|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:42 am
You'll have less "Master of All Trades" characters if people learn how to design characters properly instead of "HURR HURR I LIKEZ DIS" whilst cramming every possible idea into a single character and making them some sort of deformed, utterly broken creation like Frankenstein's monster, except not cool.
I think it's fine to have several characters (I've made like.. 40+ and never use 'em), but it's a great idea to stick with one or two and play them consistently. That way, you can easily get into the mind of that character and play them very well. The longer and more often you play a character, the easier it becomes to do so, and the more natural it becomes, just like playing any part. So someone who plays the same character over a long span of time, as opposed to several in short bursts, will usually do so more convincingly.
I mean, most people can create a character then turn around and roleplay with it. But it takes longer than that to really get into character, to learn the nuances and small quirks that come with playing the character that make it seem believable. Like a new car or pair of shoes, it takes more than one time to become accustomed to it. Hence, a person who sticks with one or two characters (and only switches after long periods of time) usually plays their character in an interesting and believable manner, because they don't just know the ins and outs of the character like anyone does from reading a profile, they UNDERSTAND those minor nuances and character traits.
When I first played Deitric, it was kind of stiff and awkward. It took me about the whole of HoH and then some to really figure out everything about the character, even though I had written the profile and designed the lay-out of it and all that. But, even as the creator, I didn't fully understand how everything meshed together when the character was brought to life until I spent time playing him. Now, I can play him a lot easier in and out of combat situations, and I have a lot more understanding of how the character works beyond the profile I wrote for him.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:43 am
A few people don't do it wrong, but there are those who stick to that character and expect that character to have the "Hero" clause of being able to get through most things. When you have one character, you invest development into that character, but you also place your most emotions into them, so you never want them to die or get hurt. Whereas, if you play a variety of characters, you distribute your liking of them throughout, though you may have a favorite or two. In the end, if something happens to one character in a story, you always have another one to go play with in the meantime.
It's mainly a pro and con thing.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:46 am
Well, that depends on the person, more than the concept. Some people have the "protagonist complex" where their character has to be the best, has to do everything perfectly. I recently attributed this to Takamura in his fight with Omi; the way his character unfailingly performed every action and could apparently react and respond to everything without even so much as a flinch.
I do something like what Desi and Cog both probably do; have multiple characters, but only play one until you get tired, then switch to the other. I intend on doing this with Deitric, once I do a storyline with Ebag that I've been meaning to do. Take a break and play a different character while writing solo stories for Deitric, then come back with him once I'm ready.
EDIT:: ******** grammar, I just woke up like thirty minutes ago.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:47 am
I don't think characters should be treated like disposable cameras. It makes the writing of each character less intimate and you're more likely to place less value in the quality of the characters personality. And if you don't care that much about your character, nobody else will either.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:06 am
I need to have a roleplay, IC, where someone can help me explain why Vince all of a sudden just falls out of his half-dragon transformation.
That's something he should be able to control for prolonged periods of time with no problem. -Le Sigh.-
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:15 am
Personally, Ive taken great pride in playing as Vash. This character was actually an idea I helped my younger brother with who wanted to get into the rp world. He changed his mind of course and I took over and truly fell in love with the design and concept with which we made him and to be quite honest, this is the first time Ive put him into battle, let alone in interaction rp wise.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:21 am
Vince/Striker are my two most developed OC's, but mainly because there's always something interesting going on. Not only that, but for casual roleplays they are always requested for whatever reason.
Vince has more of a concept of "I'm going to beat your a**, and since I've got these muscles, I'll do it."
Striker on the other hand is along the lines of: "Let's love one another, but if we must, I'll strategically throw you into the jaws of defeat."
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:27 am
|
The Female of the Species
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:36 am
How did stabbing an ogre work? 8D
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:25 am
|
The Female of the Species
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:44 am
Quote: I'm serious. We'll have less Master of All characters if people just stick to either doing Red Mage templates or specializing in something. I'm generalizing stuff here so I'm not saying people should go out and make an actual Red Mage. You know, just because you mentioned it, I'll end up bringing Hyrist in here now. I PLAY a Red Mage in FFXI, and I've a fair assessment on how his abilities would transfer over to Gaia pretty cleanly. And it'd take nothing for me to transfer over his personality, as I've roleplayed him before! There's a two-way street when it comes the 'Jack of All Trades.' Stigma. The first actually comes from the end that looks down on the use of it, because of the phrase 'master of none' attached to it. But what people don't realize is that that last part of the statement is completely incorrect. It's supposed to be "Jack of All Trades, Master of Self." It means, you know a bit of everything, you don't specialize, but what you know you can use aptly. This comes by knowing your limits and capitalizing upon their strengths and minimalistic their weaknesses: Not through acquiring more powers, but by mastering the ones you have. Development form said characters comes more from innovation and less from 'tiers', which is an improper way to develop in free form roleplaying anyways. People who keep stacking powers that build upon each other end up becoming this "master of all" situation that really harms the true jacks. Though I admit, even I was once guilty of that. Kalar the character has an ability list a mile long. But that's what I get for keeping the character for a dozen years. A note about 'the hero complex'. There's nothing really wrong about having a few players doing the hero thing. It's when everyone wants to that it becomes a problem. What I would like to see, is a character that is invested into die, meaningfully. People in that respect of roleplaying have gone soft. While I can understand not wanting to succumb your character to unexpected death (especially if some a*****e is after you.) what I want to see is someone plot out a character to die. To make a character designed to get people acclimated to it, to like that character, establish a good plot flow - and then KILL it. And I don't mean the "Oh I'm sick of this character/roleplaying I'm just going to murder him" deal. I mean really pulling on the heart-strings, catching your fellow players by surprise. Really draw it out, making them face death as plot in and of itself. That's far better than creating a hero character that fades to black because you got bored with him, or a number of characters that never really stand out on their own, though both of them do sometimes have their advantages. A good way to practice making an invested character designed to die is to create a primary antagonist character. But right now, there's no real safe haven for those.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:51 am
People forgetting the "master of none" is the problem. The idea is that you're versatile, but un-specialized. You can do plenty, but put up against a specialist you pale in comparison. A lot of people don't do this though, their character is ttly-awzum at EVERYTHING they do, therefore cutting out these specialist characters (like support characters, people who heal, use artifice, survival guides, etc) from the picture.
What's more, is the "protagonist complex" that I brought up is bad because it's basically the assumption that your character matters most, and that all others fall by the wayside, or aren't treated with the needed respect to their abilities. So what you get is this "I do everything awesome and your character is a bumbling ********" attitude. Heroes aren't bad, but the "protagonist complex" really hinders roleplay because it's such a self-centric ideal.
Also, I have a plot for Deitric to die, it'll start after this tournament. Of course, he comes back (and dies again), but the entire story revolves around his initial death.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:13 pm
Hey, Deitric can't die before Athan does.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:16 pm
Athan better die pretty quickly, then.
Of course, it's not going to be a permanent death, it's meant to be a means for me to put his plot back on the track it needs to be. However, he will be dead for a while so that I can either play another character, or put some other ideas into motion. His death is needed as a catalyst to change him and advance his storyline.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:17 pm
Well, considering how slow the ALPHAAAAAAAAAA plot is moving...
Athan probably won't die for another two years.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|