Michael Morris
First Post
This thread is to discuss the character points article. Poll forthcoming to see what you guys thought.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Character Points I - Physical Description
- Thread starter Michael Morris
- Start date
It was a good read. Granted a lot of it isn't anything new to people who have been gaming for a long time. However, it was still well done and gives a more clear idea on how to describe a character in a more literary style than most people tend to do. I hope some of the people in my game group read this. 
greyscale1
First Post
It was well written and an alright article, but overall I didn't find it very helpful.
It sort of retreads the helpful information you find in almost any players handbook, and didn't really bring anything new or inspirational to the table. Maybe I'm a jaded RP'er, but even trying to look at this through the eyes of a novice, I have trouble seeing anything that would be difficult to imagine myself (or find in the PHB).
Generally articles like this suffer from this: While well written and containing some good advice, most people who would read it, or have a mind to follow such advice likely are way ahead of it, whereas the people who need the article either wouldn't find it or wouldn't care to read it.
Not trying to majorly knock the article, as it as a whole is certainly a good idea, but perhaps it might benefit from more exciting, completed fluff. You know - stuff that can be used right out of the box (with a bit of tweaks).
For Example: The list of adjectives and descriptors for hair was good. A simple list of words that are evocative. Bam. I would read an article that had lists for everything like that.
Another thing that might be interesting could be a collection of mini-hooks. Like small character tidbits that could serve to inspire both players and DMs, simple things, like:
Was severely burned as a child and horribly disfigured. Worked for entire childhood mastering the magic to create an un-malleable full body glamer. Eventually this was completed but at the expense of a childhood that should have been.
Boom! Evocative! You might then go on to suggest how this might effect his personality, or go on with future hooks like:
His childhood was dominated by pain and ugliness, and, obviously, feelings of inadequacy. He may be bitter, vain (His new body is likely handsome), or unvain (because of his life he ascribes little value to external beauty) could be overly confident, or totally unsure and underconfident. Maybe his glamer is physically perfect, but when touched it is possible to feel the texture underneath. This might lead to him avoiding being touched. This character can have a strong 'true beauty is on the inside' vibe. etc etc.
I think you get what I'm saying.
It sort of retreads the helpful information you find in almost any players handbook, and didn't really bring anything new or inspirational to the table. Maybe I'm a jaded RP'er, but even trying to look at this through the eyes of a novice, I have trouble seeing anything that would be difficult to imagine myself (or find in the PHB).
Generally articles like this suffer from this: While well written and containing some good advice, most people who would read it, or have a mind to follow such advice likely are way ahead of it, whereas the people who need the article either wouldn't find it or wouldn't care to read it.
Not trying to majorly knock the article, as it as a whole is certainly a good idea, but perhaps it might benefit from more exciting, completed fluff. You know - stuff that can be used right out of the box (with a bit of tweaks).
For Example: The list of adjectives and descriptors for hair was good. A simple list of words that are evocative. Bam. I would read an article that had lists for everything like that.
Another thing that might be interesting could be a collection of mini-hooks. Like small character tidbits that could serve to inspire both players and DMs, simple things, like:
Was severely burned as a child and horribly disfigured. Worked for entire childhood mastering the magic to create an un-malleable full body glamer. Eventually this was completed but at the expense of a childhood that should have been.
Boom! Evocative! You might then go on to suggest how this might effect his personality, or go on with future hooks like:
His childhood was dominated by pain and ugliness, and, obviously, feelings of inadequacy. He may be bitter, vain (His new body is likely handsome), or unvain (because of his life he ascribes little value to external beauty) could be overly confident, or totally unsure and underconfident. Maybe his glamer is physically perfect, but when touched it is possible to feel the texture underneath. This might lead to him avoiding being touched. This character can have a strong 'true beauty is on the inside' vibe. etc etc.
I think you get what I'm saying.
MortalPlague
Adventurer
The article is pretty good. The one beef I had with it is the part about gender... have you had a bad experience with players playing the opposite gender? Several of the finest characters at my table have come from a player playing the opposite gender, and they were by no means cheap gender stereotypes. I don't think the best you can hope for is comic relief...
Also, the final wording of your warning that not all players and DMs may like you playing the opposite gender feels very heavy handed. I can appreciate the sentiment, but you make it sound like something that's usually frowned upon, when in my experience that hasn't been the case.
Overall though, you hit a few good points. I like the basic appearance bits, especially when dealing with hairstyle.
