Jedi Council Forums - The Character Designers Guild

Jedi Council Forums » Role Playing » Role Playing Resource »

Post Reply | Active Topic Notification | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

« 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: The Character Designers Guild
LightWarden Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 9/10 8:49am Subject: RE: The Character Designers Guild
	Team brainstorming before the game actually begins and people submit their sheets is something I'd recommend anyways, since it allows you to build characters who cover each others' weaknesses and can build up relationships so it's not just "a bunch of dudes who have never met before, off to go do some dude things." This is especially useful if it's some sort of team mission game, though you could still get some mileage out of it in other games. -----signature----- CDG Guild Master Strange how one small thing can determine the fate of so many... especially if it's a twenty-sided die The Internet is SERIOUS BIZNESS! It's all fun and games until someone loses a leg. TF.N RPGs: Less fun than pretending to have sex
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
darthramza Registered: Jul '08	Date Posted: 9/10 9:52am Subject: RE: The Character Designers Guild
	LW's got a point. Even in DnD campaigns where the story premise is "A group of adventurers meet in a bar," there's still a lot of coordination going on in terms of who's playing what, ie The healer, the sneaky guy, the tough guy, and the magic user. The more roles you have covered, the better of the party is, however still within reason, because too diverse of a group is going to mean it's tougher for the GM to let everyone's abilities shine. So it's basically a careful balancing act that requires some serious thought. -----signature----- "But, it was so artistically done." Co-GM of When Galaxies Collide: A Major AU RPG Physics is like the Force: It has two main fields of study and controls the flow of all things Game Designer's Guild, Character Designer's Guild
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DarthXan318 Registered: Sep '02	Date Posted: 9/10 10:45pm Subject: RE: The Character Designers Guild
	How would that work in practice, though ... invitation-only games? Rather than people posting CSs, have them PM their interest in playing to the GM and then have an open discussion of roles/characters in the game thread? -----signature----- "In contrast, in Tide of Flames, the players post their attacks, make dice rolls, and then Saintheart tells them about their characters' childhoods." ~ LightWarden, on RPG combat. Away on a conference. Back Wednesday.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Saintheart Title: Manager and Wandering Swordsman of the RPF Registered: Dec '00	Date Posted: 9/10 11:27pm Subject: RE: The Character Designers Guild
	An example of that process is "A Tide of Flames" (admittedly a D&D adventure) where we discussed options for creating characters at the game's start. It's a bit of a mixed PM/OOC process, but if a GM's got a good game concept at the front of his thread a bunch of OOCs discussing the character options shouldn't dissuade others who are coming in late. -----signature----- Michelle: my Italian queen, my angel, my reason, my wife. Jessica: my little princess, my daughter, born 10 August 2007 Director -- Star Wars: Knighthood
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
LightWarden Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 9/14 12:40pm Subject: RE: The Character Designers Guild
	Collaboration in D&D is a very import part of the gaming process. How else do you ensure that you have the healbot, meatshield, skill monkey, and Batman? If you're running something where there are a bunch of people working together instead of spread across the galaxy, you might do well with a pre-game phase after/during which characters are created and accepted wherein you have your players read the bios of the other characters and then try to form connections/impressions and that sort of thing. Maybe they've worked together, maybe they've been on opposite sides, maybe they're rivals, maybe they've had a fling, maybe one stole the other's parking spot, maybe they shared a few brews at the company picnic, maybe they're even related. If your game is less of a bunch of dudes doing stuff and more some sort of bizarre pseudo-family unit, I can almost guarantee it will be a better game overall. And while I'm not going to proclaim the superiority of tabletop games, there is something to be said for the idea of party balance. While one character who's super awesome at everything can be pretty boring, a handful of characters with varying personalities and areas of expertise can allow for a multitude of different challenges as well as different solutions to one challenge. One of the later inventions seems to be the idea that it's also a pretty good idea to give all the player characters a base level of skill so they can at least tag along while relying on the support of the more capable PCs, instead of sitting on the front porch while one of the PCs goes riding off in pursuit of a villain carrying the McGuffin. This also ties in to the subject of making sure all PCs have a pre-defined set of abilities rather than just pulling things out of thin air. Then again, I may be the only guy who actually likes thinking "Now, how can I use the tools and skills I have right now to get myself out of this situation?" The more unique skills you have, the more interesting combinations you can come up with that play to your team's strengths. -----signature----- CDG Guild Master Strange how one small thing can determine the fate of so many... especially if it's a twenty-sided die The Internet is SERIOUS BIZNESS! It's all fun and games until someone loses a leg. TF.N RPGs: Less fun than pretending to have sex
