Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mystikal 07-07-03, 02:25 PM	A friend and I were talking about characters and making characters. I was feeling down because I was in a creative slump and could not think of a character to play that excited to me. See I am one of those people who will always try to make a strange or unique character in some way or other. I will eithr give him a story line that will ensures the DM will not be able to help himself and mess with my character or I play something like a Fey'ri or a half-fey (still havnt played one but very interested in doing so). So I was complaining about how I could not think of anything interesting to play and he was saying that making an interesting character is not important, its how you roleplay your character that is important. Now I tend to disagree and think that if you make an interesting character then that just gives you so much to work with in terms of role playing. So I was just wondering what you guys think about this.
Eagle Prince 07-07-03, 02:42 PM	I don't think you need an interesting character for good roleplay, but I think you need an interesting character to have any fun doing it. :D
DrakeRunner 07-07-03, 02:46 PM	Hardly. I find people who strive to have unique characters use them as crutches for their subpar roleplaying abilities. They always fall back on whats special about their character when they can't handle it themselves. I mean, otherwise nobody would ever play a Human Core Class other than a Paladin, Monk, or Druid.
Silvertongue 07-07-03, 02:58 PM	Do u actually mean 'interesting' or do U mean 'better that everyone else'? High powered pcs can be interesting but if your roleplaying isn't up to scratch then that's all they rely on. A real challenge would be to play a character who is interesting due to his lack of power. Alternatively make a decent powered 'normal' character but give him an interesting background integral to the game, beware however, of overshadowing everyone else.
VampyrKnight 07-07-03, 05:48 PM	Interesting characters are fine and dandy, but sometimes, the most interesting characters are those who seem so ordinary as starting characters. These days, I don't tend to try to create characters that are so interesting (though I love doing a good background, even for a plain character, just because I like knowing what makes my character tick), and I usually just kinda go with what the group needs. With one of the GMs about to start up a new campaign, I've let the rest of the players decide what they were going to be and am filling in two roles with two separate characters, one a wizard (always good to have an arcane spellcaster in the party) and the other a cleric (in this party, it's not a want, it's a need!). It's not how interesting the character you have is beforehand, it's how you roleplay him later that makes him interesting.
JusticeZero 07-08-03, 01:28 AM	"strange" characters are, as a rule, just used as a crutch. You can't roleplay the character, but you waggle around your tongue and shove your bizzarre neurosis in everyone's face to make up for it and look like you have a personality. Unfortunately, by the third session, no-one cares that you're bizarre anymore, and the schtick has become a running gag which has overstayed it's welcome. But now, you don't have anything to back it up because it's so hard to have a three dimensional character with a gag.
Eagle Prince 07-08-03, 02:03 AM	Roleplaying a coward would be fun maybe once or twice, roleplaying a fighter who becomes the best swordsman in the world will be fun over and over. Yay, lets all roleplay some commoners *yawn* Sorry, but I would never read a book about an ordinary guy doing ordinary things, and there's no way I would say it was interesting or prooved something. Interesting characters don't have to be strange characters, and strange characters arn't always interesting. But playing a simpleton, weakling, or coward can be just as big of a "crutch" for roleplaying as a strange, exotic character. Even DMing, if someone isn't interested in their character, I find the game dull. Its not just good for the player to be interested and havng fun with his character, its good for the group all-around. There's no way I would play a game where everyone was a blacksmith or basket-weaver just to "proove" how good they were at roleplaying. I've even played in games like that, and after awhile I wanted to give up roleplaying altogether because it is so dull and aggrivating.
