of the party for "not being into the role-play" The one in my group was mad i wouldn't let his green clad, blonde, half-elf be the saviour of the campaign. Despite his supposed magic sword and metal shield with a "very noticeable crest" upon it. Making a character is like carrying a good leather wallet. You can tell where it's from(sometimes) and what it is(normally) but it gains character as it's used and traveled. Making an 18 y.o(or equivalent) char is like the new, unblemished wallet.

Also, Do: interact in a town setting and feel free to split the group, you can explore with your character free of party judgement
Don't: insist that your group must stay together 125% of the time. It's assumed your characters are competent

Don't: Make the same character for every game.

Do: Work with the dm/gm on your character before making number for them.

question: what's the opinion on making jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none characters? i'm in the process of making a balanced character who has traits of being a rogue, a ranger, and a bard, but is not particularly great at any one of those things.

Depends on the system and how big your party is, along with what kind of a campaign your GM is planning on running.

In games where anything can come up and very few players, they can make or break a situation.

In a game where you know what you are getting from day one and have enough players to cover all specialties, absolute shit that will spend most of their time playing second fiddle to specialized characters.


If you are in a standard dnd game where you might run into anything on the road, rogues who can do a little bit of everything are pretty loved.

A character with 1 in all skills in shadowrun with abilities of 2 when you know the gm wants to armored heists is a runner dead in the first round of combat or never called on again.

DO: Try to make a character that is distinct from its class/archetype.
Instead of making a ranger that lives in the forest, shoots a bow and has a bear/wolf companion, make a ranger who's actually a scholar writing a book about animal and monster behavior, constantly reads a little guide called 'trapping 101' and has a couple of exotic animals all named by their test-subject number.

DON'T: Fill in stats and skills before figuring out the character.

I... what? Why are you being so hostile? I was merely suggesting how one could turn a gimmick build invented for a goofy joke campaign, into a more rounded character for a more dramatic campaign, while still retaining some of the same humour.

I don't see why this is such a sore point for you.

>DO
WRITE A FUCKING BELIEVABLE PERSON BASED ON ONE CORE CONCEPT, ONE SINGLE GOAL OR BELIEF, AND ONE CONFLICT/STRUGGLE THEY HAVE TO WORK AGAINST. EVERYTHING ELSE IS WASTED PAGE SPACE, SO DON'T DO IT.

>DON'T
TRY AND INVENT A FULLY FORMED CHARACTER WHO'S ALREADY BEEN THROUGH HIS STORY ARC AND WHO HASN'T FUCKING BEEN THROUGH 10 TRAUMAS AND KILLED A VAMPIRE BEFORE SOMEHOW MAKING IT TO LEVEL 1. YOU'RE MAKING A FUCKING ROOKIE, NOT A LEVEL 20. STOP IT.

ALSO, STOP WRITING FUCKING PROSE BACKSTORIES. IT'S A WASTE OF TIME, NO ONE CARES, AND NONE OF IT WILL EVER MATTER IN THE GAME. THREE BULLET POINTS, THAT'S ALL YOU NEED. IF YOU NEED MORE THAN THAT TO SUMMARIZE A CHARACTER BEFORE YOU PLAY HIM, YOU FUCKING FAILED.

The end. Fuck. Seriously.

DO: Make sure your character can contribute in some way. Most systems are fairly flexible, but there are just some things that can't be realized effectively and no one likes have dead weight in the group.

DON'T: make your character shackled to modern day worldviews. I wish this one didn't have to be said, but there's a number of retards out there who think people in 11th century England really care about their opinion on race relations.

>DO
TURN OF YOUR CAPS-LOCK

Cry some more, dicksponge.

Jesus... I found that most of my GMs liked it when I wrote like a two or three page short story about my character. It was usually something mundane, like the person in a scenario pivotal to his/her backstory. My GMs always loved that I was the only one who put even that much effort into it and loved my roleplaying ability when we got into game.

(This is mostly for GURPS, but similar systems would probably be the same) Do: Make a character that when I look upon its sheet I could guess what kind of character it is, not necessarily right, but at least partially correct. If I can't make sense of what I'm looking at, then it's probably not a character at all, but just stats on a sheet. You can throw some curve balls, but if your character is a "pacifistic" nurse (without the pacifistic disadvantage) who've never been in a fight, then having Combat Reflexes and Brawling 19 doesn't make any fucking sense.

Don't: This has already been said, but don't make lone wolfs.If you want to apply a bit of lone wolf paint, that's fine, but don't go "I'm of in the woods" whenever asked what you're doing, and don't just run away, stealth or scream at whatever NPC I make go out and find you for a bit of RP:ing. It's boring and I'm going to ignore you, because the other players are far more interesting and fun to play with.

