Community Discussion #4: January 27th 2013

Part 1 of 3

Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3

Kim: And as always, everyone please remember: We're here to discuss, not to argue. Please don't use this as a soapbox to make personal attacks against people whose play style annoys you. Similarly, please don't feel intimidated that your ideas might not be well received! Every thought is valid, and there's a ton of moderators in here to make sure everyone is treated with respect. :)


Bonebag: So are we free to get going? Or are we waiting?


The_Ross: I hate Bonebag's playstyle.


The_Ross: He's a jerk.


SeraphicStar: *cracks knuckles*

Ready to discuss!


The_Ross: And all his ideas are invalid.


Kim: Let's go! First prompt:

What is remarkable about "normal" characters?


Loki: Woo! I'm all set Kim :D


The_Ross: They don't suck.


The_Ross: You're welcome, I'm here all week


TheLily: I like that "normal" characters are familliar.


TornBySanity: Normal characters are easier to place in MOST settings so they can be used in more than one type of RP :)


Ravdaer: Sometimes, we need a break from magical stuff


Ben: NO WE DON'T *dragged off screaming*


TheLily: I don't need to think about how to make them, I just make them. I don't need to think of how to fit in with them. It's so easy to get together with them.


Kim: (For those of you that need help keeping up, a few tips:

1. Make the chat window full screen
2. Change your settings to not include "pretty formatting" (this will help you fit more on the screen)
3. Use your browser settings to zoom out a little (Will make the text tinier and let you fit more on the screen)
)


Loki: I have the most fun with "normal" characters because I enjoy discovering new settings with them, it's fun to watch someone without crazy magic/tech figure out how to deal with those types of situations


SeraphicStar: A "normal" character doesn't rely on super special powers, crazy looks or badass finishing moves to be interesting.


Copper_Dragon:

Kim wrote:
What is remarkable about "normal" characters?

Well, I might have a slightly different view of "Normal" than simply "a mundane character with no abilities or powers".


Loki: Thanks for the tips Kim :D I just did all of that <3 looks much better


Kim: Seraphic: What DO they rely on to be interesting, then?


Bonebag: Nothing - that's the point. It's fine to have a character more central to the plot have some special 'something' (ability, quality, etc) or a villain that seems impossible to beat at first, but if you constantly have characters that push past their obstacles by simply getting more and more powerful, it's going to constantly be a rerun of a DBZ episode. While I like DBZ, there's very little interesting story past a certain point.


PenGryphon2007: I agree with Loki; it's the reactions they have to what's not normal about them that makes them fun.


Copper_Dragon: I see normal characters as people who, in spite of their special abilities or powers (if they have them), can still be interesting people by their quirks, personalities, and even their occupations.


GrandFinale: Yeah, sorry, but 'normal' brings 'extremely mundane' to mind for me.


SeraphicStar: Personality!


Nero: I am not especially well renowned for playing normal characters, though I have done it a couple times. Some of the normal characters I have seen played among stronger than normal characters were played for the struggle. If you can't just punch through a wall(or some such other extraordinary activity), you have to think harder and be more creative to overcome obstacles that might be relatively basic for others.


Rubix: "Normal" characters are remarkable because there are so few of them. They are able to fall into any setting, it's fun to watch them react and to watch their interactions with others. Also a "normal" character can be anyone, you me the fly on the wall it doesn't matter. They don't have to be "magical" to be special.


Kim: Finale: You say that like "extremely mundane" is bad. Can there be anything interesting in a mundane character?


PenGryphon2007: (I get the same impression GrandFinale)


TheLily: Cici used to be a completely normal single mother... then she got thrown into a supernatural plots. It's amazing to have her jaw drop every time something bad happens XD


Loki: I agree with Copper, you have to work harder to give them a strong personality, and some type of quirks, so that people are still interested in them


Bonebag: I think normal characters are the best for story-driven roleplay. I also think 'normal' depends on the setting.


GrandFinale: I just usually have a hard time keeping down normal characters, so I'm really being biased here...


