Your party submits to the Plinkett test

>guy exiled because he believed in an idealized version of the religion, sells magazines, went back and became the jesus king of his people after killing their god

>a guy who was a slave soldier who became so bitter they made his a duke, and then he accidentally ended up destroying everything he was duke of with the help of his wacky sidekicks

>a guy who was forced to kill his own brother in a ritualistic honor duel and then left his country to earn enough money to pay for his brother to be brought back from the dead

>a masochistic interplanar dance sensation drug addict who is now just trying to start a family, and failing at it miserable

Our party consists of three,

>A man who prides himself on his and his family's civil service. His father is respected but never gained war-glory, something important to the character's culture. So our hero in turn wants to surpass his father in polis-wide respect and awe, inspired by the stories of heroes and personalities gone and past. Is something of a family man, though he has yet to marry (and is a bit late as far as that goes) and his desire for greatness acts as a driving force of the party when the second character's curiosity does not quite stretch that far.

>A woman who is exploring the world because her step-family unofficially drove her out through cultural precedence. She is the youngest of us and has a sense of curiosity and adventuring spirit that matches and competes with the former character's drive and desire for respect and a Name. She has a love of animals and nature, and is learning to acclimate to this strange new culture of built-up cities and politics that she finds herself in. This can be difficult, as she grew up with a love of a warrior's simplicity of form and desire.

>A man who is something of the big father to the party. He tries to temper the ambition of the first character with his own niggardly way of approaching risks, and tries to ensure that he and his live to see the next harvest. Compared to the others he is lazy, lacking ambition and a sense of adventure; but he is incapable of leaving his friends, such as they are, to face the dangers of this world themselves.

A troublemaker who is always looking for action and adventure. He'll stand up for the weak but has flexible morals when it comes to what he considers victimless crimes. If put in a situation where it's the only way, he would sacrifice himself to save others.

1.) An old man in a young man's body. If something doesn't directly inconvenience him, you're going to fight an uphill battle to get him to intervene. Loves pies, has likely replaced his blood with coffee by now.

2.) A hot tempered loud mouth, who is passionate to a fault. Is commonly the one that fights the uphill battle with 1, looking to make the city a better place for its inhabitants even if not directly connected to those poor souls that end up in the wrong place at the wrong time. Is also extremely loyal to those she considers friend.

3.) Is more comfortable running blind than planning every step. Has high aspirations, but takes the path of least effort to get his way. Has no moral compass, only goes where the money is. Always talks his way out of a fight, or runs away if that doesn't work.

did I dun did it? There's a few others in the party, but I can't exactly remember their characters and don't feel like trying to make mine sound more grandiose than he really is.

Yeah.

Describe the OTHER player characters.

>come up with an accurate picture on their own
Not unless you bundle a physical description along with the actual character description.

>An angry, brash, and thoughtful racist.

>a detached, cool, functioning alcoholic.

>a crass, obnoxious, daring tactician.

>Absolute social incompetent of a girl, no social graces whatsoever, likes animals.
>Intelligent scholar with no wisdom and too much smugness.
>Well-intentioned rebel who doesn't seem to realize how edgy he gets. No seriously this guy's not even trying and the edgelord is pouring out.

>tactician
YOU FAIL -1000 OUT OF 10 etc etc

>scholar
>rebel
same to you, or something

this test is stupid

Are you a prequel fan or something, does the name "Plinkett" trigger you because you loved Amidala and clones so much?

>this test is stupid
Depends on what angle you are used to describing from.

The point of the test is to look at the person purely from a perspective of personality traits, cultural biases, and motivations.

If their motivation is to become a certain role/occupation/thing, then that should be mentioned, but only in the context of it being a desire.

If their appearance is particular enough that it effected their upbringing and life, then that should be mentioned, but only in the context of how they were effected or where their personality is now because of how they were effected.

It's not hard, and it has a purpose.

Those aren't classes or abilities. Those are things they /do/ as a result of their own skills. You don't have to be a Wizard to study things, or a Rogue to have problems with authority.

To expand on this, why is this their motivation to become this thing? If you want to look at it from the angle of someone who is a workaholic or who only ever focuses on their career/rebellion/role, then WHY is this their primary motivation? Why are they a workaholic? Why are they a rebel? Why does that matter to them?

