Character "flaws".

[Quilboarian]

I've come to realize that some characters (including some made by me), are not really "flawed", despite attempting to appear as such. Sometimes, it seems like ALL of a character's "flaws" are just strengths which arguably have a bad side to them. Usually, it's far more of a strength, anyway. The consequences of the supposed "flaws" are usually dumbed down with "sometimes" and "occasionally", which might give you the excuse to never actually act on it. The adverse effects attached to a trait are never taken to the extreme, it seems.


["He's really loyal. Maybe that's kinda-sorta bad, in a way. I mean, he might heroically sacrifice himself like a badass."]


Some characters seem to just have mostly positive traits, and their flaws (if any) are not fatal ones. What about mostly pathetic characters, albeit with a few redeeming traits? Or the balanced ones, with real flaws in addition to their strengths?


playing useless characters is fun

 

[Bone2pick]

Some characters seem to just have mostly positive traits, and their flaws (if any) are not fatal ones.

And that's perfectly fine. I understand that a great number of people on RP boards advise players to create flawed characters in order to be "relatable," but that's incorrect imo. Heavily flawed characters can be relatable (Holden Caulfield), but so can lesser flawed characters (James Bond). Heavily flawed characters will have a lot of internal conflict, while lesser flawed characters will typically deal with external conflict.


As long as the writer challenges their PC — like really dig into to them with gritty conflict — then they'll have compelling characters. A well executed and developed conflict trumps a laundry list of character flaws.

 

[tahts]

I sometimes find it difficult to create flaws right off the bat for characters. For example, most of the time I don't create characters before I have a context to fit them into. I'll create a new one for a specific roleplay and kind of see how their personality comes out in that context, and then develop their strengths and weaknesses in the roleplay which I can then save for future reference when they become a stable character in my arsenal. Does that make sense?

 

[QuirkyAngel]

I've come to realize that some characters (including some made by me), are not really "flawed", despite attempting to appear as such. Sometimes, it seems like ALL of a character's "flaws" are just strengths which arguably have a bad side to them. Usually, it's far more of a strength, anyway. The consequences of the supposed "flaws" are usually dumbed down with "sometimes" and "occasionally", which might give you the excuse to never actually act on it. The adverse effects attached to a trait are never taken to the extreme, it seems.
["He's really loyal. Maybe that's kinda-sorta bad, in a way. I mean, he might heroically sacrifice himself like a badass."]


Some characters seem to just have mostly positive traits, and their flaws (if any) are not fatal ones. What about mostly pathetic characters, albeit with a few redeeming traits? Or the balanced ones, with real flaws in addition to their strengths?


playing useless characters is fun

I agree that playing a useless character is fun^^


However, supposedly perfect characters are rather fun to rp as well. No matter how well an rper tries to describe a character as "perfect" with no flaws, it's really difficult for rpers to portray that in actual interaction. That's why I tend to look at the character's actions in the rp, not only at the character sheet. If an rper creates the perfect unflawed character, but does not have that character interact with other rpers that perfect character was just given a character flaw--unsociable/loner--even though it was never written in the cs.


Extreme loyalty is fun to pick at as well. Put that character in a situation that their friend(npc) was taken hostage and they are being blackmailed to do something not nice--and force the rper to make a decision. This will probably promote internal conflict. As Bone2pick stated, conflict is crucial to making an interesting character. That's why rps where the gm challenges rpers are quite fun^^

 

[Zidlijan]

Interesting way to put it, I've encountered the same issue as well, as a writer one has to know that in real life


not all flaws will work in your favor no matter how much of a "strength" you want it to be, in fact they even


may slow you down and hurt you, as an example my main character (and fav to play too, he's my avatar) has a


crippling case of "i fucking hate thunder", it's not a physical flaw (I'll get there) but it doesn't matter where he


is or what is going on, nothing matters, if he hears thunder he's going to either freeze, crash or simply scream


and cover his ears or go hide somewhere small.


In the sense of a physical flaw might be the fact he needs constant doctor visits, he sometimes gets hurt in his


line of work and his scars and other old injuries are nothing to joke about, some leave him crippled for very long


periods of time and leave very ugly marks, which he hates.


I honestly don't want a person whom just caaaaaan't do anything because EVERYTHING is a flaw, sure strenghts


are necessary in a person's life, but a flaw is something all humans live with: anxiety, depression, self harm, paralysis,


crippling phobias, blindness, muteness, deafness, scars, handicapped, etc, etc. And they help make a character even


relatable and more human.


Of course this is solely and absolutely, just my own opinion.