Ben: I think that even when you're developing an abnormal character it's a good idea to treat them as normal first during character building, because it forces you to focus on their needs, desires, fears and loves rather than anything else.


Nuclear_Dingoz: I have loads of "normal" characters XD people just trying to find their place in the world.


TheLily: I agree with Bonebag, it's hard to put normal on some characters. Candi is mundane without powers or anything, but she's not exactly normal with her storyline


GrandFinale: Not to say normal characters can't be done well, depends on the writer/player.


Copper_Dragon: @Ben: Bingo-bango-bongo, dude. That's a wonderful way of looking at it. They ARE sentient beings, after all! ... well, generally, unless you're playing a golem or somethin'.


Kim: So we're getting responses based on lots of different definitions of "normal". Let's step back and see if we can bright those different definitions into the light.

What is "normal"? Is "normal" a moving target, based on the established setting of the game?


The_Ross: These characters rely on subtlety and the strength of their writing to be interesting. A character with no personality will interest no one, regardless of whether they are normal or not, regardless of the definition we use for "normal" - for that matter, regardless of any other qualities.


The_Ross: Late


PenGryphon2007: I suppose for "normal", I do have a few--in which case it's their personality or their goal, rather than their special ability or powers, which make them interesting.


Copper_Dragon: Yes it is, Kim, especially when you look at what's normal between, say, Ebberon vs Warhammer 40K. >_>


Loki: I think of normal as someone/thing that doesn't have any super powers. They're just a regular person


TheLily: I think it's established game to game.


Copper_Dragon: ... Oh, wait, that's settings, not character. Still!


The_Ross: Normal depends entirely on the universe in which the character is constructed. If everyone is a two-headed dragon griffin, then two-headed dragon griffins are normal.


PenGryphon2007: And world to world. What's normal for your canon world is not necessarily so for another.


TornBySanity: Normal, to me, would be a character that blends more than sticks out. Has a very basic ideal behind it (that can always erupt into some amazing thing later on in an RP). Mostly Human and non-magical


Bonebag: I think average/normal is always dynamic. You can't have one, single, rock-solid definition of normal that carries from game to game, or from story-to-story. Just my opinion.


TornBySanity: rfde4


TornBySanity: (Sorry!! Cat thought he could add to the convo!)


The_Ross: Kim, what is the "pretty formatting" setting you were referring to earlier? Or rather, where is it?


Nero: When I say normal, I think of a human you could find at the mall right now. It has nothing to do with their state of mind relative to insane, wacky etc. Even in a game where everyone is playing a supernatural creature of some sort(happens a lot with vampires or werewolfs in my experience), there are generally still lots of normal humans out there, and the definition of normal doesn't change.


Loki: He says he's normal Teebs XD


Copper_Dragon:
TornBySanity wrote:
Normal, to me, would be a character that blends more than sticks out.

Ooh, that's actually an amazing way to answer that, Torn, especially when one takes into account how various settings and the characters within them differ from one another!

Also your cat is forgiven. For now. Bwahaha.


Loki: it's a check box if you click on the gear to the right Ross


Rubix: Normal to me is a character that doesn't have any super or preternatural powers, they're just like regular run of the mill humans. They are built up and made dynamic through their personalities, and through the way they are played. If someone was looking at their profile they may think they were bland or not see "something" there, but gameplay with that character would and usually does show the brilliance of their creation. :) Just like talking and interacting with regular people in real life.


The_Ross: herp derp


SeraphicStar: My idea of "Normal" matches Nero's perfectly.


Kim: I submit from personal experience: I play a game in which everyone is a vampire.

But there are different types of vampires, and without strict limits, the majority of people try to write vampires from the "extremely rare" clans. Sometimes normal is just being a regular vampire with an average vampire past!


Ben: I think that normalality is most important when considering things like time period and location, rather than magical or fantasy elements.


