What's an "interesting" character anyway?

[Odhanan]

i agree with you entirely on the other matter, about races dont need to be interesting. too many people want their characters to be amazing creatures from entirely crazy backgrounds. call me old school but i like playing your good old human fighter who took up his pitchfork and set out from the farm when he came of age to seek his fortune in nothing but leather armor and a wagon wheel shield. to me thats a hell of a lot more exciting. makes you think about where that grizzled ole veteran you meet in the tavern came from.
my group used to only play elves but i did away with racial adjustments after the next TPK and told them (amidst whining and complaining) that i want them to play a character because they want to. to this day they congratulate me and their character are not nearly as bland. too many people want to play strategically and not enough want to truly role play, which is the heart of the game.

I reproduce this post of BroccoliRage here. When I read this in the thread about hobbits vs. kenders, it made me think: what's an interesting character, anyway? See this post as some kind of comment we can build on. Any discussion/comment is welcome.

As a DM I want to see the players interested in their characters. As a player, I have to be interested in my character and my fellow players' to better enjoy the game itself as well as the events we are playing out.

Which brings me to this notion that a race wouldn't "need to be interesting". In my opinion, any game element, be it a race, class, feat, that is potentially used by PCs has to be interesting to create a panel of choices from which to create your character. Your character has to be interesting to you and contribute to the game for you, as a player, to feel somehow involved in the game and triggered by its events.

Nobody wants to play uninteresting alter-egos in a fantasy world.

But where it seems there is a break in our opinions is what we find interesting or not interesting. I think a farmer becoming a fighter can be a very, very interesting character to play. Actually, I am kind of a fighter lover when it comes to core D&D.

Some players may consider that an interesting character has to have cool powers, wings, a dark skin, an uber, elemental arrows-creating bow, one foot long ears/horns or whatever you can think of in terms of appearance and visual effects in the game. Others will consider the game immersion, others yet the drama a character can create in-game, and yet, yet others will think in terms of tactical combinations and rules combinations.

Don't get me wrong. In my opinion, there's nothing telling about the so-called maturity or not of our fellow gamers in the way they choose their characters to be cool. For me, a character can be interesting in a vast variety of ways, which includes all the above-mentioned examples and (way) more. Looking down at one style or another is just a way of saying "my style is more mature", i.e. "better than yours", i.e. "look at me: I'm so better than you".

We all are searching for different things in RPGs. We play RPGs for different reasons. I may sound very cheesy but, why the hell can't we get along?

If we find a style of character interesting and not another, fine. But just thinking "this way or this way to create a character or play the game is just lame" is an opinion that hurts other gamers. Saying "it's just an opinion" doesn't do anything for the one who feels targeted by a bitter opinion. The same way, just saying "hey but I'm not targeting anyone" is either ignorant or hypocritical. Yes it does target people who enjoy the style you say sucks, whether you want it, like it or not!

I think that what I'm trying to get at is: "interesting" is a word that has a different meaning for each and everyone given our tastes, opinions, likes and dislikes. And it's okay to be different.

 

[Crothian]

Interesting to me is something between a player and his character. THe player musty thingk the character is interesting so he plays him week in and week out and doesn't get bored with him. It does matter a bit what the DM and other players thingk, but it doesn't matter what anyone out of the group thinks.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Interesting characters are not what you start with but what you want to do with them AFTER you start. Thus the "uninteresting" background is not what is going to make a character uninteresting. It only becomes uninteresting if as the player of the character you don't much care about seeing what happens to him from that point forward, how he moves forward toward whatever goals or interests you set for him, or even as he SEEKS long term goals and interests.

You can have the most detailed, deep, comprehensive background, set of skills, a full spellbook, multiple templates, background plot hooks dripping off of you like water off of a ducks back, and it all means crap if you have no idea where to take it when you're no longer dictating his life onto paper but reacting to the unknown in media res.

And it doesn't matter if I think a given approach to playing the game is lame. It doesn't matter if I try to convince others that my way is better. It only matters when someone stupidly assumes that in my attempt to bring them round to the dark side of my opinion that I have some Sith-like power to interfere with their game and ruin it for them. I can tell you all day, every day that hack-and-slash is a lame way to play, but you don't have to listen or give my words any more weight than you want. If I'm not running or playing in your game I have no power over it and even if I INSIST THAT YOU ARE DEAD WRONG what I say doesn't really matter to your game unless you want to let it.

 

[Jackelope King]

An interesting character only needs 3 things:

- The ability to interact in interesting ways with other characters (both PC and NPC), whether this be in the form of a funny accent, a loveable personality, or interesting quirks. This could be as limited as yelling corny catch-phrases while hacking through another room of orcs or detailed enough to get you an interview on Inside the Actor's Studio.
- An interesting approach to conflict resolution (whether that conflict be combat, battles of wit, or whatever). This is why many people focus on the combat abilities of their characters: combat is the most commonplace form of conflict across so many genres that it is one conflict almost all characters will experience, and players want to make that conflict fun.
- Some motivation to accomplish something with relation to the game. If nothing is motivating your character to do anything, then what's motivating you to play that character? It could be as simple as "Ale & Whores" or as detailed as reuniting a family torn apart by treachery, distrust, and war.