 

[ShadowedNexus]

People project themselves on their characters. Most people don't view themselves as flawed so therefore they like to have stuff that looks good for them and/or their character. For me, I don't like to acknowledge that I can be a dick sometimes. I can recognize it at least but most people see themselves (actual selves that is) as a hero/protagonist in their own story, and that everyone else but them is imperfect.

 

[Ashurbanipal]

More flawed does not equal more gooder as a character. Roleplay is, ultimately, escapism, storytelling, and gaming--and there's a reason protagonists of all those things lean toward heroic, in the classical sense, being driven and powerful and larger than life. Proficient characters do things. They achieve things. They force the world to react to them and react to the world in engaging ways. They influence the narrative.


You can roleplay Shinji Ikari and dig on girls in comas all you like, but you're not necessarily a good character at that point so much as an annoying and vaguely unsettling one.

 

[Xenonia]

Problem is, with roleplay, you have multiple protagonists, and if they ever end up at odds with each other, the one with the least flaws is gonna win, and it won't be in an interesting way. It'll either be in a "Heh, you're not worth my time" edgy sort of way or a "I beat you so totally that it's just embarrassing to read" sort of way. Good characters do NEED flaws. That flaw doesn't need to constantly render them helpless, but please note: Superman would be really fucking boring if he didn't have that Kryptonite weakness.

 

[Ashurbanipal]

Conflict is hardly so simple a matter that "least flaws wins" is some destined outcome.

 

[Xenonia]

And yet it does tend to boil down to either "least flaws wins" or "whoever whines louder in the OOC wins". And generally, those two things coincide.

 

[Ashurbanipal]

You can be a perfect person and still die to a bullet in the head from a hallucinating, unemployed, drug-addled drunk with mommy issues, a yellow belly, and a severe gambling addiction.

 

[Xenonia]

In real life sure. You honestly think that would ever happen in an RP?

 

[DrBones]

Probably not, @Xenonia. If the guy playing as said hallucinating drug dealer actually landed a hit, the perfect character's player would probably complain about autohitting and godmodding.

 

[Xenonia]

Exactly my point. And even if they did acknowledge the hit, they'd fudge it into either non-damaging or "IT ACTUALLY JUST MAKES ME STRONGER".

 

[DrBones]

Well, that would say more about the player than the character. All truths be told, a character with flaws and chinks in their armor is much more fun to play as and against, because having weaknesses gives something for other players to work towards.


A character that is fundamentally invincible is, effectively, a blank wall. A character with several weaknesses and flaws all perfectly mashed together is, effectively, a rock-climbing wall. Which one is more fun to climb?

 

[Ixacise]

BLANK WALL


BECAUSE A REAL MAN CARVES HIS WAY!

 

[DrBones]

BLANK WALL
BECAUSE REAL MAN CARVES HIS WAY!

Metaphorically speaking, that would be...


I guess that would be just making assumptions about the character and their weaknesses based on what they're saying. Like, say, if a player made a lightning demon, you could logically defeat it by trapping it in a Faraday cage and blasting it with insulating foam.


Of course, that would then result in copious arguing in the OOC, which will generally damage the RP.

 

[Bone2pick]

Characters don't require major flaws in order to face challenging conflicts. And lesser flawed characters in no way = invincible. Why would it?

 

[Xenonia]

Because people who tend to make more perfect characters also tend to play them as such. People who design characters that have the ability to always win generally do so because they want to always win.

 

[Bone2pick]

Having very few flaws doesn't = designing a character to always win.

 

[Xenonia]

You seem to believe we're talking about "very few flaws". We're talking about no flaws. Characters without a single negative trait.

 

[DrBones]

Of course, giving your character no flaws makes it so that it's very difficult to find ways to win without pulling out straight-up trump cards and boring tactics.


For the sake of explaining your point of view, how would you defeat a player who made a half-angel made of solid iron with a flaming sword and the ability move faster than a speeding bullet? I certainly can't find many flaws in that character idea.

 

[amdreams]

Isn't iron brittle? Or at least in its pure state?


But then again I'm not a metal worker so I may be (probably am) wrong.

 

[DrBones]

For the sake of making it so that the character isn't dead from organ failure from the word "go", assume this is magic iron that's as flexible as it needs to be but just as protective. Effectively, just imagine a half-angel wearing bulletproof plate armor who can flip around like a ninja and wields a flaming sword.

 

[Bone2pick]

Of course, giving your character no flaws makes it so that it's very difficult to find ways to win without pulling out straight-up trump cards and boring tactics.
For the sake of explaining your point of view, how would you defeat a player who made a half-angel made of solid iron with a flaming sword and the ability move faster than a speeding bullet? I certainly can't find many flaws in that character idea.

If we're dealing with supernatural characters, then you introduce powerful supernatural conflict. Humans can have very few flaws, is there an issue there?