It's purely a matter of why. Who they are and what happened to them to make them the way they are.

If you're playing a person, coming up with answers to those questions can help inform you on what actions would be the most in-character. It helps make that person a person instead of just a role or a sheet with numbers on it.

>and they'll come up with an accurate picture on their own.
And it probably will be incredibly inaccurate because they have no clue what he looks like. Is he fat, skinny, tall, short, ugly, handsome? Is he poorly groomed or professional looking? If you are able to accurately assume the appearance of a character based off of their personality the character is probably far more one-dimensional than a character that you cannot accurately guess the appearance of.

>He's a cynical and bitter loose cannon who doesn't play by the rules
>He looks exactly like every 80s cop that doesn't play by the rules, tall, fit man, perpetual 5 o clock shadow, looks tired and worn out
Is a much more bland and boring character than the same who doesn't adhere to appearance stereotypes.
>He is tall and lankey, he makes a point to be well dressed and well groomed because he realizes that looks matter more than actions, he doesn't play by the rules but instead of going under cover without permission or beating suspects up he manipulates people using his unassuming appearance and clean cut look to get people to do what he wants.

Also
>Describe their characters to me as if I've never played DnD
So someone would probably have no clue what the hell they would look like since they wouldn't know their race, what kind of clothes they would wear, their weapons, how they would try to look. If you really wanted to describe a character to someone who never heard of DnD or the setting you should absolutely describe their appearance. Saying that he's an elf lets someone know "this is some kind of fantasy, the character is probably tall, thin, and lithe." Saying he's armed with a longbow and wears leather armour lets people know that its pre-industrial technology and he probably relies on speed, grace, and dexterity to fight as opposed to brute strength.

But why the fuck would I need to know if the character uses a bow or a sword, or whether ot not he's an elf? None of this shit matters, what matters is the personality.

>A narcissistic, sociopathic, greedy dilettante who believes themselves much more intelligent and creative than they actually are.
>A genuine psychopath who doesn't even understand that his terribly misguided attempts at maintaining the appearance of humanity only make him look like nore of a monster.
>A committed ideologue who cloaks himself in patriotism because he is fundamentally an outsider and cannot ever be relieved of that status.
>A weak-willed, spineless sycophant who has neither the guts to stand up for his ideas of good nor to actively endorse what he sees as evil.

I want to know more. Is there more?

Scholar and tactician is just as much a job title as prostitute or thief.

Technically you could use the words "scholarly" and "tactical-minded" to give a better understanding of someone's personality with people, rather than what they do.

(It's still a stupid test in my book)

>Appearance doesn't matter.
So it wouldn't matter if Legolas was a fat sack of shit? It wouldn't matter if the Joker was a massive slab of muscle who looks like he could rip a man's arms off? Why even mention "Describe their characters to me as if I've never played DnD" if appearance doesn't matter? The game system or setting doesn't change the overarching ideas of a character's personality. Case and point (not picking on him, I actually like his examples)

>One character is a father figure to the team and literally a family man. He's dry in humor and dialog, something of a food and drink snob, at times overly serious and a little impatient, but he makes sure to watch over everyone else around him, both physically and emotionally. He's the guy who throws himself to the front in hopes that nobody else has to get hit.
That could work for literally any setting or system. He could be a veteran sergeant in Vietnam looking out for the soldiers under his command who are barely kids drafted into the army. I have no idea what he looks like or what he does for a living, I have no clue what kind of setting he is involved with. If someone asked you about your DnD character and you said that the response would probably be "what does he look like?"

>tfw you think your character through but never get the chance to show off their traits without it feeling tacked on

You're overthinking it. The test isn't to determine fine details like that, it's just to determine whether or not the person IS a "character".

Their appearance, profession, setting details, these are all relevant, but they don't mark the difference between a 3-dimensional character with personality, and a flat cutout defined only by what they look like. IE: lacking "depth".

A complex character should be recognizable by the fact that they have features that aren't just external.

As the GM, describing my PCs

>spoiled, rich girl. totally selfish, with a real taste for power, unwilling to trust people in her new environment

>stalwart, noble, but shrewd man seeking to ferret out hidden evils. Fairly suspicious.

