Most role-playing characters are heroes, some are even super heroes, so it’s hard to imagine them being bad at anything. If you are working with a system that rewards optimisation (like D&D) it’s even harder. Such systems not only make it harder to build in a weakness they actively encourage you to avoid doing so.
It’s also good for group dynamics. If you can’t pick a lock you need the rogue. If you can’t hit stuff you need the fighter. If everyone is playing a Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Rogue then you have a party full of people moderately competent at everything who always fight to try and be the one to do anything. A little specialisation will make you awesome at something and the cost is to be bad at something else. In a sense this is the sort of optimisation I can get behind. Pick what your character is good at, and be good at just that. Trust the other players to cover your back with characters who compliment yours.
In some systems you are actively encouraged to take flaws and gain some points for them. It can be problematic doing so as you tend to pick them just to get the points for what you want, doing your best to avoid anything challenging. But such systems also recognise that failings and problems offer a chance for a more rounded and believable character.
In the A-Team (an American action-adventure television series that ran on NBC from 1983 to 1987), BA Barracus is scared of flying. It doesn’t make him less of a hero and doesn’t make him less good at his job of cracking the heads of bad guys. But every week the team has to try and find a way to get BA on an aeroplane without his knowledge. There is story and sub plot there as they try and trick, cajole or just kidnap their friend to get him from point A to B. Now this isn’t necessarily fun to do every week, so the GM just needs to make sure a plane ride isn’t on the cards every adventure. But despite being a powerful heroic character, BA is made more real with a little extra weakness.
The A-Team is a good example of flaws beyond B.A. Face has a weakness for the opposite gender and Murdock is insane. Sometimes weaknesses can be a little too much, so you might want to dial them down. But what makes the adventures of the A-Team fun to watch isn’t usually them taking down the bad guys but dealing with their own problems and issues as they do so. The fact they are being hunted and are unwilling to kill anyone might also be considered weaknesses, and both are a driving force in their stories.
Pendragon also offers good examples of fleshing out your character and creating story with weaknesses. The personality trait system means you are making tests not only to be brave, but to avoid being cowardly for example.
Now, no one wants to be the knight who runs in fear from a battle. But all human being make mistakes and everyone has a bad day, no matter how good they are. What matters is not whether or not it happens, but what your character does about it afterwards. Such actions create story from the shame of failure. Lancelot spends months in the wilderness, devastated by the feeling he has betrayed his greatest love (Genevieve) when he is seduced by Elaine. These stories are not just extra side plots, they are epics. The weaker the character has proved to be, or the graver their mistakes, the more epic the story and their attempt to return to grace.
So, when figuring out where your character is cool, find something they aren’t good with. For Indiana Jones it was snakes, Malcolm Reynolds (Firefly) couldn’t quite leave the war behind, Frodo wasn’t quite strong enough to resist the call of the One Ring, Elric needed a demonic sword to be strong, and even Superman had an issue with kryptonite. It is these weaknesses that help define these characters and makes them more interesting without crippling them. Give your own characters a failing and see what it takes your stories.
Why Be Bad?
Why be bad at anything anyway? Aren’t heroes meant to be competent? What’s the use of not being able to pick the lock or fight the bad guy? You might think that just sucks and you’d be right. In some circumstances it does, but that still doesn’t mean you should try and focus on a character that is good at everything. I’ll explain myself in two ways here, and appeal to not only the role-play aspect of your character, but the systematic part as well.Systematic Flaws
The systematic reasons are pretty simple. In most systems you only have so many points. If you want to be a fighter, you won’t be able to be a wizard or a rogue as well. If you can hit things, you can leave the lock picking and fireballs to other people. Spending some points to specialise and get really good at what you are meant to be good at will leave you unable to cover anyone else’s job. I’d argue that’s a good thing. You can have a chance to shine when your character is using their speciality, and someone else can when using theirs.It’s also good for group dynamics. If you can’t pick a lock you need the rogue. If you can’t hit stuff you need the fighter. If everyone is playing a Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Rogue then you have a party full of people moderately competent at everything who always fight to try and be the one to do anything. A little specialisation will make you awesome at something and the cost is to be bad at something else. In a sense this is the sort of optimisation I can get behind. Pick what your character is good at, and be good at just that. Trust the other players to cover your back with characters who compliment yours.
In some systems you are actively encouraged to take flaws and gain some points for them. It can be problematic doing so as you tend to pick them just to get the points for what you want, doing your best to avoid anything challenging. But such systems also recognise that failings and problems offer a chance for a more rounded and believable character.
Role-Playing Weaknesses
From a role-play perspective, a weakness is always a good thing. Sure, there will be a moment when your character looks like a loser sometimes. But if they never have those moments, they are two dimensional and just good at everything. To be honest, those are pretty boring characters. Weaknesses will make your character more realistic and grant you opportunities for storytelling. Let me illustrate with a few examples.In the A-Team (an American action-adventure television series that ran on NBC from 1983 to 1987), BA Barracus is scared of flying. It doesn’t make him less of a hero and doesn’t make him less good at his job of cracking the heads of bad guys. But every week the team has to try and find a way to get BA on an aeroplane without his knowledge. There is story and sub plot there as they try and trick, cajole or just kidnap their friend to get him from point A to B. Now this isn’t necessarily fun to do every week, so the GM just needs to make sure a plane ride isn’t on the cards every adventure. But despite being a powerful heroic character, BA is made more real with a little extra weakness.
The A-Team is a good example of flaws beyond B.A. Face has a weakness for the opposite gender and Murdock is insane. Sometimes weaknesses can be a little too much, so you might want to dial them down. But what makes the adventures of the A-Team fun to watch isn’t usually them taking down the bad guys but dealing with their own problems and issues as they do so. The fact they are being hunted and are unwilling to kill anyone might also be considered weaknesses, and both are a driving force in their stories.
Pendragon also offers good examples of fleshing out your character and creating story with weaknesses. The personality trait system means you are making tests not only to be brave, but to avoid being cowardly for example.
Now, no one wants to be the knight who runs in fear from a battle. But all human being make mistakes and everyone has a bad day, no matter how good they are. What matters is not whether or not it happens, but what your character does about it afterwards. Such actions create story from the shame of failure. Lancelot spends months in the wilderness, devastated by the feeling he has betrayed his greatest love (Genevieve) when he is seduced by Elaine. These stories are not just extra side plots, they are epics. The weaker the character has proved to be, or the graver their mistakes, the more epic the story and their attempt to return to grace.
So, when figuring out where your character is cool, find something they aren’t good with. For Indiana Jones it was snakes, Malcolm Reynolds (Firefly) couldn’t quite leave the war behind, Frodo wasn’t quite strong enough to resist the call of the One Ring, Elric needed a demonic sword to be strong, and even Superman had an issue with kryptonite. It is these weaknesses that help define these characters and makes them more interesting without crippling them. Give your own characters a failing and see what it takes your stories.
He's definitely not book-smart and he's pretty taciturn, but he's got a wife and kids back in Port Nyanzaru and he wants to help reduce the threat of undead and other monsters, and he's pretty good at that.