Lord of the Ninth 07-08-03, 03:04 AM	I never play a character I'm not interested in. It wouldn't be fun, and I wouldn't survive. I need to be interested in the character otherwise I don't play as hard. I do have some strange characters, but not all of them, my two longest running characters were both elven fighters, one used a glaive the other a greatsword these were they main distinguishing qualities. My last character was a human rog/barb/Taker who was very unique, he was the sort of character who loved being the center of attention, he had an enormous ego, but rarely got to exercise it on account of our being on a covert mission in a country where I was wanted for treason and regicide. Now I'm a grey elf chronomancer. He's weird, I'm not sure if his weirdness is a crutch, but maybe it is. I know he could be more normal and still be interesting, but heck my character is supposed to be one of the most unique individuals in the world. He lives in a world where magic is rare and many people know little of elves. Chronomancy is very uncommon, so even among wizards he is a rare thing. But that's ok, the DM said the plot called for a wizard of my level, so instead of playing an NPC he just killed off Grog and I made Xiles. My judge of a D&D character is how well I remember them years after the campaign is over. In my first campaign I can remember more about one of my friends characters than my own, he was a CE halfling rogue/assassin with a tendency towards terrorism (who blew up a bar, and he liked molotov cocktails), he used a small rapier and wore masterwork studded leather armor. His name was Alton Copplin. My character was an elven fighter, I didn't remember the name until I looked it up on the old sheet, Elindel, his most noteworthy achievements were being transmuted into goo and accidentally killing our wizard. I don't remember a darn thing about anyone else in the party, they weren't that interesting. Most of my characters have quirks now, have stuff that makes them different from others of they're race/class/alignment, not because it helps me powergame (some of it does, but not all of it), but because it's interesting. Rhaenyn had very specifically designed equipment (armor had the Lady of Pain all over it, Glaive had a maze pattern). Krinzl was a twisted survivalist. Grogneo Benevicci Laroche was very much full of himslef. King Iocari had a hommunculus named Squishy. Xiles owns a masterwork clock (costs 2,000 gp, and we're in a pretty gritty game), and his quarter staff is designed to look like a spear (he worships Odin). Almost all of these represent defining traits for the characters. Iocari was a copper dragon (this was before we discovered the wonders of game balance :smirk: ), and liked jokes [hence "Squishy"]. Xiles is a chronomancer with a John Doe like tendency to spout useless information (mostly about time). Now all these sound as though I just wanted to be weird or quirky, right? Well, yeah, but also think about this, aren't we all weird? I know that not a single person I've met easily fits a single stereotype when you look real close. So if I play Sir Talagard the human Paladin, and I do so using just the guidelines for humans, paladins and LG, am I not a rather crappy roleplayer? Shouldn't he be different than all the other paladins? After all everyone is different up close?
Eagle Prince 07-08-03, 04:29 AM	I find it ironic that half of the posts in this thread were leaning toward strange is bad roleplay, and on the same board there is a thread called Character Quirks with over 1200 views. After Lord of the Ninth's nice post, I decided to add a little to mine. I agree with a lot of the stuff he says by the way. Now my favorite kind of character has long back hair, wears black clothes with either a long black cloak or a trenchcoat, and is completely into swordfighting. IRL, I have long black hair, nearly always wear some black (when I dress up, not for work or something, its often solid black), and I own several black trench coats and even a black cloak which I wear quite often. I point you to Highlander, Angel, Zorro, Vampire Hunter D, and similiar characters (btw I own all Highlander movies on dvd, Highlander and Angel season 1 on dvd, and VHD/VHD: Bloodlust on dvd, along with other various stuff like clothing and posters from all of those as well). In short, I LOVE this type of character. I don't find it interesting, I kind of border on obsessed. I will never get sick of roleplaying one or writing about one, or reading/watching movies about one (even if I've already saw them a thousand times). I don't find this to be a really strange or unique character (which apparently some say is good for RP, and others bad), nor do I find him common, esp. for d&d (again, which some find good and others bad). But I find him very interesting, and because I love the character, its going to rub off on those I am RPing with, making it more fun all-around for the whole group. In fact, I would be bold enough to say I can RP this type of character so well that the best anyone could aspire to is simply to match my skill. HOWEVER, this isn't why I think it makes for good RP, because I'm good at RPing or even exeptionally good at RPing this kind of character. I think it makes for good RP because I love playing him... you'll never have a good RP experience if only one person out of six is having fun. My other favorite kind of characters are half-clad barbarians who wield greatswords and javelins, angelic winged paladins, and death priests/necromancers. I've also been wanting to try out a Hammerfist dwarven monk, a death priest or necromancer who dual wields a bastard sword and rod (eg light mace), and some type of character with the Leadership and Landlord feats who makes himself a flying pirate ship and/or teleporting castle via Castlevania. Now those last ones are more one-shot deals, I doubt I would find them fun to play over and over like my highland/batman guys or barbarians with big swords. What makes them interesting, hell if I know, I just think they are cool and because of that interest I will play them the best that I can. Its my opinion that this will become infectious and around it will go until everyone is having fun and doing the best RP they can. That is what makes good roleplay, not some attept to impress your friends at how good at "thought acting" you are.