>tough guy McDorf.

>absent-minded, kindly, middle-aged lady looking for her family or perhaps a new family, somewhat distrustful of authority.

>terrified teen, running from the law, extremely defensive and judgmental.

They're all coming to work in a handsomely paying guard position out in the middle of the spooky scary forest, in the town that is a haven for weirdos and people with socially-disapproved-of lifestyles.

Then why mention "explain them to me like I never heard of DnD?" Even then its a useless metric since it just gives a very vague idea of their character, most of their character comes from their background, job, and interactions with others.

>He's cynical
>He's supportive
>He's nice
these things are so vague that they are pretty much worthless, your average fanfic OC could be described using this metric and not fire off any red flags.

The thing about the plinkett test is that it was mostly just there to show that the characters in Episodes 1-3 of Star Wars were almost entirely devoid of personality because Goerge thought "stoic and cool but occasionally snarky" would be a good character description for all Jedi and "occsionally snarky" only really applied to Obi-wan.

Luke for example is idealistic, curious an naieve a very prototypical hero character. Han meanwhile is rogueish, daring and kind of a fuckup. Obiwan (old) is wise, contemplative and methodical in his old ways.

It's more of a test meant to say whether or not your character is a one note robot who goes from scene to scene and just does whatever is necessary for the plot.

My character is a piece of shit, who lies, steals, and extorts people to get what he wants. What he wants is more drugs and booze. He has a knack for making money and a knack for losing it just as fast. He has no respect for rules and authority, but he won't go out of his way to antagonize anyone if it's not going to get him something. He entirely incompetent except for the one thing he's good at, and he's particularly good at that thing. He starts a lot of fights and can't finish any of them, and this is probably going to get him killed pretty soon.

t. person who can't read

My bad. You're an asshole though

5 psychopaths with varying degrees of social restraint.

>So it wouldn't matter if Legolas was a fat sack of shit? It wouldn't matter if the Joker was a massive slab of muscle who looks like he could rip a man's arms off?

>If someone asked you about your DnD character and you said that the response would probably be "what does he look like?"

You could just say "[Legolas] is someone who keeps fit, maintaining his physique so as to carry out his job of protecting his homeland better". That provides a good hint as to someone's body while also giving information about their personality.

"[The Joker] is someone who does not care for their personal appearance or physicality due to his derangements, though an odd quirk of his is to paint his face entirely white in an allusion to clowns."

This provides a better understanding of the character, greater than one would have compared to just saying "he's fit" or "he's wiry".

Well I can tell you that these characters are all vampires and that we're playing VtM in 11 AD.

The first guy is a con artist Cappadocian who, before being embraced, was also a serial killer who practiced human taxidermy.

The second guy was just some aimless loser before becoming embraced, but he was sired by a Salubri because he /seemed/ like a good person. That assumption was fundamentally wrong, and he has since become a diablerist.

The third was a Gallic auxiliary who fought against Jewish rebels and considers himself to be a true Roman. He was actually sired by a pureblooded Baali, though he didn't know it until later. He sees the Jews as Rome's greatest enemy and is motivated almost entirely by a desire to wipe them out, to the point that he's set up a paramilitary and quasi-vampiric organization to frame them for trouble and exterminate them.

The last was an unassuming merchant who was beat over the head and embraced by an unknown sire. He is treated as the party's punching bag since he's a worthless 13th generation Caitiff.

My character is a Brujah, and former legionary (who fought alongside the Gallic barbarian) though he was embraced for his martial talents rather than his dedication to some cause. He's almost totally disinterested in the politics and interests that drive the rest of the group, largely because he's got incredibly low Humanity (2, presently). I play this more as a naive Stoicism than depravity, and my character considers themselves to be very reasonable, but in fact this is almost fundamentally untrue, since he's so callous towards the crimes his comrades commit. I'm also more or less the party leader, and my laissez-faire attitude towards the rest of the group means we constantly attract a lot of trouble.

>A cynical, bitter man, disgraced from nobility. Wishes to tear down the establishment and abandon the old ways and God, as they do not care for the people in his eyes. Pragmatism and pure spite leads him down whatever dark path gives him power.