Nero: If the "normal" we're talking about is the status quo for a setting, which could include things not present in modern reality, then I think it's a pretty different conversation, and I've played lots of normal characters.


Ben: normality*


The_Ross: Sometimes, your vampire is just a blogger who runs a roleplaying website on the side.


TheLily: What Kim said!


The_Ross: They get their blood from the vampire supermarket.


TheLily: Also Ross, I want to play that character, can I take it? XD


Loki: xD


The_Ross: And sometimes they watch Vampire Adventure Time.


Loki: Sounds like Rubix's Salmon Ross


Bonebag: Devil's Advocate: But what's so great about that? Why would you WANT to have a character that's 'normal' or most likely mundane in the eyes of the rp'er creating him/her?


The_Ross: I release this character in to the public domain~


Nero: I'm accustomed to using a variety of different words for the status quo characters, like common or cannon etc.


The_Ross: You want to play a character who is normal so that people can actually relate to and connect with him/her/it.


SeraphicStar: Because even the most mundane of characters can be very complex and interesting.


The_Ross: If no one cares about your character, it doesn't exist.


Rubix: ^--- That.


Rubix: XD I was meaning that for Seraphic but Ross applies too.


Bonebag: Ross I love you so much right now


The_Ross: When you make a non-normal character, most of the time, the only reaction you will get is people rolling their eyes.


Copper_Dragon: And in order for them to be cared about, there has to be a connection to them between audience & character!


Loki: I feel like they're more fun because in the setting I typically use, magic is common place. People from outside the setting "move to" my setting and so it's fun to see how they react to different magical situations


TheLily: I like playing "normal" characters because I don't know who would want to play with my more extreme cahracters. For me it's easier to make a character that's interesting based on real life stuff. I tend to go for less "normal" real life stuff: single parents, prostitution, battered housewives, mental illness.


Kim: So I'm seeing two totally different versions of defining "normal":

1. They conform to something you might expect to see in real life. They do not have special powers or an outrageous past, they're just a person.
2. They comform to what is normal for the setting -- if the setting contains no humans and it's been established that the most common race on that planet is, say, gnomes, it's an average gnome with an average job.

Can we distinguish these two? Are there better words we could apply than just "normal" for both?


Ben: Mundane and canon.


TheLily: Mundane and average?


The_Ross: Not really, #2 is just a more generalized version of #1


The_Ross: #2 is any quadrilateral, #1 is a square


TheLily: Mundane for the regular people with no powers and average for the people who fit in with the world setting?


Rubix: I think normal applies to both Kim. The setting I use most often "normal" is human, but if you're in a high fantasy setting "normal" could be elf. XD It just depends on what you play and where.


PenGryphon2007: Mundane comes from Mundus which means "world/mankind"


Bonebag: 'Mundane' doesn't have to be normal, in my opinion.


Nero: We could go with Normal and Setting Normal, but I have a feeling I'm one of the few people that likes specific flags like that.


Kim: Ross: Can you elaborate? There seemed to be a lot of people who felt that a "normal" character should not have magic or powers, even if the "norm" for that world involved a lot of magic.


Kim: Thank you for that literary touch, Pen! :D


The_Ross: Well, that doesn't make sense. If all 6.79 billion people on Earth had magic powers, and I was the only one who didn't, I wouldn't be normal.


GrandFinale: And Mundus comes from Devil May Cry where he's Satan /SHOT Sorry, I had to make that joke XD


Kim: Nero: Setting Normal is an interesting distinction.


Kim: Perhaps instead of "normal", since normal might be different per setting, some of us are referring to "realistic"?


PenGryphon2007: I like that better, Kim. "Realistic"


The_Ross: This is acceptable


Bonebag: Yes.


SeraphicStar: "Realistic" sounds great, actually.


GrandFinale: Eeeeeeeeeeexactly.


Copper_Dragon: Realistic, yes!


Earendill: I have arrived! Despite a serious delay in my train trip ><


Loki: yeah Realistic


SeraphicStar: Ohai thar!


