Character Theory Jerk Characters

[Shog]

During my time as a role player, I've noticed a trend among characters: many players will create characters that are expressly a-holes. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with this. We all love character diversity and we do this to have fun and if you find it fun to play an a-hole then what's the problem? Well that's where things get tricky. The problem always seems to draw back to the very nature of role playing. Everyone makes their characters and they then interact in the given scenario and no one likes dealing with a-holes. To specify, I mean characters that are explicitly jerks to all/most others, selfish to the point of sabotaging other player characters, a general pain to interact with as they completely disregard your character and their desires, etc.

This problem is most prevalent in RPs where your characters are expected to work together as a group. We obviously can't expect everyone to work well together or not have disagreements, but an a-hole character can disrupt the entire RP as they blatantly refuse to work with, or even show basic respect to, other characters. I very specifically remember one RP where more than half the players left almost solely as a consequence of the actions of one a-hole character. They left and were almost instantly replaced by a new, equally jerkish character and that's when I had to say enough was enough. The problem here, like so many other scenarios, is that the other players just couldn't deal with the a-hole and that's where most of the problems come from. People come here to have fun and maybe even escape real life a-holes, so having to deal with them in your hobby can be a real problem.

Now I don't just want to continue to bash on these characters. They are just as valid as any other personality type and lend themselves very well to certain scenarios. For example, I once hosted an RP where the players were supposed to play as straight up villains. Even when working together, no one expected us to be a functional team or even get along. There are also RPs with different player groups where being more of a jerk just makes sense for that scenario.

The real trouble starts when you're a GM. If you see a CS for an a-hole character that just doesn't mesh with the setting and/or already accepted players, what do you do? Do you feel comfortable rejecting that otherwise perfectly acceptable character because you think it'll be better for the RP overall? Personally, I don't feel like I have the right to reject a character based on their personality unless it really clashes with the setting (i.e. a known "problem child" being selected to be part of an elite super soldier problem or something like that). I will, however, keep a close eye on that character and maybe even warn them that if things go too far I will have to ask for changes for the health of the RP, but that can usually be solved through normal character growth.

So, what do you think? How do you deal with these characters? Have any stories about how an a-hole character broke an RP or even made it better in a surprising way? I'm interested to hear what you have to say on the matter.

 

[KenKafka]

As a GM, it's important to judge the functionality of each role. One person can break the game, so it's better to kick them early, or have them adjust their character. In my experience, people are more upset about being denied any aspect about their character and prefer to leave. Worst case scenario, they become vindictive, incite drama, and everything dies anyway. Tough call, but I feel that it wouldn't be too hard to reject people on the grounds that their character will not fit well with the group, for whatever reason.

 

[PaulHaynek]

I usually just tell the players that their characters' personalities would be out of place in my coop-themed RPs and ask them to have more approachable characters or leave because I'm a lazy GM that prefers the easy way all the time.

Nuance? What's that?

 

[Simon_Hawk]

There are enough a-holes in real life no need to have to role-play with them too. If the role-play is teamwork based then it's best to get rid of any a-holes immediately because they will incite drama and pretty much ruin everything. Oh yeah, just like real life! Bye bye a-holes, no room for you here.

 

[rae2nerdy]

Yeah unless the character is designed to be the antagonist or the person can give a believable arc through which the character grows you gotta axe anti-social characters immediately.

Not just assholes either but people who are hyper loners and never work with other players/characters. Or people who think they can solve the conflict of the story by themselves.

All these characters are single POV protagonists that only work in personal fiction. Not in collaborative works.

 

[Zenwarrior54]

Put the a-hole characters in detention

 

[Shibe]

As a fellow GM, I think it’s great to have characters who may not get along with others or may have differing views. It provides a bit of diversity, but if someone is to make a a-hole character I’d at least like for there to be some redeeming qualities to make up for it or for them to at least develop over time and grow more comfortable towards the other characters.

But for me, there is a hard line between having a character with some not so positive personality traits and the players themselves just being a jerk and expressing it through their characters. Then getting all defensive when someone calls them out on their behavior, or even justifying it. I think the worst thing is though is when a character thinks the other characters all hate them just because they were called out on bad behavior, then acts like they’re innocent or using their past to justify their behaviors.

Would I call someone out for being a straight up a-hole? Yeah, probably. I would try to give a warning first though and be nice about it, second time it happened I would put my foot down.