>A complete and utter monster. She's so desensitized to it all that only the grotesquely obscene gets her off. Has no pride or dignity anywhere, would stoop to any depth just to feel like it. Only ever does anything for herself. Doesn't understand the concept of caring for others.

>An arrogant, self-important shithead. Sees everybody as beneath him because of his family. Burns with rage that somebody had the balls to betray him of his valuable property and leave him for dead. Vain to a fault.

Left my character out of it, as requested.

Forgot to leave my character out of this one, but hopefully I did a good enough job of describing the other characters that it's at least not obvious who I am playing.

The first one.

Yes. Was it a guess because I'm more likely to put my own first, or is the character just THAT MUCH MORE filled out/described?

You know way too much about his backstory. As I've learned from years of playing DnD, nobody cares about your backstory apart from yourself. Especially the DM.

There's a lot of personal background stuff that I wouldn't expect to naturally come up in a conversation, and also some traits that are clearly yet to be actually demonstrated, like that family man thing.

>though an odd quirk of his is to paint his face entirely white in an allusion to clowns.
Physical description

I mean, with all the one-note, dish-water-dull characters that people make, it seems like a valid question.

OP didn't say it meant that the character was good, but it does suggest whether or not the character is utterly bland.

To be fair, the girl hasn't filled that much out about her backstory aside from the fact that she was unofficially kicked from her home, because she's playing someone younger, and the third guy is basically going "I'm a farmer, I had a normal life and serve in the city militia during war time like most men of the city."

But I will certainly keep the criticisms in mind if I have to do this again in the future.

>Describe their characters to me as if I've never played DnD.
Well, shouldn't be hard considering this isn't D&D.

Intelligent, tactical, and adaptable. Incredibly meticulous to a fault. Good hearted and believes in second chances (for the most part), but not necessarily "Lawful Nice", especially around certain types.

The straight man to end all straight men. Muted sense of humor, pretty level-headed, and helps leash the more spontaneous members

Spontaneous, the king of random ideas. Sometimes they're great, and sometimes not. Plays nice well enough, but does things his way, and we've learned to accept that. Taunter of eldritch horrors, he seems to have a knack for pissing things off

A murderous and jovial cunt, a simpering and holier-than-thou girlyman, and a bumbling jackass whose stupidity is a constant source of entertainment.

well this just sounds awful

>Describe their characters to me as if I've never played DnD.
Im running three games and none of them are dnd, what do i do?

A racist, stubborn old man with a fervent devotion to his gods that is not afraid of anything in his way. Equally devoted to his sons due to the loss of his wife years before.

A foreign nobleman with a shady past, but is always meaning to do well if a bit awkwardly. He has a tactful mind and tries to think things through unless action calls immediately.

A runaway bastard daughter of a highly ranked official of a far away country, with a vindicative spirit that deep down just wants to settle in a quiet life to give her family a better chance than she had.

Fourth I can't say much because she's a new addition that has a broken mind and doesn't remember too much of her past

Spiteful, Sarcastic, Opportunist.

Acts like hes tough shit and has a rude/sarcastic comment about almost everything, Is all to aware of shitty the world is and how small he is in it. Will jump at most chances to raise his perceived status and/or lower others.

Shit that was my character, I was supposed to say my parties.

My group is Freaking huge so Ill just throw out the ones who stick out the most:

>A manwhore more concerned with living life then dealing with ANY responsibilities

>A Warmongerer whose main concern is gaining power and keeping it. Not a big dick to those under him, probably because it it would increase assassination attempts.

>A guy obsessed with shows of Strength and Personal Freedom. Strong sense of Justice, (Player got balance card from the Deck of many things, so hes supposed to be "evil", but I dont think he has it in him and it mostly comes out as "am i invested enough to care")

>A Hairy Dwarven Sailor, Literally anything you get from that is correct. He wheres a his racial hat loud and proud, and then hot a new hat (actually a belt) that made those qualities Even stronger.

> A quiet pesron who prefers animals over people, even herself. possibly curious and scared of what she might find out if she looks inward?

>A jovial ball of "Fuck you I do what I want and I can *probably* get away with it".

