On making a memorable character

[Warpiglet]

This thread has helped me articulate my thoughts on this. It's nice to have a bunch of posters who think similarly.

I think for me having a character more in line with an archetype gives me more space to make them memorable in game. Fewer distractions. Also more relatable to others as we can all get to know the character based on what happens in game.



I know you quoted me, but your response didn't have anything to do with what I said.

I'd ignore you, but I can't.

I would clarify in my experience gimmicks don't last, but they can sometimes add to things if they are not simply annoying. In the case I mentioned earlier, I had a puritan sort of clerical feel with a character that used odd language and had creepy appearance (for a warlock who was deceived by a fallen angel and thought he was spreading good). It worked. People got a kick out of it.

More recently I made a hexblade and put tons into the story. Tons. Lots of decisions. And...

it fell flat. He is kind of there. I have learned you cannot force it to happen. I have had fun in both contexts of course, but all the strain, all the struggle did not make a super memorable character in the second case. We are only in the level 4 range, so something might still happen but it surely has not yet.

And its Ok.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This thread has helped me articulate my thoughts on this. It's nice to have a bunch of posters who think similarly.

I think for me having a character more in line with an archetype gives me more space to make them memorable in game. Fewer distractions. Also more relatable to others as we can all get to know the character based on what happens in game.



I know you quoted me, but your response didn't have anything to do with what I said.

I'd ignore you, but I can't.

Sorry to hear you feel that way.

The first quote I quoted because I think you absolutely nailed the entire core of the issue within those two passages. Every subsequent post on “emergence” and “interactions” bears that out.

But your statements regarding archetypes vs non-archetypes is pretty clearly pro-archetype and anti-playing a different way. And my position is that memorability arises out of in-campaign action not builds. Builds are essentially immaterial to whether or not a PC is one for the ages.

 

[Caliban]

Almost anything can cause a character to become memorable, if used properly. A specific build, a special weapon, a weird background, an odd quirk, their personality, etc.

But I think the most important part, the thing that underlies everything else, is being actively involved in the game. Being dynamic rather than passive.

You can have two characters with identical classes and builds and one will be memorable while the other will not depending on how they are played.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I agree that memorable characters are forged in play, not designed on paper.

Still one thing I find that makes it easier for me is to pick contradictory aspects in the Background. At first it may sound like a recipe for disaster, but people are contradictory all the time. The hero that is a coward right up until the moment he isn't is all the more memorable.

Having a flaw in direct contradiction of your Ideal or Bond becomes a built in challenge to overcome. Conversely the realization that the flaw will make your Ideal unreachable could be an interesting shift the other way.

Or just keep it simple. Having both: I love a good insult, even one directed at me and I blow up at the slightest insult as Personality Traits can lead to some great fun.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My cousin played a warrior character who had an aversion to blood. His stories about how this played out in his group are hilarious.

 

[Arial Black]

I'm quoting you, not because I necessarily agree/disagree with your post, but because you bring up things I want to talk about.

I agree that memorable characters are forged in play, not designed on paper.

I don't see an either/or here. PCs are not either forged in play or designed on paper, they are all both. This reminds me of the Stormwind Fallacy.

For me, both characterisation (fluff) and game mechanics (crunch) should complement one another, ideas bouncing between the two during character creation until you are finally happy with both and are ready to start play.

Will it be interesting? To other people?

In my opinion, 'interesting to other people' should not be the goal of character design. Sure, it's nice if other players think your PC is interesting, but it's not the point of RPGs.

For me, the point is to enjoy the experience of playing; but what's the surest way to that goal? First, THE most important thing is that you think your OWN character is 'cool'. YMMV on what you think is 'cool', but it's what you think of your own PC that makes you want to play this PC over and over again.

And sure, it's nice if other players also think that your PC is 'cool', but it's not essential. What is essential for them is that they think that their PC is cool!

Second, for me, it is essential that I'm good at what I do. I really hate playing a warrior who can't hit a barn door or a caster whose spells have no effect or a skill monkey who fails rolls more often than they succeed. The whole game would be one frustration and disappointment after the other. This means I have to pay attention the the PC's game mechanics so that a.) it can mechanically achieve success doing what it is designed to do, and b.) that what it achieves mechanically matches the concept that I am going for!

If I design a PC whose mechanics make it a superb archer for its level, I'd be unhappy if the concept of the character was to be the best caster I could be! How many times have I seen players deliberately choosing to play, say, the party face whose design simply doesn't do the job. They get frustrated because whenever they try to do what they were designed to do, it fails! The rest of the party feel frustrated too.