Copper_Dragon: Earen, welcome aboard!


Kim: So we agree that "realistic" is not actually always "normal"? XD


Nero: Realistic is which version of normal? I got confused.


Loki: Hey Earendill! :D


The_Ross: Human, no powers, etc.


PenGryphon2007: "Realistic" gives the impression that it can happen to anyone, anywhere. So I'd say the first definition of Normal.


Rubix: Yes m'lady!


Bonebag: Realistic for the story setting, I think.


The_Ross: In other words, based on reality


Earendill: Hello everyone :) What did I miss?


Kim: "Realistic" would be a human with no powers, for example, Nero.


The_Ross: Bones, that's the exact opposite of what we meant.


TheLily: I just got a flash migraine. I'm going to have to duck out. Hopefully you do well without my words of wisdom. I'll try and return ASAP


Bonebag: That's totally species-biased.


The_Ross: "Normal" means it's normal for the setting. "Realistic" is referring to the fact that your character corresponds to or is based on reality


Loki: Feel better Lily!


The_Ross: Bones, your face is species-biased.


Nero: Ok, that's what I assumed, but it seems like I was not the only one who was unclear which normal was being replaced.


The_Ross: Also, we <3 you lily


PenGryphon2007: Realistic as in pertaining to our world, not an imaginary world.


Ben: Realism was a movement in art and theatre that drew focus to characters living common lives, gave birth to "kitchen sink" type stories. It fits quite well here.


Kim: Hi Earendill! We got off to an odd start, with half of us using a different definition of normal, are trying to tease out which we're talking about now.

We seem to have two branches, "realistic" which would by typified by a human character with no special powers, and "canon", which would be a character that fits its setting and doesn't stick out too badly.


Bonebag: Ross, thank you for clearing that up for me. Now go put lobsters in your pants.


PenGryphon2007: I agree with those definitions and terms, Kim.


GrandFinale: I'm just afraid that someone's gonna take away from this one of the opinions I fear most: "LOL EVERY CHARACTER HAS TO BE NORMAL/REALISTIC LOLOLOLOLOL SCREW YOU MAKE YOUR ABNORMAL CHARACTERS REALISTIC BECAUSE IT'S BAD CHARACTER DESIGN SCREW YOU SCREW YOU SCREW YOU" That's what I'm hoping DOESN'T get in people's minds.


The_Ross: Maybe we can instead differentiate between settings - a normal character in a realistic setting is realistic, while a normal character in any other setting is simply normal. Realistic characters are always normal, but normal characters aren't always realistic.


Nero: Now that we have realistic and canon to talk about, is one of them preferred for the purpose of this discussion?


Loki: Yeah that sounds right to me Kim


Jane: <3


PenGryphon2007: *brain implodes*


Kim: GrandFinale: Next week we are discussing special characters. We're not out to demonize special characters, we're just looking to better understand the under-utilized "normal" character.


Earendill: Alrighties! Thanks Kim


Bonebag: Going afk for a sec


Loki: I have plenty of magical characters too GrandFinale :p nobody has said one is better than the other. We're just exploring why we like playing "normal" and "realistic" characters :)


Jane: Is it already over?


Kim: No Jane, we just got started! :D


Loki: Hi Jane! <3


Jane: Good ^^ hey Loki, Hey Kim <3 hey all.


Copper_Dragon: I am about to go on a terribly long rant, and I apologize for the largeness of it ahead of time. *finishes thought*


GrandFinale: Dammit Kim, I was about to say that. :/


Copper_Dragon: ... Well, not rant, but a point.


SeraphicStar: I am ready for this.


PenGryphon2007: So in which case--what do we consider "not normal" in order to have a "normal" character?


Earendill: BRACE YOURSELF, IDEAS ARE COMING


Kim: Okay, so now that we've got two versions of "normal" to work with:

How important is it for characters to match the established canon of their setting? Are there cases where "realistic" characters are so abnormal that they are disruptive?


The_Ross: Yes.