He's surprisingly charismatic, despite the fact that he came back from trading with outsiders to find his village burned. It's just his way of coping with that kind of loss, I guess. That, and his exquisitely crafted bow serves as a physical connection to those that he lost, since it's been passed down for generations. He's hoping that during his travels to find the source of the fire that claimed his home

Five others.

>A mercenary that's just in it for the money. Likely to either betray the party or become the permanent leader unless someone stops him
>A big guy. Literally no personality
>A helpful guy that's extremely gullible. The guy that plays him almost never RPs though
>A selfish bitch. Only been around for 1 session so no personality has come out really, but the player is keeping secrets about her, so who knows
>A stealthy guy that has no personality

Honestly I would probably just pair up with the mercenary dude and join another campaign where RP is the focus, but he has no other time slots available

Our Kobold barbarian is a very seldf concious man, despite hos air of confidence and tough guy act he constantly needs to remind people that the minor god he champions is in fact relevant, and gets very upset when no one has hesrd of him.

Then there's the other three. Uh, our cleric is kind of innocent and naive? Our sorcerer has a thing for the cleric. And our druid is, well, she like nature?
Our party consists of two veterans and three newbies, and since I'm not allowed to describe my special snowflake.

Jacque
Scummy, rougish, and obsessed with his reputation on the surface, but secretly cares about the party and has really started to try helping others.

Siegfried Braur Von Eisen
Boisterous, merry, and honorable most of the times, but his age is catching up on him and he sometimes snaps. He recently beat a man into a catatonic state and is slowly falling apart.

Sebastian
I'd call him a womanizer, but he goes for the men just as often. Although it seems he just moves between lovers, he genuinely cares about all of them and would stay with any of them if being close to him wasn't so dangerous. Your typical "lover, not fighter", he'll always lean towards diplomacy and mercy, but is still an accomplished fighter.

Magnus
Very eloquent despite his background as a Viking. Loves telling stories of his people and sewing up the rest of the parties wounds.

Santiago
Aloof and slightly selfish. Now that he's working for a crime family he finally feels like he has a purpose.

Not describing classes and abilities seems kind of stupid. A person is not just what they think and believe, but also what they do and choose.

All these names are the character's real names. I hate my party.

Then Disnigh
He's an insane conspiracy theorist and a cultist of the Old One. Recently has been warning the townsfolk about the danger of the "taint" in their water.

Oromir the Forgotten
He's a retard.

Leeroy Jenkins
He's even more of a retard and he talks with the ghost of basically Genghis Khan who is trapped in his head. He is very devout, always knocks before opening doors, and once murdered a child.

Kung Pow:
He's Irish and drunk. Fond of sneaking up enemies while muttering "I am the nougat" and then yelling "get fucked".

Because the point of the Plinkett test is that if the entirety of your character can be summed up with "he's a bearded old man" or "she's unkempt but with an expensive necklace" and that's all there is to the character then the character is too shallow to make for a compelling lead character in a story.

The problem that was being pointed out originally is that in The Phantom Menace there are many characters who defy any description except what they look like and what their job is. Other than those features they don't have any consistent personality traits or memorable qualities.

Let's see...

He's basically attracted to absolutely anything pretty...
Aaaaand he is the duke of a small dukedom... (not sure if being a duke would count as a class in this case)
He's married to a snake woman?

Seriously, you know basically nothing about this character other than his position and his sex life. This test is TERRIBLE. So much of the character is wrapped up in how he looks and how changing his appearance changes how he interacts with people. His abilities are a big facet of where he comes from and his class is also a normally accepted English word that would at least get you on the right track to imagining the right thing.

In short, this system is TERRIBLE because it completely can't do much to get across a character whose persona is largely based on looks or abilities and is utter shit at describing characters who find those traits to be a core to their person.

Seriously, try to Plinkett test Batman.
Costume is out along with all skills. Somewhere between having money and control of a company his gear is definitely based on an ability of the character (either that or the utility belt is a costume).

"Rich guy who fights crime because his parents were killed and is definitely at least a little mentally ill" does NOT get across what Batman is.