Mr. VanderMeer 07-08-03, 06:28 AM	Sorry, but I would never read a book about an ordinary guy doing ordinary things, and there's no way I would say it was interesting or prooved something. Okay, but what about the oridnary guy, that does extra-ordinary things. More than half of all fantasy novels is about ordinary peopkle who rise to the occasion. Now those are fun. I actually think both ordinary and 'strange' characters can be fun and roleplayed well. (I actually in one game have an ordinary human fighter, while in another I play a Troglodyte) Of course it happens that people use quirks etc. as a crotch. But it's not fair to assume everyone does that. I must say I have a personal dislike of 'over the top' quirks or strangeness. (because these often are crotches.)
Mister Mayhem 07-08-03, 07:43 AM	99% of modern fiction is about ordinary people. It's the fact that they are ordinary that makes their stories interesting. Every succesful story is about personalities and interaction thereof, not about gewgaws, trinkets or being a freak. Which is more interesting? Superman foiling an ordinary armed robbery, at no risk to himself, flying in and trying up the badguys with iron bars before they even know he is there? Or the tense hostage negotiations carried out by ordinary cops, agonising over whether they can risk going in guns blazing - the risk not only to themselves, but to the hostages? I'll go for the latter, every time. Would "Monk" or "Columbo" be able to keep you entertained for 60 minutes if the detective in question walked into the room and used his magical mind-reading powers to identify the killer in the first 5 minutes? The only thing that can make a character interesting is what he does and how he behaves. Not what he is. A 3 headed monkey Sorcerer whose only contribution to the game is casting spells in combat is a dull character no matter how many heads he has or how much monkey DNA there is in his genetic make-up. Wheras a human sorcerer who chats to the other PCs in character about his history, his hopes, dreams and ambitions, etc etc, and then, when in combat, refuses to cast spells against female humanoids as it is his superstition that doing so leads to very bad luck. Whilst not every freaky character is an attempt to make up for a lack of imagination, it is certainly not true in any way at all to say that such characters are automatically more interesting than humans, and in no way is it true that a human character cannot be interesting.
Mystikal 07-08-03, 10:59 AM	I would also like to add the fact that it depends on what kind of campaign you are in. If you are in one where not a lot of roleplaying goes on then sometimes you need a strange character to keep things interesting for yourself. But in campaigns where there is a lot of roleplaying you can basically just build up a background story without any quirk, be a normal race and still be interested in your character. I think what you choose to do depends on who the DM is at the time and whether the people you are roleplaying with are more about the roleplaying or the dungeon crawling.
Lord of the Ninth 07-08-03, 02:55 PM	Originally posted by Mr. VanderMeer I must say I have a personal dislike of 'over the top' quirks or strangeness. (because these often are crotches.) ;) emphasis mine. (yeah, I'm immature, it keeps me young ;) ) I wouldn't say that 99% of modern fiction is about normal people. Some of my favorite books are about very strange people. As to superman being boring, while you would think that that would be less interesting, people still like that stuff. I'm fairly certain that superman is more well known, and in his day, was more popular than just about any cop show. TV shows especially tend to have characters who aren't exactly normal (Charmed, Buffy, Angel, Alias, and Stargate to a certain extent). Movies also tend to center around strange people (The Hulk, heck any Marvel movie, Matrix, most action movies, fantasy movies etc.). I just had an idea, perhapse normal characters would be for more dramatic (as in drama genre) style campaigns and weird characters are more for cinematic (action).
Mystikal 07-08-03, 03:18 PM	[i]TV shows especially tend to have characters who aren't exactly normal (Charmed, Buffy, Angel, Alias, and Stargate to a certain extent). Movies also tend to center around strange people [/B] Well when you look at it, those characters are not strange within the world they are in. Yes putting the Charmed sisters or Buffy up against a few humans is really boring because for the most part they would wipe the floor clean with them. But throw in a bunch of demons and viola, they are in their element , they are not strange because they are fighting demons and if they wern't strange and did not have powers then the demons would whoop their ass. So really it depends on the world the person is in.