>I found that most of my GMs liked it when I wrote like a two or three page short story about my character

Literally no one has ever liked that. They throw it out and never read it, because it doesn't matter at all.

What kind of asshole writes three fucking pages about their character, burying the details they actually want to matter in the game somewhere in there, when they could just as easily make a short, concise list of those key points to make sure the DM doesn't miss them or get them wrong, and not have to bother digging through your shitty amateur author crap to get to it?

I really dislike the fact that Rangers are now associated with Bows. I much prefer the dual wielding type. Also Robin Hood is not an archetype for a Ranger. He has nothing in common with a Ranger.

It's probably because my GMs were always friends of mine, but they do read them and ask me questions about them. They understand what I wrote and tell me that they like it, and, again, probably because we're friends to begin with. But by this point, you're just kinda being a dick. I wasn't really arguing, just stating my experience. So maybe we can just cut back on the "fuck you" and add a little more love, you know?

>Literally no one has ever liked that.
I don't think you understand the meaning of 'literally'. Some people would like that. I as a GM would actually like that. (Not the same user btw)

I feel you, but that's why I think we should move away from archetypes. A ranger can be anything you want.
All you need is [insert pic related here].

I agree on Robin Hood, he's obviously a thief. I think most people nowadays associate rangers with John Snow and Aragorn if they're smart or Legolas if they're not.

DO wait until other players have rolled their characters, then choose a class for your character that will round out the group. Most people end up RPing some special snowflake character that over-specializes or just generally doesn't fit into any group.

DON'T do anything autistic, like using a retarded voice for your character or RPing your waifu.

I'm glad you would like that. I'm the "shitty amateur author" guy, and I like you.

DO make a character interesting. Not necessarily unique, but interesting. They can be a runny-jumpy-shooty ranger who is quiet and lives in the woods and be interesting, and they can be a ranger who lives in a city, uses waraxes, and has bright blue hair and be boring.

DON'T make a useless character. You would have been droppes from a group a while ago if you weren't even a good sword arm.

>DO wait until other players have rolled their characters, then choose a class for your character that will round out the group. Most people end up RPing some special snowflake character that over-specializes or just generally doesn't fit into any group.
Thanks, now all my players have taken your shoddy advice and will not hand in any character sheets!

Alternatively, that's stupid as hell and only useful if you're some kind of vegetable that has no drive to play a class he likes. Lopsided teams can be fun as FUCK. Really gives your game personality.

>DO wait until other players have rolled their characters
But obviously not everyone can possibly do that in a party. Or else no one would ever actually make a character, constantly waiting for others to do it first. Wouldn't the problem here being the game getting too dominated by one person's active nature and another person's passive acceptance of it all? Not that you can really do much about that, I suppose. I've been in games where it's like pulling teeth with some people to get them to do their own thing.

>DON'T do anything autistic, like using a retarded voice for your character
A DM should probably have a few good voices prepared for some NPCs, though. Nothing too silly, unless that's the point, but a bit of a change up in vocals or vocabulary helps set them a part or add to the atmosphere.

He was just using him as an example.

I actually like archetypes, just be a bit more specific when you chose it.

I don't know about calling Strider a Ranger, D&D Rangers are supposed to have some sort of connection to Nature which I just don't see in Strider. John Snow makes a bit more sense but is also lacking in that regard.
I kinda feel like there are no MC Rangers in fantasy. I can only think of a few support characters that fit that description.

Do: Write one sentence and only one sentence about how your character feels towards each of their party members, starting with that character's name.

>Braham's temper puts all in danger, he can't be trusted to control himself.
>Paul is one of the smartest people I've ever met, and I will repay his kindness.

Don't: Confuse other characters with their players - just because their character has a poor impression of your character does not mean they have a poor impression of you.

I kind of disagree with this. People aren't just collections of thematically pieced together skills and talents. They tend to pick up on a couple things outside of their specialty for one reason or another. Now you definitely want to avoid both extremes of crippling a character by having as many non-synergistic combat abilities as possible and munchiny assemblages of talents from a dozen different splats that work together in unintended ways.

I think this works best in having one off-theme noncombat skill and I like how it differentiates a character from a theme. I also don't think it necessarily has to be explained. There is a reason why Gunther does interior design but it's probably mundane and not all that important. I just do think it's nice when a character brings something unexpected to the table.

>DON'T: Fill in stats and skills before figuring out the character.

Now this is one I do disagree with, but I can see why you said it. For me personally I like picking mechanics or abilities I'd enjoy playing with and then backfill the actual character based on the type of person I can see matching the description I laid out. I'm just not great at coming up with a character out of thin air but this strategy can be a trap for some players who just turn in a statblock and say, "Uhh, he likes swords."