A couple sessions have gone by. You got the rulebook, you built a character, you played. But it hasn't been what you were after. Your character seems flat, you haven't gotten into it. Except to argue with the elf. You ask yourself – did I do something wrong?
Your party built their characters, you played, but they are always going their separate ways or arguing. The thief doesn't even associate with the party except to drool over their equipment. Something has to change if everyone is going to have fun.
The art of building characters is not as simple as one might think. Every rulebook has the steps. Many of those rulebooks even talk about meta-gaming issues, background, personality, or whatever other pet theories the authors happen to have about what makes good characters.
But let me simplify it just a little bit. Good characters are those characters that are fun to play. Not just for the player, but for the whole group (including the GM). This may sound like just a trademark of a good player, but really, what great player does not always come up with good characters? Even things that seem simple or sketchy just seem to come to life in these players. They know how to make good characters.
And I am here to try and help you make better characters.
We are going to start with the basics: the seven rules of character creation. At least, the seven rules for creating characters in a campaign setting. (That is, where there is a group of more then one person, and there are going to be multiple adventures with the characters.)
Rule 1: The character must work in a group
Rule 2: The character must be fun for the player and the rest of the party
Rule 3: The character must be good at heart
Rule 4: The character must have a reason to go adventuring
Rule 5: The character must fit the campaign style
Rule 6: The character must have long term goals
Rule 7: The player must be able to actually play the character
The seven rules represent the most common (and most disastrous) mistakes that players make when designing characters. Sometimes these are just overlooked, or missed in the heat of character creation, but if the GM and the player can apply these rules to a character (and agree that they are in fact applicable to the character) then any subsequent problems lie on the shoulders of the player and the GM, not on the character. "But that's what my character would do..." is no longer an excuse for destroying party chemistry or backstabbing a fellow party member. The rules have been set.
The seven rules are broken out into three sections: Getting along with people (rules 1,2,3), character composition (rules (4,5,6) and "the final gut check" (rule 7).
Section 1: Getting along with other people
The first three rules apply to just making sure the character (not the player) isn't disruptive to the group as a whole. Essentially, these rules exist to avoid the Neutral Evil Ninja Assasin Drow (NENAD), and all sub-species. (Not that I am singling out Neutral evil ninja assasin drow as poor characters, but well, I am.) So let's go through them.
Rule 1: The character must work in a group
This is a logical aspect of the meta-game. You are planning a campaign. That campaign has multiple players. More then likely you plan on them being a group. So why let characters that dislike people or only work alone into such a group? In the most logical sense, they wouldn't go adventuring in a group and would hate it if they did. Watch out for characters that hate people, or are overly secretive and mysterious. Or classic thief types that never trust any party members and, in fact, remove trust from other party members.
Not to say these sorts of characters can't be played. But make sure that when the NENAD attempts to join your campaign, that there is a good reason that they would stay with a group, work with a group, and might even be trusted by that group. Obviously, this is a GM judgement call in the end, just remember the concept. If they can't work in a group, the character isn't going to work in a (traditional) campaign.
Rule 2: The character must be fun for the player and the rest of the party
One assumes that people play characters that they find fun. NENAD are usually considered very fun by the people playing them. But usually it is best to think of the other players as well. Are they going to enjoy this character? This is really the flip side of rule 1; rule 1 makes it sound like characters should be dull and boring and fit it. But we don't want characters ending up with desk jobs in cubicle world. We want the mohawk wearing, leather jacketed rebel. Sure, while they have to "be able to be part of group" they also need to add a different dimension, a different personality, and a different character to the group as a whole, so that the players have variety and spice in their role-playing.
Some players find this very easy. The rest of us struggle to make sure that our character is adding to the combined story, has good lines, or is just a fun personality that people enjoy and remember. And don't take this as meaning that it is a character's duty to always entertain the other players. No, occasionally entertaining them is good enough. In fact, it is much better, as people have the most fun by playing their own characters. If you want to ruin someone's fun, play their character for them (or prevent their character from playing – a closely related offense). This can be the fault of the GM or the player, but it is the quickest way to dissatisfied players and a point to pay specific attention to when designing your character. Now it is not always possible to avoid these conflicts, especially when you are unaware of other player's character choices, but keep it in mind even after play has begun.
Rule 3: The character must be good at heart
Now I don't want to be preachy or anything, but just what were you expecting when you created that evil character that truly didn't care about other people? Were you expecting him to be smoothly integrated into the party? Did you expect him to be trusted? Were you surprised when he caused party turmoil? When your NENAD decided not to open the secret door and try and save the party from the rampaging barbarian horde, did they accept the excuse that it was too risky?
D&D takes care of this by making sure characters are good or neutral. But I don't think that is truly enough. This is not a question of overlying beliefs. This is a question of will the character risk their life and livelihood to help another? This is about not being self-centered. This is about being someone that the party can trust when the ork dung hits the wind mill. This isn't something that you say during character description, it is something that you do and (hopefully) you do early on. If your character makes some sort of self sacrifice, even a small one, in the first session, the party is already on your side.
A lot of players don't like this rule, but it is the very last rule that I bend. We are roleplaying to be heroes, so design a hero or don't play. Every single hero in books and movies was intrinsically good at heart, no matter how otherwise messed up, or they weren't a hero. It is the definition.
Conclusion
In the next column I will continue the analysis of the seven rules with the remaining four. If you were intrigued by this column, you can check out my blog and role-playing resources at www.blackshieldgaming.com.
Until next time.
