What makes Good Characters?

[tajerio]

 

A character just has to be interesting, they don't need to grow, or be sympathetic, or even be plausible, they just need to be interesting.

 

Whether it's because they interact with people an interesting way, have an interesting personality/story, etc. they just have to keep my attention and make me want to see them more.

if they don;t change then they are a type, not a character.

It makes them one-dimensional. That's bad writing no matter where it is done.

 

 

I don't think that's quite right, but maybe my point of disagreement is semantic.  The character doesn't necessarily need to change from what the PC knows of them, but the PC does need to learn more about them.  So the character of any companion could remain the same throughout the entire game, but as long as we don't know the whole of it at the start, then learning more about them as time goes on and the party encounters new situations is plenty in my book.

 

Basically, no particular thing about a character needs to change for me to find that character interesting, but the sum total of my knowledge about that character's personality DOES need to change. 

[Walsingham]

A character just has to be interesting, they don't need to grow, or be sympathetic, or even be plausible, they just need to be interesting.

 

Whether it's because they interact with people an interesting way, have an interesting personality/story, etc. they just have to keep my attention and make me want to see them more.

 

But if they aren't influenced by the PC that's not very flattering/engaging.

 

Again, there are people like this in real life. But they aren't interesting either.

[Agiel]

I recall Kurt Vonnegut's list of rules for writing fiction that was to the effect of "Every character must have a motivation, even if it is a glass of water."

[drake heath]

Well then, I guess we can all agree that there aren't set rules for what a good character is, it all depends on the individual reader.

Edited February 24, 2014 by drake heath

[JFSOCC]

Well then, I guess we can all agree that there aren't set rules for what a good character is, it all depends on the individual reader.

I think any literature professor will vehemently disagree with this.

[TMZuk]

Characterization: Who They Are. That you get a feeling that it's a person, you are speaking to, and not Random Questgiver One or Portable Warrior Three.

 

Believeability: What They Want. Closely related to Characterization. That I somehow can relate to them and what they want and what drives them. Ambition, honour, greed, hate, love, faith or what have we and any combination of these.

 

Reactivity. What I Say and do Matters. And more than that, what I wear and how I look as well. Not just an arc, but multiple arcs, depending on how well they are aligned with what I say and do.

 

Sexuality. Gender Matters. No, not the ability to seduce everything that moves but a recognition of gender differences, beyond "Greetings, miss, mistress, mister, ma'am, master."

[Sarex]

I see we have a lot of armchair writers here. A character doesn't have to have a growth arc or evolve at all. In fact that is what people today are complaining the most about in modern fantasy and sci fi. A character only has to do interesting stuff, as an example, he can have something tragic happen to him and we can see how he deals with it and how he reacts to it. That is why I said that a character only has to react to the plot and choices the PC makes.

 

The growth arc and evolving of a character are for the farm boys who discover they have powers and are on their way to become the hero/king of their world. Why not have a bad ass middle age man who came to kick ass and chew bubble gum and he's all out of bubble gum.

[tajerio]

I see we have a lot of armchair writers here. 

 

Do you prefer to write standing up?

[Sarex]

Do you prefer to write standing up?

 

Well it is healthier.

[Lephys]

I misunderstood this thread somewhat *awkward*. Yes I was more in realm of classic good as "anti.evil". Thanks for point that out before I continued more lol.

 

Rewards for being good were mostly so obvious. If one even cant get reward in loot, system strokes your/characters ego. People want to play character that is hero of the present, or recognised for their deeds generations to come. I happened to watch documenatry about Judas evangely at the same time and came across thread title. Should have taken more thought into first post.  I was cought in certain thought  and was like how many would do good thing or sacrifice themself and be villified for it. Not Robin Hood villified. But Judas villified.

 

But let me not derail from thread anymore

No worries. It was perfectly understandable. Wasn't meaning to correct you or anything. I just realized we happened to be talking about 2 different things.

 

I wouldn't say it's necessarily derailing, btw. It's quite a valid analysis of what makes a good good character.

[drake heath]

 

Well then, I guess we can all agree that there aren't set rules for what a good character is, it all depends on the individual reader.

I think any literature professor will vehemently disagree with this.

 

Which is why they aren't authors.

[Lephys]

 

 

Well then, I guess we can all agree that there aren't set rules for what a good character is, it all depends on the individual reader.

I think any literature professor will vehemently disagree with this.

 

Which is why they aren't authors.

 

This is a fallacy. Just because objective factors don't overrule subjective factors does not somehow mean that the only thing that exists is subjectivity. Everything is relative. If a character is at odds with the rest of a literary work, for example, then it isn't a good character. It's like a stop sign. If a stop sign isn't noticeable, then it doesn't matter how much you like the color, or design of the sign. If you like camouflage, camouflage is still a terrible pattern to put on a stop sign.