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
TheManinBlack Registered: Aug '07	Date Posted: 10/15 8:26pm Subject: RE: The Character Designers Guild - Date Edited: 10/15 9:36pm (4 edits total) Edited By: TheManinBlack
	LightWarden posted: One of these days I'm going to have to put up a sign somewhere telling people to stop attempting to tell me why I should hold the position I'm already holding. I'm trashing "mellow drama" or melodrama, nor am forgetting any "nuances", I am well aware that anything can work in the hands of a skilled writer. Problem is that this board is choked to the gills with utterly inept writers. Like magpies they gravitate towards the shiniest things available, but whereas most use these shiny things as accents to bring out their characters, these people use them as an exoskeleton to hold up an otherwise empty characters. I am not using some sort of elitist vision to reduce these things to shallow sketches... I am looking at these characters and seeing absolutely nothing but shallow sketches. If you do not have a good foundation, you can't use many elements well enough that they won't detract from your character. Furthermore, most of your examples probably aren't as good as you think they are. Antagonists especially are characters who can be painted in broad strokes because they don't need to hold up the story so much as push it around by doing things. Protagonists however (such as the PCs) need to be able to capture the audience by being someone the audience is interested in, through some combination of their actions, interactions, character. Most of the people I mentioned there heroes See Spidey, Luke Skywalker, Light, and Superman. And the reason why you would need a sign to tell us what your postions really are, is because you need to make it clearer, like I need to clean up my spelling. Spend less time making links and more time detailing what you really mean Their there is no such thing as "shallow melodrama" when it comes to backstory, just crappy writing, poor planning (the biggest offender by far to make someone crappy, we only notice the melodrama because of this), or plagerism. Ex:(from Wikipedia) "Peter Benjamin Parker is the son of Richard and Mary Parker, who worked as S.H.I.E.L.D. agents, and were killed on a mission involving an impersonator of the Red Skull.[1] The infant Peter Parker is left in the care of his Uncle Ben and Aunt May Parker, who live in the Forest Hills neighborhood of Queens, New York. The aging couple love Peter, but he grows to be unpopular among his peers. Between an uncle who is too old to join him in physical activities and an aunt over-protective of the orphaned child, Peter gravitates to more non-physical hobbies such as photography and home chemistry, encouraged in these endeavors by his guardians. He grows to be a lonely, timid but exceptionally bright teenager who shows more interest in his studies (especially science, for which he has an uncanny affinity that is nothing short of genius) than in social life. He is often the target of jokes by more popular students like Flash Thompson, the high school's star athlete" FAR, FAR from orginial. Like we haven't heard this before. Who ever wrote about this PETER PARKER fellow needs to stop with the Melodrama of and make him oringial. I've seen dozens of thousands of characters who've lost mom and daddy. I've seen dozen's of well meaning but inept parent figures. And I've seen plenty of flawed heroes. ...not really good assesment is it? Superman, Batman, Sherlock Holmes, Luffy, Mina Harker, Atticus Finch, and Rocky Balboa all suffer from this too. Every character does. Once agian, pain, honor, and pleasure are universal concepts. We all suffer from them, and we all often suffer the same forms of them as well. All characters suffer from this becuase all people do. The basic notion of their foundations was soild, that was all though. They needed to express WHY those expriences where painful or meaningful better, instead of just scraping them to come up with something that athough it may help in the short term, will fall flat and be wisely unnoticed unless their is something behind that (the thing that is actualy important). What matters is that the audinece is told that it motivates them to action in a meaningful and personal way. Seriously though, I think this board is filled to the rim with talented writers, whom I've learned alot from. I even consider you a mentor on how to play a game, and how to make one (the biggest one in fact). What makes a character great though, is something I disagree with you GREATLY on. Stop honing in on people having lost a mother and hone in on the fact that they need more then that. That they need more things that fit that tone and tell the audidence why they should care. What diffcuilties did they face because of that. Are they forced to work on a Moisture farm because of it, and not allowed to go off to college. Tell talk more about how these lead to effects, that in themselves became factors that made up the person your character is today. Don't call them inept eihter...they are just rookies, who given time will learn from their mistakes.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Saintheart Title: Manager and Wandering Swordsman of the RPF Registered: Dec '00	Date Posted: 10/15 9:15pm Subject: RE: The Character Designers Guild - Date Edited: 10/15 9:24pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Saintheart