Mister Mayhem 07-08-03, 03:41 PM	Originally posted by Lord of the Ninth As to superman being boring, while you would think that that would be less interesting, people still like that stuff. I'm fairly certain that superman is more well known, and in his day, was more popular than just about any cop show. I never said superman was boring, I said that in the above circumstance, which offered no challenge to him, he was less interesting than ordinary cops. By a long way. If all he ever did was go up against human bankrobbers, instead of superviallain who have found one of his weaknesses, he would be dull. All of his alien freak powers wouldn't make him interesting if he didn't have a complex and interesting personality. And I can garantee you there have been more succesful cop shows. films and books than there have been of the superhero genre. And that there have been more works of fiction about the difficulties faced by normal people than by "savage species" Shakespear did not need to give his character wings, claws or fangs to make them interesting, and anyone who does isn't really making their character interesting at all, just a conversation peice.
Mr. VanderMeer 07-08-03, 03:48 PM	quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Mr. VanderMeer I must say I have a personal dislike of 'over the top' quirks or strangeness. (because these often are crotches.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- emphasis mine. (yeah, I'm immature, it keeps me young ) Oops, sorry :embarrass My mind must have been in the gutter again. So, it seems most people agree, that both ordinary as well as extraordinary characters can lead to a lot of great roleplaying. Just as long as you do not use your characters weirdness as a substitute for playing his personality, or in the case of an ordinary character, as long as you do not let him become bland.
Eagle Prince 07-08-03, 07:09 PM	Heh, yeah that was a good typo for a laugh. I would be interested in knowing what people call strange anyway? I don't find a centaur, gnoll, or even a half dragon strange for d&d, but to quote someone's handle, a Wererat Troll Paladin is probably a little too bizzare for my taste. But when strange was first mentioned in this post, I was thinking more like a nonstandard race that is still "normal", like hagspawn or maybe a drow druid or something. Or even a werewolf or lich. About the ordinary person in extrodinary events, like Frodo Baggins or something? Yes, that is entertaining, but I honestly prefer the traditional greek hero to the antihero. Even the ordinary in extrodinary deal, I like best as occational and not the norm. I love Lord of the Rings and Shannara, but my favorite characters arn't the main "ordinary" characters. Another two books I recently read like this was Touched By the Gods... he was a very ordinary guy, but still had superpowers, and The Scrayling Tree, with the ordinary Count Ulric von Bek, who again isn't all that ordinary in the end. Same with Frodo and Shea, they were ordinary but still had something about them that made them unique, which is the whole reason it "had to be them". Some of my favorite modern fantasy books are the Coldfire Trilogy, Elric, Conan, and even superhero comics. Stories about guys who are out doing their thing because right from the begining they are already the badest dudes out there.
Kelida42 07-09-03, 01:49 AM	The problem with any character concept is finding a balance between interesting and kitsch. I personally like to play a character who has a more or less ordinary background but who is capable of extraordinary things. In the last game I played in, my character was a CN drow bard from Skullport named Raziel. She had grown up at the Promenade temple because her parents were worshipers of Eillistraee, but Raziel just never had it in her to live up to their expectation that she become a priestess. Her drow blood made her drawn to darkness, but she still had a more or less good heart, which gave her a morality (for lack of a better word) that just didn't fit in with the good priestesses. The only thing that Raziel learned in her youth was a deep and abiding love for music and storytelling, and she left home as soon as she reached her majority to indulge her growing wanderlust. Also, she is sort of a tramp. The character I am playing now is a Calishite human Fighter 2/Evoker 10 who has a penchant for artillery. Her name is Eloora Al-Karan, and she is a tall and thin with electric blue eyes and bleached blonde hair. Clever and witty, she is fairly charming in an unassuming way, but also lacks any subtlety to speak of. She has no concept of stealth, and tends to fireball first and ask questions later. She grew up in Calimport, but refused to marry, seeking instead to further her studies in magic. Because of this, she was cast out by her family. Falling into hard times, she was forced to live by the sword for awhile, joining a mercenary band to make ends meet. As soon as she had enough money, she left the mercenary group in order to study magic with a man named Aldon Behir who was also her lover for a time. They parted ways after a time, but now Eloora was powerful enough to study on her own, and she had enough money (much of it stolen from her ex-lover as revenge for what she saw as the wrongs he committed toward her) to buy her own spellbooks, as well as the power to survive on her own. A couple of years after they split, Eloora had once again fallen on hard times when she heard about an artifact called the Eye of Kossuth that was being studied by an enclave of Red Wizards in Waterdeep. She travelled