As an example of how I design to achieve these goals, I'm in the middle of conceptualising a replacement for my current PC in case of his untimely death. It usually takes me a couple of weeks from beginning to end to come up with a PC whose fluff and crunch are 'cool' enough for me, so I want to get a head start. I can't complete this PC though, because I don't yet know what level my current PC will be if and when he dies (and therefore my replacement's level), and I obviously cannot roll the replacement's stats yet.

I want to try the hexblade. My current PC is the only proper melee warrior in our party: Bar 1/War (fiendish bladepact) 5 right now, whose role is that of a melee striker (no eldritch blast for me!), alongside a rogue (thief), a Raven Queen tomelock polymorphed into a cat (don't ask!), and an arcane archer. This means that my replacement PC must also be mainly melee. Fortunately for me, this is my favourite kind of PC to play.

Looking at the hexblade rules I come across the 6th level ability to create a spectre (that lasts until the end of my next long rest) from someone I just killed. I'm not really sure how that fits in, so I think about it for a couple of days. Suddenly, I get inspired! (this is my usual process, BTW) A Valkyrie! A Chooser of the Slain! How cool is that? Now I can fluff that weird spectre ability, and build my whole PC not around that mechanical ability but around the whole Valkyrie/Chooser of the Slain concept!

Great! But I still-and this is the part that is relevant to this thread-I still have to make sure that the mechanics support that concept. There are various ways I could do this that would still make sense, and I could pick any of them. But there are many more ways that would not make sense at all!

So, I'm going to be an aasimar. I know half-elf would be mechanically better, but aasimar are still a fair match for what I want to do mechanically, and (crucially) it matches the concept of a divine spark necessary to capture the idea of Odin's semi-divine Choosers of the Slain.

Class-wise, I can either go full hexblade or I can multi-class with vengeance paladin. Either would work for the concept, and either would produce a mechanically sound melee specialist with sufficient other stuff which would both support the concept and have utility in play.

For example, I'm imaging The Ride of the Valkyries as horses galloping through the air. Simples! At Pal 5 I can cast find steed to get a warhorse which I will fluff as on offspring of Odin's own eight-legged horse, Sleipnir. I can even say that when you see it gallop out of the corner of your eye it seems like it has eight legs, but when you turn to check it has the standard four. At War 5 I will choose fly, and when I cast it on myself it will also affect the horse. And there you have a horse galloping through the air!

I think this is cool. I hope the other do too, but that is not the point.

Will they find her 'memorable' or 'interesting'? I don't know. I cannot know until I actually play her. But 'memorable/interesting' is not really the point, it's just a nice bonus if it turns out that the other players think so.

Still one thing I find that makes it easier for me is to pick contradictory aspects in the Background. At first it may sound like a recipe for disaster, but people are contradictory all the time. The hero that is a coward right up until the moment he isn't is all the more memorable.

Having a flaw in direct contradiction of your Ideal or Bond becomes a built in challenge to overcome. Conversely the realization that the flaw will make your Ideal unreachable could be an interesting shift the other way.

Or just keep it simple. Having both: I love a good insult, even one directed at me and I blow up at the slightest insult as Personality Traits can lead to some great fun.

I agree with you here. I hate playing cardboard cutout stereotypes!

A recent 5e PCs of mine is a berserker barbarian with the noble background, who is from Waterdeep, is super-civilised, and who hasn't wandered around in a fur loincloth in his life! He does have some anger management issues though...!

Another concept is a zealot barbarian (again, not a loincloth in sight!) based on the WildStorm comics character Zealot. It may be hard to believe, but the name is just a coincidence. She has the acolyte background, and was left on the steps of a temple of Tyr and raised by them. She was taught a secret fighting style involving going into a kind of battle-trance (re-fluffed Rage), and bases her actions around the sacred precepts of Tyr. She is always serious, never smiles, and personifies the recent 'Resting Bitch Face' meme, even though she is compassionate as well as fierce in battle.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

More recently I made a hexblade and put tons into the story. Tons. Lots of decisions. And...

it fell flat. He is kind of there. I have learned you cannot force it to happen. I have had fun in both contexts of course, but all the strain, all the struggle did not make a super memorable character in the second case. We are only in the level 4 range, so something might still happen but it surely has not yet.

And its Ok.

One of the most important things a PC background can do is provide the GM with plot hooks.

However, another important aspect- at least to me- is that it is a guide and check on how I build the character. Just like it would explain why a PC came to a decision to spare or slay a foe, background can also explain why he/she/it chose a class, feat, power, spell, gear or even mastered a particular skill.

And sometimes, as you say, that can all be for naught...at least in the broader context of how your fellow players view your character. But I think, from the perspective of looking out through the eyes of the PC, it feels better to play.