 

The same goes for characters. There are definitely set rules that make characters good or terrible, but it also depends on the individual reader. Otherwise, how could the individual reader rate two similar characters in two similar stories, as anything other than "I like them both exactly equally"? There would be no such thing as a good sci-fi male protagonist, versus a bad one.

 

At some point, the things you like align with objectivity. Or, to be clearer, the things you dislike about the character start to be because of objective reasons, and not because you simply don't prefer that type of character. Like with the stop sign. I can love camouflage, but dislike the inability to see the stop sign and know when and where to stop my vehicle. Even if I don't like red, I like that red contrasts a lot more with surroundings of stop signs, and is therefore more visible and prevents me from crashing into other vehicles simply because I didn't notice a sign.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Lephys

[darthdraken]

Good interactive characters that makes choices as you interact with them depending on a number of factors generated through game play style. Past choices and who we are as a character.

 

For example we get jumped by a bandit gang. Now due to past choices the possibility of joining them could be better than fighting them due to past actions or if we total law good then a selection of walking away before they get killed option tree. Or if we fight first style then jumping them regardless.

And if we best them maybes a chance for one of them or two to surrender to you. And that opens a branch of kill, capture or let free. And all of that could be wrapped up due to who we interacted with before and actions did and where we have been and who we know. Is the one surrendering just a young boy dragged in to fight because he is bullied or so despirate for food for his family. Who knows....

[JFSOCC]

 

 

Well then, I guess we can all agree that there aren't set rules for what a good character is, it all depends on the individual reader.

I think any literature professor will vehemently disagree with this.

 

Which is why they aren't authors.

 

Many are.

I don't want to school you on the basics of writing characters on this forum. I may be an amateur at writing but I can distinguish between a good book and a bad one. Between plot driven stories and character driven stories. Strong characterization doesn't happen if you don't follow certain rules. And sure, sometimes rules can be broken, but it would better be for a damn good reason or you'll find your character lacking.

 

There are too many fans of pulp, so when posting on these forums I try to be careful not to sound like too much like a snob. I guess I'm breaking that here but the ignorance of your statement is compelling me to.

 

I'm not saying experimenting is bad, btw, but thinking about developing your character throughout a story with a beginning middle and end is a good way to start. You also have a lot of things you cannot do. You cannot make your character flawless, you can't always let your character win or get his way, things that might be obvious to you shouldn't always be obvious to your character, your character cannot do everything on his own. your audience needs to care about your characters adversity because of his role in it, that even counts for the dupe or unwitting fools.

A character must have a reason for his behaviour and choices, and a reason for his skills and abilities.

A character needs an arc. If a character is unchanging then it is a type. Someone who never moves on from the same thinking throughout the narrative is boring and predictable. You know what he'll do next, because he did it last time, and the time before.

Leonard, Sheldon and Penny are never going to be different. They are types, you know their jokes before they make them, and chuckle by rote and laughing track. Francis Underwood faces different challenges of which most arise from his own choices. His is a complex character whose story has an arc. Katniss Everdeen is a type. She's good at everything she needs doing, all answers get thrown her way, she always succeeds. Any obstacle she faces offers leaves no lesson for her character. Ian Dunross's schemes succeed the consequences of his choices, they wouldn't have formed otherwise. He is great example of a good character and I recommend Noble House (and Tai Pan) (the books)

 

there is a lot to think about when making a good character, and while you can vary from the norm, having a decent knowledge about them is where you begin.

Edited February 25, 2014 by JFSOCC

[Sarex]

Many are.

I don't want to school you on the basics of writing characters on this forum. I may be an amateur at writing but I can distinguish between a good book and a bad one. Between plot driven stories and character driven stories. Strong characterization doesn't happen if you don't follow certain rules. And sure, sometimes rules can be broken, but it would better be for a damn good reason or you'll find your character lacking.

 

There are too many fans of pulp, so when posting on these forums I try to be careful not to sound like too much like a snob. I guess I'm breaking that here but the ignorance of your statement is compelling me to.

 

I'm not saying experimenting is bad, btw, but thinking about developing your character throughout a story with a beginning middle and end is a good way to start. You also have a lot of things you cannot do. You cannot make your character flawless, you can't always let your character win or get his way, things that might be obvious to you shouldn't always be obvious to your character, your character cannot do everything on his own. your audience needs to care about your characters adversity because of his role in it, that even counts for the dupe or unwitting fools.

A character must have a reason for his behaviour and choices, and a reason for his skills and abilities.