 

[Idea]

Is it fair to ban a character for the character being an a**hole?​

My basic philosophy when it comes to what characters are acceptable in a roleplay is as follows:
1.Character sheets are subject to the roleplay's setting, rules, and all other composing elements of it, such a lore and already established characters. By joining a roleplay with existing rules, a player is implicitly agreeing to those rules, and as long as the rule is clear, concrete and visible it is part of the product. It is acceptable that characters are bound to the rules etc... even if the player doesn't necessarily think they are fair, provided the rule was actually one the player could account for at the time they worked on the character.
2.Character concepts which are neither impossible within the plot or setting, nor inherently impeding of the plot or other character's involvement, should never be fully rejected. However, if it is problematic outside of the mentioned things and as a result of the concept, then the details of implementation of that concept ought to be worked out between the player and the GM, as outside of the listed problems it must be possible for the concept to be implemented without it being problematic.
3.Characters must be held up to standards appropriate and higher than the desired of posts and roleplay in general.
4.Character sheets are meant for information and for the GM's ability to determine whether a character is fit for the roleplay. To hide key information in the CS when that information is asked for is grounds for rejection, and any information not in the CS (or otherwise given to the GM directly) can be rejected as it is presented.

Under such tenants, I find it perfectly acceptable, and in fact encourageable, for characters to be a**holes. There isn't anything inherently wrong with the concept- even if they treat the other characters like shit that is neither immersion breaking nor necessarily disruptive to the plot, and in a good deal of cases such a character should be perfectly avoidable if another player feels like it. If anything, an a**hole character makes a lot of sense from the viewpoint of character design: there is a lot of room for them to grow, established and clear flaws and potentially even a unique dynamic within the group.

It's not like there are no reasons to ban an a**hole character though. The main reason among those being when the separation between the character and the player, as far as being a jerk goes, is too thin.

Player VS Character A**holes​

Just because a character can be a jerk, that doesn't mean the player gets licence to be one as well. Quite the contrary in fact: In order to avoid many of the issues plaguing jerk characters, their player will want to show that they themselves are not like that, that the treatment is part of the narrative not an actual lack of appreciation. There are a few ways of going about this, planning and humor in the OOC, being generally nice there is one very common way, displaying IC that your character is acting the way they do as a result of aknowledging your character and dealing with how that makes them feel in disfunctional manner is another.

However, it's also important the player themselves aren't a**holes not just OOC, but also by making sure their character's jerkiness doesn't ruin the enjoyment of other players, such as by getting in the way of important moments or overstalling.

Understanding Consequences​

It's not always that the player's themselves are also jerks or in any way bad people though. If the previous one was perhaps the most clear reason to ban someone with a jerk character, then this is the most common: players just have the wrong idea about what their place is. I do realize that sounds kind of awful "know your place", but in this case I don't mean anyone as inferior, quite the opposite.

Pretty much all roleplayers have some media inspiration, and I would put money on the fact "jerk" characters are quite often inspired on "cool" or "badass" characters/ideas. Some smoke, some swear, some are loners with darkness at their beck and call. A player making a jerk will often have in their head to make a character that "doesn't really get along, but they can get the job done when the chips are down", they expect that despite their character's own way of being that there will be some task where they will be undeniably the best or the one that save everyone and get them to be aknowledged, or another kind of similar situation. However, they are also rarely the kind of player that is particularly apt for having the patience and understanding that their character's way of being will have consequences, especially before getting to that climax.

There are a lot of problems with this expectation. For one thing, unlike a normal story where the plot will bend things so that the jerk characters gets to show off, or where power disparities can be huge without detracting much, in a roleplay the reader is also the other writers, there isn't a main one, and as a result the jerk's "big moment" may never come unless you have an especially attentive GM (or an especially cooperative group). Another issue is that, while everyone kind of expects to be "the hero of their own story" in the roleplay, consequences aren't warped in the way they would another story, so an action that would otherwise be intepreted as "brave and defiant" can be considered "plain retarded", an action that would otherwise be "smart and cautious" can become "stalling" and behavior that would be cool and mysterious from the perspective of side characters is instead just jerkish. Considering the viewpoint of others is crucial in roleplay cooperation, yet the biggest mistake players who make jerk characters make is that they expect that cooperation to come to them.