 

[Warpiglet]

One of the most important things a PC background can do is provide the GM with plot hooks.

However, another important aspect- at least to me- is that it is a guide and check on how I build the character. Just like it would explain why a PC came to a decision to spare or slay a foe, background can also explain why he/she/it chose a class, feat, power, spell, gear or even mastered a particular skill.

And sometimes, as you say, that can all be for naught...at least in the broader context of how your fellow players view your character. But I think, from the perspective of looking out through the eyes of the PC, it feels better to play.

Yeah--and I think all of those things are important on the front end as well. For example, I love backgrounds and such. They are not worthless by any means.

However, I have found that all characters have a background (which helps me get immersed when I play at least) but they do not all end up as shining stars among heroes. Many characters don't get talked about after a campaign is over...a few do...and that does not seem to be totally controllable.

 

[Oofta]

What makes characters memorable to me is that I believe in and am invested in the character. Without that, nothing else matters. If a character is just a collection of stats (good, bad or indifferent it doesn't matter) then they aren't going to be memorable. Just that PC with a funny accent but no personality?

That may include a deep backstory that guides the PCs actions throughout their career, it may include a background as simple as "second son of a farmer who had an uncle who taught him the basics of fighting and gave him some starting gear".

But there has to be something fairly simple and straightforward about the character that exemplifies who they are. I think that's something that's true of all characters, whether they're a character in a D&D game or a TV show. There can be a fair amount of complexity about the character. For example I remember Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory because his character has memorable quirks even if sometimes they do border on being a caricature.

So if I want a character (whether PC or NPC) to be memorable I have to have something to make them stand out. That has very little to do with character build or effectiveness in combat.

On a related note, running a memorable character is not always a good thing. We had a guy in a past campaign that played a character that was just a pain in the ass. Always saying the wrong thing during negotiations just to piss the other side off, initiating combat when it wasn't necessary, playing "practical jokes" on other PCs with the goal of pissing them off, etc. He was memorable. The group also breathed a sigh of relief whenever he couldn't make a game. The character may have worked for some groups, but just remember that nobody likes hanging out with a jerk even if it is "just being your characer".

 

[Lanefan]

I don't see an either/or here. PCs are not either forged in play or designed on paper, they are all both. This reminds me of the Stormwind Fallacy.

For me, both characterisation (fluff) and game mechanics (crunch) should complement one another, ideas bouncing between the two during character creation until you are finally happy with both and are ready to start play.

To a point, but if it comes down to having to choose I'll take fluff over mechanics; in part because I don't see the need for every little thing about a character concept to be reflected in its mechanics.

Will it be interesting? To other people?

In my opinion, 'interesting to other people' should not be the goal of character design. Sure, it's nice if other players think your PC is interesting, but it's not the point of RPGs.

Here I quite disagree.

I see it as being my job as a player at the table to entertain the other players and the DM, and I reasonably expect to be entertained by them in return. The easiest way to be entertaining is through the character I play.

For me, the point is to enjoy the experience of playing; but what's the surest way to that goal? First, THE most important thing is that you think your OWN character is 'cool'. YMMV on what you think is 'cool', but it's what you think of your own PC that makes you want to play this PC over and over again.

And sure, it's nice if other players also think that your PC is 'cool', but it's not essential. What is essential for them is that they think that their PC is cool!

I could easily come up with a character that would - to me - be the coolest thing I've ever played.

But it would sure rile up all the other players at the table!

Second, for me, it is essential that I'm good at what I do. I really hate playing a warrior who can't hit a barn door or a caster whose spells have no effect or a skill monkey who fails rolls more often than they succeed. The whole game would be one frustration and disappointment after the other. This means I have to pay attention the the PC's game mechanics so that a.) it can mechanically achieve success doing what it is designed to do, and b.) that what it achieves mechanically matches the concept that I am going for!

I'm not concerned about being particularly good at what I do - I'm no optimizer by any means - and being anything other than good enough to get by takes some serious effort at self-gimping in today's game.

If I design a PC whose mechanics make it a superb archer for its level, I'd be unhappy if the concept of the character was to be the best caster I could be! How many times have I seen players deliberately choosing to play, say, the party face whose design simply doesn't do the job. They get frustrated because whenever they try to do what they were designed to do, it fails! The rest of the party feel frustrated too.

These sound like examples of self-gimping.

If I'm looking to play a caster then I'm going to do the basic things to make it a decent caster - put the best stat into Int rather than Dex, for example - but I'm not going to sweat it if someone else in the party is smarter than me, nor am I going to drill down and push every little mechanic towards making me a better caster (unless I'm playing 3e, which - sadly - demands this).

Lanefan