Let's try a few more, each one or two sentences for a different person.
>He is a noble's son who gives major fucks about honor
>She is unpredictable and annoying
>He likes nature and dislikes slavery
>He is here to protect one of the women in the group. He very much dislikes slavery.
>He is in a leadership role. He is the son of a farmer.
>He makes monsters for fun and wants to be immortal
>He gets angry and hits things
>He is semi-undead and kinda a douche.

Seriously, inability to pass the test is pretty awful but describing a character under the parameters of the test is just useless. Here's another line for each that helps bring the character a whole lot more into focus:
>He wears heavy armor and tries to defend the others, often to his own detriment.
>Her magical powers often fly out of control and cause problems for the party.
>He is a healer who comes from a race almost unheard of in this region
>His race is quite often enslaved in this region and he often acts as our face when speaking to them.
>He wields a powerful artifact passed down from his father's time in the military before becoming a farmer
>He also has a tendency to turn into a monster to solve his problems
>I'll be honest... this one is pretty much a textbook rageaholic barbarian.
>He absorbs the souls of evil people and uses them to kill other evil people, perpetuating a cycle of justice.

Each of those lines was basically something that gives you a much better idea of what the character does but would have violated one of the rules.

A character who can't pass the Plinkett test is shit. A character who can pass it should NEVER be described by it.

They've all got pretty big sticks up their asses. Super uptight and go nuclear over insults, big on decorum and etiquette. One of them is decidedly less so, though, but doesn't talk much, preferring to throw in snarky quips from time to time. Another likes to tell cheesey jokes and riddles when not scowling.

It's L5R so that's all we've got, really.

>So it wouldn't matter if Legolas was a fat sack of shit?
Tolkien was never one to give many details about his characters appearance. With Legolas about the only thing he said was that he was a really well built dude with massive arms, and that wasn't even added until after people started portraying him as nimble and thin. Even today there's an argument about wether he's supposed to be blonde or have black hair.

So no, appearance really matters fuck all in a non-visual medium.

In our current game:

Guy who sounds and acts like a crazy old man despite nobody really knowing what his age is, the amount of time he yells "I'M LUUUUUCAS!" has become a running joke. (Never said anything about names)

Guy who is trap salesmen (profession, not class), does a lot of get-rich-quick schemes. Started off as one class, died and came back as the exact same person but with a different class, the group just sort of went with it.

Guy who sort of leads a loose collection of revolutionaries, loves sheep, still manages to be relatively joyless and standoffish to others.

Guy raised by gnomes, has an equally silly name because of this, half the party doesn't bother to remember it, fights with a trident, his nickname I won't say as it'd break one of the rules, but it has "bitch" in it, and he just sort of accepts it.

My character is there too.

The game that took place in the same setting before this one:

Rapist

Drug dealer

Bartender

Basically David Lo-Pan from Big Trouble in Little China except dumb

My character again (Pimp)

The test isn't to try to decipher who it is with the information. The more descriptive you can be, the better the character is.

I mean, It's also primarily a tv/movie thing, but still.

A naive, blood thirsty psycho who always seems to have things go his way.

A gruff but genuinely good guy struggling with addiction, who solves problems with his fists.

A strong and proud guy who is very loyal but who can become terrifyingly callous and bloodthirsty.

An intelligent fellow setting out to make a name for himself in spite, and to spite, his father.

A devout foreigner seeking to prove his worth to his people and organization.

>An angry, stern woman, who has little tolerance for those who don't balk at her bite. She doles out threats like they're going out of style, and resorts to violence a little too quickly, but it's usually all intimidation. Tries to do the right thing in the end, often suceeds without too much bloodshed. Dislikes liars, thieves, and deal breakers, is compulsively honest herself.

>A man who fancies himself a playboy, but can't quite back it up. Loose morals in regards to intimate relationships (his own and others). Doesn't like to see weaker beings hurt. Aloof and artistic. Often goes his own way, plays to the beat of his own drum, so to speak.

>A clever, squirrely little man, with no time for anything outside his own interests of astronomy, cosmology, and arcana. Brusque, but fair. He says what he means and means what he says. Often sticks his foot in his mouth, but doesn't understand why. Rude, and slightly megalomaniacal, but doesn't wish anyone who doesn't deserve it any real harm.