	Don't want to throw more petrol on the issue, but I think I understand where Light's coming from here. The frustration comes primarily from the poor writing of the characters involved, rather than frustration with the background of that character: it's more about the ingredients of the recipe being overcooked or undercooked rather than a concern that your spaghetti bolognese has cinnamon on top rather than salt. Let's also not forget that many of the comic book heroes/villains we've been discussing were close to cardboard cutouts when they were first created -- Superman in particular. There's been a lot of writers and stories under the bridge to bring them to the people we generally understand them to be. However, I found the mention of Magneto in the previous discussion interesting, because right there you have a very interesting antagonist. Let's look at his film incarnation, which for me is pretty much the most interesting version of the character thus far. Leaving aside the awesomeness factor of the fantastic actor who plays Magneto, why is it that the character is popular, and why do we want to watch him in his schemes to commit mass murder or world domination? The answer is that the scriptwriter understood the fundamental rules of Hollywood drama/melodrama (and I actually don't think melodrama is necessarily a bad thing -- it's meant to evoke powerful emotions in its audience, which is no easy task at the best of times.) That means not just logging in the guy's bio that his parents were killed. In Magneto's case, it means portraying sympathetically in the start of the film how those parents passed away: at the hands of a racist regime, murdered by that regime, when he was only around 11-12. (In the RPG context this would be written by way of a flashback ... another rare creature in the RPF). But that's only the start of why we sympathise with Magneto. Throughout the film we get, on an unconscious level at least, that his whole character has been affected by that event -- and that his goals in life are with a view to salving that pain in some way. Magneto is a mutant, faced with the same kinds of prejudice that saw his parents killed. He is determined to never let that happen again to himself. But he doesn't just content himself with a stupid rage against the machine, throwing steel blocks around at the US Congress: no, he is proactive: he has a goal in his existence stemming from that past, which he then pursues with relentless determination. The latter italicised part is essential for the protagonist of a film, if not a sympathetic antagonist. If the protagonist is only reacting to his situation, he is neither heroic or terribly sympathetic because he's not willing to do anything in his life to advance himself towards his goals. He refuses to take control of his own destiny. Angst without action is a wish-fulfillment character who is not interesting to watch. Let's look at Palpatine. Ian McDiarmid admittedly has to be credited for much of Palpatine's presence in the whole six films, although some cynics have unkindly said his performance borders the territory of Large Ham. But the character of Palpatine is also engaging, although not sympathetic: again, in every film we see or can sense Palpatine's relentless determination to achieve his (foreseen) goals: he is always manipulating things behind the scenes, always working towards his goals. He doesn't have a background, but as the analogy for the Devil in the SW universe he doesn't need one; he is not meant to be a sympathetic character. RPG characters, though, really are meant to be sympathetic in some way if the GM is going to want to read about them -- and I'm a student of the Gygax school on this that roleplaying should include roleplaying to the GM and the other players at least. This is also 90% of the reason the "roaming wanderer" characters I occasionally see don't really engage audience interest either -- because the wanderer usually has no goal, and thus is not trying to change/fulfill/deny his destiny. What about Lone Wolf and Cub, you ask? Well, remember Lone Wolf had two goals: avoiding (or defeating) the agents of the clan that had framed him, and keeping his son alive and safe. That's the arc of his story. In the SW context, Han Solo is only a sympathetic character because he's running away from, or needs money to pay off, Jabba the Hutt. Without it he's nothing but Luke and Obi-Wan's chauffeur, and I challenge anyone to regard the character without that aspect in mind. Even the so-called brilliance of Zatoichi the Blind Swordsman suffers from this problem -- Zatoichi might have some l33t backhanded sword skilz, but his character isn't really that interesting -- which is why his film is chock-full of lesser characters with pasts and issues. The TV series of Kung Fu had David Carradine (should've been Bruce Lee) not just wandering: he was searching for his brother. Short version of the above: the bio is not a laundry list of angst/emo factoids about the character; it is the makeup of the character, and it dictates the character's goals in life and the wider arc of his character, much more than "Family dead = me evil without purpose or reason" ... which is what I often see. -----signature----- Michelle: my Italian queen, my angel, my reason, my wife. Jessica: my little princess, my daughter, born 10 August 2007 Director -- Star Wars: Knighthood