Loki: What not winter Earen? XD


Copper_Dragon: ... oh blast it, that threw my point off now. *hushes, focuses on new point*


The_Ross: Humans in Equestria.


Bonebag: 1. It depends.
2. Yes.


The_Ross: The worst of all possible narrative constructs.


Ben: In my opinion canon is the most important aspect of character creation.


Kim: Copper, hold on to your point, we'll almost certainly come back to it! Sorry for the fast pace. :)


Copper_Dragon: Nah, it's okay, I just type very slowly. >_>


Loki: The setting I typically use is so open I've never personally had that problem. I could see how it might be a problem for a more specific setting though


Ben: A character needs to be firmly rooted in the world they're in.


Kim: Ben, why do you say that canon is the most important aspect of character creation?


PenGryphon2007: If your character doesn't match the canon s/he is fitted in to, then how are they canon?


The_Ross: They're not! And are probably terrible.


PenGryphon2007: That's the thought that crosses through my head, anyway.


The_Ross: <3


Kim: Loki: So it sounds like normal and realistic are identical in a setting where there's no strongly established setting?


Rubix: Hmm, I would say it's extremely important that the characters match the established setting. In the one I most play with there are normies and supes, but normies are less common. So they still fit. If you were in a setting where normal human beings don't even exist it wouldn't make much sense. But you could have a "normal" version of whatever you're in. You really should know and understand your setting before creating a character.


GrandFinale: Well, this hearkens back to last weekend's discussion for me: it all depends on how the character is handled. In some cases, there are characters that need to be abnormal as far as the setting's norm goes, and they can have a profound effect and take a story into a new direction.


Nero: A setting should have a clear canon variance tolerance. If the setting is designed to have specific bounds, then characters should not exceed those bounds. If, on the other hand, the setting is designed to have a wide tolerance, that should be made clear and then characters that stretch far away from the canon norm are more permissible.


Ben: Because the canon is what keeps the flow of the story going. It keeps everyone on the same page and it ensures that stories are familiar and relatable, at least to each other.


Bonebag: ^ THIS


Earendill: Well, when in doubt: ask the continuity creators/moderators. Some of them are a lot stricter than others.


Copper_Dragon: Agreed, Ben!


Kim: Do special characters become less fun to play if they don't have "normals" to bounce off of?

As an example, if you try to play a revolutionary with modern ideals in a medieval setting, will you have fun if every other character you meet automatically agrees with you?


SeraphicStar: Yes, I agree with Ben as well.


Loki: Yes Kim :)


GrandFinale: My point also, of course, depends on whether or not the story could use a big change. Don't disrupt something before it's time.


Rubix: Definitely Kim.


Loki: that Yes was for the first thing you asked me Kim XD


Kim: Okay Loki! :D


PenGryphon2007: I'd say yes; you need conflict for a story to happen.


Jane: No, Kim. It depends how you roleplay your character.


Rubix: Oh, no to the second question. XD Sorry!


The_Ross: I feel like that's self-evid- and pen covered it.


Bonebag: Yes. If it's the same thing over and over, then why even play that in that plot/story/etc at all?


Earendill: The thing is that when everyone wants to be special, it sort of beats the point of being special. (unless 'being special' is canon for wherver you RP, but this is going meta XD)


GrandFinale: Well, of course not, Kim. Disagreements spark conflict, and that's the most integral, important part of any fictional work.


Ben: All drama is driven by conflict. Without it we have nothing to write about, so there needs to be variation in character motivation and philosophy, and allowances for these things in the canon.


Loki: I think it depends on what you want for your story, there doesn't always need to be conflict in every other post XD


Jane: I agree with Loki ^^


Nero: I have played many games with strict canon bounds, everyone knew the plan and we stuck to it, and had a lot of fun. I have also played a smaller number(fewer than 50) of similar games, set in the same settings, with the premise of being a little "wild and wacky", wherein people played characters that were significantly farther from the canon norm, but that was "The Plan", so everyone had fun with it as well(often the same players).