>The hero of his own headcannon. Naive and none too bright, but kind a brave. Trusts others to do the right thing. The heart of the party. Raised disciplined, but faltering against many of the temptations of this unfamiliar new world. Likes the drink a little too much. Taught not to start fights, but never backs down from a challenge.

Second campaign:

Formerly a proud and honest man from a primitive society, seeking to prove his worth to his people.

He was replaced by a simple brute who will set a goal and pursue it to the ends the ends of the earth but give up on it on a whim.

A violent simpleton who drinks too much but will throw himself into danger to save anyone.

A secretive outcast who has made bargains that are starting to catch up to her, forcing her to keep secrets from and act against everyone else.

A man struggling with his heritage and is always looking for the upper hand in every situation.

> Missing the point this much
The reason this test exists is to show that your characters are shit.

My character is OMG SO RANDOM and HYPER GENKI and is like ALWAYS making jokes

There we go, according to le funny voice bad movie man I have THE BESTEST CHARACTER EVAR1111!!111

>wise knight (can I say knight is general terms, it's not like paladin what is specific class) who while really loyal to his order he also is very critical of it and you could say he rouge/cowboy like member of that order acting against it's customs and traditions if he believe it is right thing to do or for good of said order he could be higher ranking in order if not for this attitude, he have a lot of patience even when dealing much crap, he fully believe in great power and destiny
>young knight apprentice, by contrast is more by the book than his master, soon to become full knight, he trust judgement and teaching of his master but he often challenge and argue with him, questioning some of his actions and taking side or point of their order, while still being noble and kind he is not above giving sarcastic or cynical remark
>girl who pretend to be servant of teen ruler of their kingdom she actually is that ruler who employ decoy in her place unless there are some official royal duties to perform, she can't stand be just passive and take part in action, joining group in exploring local town for needed supplies or fighting herself, as political leader she is to young and inexperienced often manipulated but she will not let herself or her kingdom to be push over
>member of semi-aquatic race, while rather unique member of his race, he twist other people image of that race if they judge it by his example what is rather not good, he is dumb and clumsy, he annoy everyone, his race exiled him and above mentioned knights question him being intelligent creature, but he mostly hurts himself and is not that much burden for party, just useless
>little, tag along kid, taken from his home and slavery because knights discovered great power in him and claimed great destiny before him, while have alot of impressive skills he is still naive kid, easy impressed, despite growing in shitty place as slave he is cinnamon bum style good and pure

You're violating the rules of the test once every couple of words, and you mostly fail at actually describing the party.

Yes?

The Plinkett test is retarded when applied to Veeky Forums

The test on Veeky Forums is "let me tell you about my character, but not his clothes or class, so its OK"

Applied to movies, the test makes a whole lot more sense.

Also, when you ask Veeky Forums if their characters pass the plinkett test, of course only the ones who think they're gonna pass are going to respond.

4 assholes and a pussy.

A manipulative, scheming megalomaniac who is willing to step over anyone or anything to get her way.

A cruel, greedy narcissist who indulges his every petty and sadistic whim.

A disgusting, ill-mannered wretch with a talent for survival, a breadth of useful knowledge, and a great aversion to bathing.

A fearless, amoral thug who has no greater ambitions than the thrill of savage violence.

These four are a walking blight on the land, bringing ruin and death everywhere they go. Those who do not submit are torn asunder and fed to the horde of monstrosities that follows in their wake.

That's why you describe the rest of your party, not your character.

It's an act that he does, that demonstrates part of his psyche, that coincidentally shows a physical appearance.

I'm the GM and this is my group.

One character is an atrocious flirt who has some serious attachment issues towards male human figures. She has a silver tongue and will always be looking to use it to her advantage. She has a tender side too in respect to caring for animals and has demonstrated an animal cunning at times too.

One character is a kinda ditzy , happy go lucky , 'hippy type' who is always overtly friendly to others and has a habit of coming off as pretty quirky and forward as a result. She's also in contrast to this an extreme temper which flares up randomly and violently and a very loose idea towards morality happily stealing if it suits her. Likewise has some serious father issues going on as well.