The real problem here comes in what they do when those expectations aren't met, of which there are generally three paths: A lot of the time, they overcompensate in the form of using some contrived means like retcons, entirely changing the character out of the blue or by giving them a random temporary hunch that they did this or that wrong (kind of like those characters that randomly can guesses whole swats of lore through hunches) or using their overdramatic backstory. Another typical solution is complaining about the treatment they are getting as a direct result of their character's being dicks, often accompanied by trying to shove themselves into everything. Lastly there is doubling down, which is essentially throwing a fit and making their character extra dark and edgy and just a lot worse overall.

Disclaimer: Do take this paragraph with a grain of salt of course. It's conjecture and I don't know what is going on in their heads, but I do believe the expectations I mentioned are actually held given the behavior exhibited by people I've met in the past who made this kind of character, such as defensiveness about their character's bad actions and tendency to immediately try to redeem them at the slightest thing, how clingy they can become to the one character showing them compassion, and surrounding often "edgy" choices or clear rip-offs in the character's design. So just be aware that, while I don't believe I am, I may be discussing a strawman in this part.

Sometimes you're just not good at it​

Related to the previous topic is a very simple fact: different players and different approaches translate to different skills and aptitudes for given kinds of characters. Some types are just harder in general as well. Jerks are one of those character types that is so unapologetically against the basic needs of a roleplay that it takes a considerable amount of skill to pull off well, as one needs to consider the nuances, expections and path beforehand in order to accomplish it.

Forethought and a thick skin are needed for this type of character, but they are often absent from those that make those characters for lack of that very same forethought. Even if you don't have the wrong expectations and aren't a jerk yourself, you may just not be skilled at working on posts without interaction or in developing a character arc with a character that nobody wants to hang out with and doesn't exactly have heroic traits.

This part though is, I think, where the line is crossed, because not being too skilled at something is not something anyone can predict just from a character application.

Examples​

From my experience, the types of "jerk" characters that I most enjoy are often pranksters and trickesters. This is because these types of jerks are very involved with your character, often aiming to target your character's personality's weakpoints, exposing their backstory and so on, as part of their attempt to tease or in some cases even bully or manipulate other characters.

Two examples that come to mind that I really enjoyed playing with were Kioshi from Mistahh , a model pretty boy who thought of non-rich people as inferior and wort teasing to pretty much vent the frustration from the weight his parents placed on him, and Asuka from ABetterNickname , who so far manipulated an entire class of kids pretty much to show off how "smart" she was and seems to have little consideration for others in general.

The one example of a "jerk" character I disliked that comes to mind is this one character from a sort of game RP in a VRMMO. The player was a powergamer abusing the GM's power rules, who would then always killsteal, ignore agreed party roles and so on...but immediately flipped gears if it seemed I was pulling my character away.


Anyway, that is about all I had to say on the topic. I do hope its a useful or at least enjoyable read.

 

[Jannah]

I think it depends on the scenario/plot. In some settings having those sorts of characters can be fun and actually work well, especially if said character is meant to be a villain. However, in RP's that involve a group of people working towards a common goal then, yea, it's going to get more complicated. In that case I would probably just tell the player to either allow room for character growth and change or to simply alter the character entirely.

 

[CecilDMMasters]

I've had to end RPs for this before. The other player has a character that is super racist against my character or treats my character like a slave. Even threatening to sell them into slavery. They can't even talk to the other's character without insult or carry on a conversation. And the whole time they never give a real reason for my character to stick around. Trying to tell them that the RP isn't working and they thing giving meta info should fix it. Seriously no, their character needs to start giving reason in the story for how they are acting.

 

[Idea]

giving reason in the story for how they are acting

Couldn't it be that the reason is that the character is racist?

 

[CecilDMMasters]

Couldn't it be that the reason is that the character is racist?

Usually the meta info is way more complicated and makes out they aren't actually going with the threats and aren't actually so evil and racist and yada yada yada. Yet even the thoughts they give the characters don't add up. Yet they never bring it up story wise to give you a reason to have a character literally following them around putting up with it. Last one the RP ended because I actually had my character leave and made it clear they weren't going back unless the RP became less (censor)kissy
and they searched them out to demand they go back on a non serious mission. A perfect time to maybe explain why if they hated my character so much they wanted them back. But no, they just tried to explain in meta info how their life was so bad because of my characters people and they didn't really hate the whole race but couldn't open up.