Everything else is just window-dressing. Often fun window-dressing, but window-dressing nonetheless.

 

[krunchyfrogg]

Interesting thread!






(Seriously, this is a good discussion)

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

'Interesting' to me is three-dimensionality. The character has to have depth and personality, and I find the whackier the background, the more two-dimensional the character. Me getting wild and whacky is playing a half-elf.

 

[GuardianLurker]

I like the other definitions in this thread. Strangely enough, I think the more common definitions of "interesting" are the ones derided by BR in his post. To wit:

*characters with unusual class/race/setting combos. Many times this devolves into munchkinism and power-gaming, but it needn't necessarily.
*characters with useful (and/or many) plot hooks that the GM can use. Often, this leads to crazy drama-queen backgrounds, but again, it needn't necessarily.

In both of those cases, it's the extreme behavior that causes the problematic perceptions.

The other examples I've seen here, I'd considered "fully fleshed" characters; such are usally more enjoyable to play (and to play with), but again, not necessarily.

Ultimately, of course, no character is "interesting" to anyone other than its player, and possibly its player's fellows. Certainly, almost no complete stranger is going to find the character interesting. Mind you, if you *can* make your character interesting to a complete stranger, you should probably start writing novels.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

But where it seems there is a break in our opinions is what we find interesting or not interesting. I think a farmer becoming a fighter can be a very, very interesting character to play. Actually, I am kind of a fighter lover when it comes to core D&D.

It's hard to make such a character in DnD, however. (It's doable, of course, but a fighter who puts ranks in Profession [farmer] doesn't really "feel" any different from another fighter, especially since he's wearing full plate and isn't wielding an agricultural weapon.)

As for backstories, I think they're a little overrated, especially if you start at 1st-level. I think my DM had the right idea - ask for backstories a few sessions into a campaign, when characters have developed and aren't just an idea in a player's head.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

What makes an interesting character?

For me, the easiest way of making an interesting character is making them different from most of the other people around them. As such, I suppose you need a handful of "normal" characters around to spring off of. Dealing with someone who has a different or strange perspective on some things but normal on others makes for an "interesting" character.

In the end I suppose it all comes down to a level of conflict either inward and/or outward that builds character complexity and thus interest. I based my character Lucifus Cray exactly upon this - see Story Hour in sig. for more details. To exemplify, straight away, the alienist and his barbarian half-orc oaf of a cohort are at almost immediate discord with the rest of the party. Not so ridiculous that they don't fit in at all but more the square peg in the round hole type of not fitting in. For them to work as an interesting addition to the party, the biggest factor was that the majority of the party were so straight - knightly, priestly and so on. If they had have been half crazy weird whackos too, then Lucifus Cray would have actually been quite average.

(In this case, playing a straight priest hanging around amongst a bunch of weirdos would have been the more interesting path).

Is this the only way to make an interesting character? Of course not. It is a pretty reliable method though.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Zappo]

I don't know what makes something interesting. If I knew, I'd be busy getting very rich by now.

I know of a few general principles, though.

• Interesting mechanics only stay interesting for a short while, generally between one and three sessions. This covers the vast majority of half-dragon vampire drow initiate of the sevenfold veil characters. You wanted to make a character with DR and spell-like abilities; but after a few combats, that isn't new anymore and you're left with a freak, conceptually identical to all other freaks, with nothing original at all.
• Interesting character quirks and shticks can last longer, if used with moderation. If overused, they quickly either get old, or get annoying, or both. This last case, again, covers the vast majority of half-fiend shambling mound blackguards. You wanted to make a character that constantly speaks with his internal organs and has four eyes; but after a couple of adventures that just fades to the background 'cause everyone has got the message already and just wants to get on with the adventure - and you're left with just a freak, again.
• Interesting character motivations and backstories can last even longer. But they don't last forever. Especially if the player wrote them just to get extra CP/XP/AP/whateverP at character creation, and then forgot about them, and especially if, while being interesting indeed, they have basically no bearing on the present situation. These last cases cover the innumerable variants of "single child, orphan, grown in the street, no friends". Oh, and the various contrived excuses for the existance of a half-warforged awakened dire ferret assassin/loremaster.

So, if you want an interesting character that stays interesting forever, you should ask yourself:

• Would the character stay at least somewhat interesting if it had the same aspect, personality, and background, but the mechanical abilities of a single- or dual-classed human?
• Would the character stay at least somewhat interesting if it had the same aspect, personality, and background, except for the handful of odd mannerisms that it uses at least five times per session?

If the answer to either is no, chances are that your character concept is entirely based on something that is doomed to get old quick.

After that acid test, you're not clear yet. In order to make a character stay interesting, it has to evolve with time. The game system provides for mechanical advancement automatically, which is good but not enough to keep a character fresh. Relate the challenges the character faces to his own background, and see how they would change his mindset. If your background doesn't relate to any foreseeable challenge, then your background is bloody useless. This is the case of the various amorph single-child-orphan backgrounds, but it is also the case of a multitude of backgrounds that simply relate a chronicle of what happened to a PC without describing his feelings about it.

So here I have a list of "don't"s. Well, I did say that I didn't have the magic recipe. But this is my opinion, I hope it helps.