The_Ross: Yes there does. ALWAYS <3


Bonebag: ALWAYS


Earendill: Also, yes! Conflict is what drives stories. You're not going to get an epic story out of drinking tea. Unless some Americans dressed like Indians suddenly invade your tea party and start throwing everything into the sea.


Pinkie Pie (played by The_Ross): forEEEEVVVVeerrrr!


PenGryphon2007: But there should be something of a conflict between two characters or against the characters--not necessarily harped on in ever post, but something needs to drive the story forward.


Kim: So if everyone wants to be special, but that requires a certain number of "normal" people to make special even make sense, how do you balance that? How do you get to special while still fitting in to your setting?


Bonebag: I disagree. You could make a profoundly epic saga out of tea drinking.


Bonebag: It's all in the narration.


Jane: A story can be driven forward by "growth" and not just conflict.


Rubix: XD Earnendill.


The_Ross: The problem is right there. "Everyone wants to be special"


Kim: Jane: Where does growth come from?


TornBySanity: Hey if everyone else is 'special' and I am normal that means in my own way I am special too :)


PenGryphon2007: "With everyone special, no one is." *quotes The Incredibles*


Earendill: Growth means change. Change is conflict with the current 'state of affairs'!


Ben: Conflict doesn't mean only fighting.


GrandFinale: Also, I'm going to say this: if every single character in a setting is forced to stalwartly fit to a specified standard of the norm, it gets BOOOOOOORING. A lot of people started saying that everyone has to closely fit the norm (I think that's what they were saying), and that began to irk me, so let me say this: There's always room for something a little different.


Jane: I enjoy to roleplay emotional/psychological developement of characters. The grows comes from that.


Jane: *growth


Earendill: Conflict is a rather broad term. It doesn't per se mean you need to disagree or fight each other.


The_Ross: If you're roleplaying because you want to be special, you're wrong. Fix yourself.


PenGryphon2007: I agree with Jane--that's just as important. Especially for normal characters.


Loki: conflict to me means drama and fighting. Too much of that really turns me off of a roleplay


GrandFinale: And difference also leads to conflict, whether it be fighting, drama, intellectual, whatever.


The_Ross: That's not what conflict means.


SeraphicStar: Well, there's always 'rare'. It's still special, but it doesn't necessarily go against the setting.

In a world where wizards are very rare, you can RP a wizard and you'll be special.


Jane: I personally dislike drama in rp. There is enough of it in TV and real life.


Ben: CHARACTER conflict comes from decision making, goal setting, everyday interaction, it's a part of our lives and influences every decision we make.


Bonebag: I think drama is needed.


The_Ross: I think comedy is needed.


Rubix: I don't know about conflict so much, but you need differences of opinion etc. You and those you play with need obstacles that help them grow and change.


PenGryphon2007: Conflict: two opposing sets of ideas or beliefs...yes? It doesn't always involve fighting.


The_Ross: Also action adventure


Nuclear_Dingoz: well i guess a good example could be... like. One of the friendships between Loki's character Elsie and My Character Sidni... they've grown so much without much conflict between each other. They're normal characters... but their friend ship during all the things they've gone through separately has made the story of those two grow forward.


GrandFinale: You can't have anything without a little drama, after all. Bones is definitely on to something.


Kim: So if someone sets out to make a realistic or a canon character, where should they focus their energy to ensure that it's still a fun character to play and to play with?


Bonebag: Conflict doesn't always involve fighting, it's just what people default to.


Earendill: Conflict really isn't all drama and fighting and whatnot. A conflict might as well be having breakfast and needing to choose between oranges and grapefruit, while you love both but can only have one.


The_Ross: Conflict is friendship.


Loki: Personality I think Kim


Rubix: Background, history, and personality.


Jane: Details, quirks :)


Nero: GrandFinale: Most of the best games I have played in have been strictly bound canon norm games. The characters sometimes had little secrets that were a little unexpected, but for the most part these games were all about character dynamics, politics and morality. Being a snowflake character(opposite of canon norm) is not required for fun.


