What does it take / how long does it take to "get into" a character?

[innerdude]

I had an interesting experience a few weeks ago. We were building level 5 characters for a very, very short 5e, 3-session mini-adventure.

And I'm not sure what happened, but I somehow stumbled on a really interesting character concept and personality that resonated with me.

I ended up playing a halfling fey-pact warlock, but envisioned him as being a bit jaded, and a bit fed up with all of the "nonsense" and social niceties most people wear as masks, brought on because he was a widow, and his adult son had already left the nest to make his own way.

There was just something about the way I set up his powers and incantations that sort of made it easy to picture what this character was about (combat- and nature-skill focused, with Pact Blade and Shadow Armor, and Fly as his level 3 spell, to of course go with his ranged eldritch blast).

It was interesting, because it was really easy to play that character for those three sessions.

On the other hand I've created characters where I didn't even begin to know who they were for 6-10 sessions, but even after that never really had a full grasp on their internal mentality / attitudes.

So I'm wondering what other people's experiences with this are --- what system, group, or other factors combine to make a character interesting, internally realized, playable, and memorable?

 

[BookTenTiger]

I always try to pick a name that, when I say it out loud, puts me in the mindset, mood, or voice of the character.

 

[Yora]

I think a huge part is to make a character who really wants to be on this adventure. Either because doing whatever the party is trying to do is very rewarding to the character, or because the stakes really matter. The character needs to be invested in what's happening.
Characters who don't really want to be there and are annoyed that they have to do it are difficult to get enthusiastic for.

 

[Campbell]

For me to get invested into a character I have to be invested into their situation. What they care about, what their goals are, their relationship with the other characters and to the overall situation of the game. That can happen quickly if we put in the work right away, but often if it happens it takes a good deal of time.

 

[aco175]

Sometimes I have a concept but they start off like Phoebe from the TV show Friends. The first episode had her as over the top flighty and odd, but eventually it was dialed back to tolerable levels after a few seasons/levels. Some depends on how long the campaign is and how long I am being invested in the idea. If the game is a one-shot or two or three, then it is fun to play a type, but gamers lasting a year provides room for growth and development.

 

[Blue]

All of the groups I'm in are heavy RP. For me, finding the cadence and word choice and sound of a character's voice goes a long way. I have a concept of what they are like before play, but it never survives the first sessions or two perfectly intact. For example I had a half-elven paladin (ancients) of the elven god of love and beauty, and I had pictured him as a bit of a Cyrano-esqe twist, constantly giving advice to others to find and be with their "oen true love", but himself holding off. That part never materialized, but the noble background came to the fore more than I expected in a casual entitlement sort of way he didn't even realize, as did his distrust of the Tiefling in the party (with blessing from the player of the Tiefling - intra-party drama can be fun, inter-player drama is not). Other aspects of him did survive fairly intact, and new ones came about - like climbing onto the roof of wherever they were staying in Waterdeep because "the air of the city made such magnificent sunrises".

 

[hawkeyefan]

For me, this very much depends on the game and the group and even the format of play.

I usually come up with like a bullet list of elements or traits or background details. I tend to come up with a lot. This is a list of ideas that I think will be interesting. Sometimes I’ll actually jot this list down and reference it once play begins, other times it may just be my mental conception. I keep these in my mind when play begins and I portray the character accordingly. Some stuff will stick and some won’t, and I’ll cross off those that don’t, or maybe even add new bits that come up during play.

I also tend to be a “utility player”, in that I’ll try and fill a role that’s otherwise missing. This may be something like the classic “we don’t have a healer” in D&D, or it may be more narrative based, like “we don’t have a hothead” or similar. I’m pretty comfortable playing different types of characters, and I tend not to craft them so soecifically early on that they can’t morph a bit.

I tend to narrate in third person a lot, so voice isn’t as much of a concern for me, except if I specifically think it’s an important element of the character. So most of my PCs likely sound very much like me, or like me doing an impression of an actor I’m using as a model. I’m much more focused on their outlook and thought process than I am about their voice.

With online play, I’ve been focusing on some of the challenges of the format. So in my D&D game, my PC is a ranger who’s kind of quiet and focused (“I am an arrow” is something I jotted down in my list, and which I reference in play a lot). I made this choice because we have a larger group than what I think is ideal for online play, and because I find that when the game moves slower, it’s even worse for online play, so I wanted my turns to be brief and to the point. Not a lot of options….it comes to me and I shoot my two arrows and then it’s the next person’s turn.

 

[overgeeked]

And I'm not sure what happened, but I somehow stumbled on a really interesting character concept and personality that resonated with me...

I ended up playing a halfling fey-pact warlock, but envisioned him as being a bit jaded, and a bit fed up with all of the "nonsense" and social niceties most people wear as masks, brought on because he was a widow, and his adult son had already left the nest to make his own way.

For me, this is the key. Knowing the character a bit...their personality, some ideas of backstory, etc that kick things off. If I know that, even if it's not hyper-detailed, then the other decision become a lot easier to make, including the role-playing. It doesn't need to be any more than a few sentences at most...and I've found that longer is actually worse as it more confines and restricts the character rather than sets some loose guide rails in place. I like to play to find out.

So I'm wondering what other people's experiences with this are --- what system, group, or other factors combine to make a character interesting, internally realized, playable, and memorable?

Interesting, playable, and memorable all stem from at least partially internally realized...for me. Again, the shorter the better. Even just a general attitude and something that would make them go against that attitude can be enough. I think it's that contradiction that makes it work. Like the typically grumpy dwarf...who has a soft spot of dogs, or children, or is a baker instead of the typical miner. Though sometimes that will fall flat as well.

 

[innerdude]

For me, this is the key. Knowing the character a bit...their personality, some ideas of backstory, etc that kick things off. If I know that, even if it's not hyper-detailed, then the other decision become a lot easier to make, including the role-playing. It doesn't need to be any more than a few sentences at most...and I've found that longer is actually worse as it more confines and restricts the character rather than sets some loose guide rails in place. I like to play to find out.

I very much agree with you about not trying to shoehorn too much into a character profile/personality up front. There's a definite feeling out of a character's general persona as he/she starts interacting with the rest of the group and the game world. There's little details you start to see that would make more sense, or wouldn't make sense at all in the context of play.

 

[innerdude]

I think a huge part is to make a character who really wants to be on this adventure. Either because doing whatever the party is trying to do is very rewarding to the character, or because the stakes really matter. The character needs to be invested in what's happening.
Characters who don't really want to be there and are annoyed that they have to do it are difficult to get enthusiastic for.

For me to get invested into a character I have to be invested into their situation. What they care about, what their goals are, their relationship with the other characters and to the overall situation of the game. That can happen quickly if we put in the work right away, but often if it happens it takes a good deal of time.

There's a strong overlap between these answers, I'd think.

"Stakes mattering," at least in my experience, almost always involves connectivity to the game world through relationships and goals.