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
TheManinBlack Registered: Aug '07	Date Posted: 10/15 9:34pm Subject: RE: The Character Designers Guild
	That is what I was saying...but better, simply put. I was just mad he in that post dumbed it down to bad mouthing plot elements (or rather devices) like he sometimes does
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Sith-I-5 Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 10/16 5:26am Subject: RE: The Character Designers Guild
	Mango_Salsa posted: Here's a question: Why do so many people portray Sith (or Dark Jedi, or whathaveyou) as nothing more than mindless killing machines who do nothing more than revel in how much they love death and murder and being Bad? Doesn't that seem a bit narrow in its view? Evil for evil's sake, murder for the sake of murder, violence for the sake of underscoring how Eeeeevil the character is, these things bore the hell out of me. This was answered, or at least elicited opinions. I have a query about the OP's observation. Are you seeing Sith and Dark Jedi that know that they are evil? The lifestyle tome How to win friends and influence people makes a good case for everyone on the planet, even down to killers in Sing Sing (old US prison) believing that they are good people and rationalising their acts. Ans in a SW context, both Jacen Solo and Anakin seemed to believe they were right to do what they did. To bring order to the galaxy, in the case of Solo; and to save Padme, in the case of Skywalker. -----signature----- Crowning Moment of Awesome – THE MASTER. Summoning six billion robotic beach balls Of Doom to decimate the Earth, blowing a good-bye kiss to the Doctor, all the while dancing to "Voodoo Child". EPIC. EVIL. WIN. 007 Family - DVC's twin bro'.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DarthXan318 Registered: Sep '02	Date Posted: 10/16 6:16am Subject: RE: The Character Designers Guild
	TheManinBlack posted: I was just mad he in that post dumbed it down to bad mouthing plot elements (or rather devices) like he sometimes does Yes, but that's because it's overdone. To go on from Saint's cooking example, if you're eating spaghetti bolognese every day for months on end, you are going to get tired of it even if you initially thought it was the most fantastic spaghetti bolognese you've ever tasted. If you don't like spaghetti to begin with, well... Anyway Saint's hit the nail on the head: it's not so much that the My Parents Are Dead, I Shall Now Angst plot point is a bad thing in itself, it's just that it can (and often is) done badly. But that's always the case, isn't it? If you happen to not like how people are doing something using X, it's somehow human nature to point at X as the cause rather than the people plain sucking. The other thing is that having a laundry list of events in the bio is not a substitute for actual personality as some seem to think- and personality makes the character, not background. (In this I disagree kinda with what Saint said, I don't think you need a long-term goal to have an interesting character, just personality... but that's a personal preference, I think.) -----signature----- "In contrast, in Tide of Flames, the players post their attacks, make dice rolls, and then Saintheart tells them about their characters' childhoods." ~ LightWarden, on RPG combat. Away on a conference. Back Wednesday.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
TheManinBlack Registered: Aug '07	Date Posted: 10/16 6:55am Subject: RE: The Character Designers Guild
	DarthXan318 posted: TheManinBlack posted: I was just mad he in that post dumbed it down to bad mouthing plot elements (or rather devices) like he sometimes does Yes, but that's because it's overdone. Everything is over done. Until science rocks our world agian, we've had 10,000 plus years of people coming up with ideas....your bound to find a duplicate somewhere. Two people even evented the telephone at the same time, without communcating with each other at all. Hence why the real soultion is what Light suggested eariler. Pre-planing. Look before posting your character on the run. Are their other people on the run. Why are you on the run? Why did you rob that Pizza Hutt agian? So forth and so on. Progress from there. I pretty much agree with everything else you said, because thats pretty much my own philosophy. Your background should serve as nothing more than foundation for your personailty and function with-in a game. Just like a story, Ben Parker only existed to serve as Peter's call to action. The reason why your parents died has to be some form of why your character is now doing what does. But not merley a means to an end, rather a means to means to an end. Their not the always the motive, but the reason that drove your guy to reach that motive or concept. As cool as The Dude or the guys from Easy Rider is, they won't work in an RP. Purposeful inaction is just bad in RPs.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
LightWarden Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 10/16 9:38am Subject: RE: The Character Designers Guild