A character needs an arc. If a character is unchanging then it is a type. Someone who never moves on from the same thinking throughout the narrative is boring and predictable. You know what he'll do next, because he did it last time, and the time before.

Leonard, Sheldon and Penny are never going to be different. They are types, you know their jokes before they make them, and chuckle by rote and laughing track. Francis Underwood faces different challenges of which most arise from his own choices. His is a complex character whose story has an arc. Katniss Everdeen is a type. She's good at everything she needs doing, all answers get thrown her way, she always succeeds. Any obstacle she faces offers leaves no lesson for her character. Ian Dunross's schemes succeed the consequences of his choices, they wouldn't have formed otherwise. He is great example of a good character and I recommend Noble House (and Tai Pan) (the books)

 

there is a lot to think about when making a good character, and while you can vary from the norm, having a decent knowledge about them is where you begin.

 

 

Go read Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen and call his characters boring and flat. You pallet is not as good as you seem to think it is.

 

Here is what a real writer says about characters:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIjFEkoaebc

[JFSOCC]

I've read the Malazan book of the fallen. It's not my type of fantasy at all. The pacing is terrible. The characters on screen too short to tell their characters.

 

you're free to ignore my advice, but that will make you the fool, not me.

 

Edit: the guy in the video is saying JK rowling did it better than anyone else? HAHAHAHAHA! what an idiot.

Edited February 25, 2014 by JFSOCC

[Sarex]

Edit: the guy in the video is saying JK rowling did it better than anyone else? HAHAHAHAHA! what an idiot.

 

Aaaaaaaaand so much for your advice.

[drake heath]

Which is why there's no one end all answer on what a good character is no matter how many people with degrees say otherwise.

 

Because it's not a science, (depending on whether or not you believe it is) it's an art, which is objective.

 

Like I think Picasso's art blows, but many consider him to be great.

 

I know people who think Shakespeare is a hack.

 

It's just an opinion, and that's all it will ever be.

 

Call me a dumbass for thinking that, but whatever, it doesn't make you right.

[JFSOCC]

I think you may learn to appreciate Picasso, but that would require an education first.

[tajerio]

Someone who never moves on from the same thinking throughout the narrative is boring and predictable. You know what he'll do next, because he did it last time, and the time before.

 

If it's a good character this is untrue.  People often don't act in a consistent manner--sometimes one motivation gets the upper hand, sometimes another does, and frequently irrationality comes into play.  But that can all be part of the same way of thinking.  And that can make for a perfectly interesting character without forcing a change in worldview, because even though the character's way of thinking hasn't changed, the situation in which that character has been placed can change dramatically, and then we don't know what the response will be.   

[Nonek]

Quality stationery.

[LadyCrimson]

After reading through the thread (some great comments, btw), I'm thinking this is probably a more generalized gaming question vs. a PoE discussion and thus have moved it to Computer and Console.

 

And for me, a good character is just one who I react to emotionally in a sympathetic, positive, humourous or sometimes even a negative (love to hate) way. If there's no emotional connect, then they just become a chess piece that I'm moving around a board. It doesn't have to be a major connect, but something. What exactly creates this connect for me personally ... mmm not always sure about that. It just happens.

[Tale]

And that can make for a perfectly interesting character without forcing a change in worldview, because even though the character's way of thinking hasn't changed, the situation in which that character has been placed can change dramatically, and then we don't know what the response will be.

A change doesn't mean it has to be their worldview. More interesting than a character in a situation the audience is unfamiliar with is one in a situation the character is unfamiliar with. There's again, growth and change to be had there, even if it's simply becoming comfortable with their environment.

 

The improvement here is that the change makes the character vulnerable. A good character is one you want to see attempt a challenge. And if it's a personal challenge, all the better.

[tajerio]

 

And that can make for a perfectly interesting character without forcing a change in worldview, because even though the character's way of thinking hasn't changed, the situation in which that character has been placed can change dramatically, and then we don't know what the response will be.

A change doesn't mean it has to be their worldview. More interesting than a character in a situation the audience is unfamiliar with is one in a situation the character is unfamiliar with. There's again, growth and change to be had there, even if it's simply becoming comfortable with their environment.

 

The improvement here is that the change makes the character vulnerable. A good character is one you want to see attempt a challenge. And if it's a personal challenge, all the better.

 

 

I agree entirely.  I was responding directly to a much more restrictive statement about how a character can be interesting.

[AGX-17]

Well, this dead horse still has the vague shape and smell of a dead horse, so we might as well keep battering it until it becomes a fine reddish-brown paste. I wonder if maggots can live off a liquid diet.

 

Anyway:

Good writing.

 

That's all there is to it.

 

All of the qualities which one might say defines a "good character" fall under the umbrella of "good writing."

Edited February 25, 2014 by AGX-17