 

[Idea]

Usually the meta info is way more complicated and makes out they aren't actually going with the threats and aren't actually so evil and racist and yada yada yada. Yet even the thoughts they give the characters don't add up. Yet they never bring it up story wise to give you a reason to have a character literally following them around putting up with it. Last one the RP ended because I actually had my character leave and made it clear they weren't going back unless the RP became less (censor)kissy
and they searched them out to demand they go back on a non serious mission. A perfect time to maybe explain why if they hated my character so much they wanted them back. But no, they just tried to explain in meta info how their life was so bad because of my characters people and they didn't really hate the whole race but couldn't open up.

I see, I see. Basically a case of character inconsistency, and not understanding that a character's actions have consequences.

 

[CecilDMMasters]

I see, I see. Basically a case of character inconsistency, and not understanding that a character's actions have consequences.

Yes, very much about how I tried to explain it. I tried to tell them that they were 'not showing what they were telling' and that it wasn't really me playing the role of my character if they were expected them to follow his character blindly. Especially as it wasn't even a real big issue they help to anyone but the racist character. If it was saving the world, or even rescuing one person then that would be a reason to put up with it. But it was just recovering proof of his family heritage so he could get a inheritance. The best I got was they had a whole thing about no one appreciating the 'imperfect' character. And a basic admittance that they just wanted to paly a jerk. So needless to say the RP ended with my character walking away and me telling them without a good reason they shouldn't expect it to continue.

 

[Idea]

The best I got was they had a whole thing about no one appreciating the 'imperfect' character.

>They say they want a character arc about people not appreciating his character
>begs the other person to break character when said character does not appreciate their character
error 101 does not compute

 

[CecilDMMasters]

>They say they want a character arc about people not appreciating his character
>begs the other person to break character when said character does not appreciate their character
error 101 does not compute

That pretty much sums up the problem with the disruptive main character player. They want a jerk and love upsetting the other character. Yet don't want them hated too much or at least not punished for being a jerk. They want the other to just keep sticking with them with no reward. While I don't usually assume someone is like their character these type seem to have the toxic gene their characters do.

 

[Crayons]

Ugggghhhh surely the best thing about playing a jerk character is to have fun watching them face the consequences of being a jerk.

I love playing jerk characters! I just find it hilarious to use the narration to mock them, to get to show the discrepancy between their thoughts and their words/deeds, and how they justify their actions to themselves, but also, mostly, to have them face up to their own jerkiness and change, develop, and gain redemption. You can also use them to play a foil to other characters. They are the most fun when they have a mix of redeemable/good character traits and jerky ones.

Jerk characters are great. But jerk players are not great. Don't give those Aholes an inch, lol. Also people have to learn that playing a jerk doesn't mean you get to suck everyone's fun away. It's not all about you and your jerk.

In summary I'm definitely on Team Jerk! Go Jerks!

(Loner characters are in a different category to Jerks. I am anti-loners.)

 

[YsFanatic]

Jerk characters can work, depending on how they are handled. Personally if there is a plan for the character to grow and/or the player is actively looking for possible connections to others, then it should be fine. I've done that well and it worked out. It definitely helps if the character has good reasons to act that way. For example, my one character had been kicked out of his village, and then when he was working as a mercenary he was betrayed and left for dead. Something like that can justify the character being a jerk at the start and give you something to have the character to work on for character development.

 

[Rathian Diablos]

Personally, when it comes to A-Hole characters I can deal with them most of the time as realistically not everyone is going to be nice and you're going to be at odds with someone. However, where I draw the line with A-Hole characters is when they are so much of a jerk that they sabotage people even at their own expense and there is no logical, interesting or even entertaining reason for it. Now usually the way I deal with this is to have my character cut ties with this person and have nothing to do with them as they know this character is no good and will do them no good to attempt working with them at all.

However, there is always the possibility that the A-Hole character despite making it very clear that they don't want to cooperate will insist upon trying to keep themselves in the group. Of course, you'll have the holdout who is good-natured and wants to help this character because while they may be an a-hole they're not evil so we should look put for them right? And I could go along with this, I'm not afraid to make my character the one who has given up on this character and advises against it. However, this would be better if the a-hole character would have developed, maybe stop being stupid and sabotaging things at the expense of everyone including themselves maybe turn their a-hole nature on the enemy, actually learn to care about !ore than themselves or at least become a better villain and or antagonist, but this is rarely the case.