PenGryphon2007: Fighting on the contrary is one way to resolve the conflict.


Rubix: Well Background/History are the same. XD Meant to only use background.


Ben: Dreams of the future.


Bonebag: 'Fun' varies from person to person - for example, my version of fun is centered around more comedic interactions/adventures, but another version of fun might involve a glorious and bloody battle, with their character overcoming some great barrier.


SeraphicStar: That's a good question, Kim. I'll have to mull on that for a while!


GrandFinale: That's not what I'm saying, Nero. It's just that you can't make a cake with just flour.


The_Ross: They should focus their energy on creating their character around a cohesive core, an archetype, a theme. A character that is a set of personality traits and an "interesting" backstory is not a character.


Earendill: Well, you can try and fight the grapefruit into submission, but you can try and be diplomatic about it and just be all "SORY GRAPEFRUIT! THERE'S ALWAYS TOMORROW."


PenGryphon2007: I'd say the most important aspect of a "normal" character is personality and adaptability in a setting.


Loki: Background definitely, I agree with Rubix on that :)


Ben: Background is static, it only influences so much of character action. You want to make an interesting character? Give them dreams.


The_Ross: Also, backstories are never interesting, and no one wants to read them. Ever.


Jane: I enjoy backstories.


SeraphicStar: I like reading backstories.


The_Ross: Lies


PenGryphon2007: XD


Lorvilran: I do ross!


Kim: Finale: You seem to be feeling very defensive. Let me assure you again, no one is attacking special characters or saying they should never be used. But the topic today is how to get to special by being "normal", and how to make "normal" interesting. We will be talking about what makes special characters great and how to do them correctly next week.


Jane: And if the character interests me, I read them.


woodlands: I love writing backstories, haha. And reading them.


Bonebag: tl;dr he took an arrow to the knee and now wants to kill every dragon e'rywhere


Earendill: Give the characters a goal, a life dream, etc.


The_Ross: party poopers


Kim: Ross, tone down the sarcasm please! There isn't enough tone in text to make it work for everyone.


PenGryphon2007: The normal characters need goals--everyone needs a goal...what Earendill siad.


Ben: Something that drives them toward an uncertain future.


Nero: Anyone seeking to make a canon character that is fun to play should do all the same things anyone making any other character should do. Focus on background, continuity, motivations, paradigms and personality. They just have to focus on them harder since there are no fancy powers to focus on too.


Rubix: To me, the background drives the dreams/goals so it is one in the same when I design a character.


SeraphicStar: I think Earendill is onto something there.


The_Ross: Oh I thought putting a <3 after everything made it okay


The_Ross: Sorry kim


woodlands: And a reason for said goal, to make itmore believable.


GrandFinale: Sorry Ross, but all characters have backstories. EVERY SINGLE ONE.


Kim: Can you guys who are saying that characters need aspirations give examples of "normal" dreams that still have the power to move a RP forward?


Loki: Backstories help others to understand character motives. Working on your characters background is what helps you understand their motives and thus leads to the whole 'dreams' 'goals' thing.


Jane: The morst important thing is, that you can 'feel' the character. Little details help, and give the character more depths.


The_Ross: Nope, my characters are remade from scratch every planck time.


Bonebag: I think that depends on the setting.


Kim: Jane: Can you elaborate on what you mean by "feel" a character?


Loki: I have a character that likes to cook. His dream is to become a famous chef, that's pretty average lol


GrandFinale: Loki, you couldn't have taken the words out of my mouth better than you have now.


Jane: Hm, let me try.


Copper_Dragon: @Kim-- wanting to run a successful business. One of my characters (le dreaded demon/angel hybrid) runs a general store and, like any other store owner, wants her's to be successful! That's pretty normal of a dream, I think!


woodlands: Trying to achieve a qualification of some sort, finding something/someone... And yeah, Loki's is a good one :)


Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3