One character is greedy, wealthy and ambitious . He will do just about anything in pursuit of his goals. He however proves a strong ally as long as his goals and his allies are aligned, he will however always value himself over anybody else which makes him pretty selfish to boot and ruthlessly intelligent.

One character is a headstrong , dimwitted brutish type who is rather arrogant as well. Tends to want to resolve issues with his fists and has a love of food , just don't ask what the meat is...

One character is err protective of her people I guess... She needs to roleplay more.

One character is a fucking faggot who can't be fucked to roleplay at all so I can say nothing about him. I asked this shit during a tense scene where the players were entering a dungeon after a fight what he was doing and he goes 'eating popcorn I guess lol'. Prick.

Ugh.

This post is where I realise half my group sucks.

>This post is where I realise half my group sucks.

And this is the entire point about the Plinkett test, realising when characters suck.

Don't take it out on your players though, maybe they just like killing orcs more than roleplaying, which is sort of the equivalent of watching a michael bay movie.

Of course nobody would ever break that rule on an anonymous message board

Like how anons never turn to sarcasm to belittle others in discussions

Of course people will break it, but if they're not using the premise then that's not really an argument against the premise. An argument against Veeky Forums, maybe, but it doesn't make it a bad idea to see if your group actually bothers with characterisation.

I'd actually say most of the group enjoys roleplaying and a couple of members just don't at all and they drag it down for everybody. I'm probably going to ask popcorn boy to leave if his shit continues. The sessions he isn't there are so much better.

You are in the right about that, and I was wrong.
best post in thread

>Nervous and tired most of the time, but she is stubborn to a fault in seeking her goals

Is actually a human slowly being taken over by a parasite lodged in her brain

A cheery, kind dwarf from a prosperous, far-off city on a mountain. He is stricken by wanderlust and carries around great sheets of parchment, lots of ink and surveying/outdoorsman supplies, as his profession is that of explorer and cartographer.

Your party consists of two people?

Here's my party.

>One is a caring woman, she acts as the emotional and physical support of the group as she tends to all the wounds and inspires everyone with her words, she often attempts to negotiate but she isn't very good at reading the situation whatever it may be at hand.

>One is a man who has prided himself on his strength however he has died once and fallen many other times, he is damaged both inside and out from his first death, however he is a good business man often getting the party deals and selling whatever cargo they may be carrying at a slightly inflated price.

>One is a skilled hunter who is a bit racist towards anything that has green flesh and they suffer from Mysophobia, he is rather apathetic however and shows no sign of a personality even when noticing enemies he may not even warn his team.

>One is a librarian who has set out of her home land to gather more information to put into books for her home, she lacks common sense and is rather crude often ruining negotiations and even beneficial relationships for the party.

As for looks I'm just gonna give ratings in order.

8/10 amazonian beauty

5/10 noble beast

4/10 racist hunter

9/10 autistic bookworm

Socially inept hacker thrust into living in the underworld because the secrets she stole were far worse than the secrets she meant to steal. Moral compass for the group.

Ex-cop who turned while in deep cover after learning of corruption in the dept. Lots of underworld contacts means he finds work for the group and thus makes him the default leader. Helps that his cop roots make it easier for him to listen to the moral compass.

Ex-soldier with a lot of emotional baggage. Very willing to kill but self-hates because it's so easy for him. Conflicted about moral compass because she reminds him that he's losing his own compass and becoming a monster but appreciates that she keeps him sane enough to fight that monster... one day at a time.

Ex-soldier,redneck, prepper who is happiest following orders and in the field.

Another one, who fails the test utterly.

Completely missing the point.

You guys arguing are being really stupid. The reason a character's appearance and profession aren't necessary to say out loud in a movie is because you can fucking see them. Mike was highlighting how boring the prequel characters are. In a TTRPG, you can't see shit; if someone doesn't describe their appearance, no one at the table will know what the fuck they're looking at.

And appearance/profession can be important to a character, but it doesn't need to be stated to give an idea of who they are as a person. "Self-conscious" and "self-conscious because of a facial scar" is the same fucking thing. The why might make a cool story, but it doesn't change anything. Everybody's character has a reason to it, doesn't mean everyone knows why. Do you know why you're so bitchy?

Butthurt SDN user spotted.