to Waterdeep to inquire about it, only to find out that it had been stolen, along with many other artifacts in the area. That is where the campaign began. I like to think that with these two characters, I have balanced out their quirks and backstories to create characters that are somewhat interesting and that explain why the characters are the way they are. There are reasons for their quirks. They were not chosen at random. There is no grand melodrama that explains who they are. They are simply people who felt a calling to something better than what was determined for them by birth. I personally have found that it is often best to decide on a character class and then create a somewhat sketchy history for a character before playing. The rest of the character's personality will come out during gameplay as well as more details of their background. This way you are not tied to a concrete background and personality before you actually get to play and decide what you like and dislike about the character. -Kelida
Lord of the Ninth 07-09-03, 03:49 PM	The reason superman vs. pickpocket isn't as exciting as police officer vs. bankrobber is that superman is like CR 10-20, pickpocket is CR 1-5. Police and bankrobber are each CR 1-10. They're evenly matched (sorta), it could go either way, whereas the odds of a mugger doing anything to super man is 0. Boring. If you play superman style D&D characters no DM will have you fight muggers (unless they have kryptonite, are in large numbers, or if the DM doesn't give you xp for it). On the other hand, if your super man character fights the supercriminals from Krypton (i.e. Superman the movie 2), that's entertaiment. It's not because superman is too powerful to be interesting, and it isn't that he's too weird, it's that he has to be challenged. So this isn't really that relevent to this topic. I personally think that a contrast between Star Trek NG and DS9 would make more sense. NG was good, DS9 wasn't, mostly because it was hard to care about DS9's characters. I'm not sure if it's because they're too weird, or simply because they two dimensional, I haven't seen it in a while. [Note to Trekkiess, I'm not a Trekky, so I can't really form valid opinions about the show, please no off topic flames] Or better yet, the difference between Batman and Robin (the movie) and Daredevil. Both of them had special effects, both had slightly darker heros, both were fairly strange, but I liked Daredevil better. Not because he had weirder or better powers than superman, but because he was portrayed as being more interesting. Daredevil has issues, they showed you he has issues, Batman is supposed to have issues, but mostly he was just the dark knight:rolleyes: .
Monikerrpg 07-09-03, 06:05 PM	Quirks don't always make an interesting character, and I agree that some people use them as crutches when they can't think of anything else. Even so-called 'ordinary' people can be interesting, it depends on what there version of ordinary is. Take a person (class/race) give them a goal, a virtue, and a flaw. And when I say flaw I don't mean something slapstick, I mean a real weakness of personality, like a temper, a prejudice, a lack of confidence in a particular area, touchiness, shyness, over confidence, bragging, etc. You can try to make them fit together, but its more fun if they don't. You build around the three signposts (but don't let them limit you!) and sooner than you think the character has flesh.
Maleous 08-18-03, 08:24 AM	Bottom line. If a game becomes work it's no longer a game.
Willie the Duck 08-18-03, 12:09 PM	Originally posted by Lord of the Ninth I wouldn't say that 99% of modern fiction is about normal people. Some of my favorite books are about very strange people. As to superman being boring, while you would think that that would be less interesting, people still like that stuff. I'm fairly certain that superman is more well known, and in his day, was more popular than just about any cop show. Law&Order, NYPD blue, district, dragnet, etc.etc. are nationally aclaimed tv shows that regularly get high ratings. The last action-adventure tv show to make it in primetime was Next Generation. TV shows especially tend to have characters who aren't exactly normal (Charmed, Buffy, Angel, Alias, and Stargate to a certain extent). Movies also tend to center around strange people (The Hulk, heck any Marvel movie, Matrix, most action movies, fantasy movies etc.). Most buffy episodes someone has emotional problems or conflicted interests (or in the last 2 seasons, excessive ennui), Alias has sidney working for two different CIAs, angel spends more time trying to bring the group together than fighting bad guys, the stargate crew fight cutural misunderstandings all the time. These shows are neat not because the people involved are exceptional, it is because they are exceptional AND interesting.
DrakeRunner 08-18-03, 12:33 PM	Just to point out, except for Teal'c, the whole draw of the show Stargate is that SG-1 are ordinary people doing extradordinary things. They find themselves in an incredibly crucial role and rise to the challenge. Nobody cares about a story where the Heroes have a nervous breakdown, quit, and/or losing it. The whole thing about Superman is that its no big deal to him. To the cops, its life or death. (And there weren't any cop shows when Superman was around) The whole attraction of Normal People doing Abnormal things is because its harder for them to cope than Abnormal people doing Abnormal things. People don't want to see peasants going and farming, and people don't want to see Drow slavery either.