Also, the final wording of your warning that not all players and DMs may like you playing the opposite gender feels very heavy handed. I can appreciate the sentiment, but you make it sound like something that's usually frowned upon, when in my experience that hasn't been the case.
Overall though, you hit a few good points. I like the basic appearance bits, especially when dealing with hairstyle.
Westgate Polks
First Post
While this article does cover much material that has been covered in many player handbooks and other introductory sources, it's focus on brevity and weaving additional details into the campaign as opportunities present themselves makes it easily grasped and used immediately.
I agree with greyscale1 that the list of descriptors for hair is very helpful and that having access to other such lists would make for an often-used resource. I don't how practical a list of hooks in the article would be, given that any short list would likely result in dozens of characters having the same "unique" characteristic; a more in-depth compilation of such hooks, however would surely be used a great deal.
The take away for me is that I will recommend new folks read the article (or summarize it for them) and ask them to make their initial descriptions accordingly.
I agree with greyscale1 that the list of descriptors for hair is very helpful and that having access to other such lists would make for an often-used resource. I don't how practical a list of hooks in the article would be, given that any short list would likely result in dozens of characters having the same "unique" characteristic; a more in-depth compilation of such hooks, however would surely be used a great deal.
The take away for me is that I will recommend new folks read the article (or summarize it for them) and ask them to make their initial descriptions accordingly.
I voted "No". That doesn't mean that the article is bad. It doesn't mean that I can see it being quite useful to some people. To me? No.
The main reason why it is not useful to me is that it goes against how I look at description, especially the literary kind. Let me try and explain:
If you look at descriptive techniques used in literature you will find authors who write with many details in order to try and share their own exact view of what somebody looks like, and those who just pick a few distinguishing details and let the reader imagine the rest. One of my creative writing teachers used to refer to that as "shovel faces" - meaning that the authors left the faces of their characters free from description, making them featureless like shovels. This way the reader would give the characters faces, and according to that idea be more immersed in the story.
Ok, you don't have to go to any of these extremes. Still, it can be a good idea to figure out how you want to do it. My technique in describing a character is more of portraying it. I start with personality, motivation, fears; add one or two surface details to help people imaging the character - and I am good to go. People might not see exactly the same character. And that doesn't really matter. Friends of mine who are of the other school of description often use a picture as shorthand, and then add a few details to make the character come alive.
The main reason why it is not useful to me is that it goes against how I look at description, especially the literary kind. Let me try and explain:
If you look at descriptive techniques used in literature you will find authors who write with many details in order to try and share their own exact view of what somebody looks like, and those who just pick a few distinguishing details and let the reader imagine the rest. One of my creative writing teachers used to refer to that as "shovel faces" - meaning that the authors left the faces of their characters free from description, making them featureless like shovels. This way the reader would give the characters faces, and according to that idea be more immersed in the story.
Ok, you don't have to go to any of these extremes. Still, it can be a good idea to figure out how you want to do it. My technique in describing a character is more of portraying it. I start with personality, motivation, fears; add one or two surface details to help people imaging the character - and I am good to go. People might not see exactly the same character. And that doesn't really matter. Friends of mine who are of the other school of description often use a picture as shorthand, and then add a few details to make the character come alive.
Ginnel
Explorer
I'm going to have to agree with MortalPlague on your comments about playing the opposite gender, you come off as far too negative about it, with the inference that it can't be done well ever, I would agree that you have to be mature and careful with it, and consider why you want to play a female/male or it can come off as comedic/insulting.
In the games I've played, players have mostly been male, and one or two of us playing females changes the group dynamic.
In the games I've played, players have mostly been male, and one or two of us playing females changes the group dynamic.
Angel Tarragon
Dawn Dragon
It was a fun read, but it wasn't anything I didn't already know.
Jack Colby
First Post
Not a very good article, sadly. It assumed too much about what was good or bad in a game, or what was desirable or pointless to include. It felt like a lecture, or worse, that the author was insulting me and my playstyle as somehow wrong or inferior. It should have been written in a different tone, one that suggested various approaches and viewpoints to the topic rather than make false absolute declarations of appropriateness.
Michael Morris
First Post
I think you're getting a bit jaded about the bad-wrong-fun debates that have raged across the board of late. If you are insulted by that article you need thicker skin.
Now that specific reply aside, several of you have noted that this is a bit 'basic'. Well, yeah. I want to cover the basics first. This is the first article in a series and more advanced topics will be touched upon as the series goes on. Allow me some room to lay ground work because I will be citing these early articles in the later ones to come.
Similar Threads
- Poll
- Poll