 

[Crayons]

Jerk characters can work, depending on how they are handled. Personally if there is a plan for the character to grow and/or the player is actively looking for possible connections to others, then it should be fine. I've done that well and it worked out. It definitely helps if the character has good reasons to act that way. For example, my one character had been kicked out of his village, and then when he was working as a mercenary he was betrayed and left for dead. Something like that can justify the character being a jerk at the start and give you something to have the character to work on for character development.

The only problem with this is that sadly a CS for a jerk with a plan for development looks almost exactly like the CS for a jerk who is just an annoying jerk. Is there a way for that to be resolved?

Personally, when it comes to A-Hole characters I can deal with them most of the time as realistically not everyone is going to be nice and you're going to be at odds with someone. However, where I draw the line with A-Hole characters is when they are so much of a jerk that they sabotage people even at their own expense and there is no logical, interesting or even entertaining reason for it. Now usually the way I deal with this is to have my character cut ties with this person and have nothing to do with them as they know this character is no good and will do them no good to attempt working with them at all.

However, there is always the possibility that the A-Hole character despite making it very clear that they don't want to cooperate will insist upon trying to keep themselves in the group. Of course, you'll have the holdout who is good-natured and wants to help this character because while they may be an a-hole they're not evil so we should look put for them right? And I could go along with this, I'm not afraid to make my character the one who has given up on this character and advises against it. However, this would be better if the a-hole character would have developed, maybe stop being stupid and sabotaging things at the expense of everyone including themselves maybe turn their a-hole nature on the enemy, actually learn to care about !ore than themselves or at least become a better villain and or antagonist, but this is rarely the case.

This is a "player is jerk" thing rather than a "character is jerk" thing, just the player jerk happens to be playing a character jerk.

 

[Idea]

The only problem with this is that sadly a CS for a jerk with a plan for development looks almost exactly like the CS for a jerk who is just an annoying jerk. Is there a way for that to be resolved?

This is a very interesting question, and though it wasn't directed at me, I'd like to give my two cents on it, if that's alright.

Jerk players do definitely slip from the cracks, but there are signs in the CS that a jerk character might be or be an actually enjoyable experience to work with. These tend to involve not making excuses for the character and not making the character an excuse.

Not Making Excuses:

1.Self awareness: A player that demonstrates an awareness of the character's behavior being sh*tty will typically be more open to consequences coming for the character, and may even be more open to bringing those consequences upon the character themselves or to adjusting the character's jerkiness in a way as to contribute to other player's desired interactions. However, self-awareness can also indicate a troll, so I would keep out for the player's sense of humor.

2.Not being a victim: A jerk who just have a life of bad things happening to them, but who has good moments in between and whose own bad decisions balance out or lead to those bad things that happen to them, is a character where the player isn't trying to get away with being bad, and who shows more awareness of the narrative purpose of a jerk.

3. Unanimous Response: When a character is either universally liked or universally disliked in their backstory, this tends to either be a case of a character having total impunity in their backstory, or a case of wallowing in self-pity, the whole "victim" thing.

4. Contradictions/conditions to the Jerk: In stark contrast to self-awareness, a player that doesn't seem to give their character one negative trait without directly contradicting that trait or adding some condition that makes either "Justified" or barely existen at all, indicates a player who doesn't want their character to be ever perceived as a "bad guy". Most commonly this means they are making a Mary Sue and overall pretty boring character to interact with or a player just does things on the fly without concern for consistency, but if their character is a jerk in the actual RP then this indicates that the player belives that those pseudo-justifies legitimately justify the character's behavior.

5. The "X is worse" syndrome: If it seems like a player always justifies the character's actions by bringing up or introducing a case of someone or something worse, or by stating that "it could be worse", this indicates that the player believes that the jerkiness is justified by there being something worse out there, thus legitimizing the character being a jerk up to that "worse" point.

Not Making The Character An Excuse:

This one is a little harder to tell from the CS, as it comes less from the character itself as the problem, and more from the player's own malice (which is harder to tell from a CS). Still, even here there are some indicators in the CS.

6.Powers/skills for impunity: If a player's choice of powers seems specifically designed to overcome anyone coming after them, and their character is prone to being actively a jerk (going out of their way to harass other characters), this is often a sign that the player intends to bring harassment and have other characters being IC powerless to stop his. A similar indicator happens in powers with absolutes in general.

7.The word of the Law, not the spirit of the saw: If a player in their CS is going by the technicalities of how the rules are written, rather than by what the rules obviously actually mean, then that shows the player isn't working with the GM, but trying to game the GM. It triggers all sorts of red flags.