	TheManinBlack posted: I pretty much agree with everything else you said, because thats pretty much my own philosophy. Your background should serve as nothing more than foundation for your personailty and function with-in a game. Just like a story, Ben Parker only existed to serve as Peter's call to action. The reason why your parents died has to be some form of why your character is now doing what does. But not merley a means to an end, rather a means to means to an end. Their not the always the motive, but the reason that drove your guy to reach that motive or concept. You're stepping into dangerous territory here. Saying a character "only exists" for a certain purpose is a tricky proposition. While it's a legitimate tactic to make a character only exist for a completely minor role, fleshing the side character out is usually a better option (I don't really need to know about the guy your character has a part-time job with, but it never hurts). But when a character exists solely to provide a fundamental pillar of the character's personality, you're doing yourself a disservice if you do not flesh it out. Yes, Ben Parker's death motivates Peter Parker to become Spider-Man, but if you just state that the character died and that's what motivated the main character to do something, it's really poor writing. Spider-Man's origin story in Amazing Fantasy #15 was all of eleven pages in length. It serves as an introduction to the character, but it relies mostly on the reader to provide the texture. It relies on the reader thinking "Peter has an uncle. I have an uncle or other fatherly figure, therefore I can understand that Peter is sad that his uncle is dead." Yeah, it works, much like you can be sorry for someone who's lost a relative/loved one. However, if you're a good writer/storyteller and flesh out the character even more, the impact on the reader becomes much more significant. Compare the origin from Amazing Fantasy #15 with the 180 page, 7 issue origin story arc from Ultimate Spider-Man. An example of decompression storytelling padding out an idea to extreme lengths? Maybe. But it defined their relationship with a finer brush, as well as bringing out Ben's character more while still maintaining the essential ideas that define Spider-Man. As a reader, it's more likely that you'll grow interested in these characters, and thus when Ben inevitably dies, your response is not "Peter's uncle died, I feel bad for him", but "aw, Ben Parker died... I liked him". In one of my favorite series, bad things have happened to the friends/family/loved ones of all the protagonists. But the series handles it remarkably well. The character were introduced first to interest the audience, their relationships were fleshed out by being shown and developed to the point where the audience could at least have some sympathy, then the bad things happen. By establishing the depth of the relationship first, the loss is felt much more deeply, and then it's compounded by the character utterly breaking down in grief. Don't treat this as some sort of formula, because nothing will ever come out of thinking that way. You have to make sure that there is empathy if you want to do it right. These clowns aren't doing that. They're writing "my parents are dead and I am angry", mashing the angst button and hoping it provokes some sort of Pavlovian response from the audience. I am annoyed and offended by this cheap play for an emotional impact. If you want emotion, put it in there yourself instead of expecting me to cover for your lack of talent or skill. "Bad things happen to a character who was close to a character that I don't particularly care about" is completely lacking impact, "Bad things happen to a character who close to a character that I like" starts provoking some sympathy, and "Bad things happen to a character I like" invokes a lot more. It's an art, and many people on this board don't have it, yet continue to use these tools ineffectively and wonder why they don't get any interested response. It's because they're pulling these elements out and waving them around as if they're supposed to contain an incredible amount of power on their own, rather than contextualizing them within the story and thus amplifying the degree of emotional response. The burden is on the writer to make others like his or her characters, because quite frankly, I'm not going to dispense concern like some sort of gumball machine. -----signature----- CDG Guild Master Strange how one small thing can determine the fate of so many... especially if it's a twenty-sided die The Internet is SERIOUS BIZNESS! It's all fun and games until someone loses a leg. TF.N RPGs: Less fun than pretending to have sex
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DarthXan318 Registered: Sep '02	Date Posted: 10/16 9:40am Subject: RE: The Character Designers Guild