The One and Only... 08-18-03, 08:44 PM	I think it depends on what you mean by strange. If strange in personality, I say go for it. If strange in race/class/other game bits, I tend to think it can become a crutch. When I hear tales of half-celestial vampiric psions, it just makes the game feel more unbelieveable and sounds like a random mess of templates chosen in an attempt to be unique. Of course, I don't have anything against the occassional drow, planetouched, or the like, as these are not all that unusual as PC races.
Galahad_Knight 08-18-03, 09:43 PM	Here's the way I see it. Your character is what you make of it *during* the game. Building the character is just something you have to do before you can play. You can build a plain old character like a dwarven fighter or an elven ranger. You can build something unconventional, like a halfling barbarian, a drow paladin, etc. You can even build something in-depth, like a character with an intense and/or unconventional background But none of it matters once the game starts. *None.* Roleplay happens once the game begins. From that point on, it's your skill as a player that makes the character live. You can have a paladin with a dark secret. You cna have a demon with a heart of gold. You can have a big guy with a sword. But if that's all they are then you've failed. Things like flashy backgrounds and unisual combos can give you plenty of material to work with once the game starts, sure. But roleplying isn't about playing the most interesting character, it's about getting into the character's head and making decisions that he would make, and saying thins he would say. You can have a plain old boring human fighter with no special background. Hes not the lost son of a king, he didn't watch his village get sacked, he didn;t flee when hsi allies needed him. But once youlre in the game, it's his personality that shines. Is he an irrascible smartass? Doe she make a lot of wise-cracks and make everyone laugh? Is he humerously slow-witted? Is he deceptively bright and cunning? Does he learn and grow as his adventures show him new things, or does he remain true to himself? Character Development is NOT building a character. Character development is how the character you've built grows. THAT is what matters. Making the character live. A true role-player is a ventriloquist. He could be using an expensive dummy, or a sock-puppet...if he's good, he makes you believe that it's actually talking.
JusticeZero 08-20-03, 04:23 PM	Most "interesting characters" are just schticks. You have one bizzarre thing about you that you use as a running joke, and when that gets old you're sunk. I agree with the people who say it's better to take a fairly plain character and put the texture in through play than it is to play a freak and use the strangeness as a crutch.
Safti 08-20-03, 10:44 PM	Interesting doesn't equal strange, and vice versa. If one is just being bizarre with absolutely zero reasoning behind it, it's not interesting, it's dumb. My elven druid [for example], on the other hand, can't lie to save her soul - which makes things interesting, but not strange. I believe that characters are rarely uninteresting - very few people, once the facades have been set aside, lack interesting qualities, unusual interests, or quirks. Even a basic human fighter, level one, may have an incredible devotion to his family, or a secret love of the sea, or a knack for storytelling. You don't have to be a half-celestial merperson [or whatever] to be interesting. [And I know not everyone is saying that, it's just a point.] What makes interesting roleplay - being true to your character within the context of the game, and interacting with others. Having your character grow and change over time.
JusticeZero 08-21-03, 01:49 AM	Right. Honestly, when I see something like "Half-celestial half-kobold blind Zen archer with a deathly fear of birds and a pet sock puppet that they take everywhere" the first thought that comes to mind is "Boring character". Because I know that they will be, at best, comic relief, and poor at that. I'd much rather see the human farmboy warrior with a spear set out into the world - there's some real potential there. The other one played out their potential on a bunch of goofy adjectives.
Tzepish 08-21-03, 02:35 AM	The most interesting and deep character I've ever played was a Human Fighter. I don't think your race and class matter as much as how you roleplay them - even stereotypical personalities can be great if roleplayed well (in a believable way).
dragon_of_colour 08-21-03, 08:05 AM	In addition to the point about how you develop your PC during the game, its also vitally important to have a good DM to allow you the opportunity to shine. I tend to develop interesting backgrounds and then try to play my character to the hilt. But that's no good if the DM doesn't use any of your background hooks. What's the point of having your whole family hunting you down (for example) if you never even catch a glimpse of them during game time? Just goes to show, roleplaying is a cooperative affair.