 

[CecilDMMasters]

Personally, when it comes to A-Hole characters I can deal with them most of the time as realistically not everyone is going to be nice and you're going to be at odds with someone. However, where I draw the line with A-Hole characters is when they are so much of a jerk that they sabotage people even at their own expense and there is no logical, interesting or even entertaining reason for it. Now usually the way I deal with this is to have my character cut ties with this person and have nothing to do with them as they know this character is no good and will do them no good to attempt working with them at all.

However, there is always the possibility that the A-Hole character despite making it very clear that they don't want to cooperate will insist upon trying to keep themselves in the group. Of course, you'll have the holdout who is good-natured and wants to help this character because while they may be an a-hole they're not evil so we should look put for them right? And I could go along with this, I'm not afraid to make my character the one who has given up on this character and advises against it. However, this would be better if the a-hole character would have developed, maybe stop being stupid and sabotaging things at the expense of everyone including themselves maybe turn their a-hole nature on the enemy, actually learn to care about !ore than themselves or at least become a better villain and or antagonist, but this is rarely the case.

This sounds like a table troll to me. Basically that person that if you are role playing IRL with a group of people is sitting there and giggling and even pointing out whenever another player is getting frustrated and not having fun because "Hey, don't you think it's hilarious I keep messing up their stuff." Extra strong table trolls also get flipped off mad and go bully if you don't let things steer to what they want for legit reasons like, it's obviously a bad idea, it's not what your character would do, it's evil and you're playing a good guy etc.

Sadly as you can't see their face and demeanor through a screen they can take a bit longer to recognize when playing online. Though at least online has a block button to make being rid of them easier. Though I guess in a group that may not work as well as 1x1.

 

[YsFanatic]

The only problem with this is that sadly a CS for a jerk with a plan for development looks almost exactly like the CS for a jerk who is just an annoying jerk. Is there a way for that to be resolved?

Without putting spoilers into the character sheet, I don't know how you could really could make it appear better. Fielding such a character in an RP that has some people who you get along with might help though as they might be more willing to just see how it goes without being concerned about it. I would also look for anything in the posted backstories in other characters that could possibly give rise to situations that would help your character grow. If you do find something, maybe contact the person playing that character so you can work together to help make it happen. For example, when playing my character who was betrayed, Jaste, I was aware of another character in the group who was having some similar issues as to what he had to previously deal with. So when a chance came up early on for him to find out about her situation, I worked with that player to make it happen so he could talk to her and start to form a connection. The scene made it clear that he could be a decent person, just that it was difficult for him to trust people right now. There were some other things as well that was going to help with his development, but the RP sadly died before it really went anywhere. I can provide more details if people want 'em.

And if people indicate that they have concerns about how your character is behaving, talk it out with them. I've had that happen where someone would be annoyed/upset at my character did certain things, but after I got in a voice chat with them and explained more of the character's thought process it made sense to him and he realized that it was all in character and I wasn't trying to be mean or anything. Everything was fine after that. I think sometimes people forget that just because how you described the reasons for the character's actions in your post makes sense to you doesn't mean that it will make sense to others.

Another suggestion would be to discuss with the GM the reasons the character is that way and any possible ideas for character growth that would resolve the 'problem'. That way they can either work with you to incorporate something in the story to help the character grow, if feasible, or at least try to make sure they don't accidentally shut any opportunities that came up organically.

Ultimately, like with many things, it all depends on the RP and the group for if having a jerk character would work or not. It would also depend on how much of a jerk they are. Of the the two jerks I fielded, Jaste was far more of an asshole than the other one. The other guy, Balint, was more of a 'I don't care for rules or titles and like to annoy people with paper airplanes' kind of jerk. He was completely able to work with others and watch out for them when things went bad, so most characters got along with Balint just fine, and a number of players found him more amusing than anything.

 

[LazyDaze]

I personally think it just takes good writing and understanding on both sides. Some of my favorite characters in movies/shows are jerks; however, if the writer just haphazardly made him interrupt every single attempt at development for other characters we would probably hate that show. I think all players have to keep in mind that other players want to contribute to the story and have plans as well. Talk it out if you have to and write creatively.

 

[Tove]

I have only seen a select few handle such characters right which would be allowing said character to go through character development, something I have no problem with and can easily work with. Unfortunately, a majority of the time some make jerk characters for the simple hell of making a character antagonistic with no redeeming qualities or chances to improve, those are the type I can't deal with.