	I think there is a difference between creativity and originality - yes you're probably not going to create something new in your character sheet, but you can use ideas in new ways. Just like LOTR spawned the entire fantasy genre, pretty much. (And, okay, there's a lot of terrible fantasy, but there are some gems. ) But yeah. Exactly. Planning is the key, although I reckon it's harder in the open-ended sandbox-y games than it is in the Party Adventure ones - I think Hammurabi's Ronin did the party balance thing as well, although in his case he listed off the jobs he needed filled and took applications for each? Something like that. As an aside, I really think that there is nothing inherently wrong with blandness, overdone tropes, shallow writing ... so long as you're having fun, and you don't try to pretend it's not. I mean, I just think that if your game is full of Sith that are either "grim and angry" or "cold and cunning" and you're perfectly happy, that's cool. If it's fun, hey, you're doing well. But if you want variety - if you're after good writing, well thought out characters, and compelling gameplay that isn't filled with tropes - pursuing that should be okay too. Because really, when someone says that they don't like how a game is/isn't X, the immediate knee-jerk rebuttal shouldn't be, "Well, that's fine and/or not true! Stop reading, go somewhere else if you do/don't want it!" (Not aiming this at anyone specific, here, I'm just saying.) -----signature----- "In contrast, in Tide of Flames, the players post their attacks, make dice rolls, and then Saintheart tells them about their characters' childhoods." ~ LightWarden, on RPG combat. Away on a conference. Back Wednesday.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
TheManinBlack Registered: Aug '07	Date Posted: 10/16 10:55am Subject: RE: The Character Designers Guild - Date Edited: 10/16 10:59am (1 edits total) Edited By: TheManinBlack
	DarthXan318 posted: I think there is a difference between creativity and originality - yes you're probably not going to create something new in your character sheet, but you can use ideas in new ways. Just like LOTR spawned the entire fantasy genre, pretty much. (And, okay, there's a lot of terrible fantasy, but there are some gems. ) But if you want variety - if you're after good writing, well thought out characters, and compelling gameplay that isn't filled with tropes - pursuing that should be okay too. Because really, when someone says that they don't like how a game is/isn't X, the immediate knee-jerk rebuttal shouldn't be, "Well, that's fine and/or not true! Stop reading, go somewhere else if you do/don't want it!" (Not aiming this at anyone specific, here, I'm just saying.) Yeah, I know you where basicaly nodding your head when I said that above, and frowning at some parts and thats just fine. A story should be expected to always be creative though, not orginal per say (though that would be nice). Blandness however...is a fault, as it occurs when you have shallow writting and poor planing. It implys the very thing that you should try to aviod, making every character sound alike. As for what Light said, I actually agree one hundread percent. That's why you have to be careful, and VERY,VERY cautious when making a character and using that tactic.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mango_Salsa Registered: Mar '06	Date Posted: 10/31 2:07pm Subject: RE: The Character Designers Guild - Date Edited: 10/31 2:09pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Mango_Salsa
	I've seen the word "sociopath" pop up on several player character bios, mostly associated with characters who are also strong, handsome anti-social natural leaders with no visible flaws. I thought I'd let players know what a sociopath is so that you and your potential GM can decide if this is really what you want to play. Traits of a sociopath: Glibness and Superficial Charm Manipulative and Conning They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims. Grandiose Sense of Self Feels entitled to certain things as "their right." Pathological Lying Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests. Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way. Shallow Emotions When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises. Incapacity for Love Need for Stimulation Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common. Callousness/Lack of Empathy Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them. Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others. Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc. Irresponsibility/Unreliability Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed. Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts. Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively. Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily. Other Related Qualities: Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them Authoritarian Secretive Paranoid Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired Conventional appearance Goal of enslavement of their victim(s) Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love) Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim Incapable of real human attachment to another Unable to feel remorse or guilt Extreme narcissism and grandiose May state readily that their goal is to rule the world "Now why is this a bad thing, Mango?" I hear you ask. "This sounds like an interesting sort of fellow!" Well yes, in the right hands. The problem is that this kind of person does not make for an effective leader, and an even crappier follower. In fact, it doesn't make for the kind of person anyone would want to spend any large amount of time with at all. This can present something of a difficulty in a game that includes more than one person. Next week, I'll post a height/weight ratio chart, and we'll discuss how if your character is 6'11" and weighs 107 pounds, they might very well be hollow. -----signature----- Game Designer's Guild member Character Designer's Guild member "It's like a koala bear crapped a rainbow in my brain!" -- Murphy
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 - Previous | Next | Reload

Jedi Council Forums » Role Playing » Role Playing Resource »