Quote from: J Arcane;326862Of course, if we're going to start talking specific characters, I reach the point where I potentially completely contradict my previous post by pointing out that actually, one of my all time favorite and best realized characters was from a single player CRPG.  

Which one?

I dunno, should I go on, Fiasco may have an aneurysm.  

I have found the most effective way to make characters more substantial and real is through their actions and deeds, rather than a long list of equipment.
 
But also remember that a hero is only as good as the challenges he faces, so make your bad guys memorable and interesting as well.

The key is preparation. If you play a wizard think about how you portray your spells, before you sit down with guys. If you play a fighter, think about your combat moves. Etc.

Quote from: 1of3;326895The key is preparation. If you play a wizard think about how you portray your spells, before you sit down with guys. If you play a fighter, think about your combat moves. Etc.

Preparation is important but interraction is more so.  You might think your character feels one way about something but in play feel prompted by the events and your companionis to think in another way.  Working out combat moves and descriptions is fine, but that isn't really interracting wtih your party. Its you just telling people how cool your character looks while others listen...

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326711How do you make your characters more substantial?  Niches?  Character options?  Deep ethical character decisions?  Emo corner-sitting?  What?

Characters become substantial when they are pointed at things that players care about.  

QuoteWhen you've got that substance, what do you (and other in your group) do with it and around it that makes it a rewarding and awesome part of your play?

So if you have a character pointed at things that you care about, other people have the obligation to poke at that, challenge it, put you in situations where you must make ethical choices for your guy.

Last night we were playing Dust Devils.  Joel's guy is a milquetoast and a coward - his Devil is cowardice, in fact.  He is all about issues of pride, courage and masculinity.  There's a man upstairs fucking his wife (something I, as GM, arranged by winning a conflict), and Joel's guy steels himself to go up and kill the adulterer with the little lady pistol he bought.  Remi sees this and has his guy (whose devil is wrath and who is a professional killer) get in his way.  "You're no killer," he says, "let me take care of this."

So we're all listening and reacting, and Joel gets confronted with a series of agonizing choices, all directly related to the thing he's interested in.  It sure as hell made for a fascinating (and doomed) character, and of course Joel returned the favor by pushing the other player's buttons.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;326946Characters become substantial when they are pointed at things that players care about.  


So if you have a character pointed at things that you care about, other people have the obligation to poke at that, challenge it, put you in situations where you must make ethical choices for your guy.

Last night we were playing Dust Devils.  Joel's guy is a milquetoast and a coward - his Devil is cowardice, in fact.  He is all about issues of pride, courage and masculinity.  There's a man upstairs fucking his wife (something I, as GM, arranged by winning a conflict), and Joel's guy steels himself to go up and kill the adulterer with the little lady pistol he bought.  Remi sees this and has his guy (whose devil is wrath and who is a professional killer) get in his way.  "You're no killer," he says, "let me take care of this."

So we're all listening and reacting, and Joel gets confronted with a series of agonizing choices, all directly related to the thing he's interested in.  It sure as hell made for a fascinating (and doomed) character, and of course Joel returned the favor by pushing the other player's buttons.

I dunno.  That sort of sounds like players taking turns to dominate the attention and then giving the next one a turn.  'Pass the conch' if you will.  Its a bit different from people naturally interacing without artificially having to press 'buttons'.

There's no turn-taking going on at your table, Fiasco?  Does "naturally interacting" mean that you don't pay attention to each other or support each other as players?  

I have a feeling you are talking about immersion.  If so, cool - I immerse all the time, but never so deeply that there isn't a tiny part of my brain looking for ways to make my friends awesome.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;327001If so, cool - I immerse all the time, but never so deeply that there isn't a tiny part of my brain looking for ways to make my friends awesome.

K' you got to explain this part to me. How else if not by immersing would you make your friends awesome? I mean all this is about character, right ? If you as a character engage with another character (player), than the awesome* happens. (All this is IME. I realize some folks could care less about immersion)

*this word really does not sound right, coming from me.

Regards,
David R

I completely disagree with Jason. "Gussied up scruples" doesn't make a character real even if the "issues" are personally relevant or interesting to the player. At best that has to do with engagement with the game, not making the character 3D.

For me my characters really start to feel 'alive' when they are interacting with the other characters. Nothing much to do with powers and equipment.
I'm not particularly joyous about the mechanical descriptions of the characters I play in either of our Saturday night games but I am happy that both characters have managed to define various relationships with the other PCs... ranging from animosity to puppy-like devotion. We've had characters get into all sorts of arguments and discussions... tale-telling... with no stats in site.
The only gaps are two dwarf PCs... who are only distinguishable by class and certain quirks of their players. I couldn't tell you anything about them except for some mechanical stuff and that one has a familiar (played by GM) that my character hates (and will eventually kill...). My character has even taken to calling them 'dwarf 1 and dwarf 2'. They are not 'substantial' characters... I haven't managed to get them to interact much with my character... they pretty much remind me of the 'helper' characters who follow your guy around in CRPGs.

Stuff like WoW and CRPGs tend to force your character into narrow definitions... and give no opportunity for real interaction. Character interaction COULD happen between WoW players but most people aren't interested and the game doesn't encourage it.... and in a way actively discourages any real roleplaying by having narrow solutions to most quests and not encouraging people to team up on an ongoing basis.

An alternate approach:

If you have a character who is substantial, what would remove that substantiality from that character?

Quote from: David R;327020K' you got to explain this part to me. How else if not by immersing would you make your friends awesome? I mean all this is about character, right ? If you as a character engage with another character (player), than the awesome* happens. (All this is IME. I realize some folks could care less about immersion)

Well, for starters let's not talk about what the characters want, or what the character's goals are, because they are just part of the fiction.  They are not self-directed; they have no agency.  Let's talk about players, you and me at the table as friends, and what we want, and what our goals are, and how we'll achieve them through the tools available to us, one of which is the cast of characters.

We may be dealing with different definitions of immersion, of course.  To me being completely immersed is going to be very unsatisfying, akin to the most hardcore Nordic Larp where you are not really interacting with anyone.  Scale that back and it becomes a matter of degree - how immersed can I be and still have fun?  At what point am I too immersed to interact with game mechanics?  At what point am I too immersed to pay attention to the fiction, and ways I could shape it in interesting ways?  The answers are individual and to a degree also a product of social agreement.  For me it's pretty light most of the time.

Does that make sense?

Quote from: jeff37923;327065An alternate approach:

If you have a character who is substantial, what would remove that substantiality from that character?

Making him irrelevant to the story/plot/world... by not having any elements reinforce/encourage his identity.
I was gonna say by removing the ability to have any sort of conversation with other characters... but I remembered one of my favorite CRPG games... Deus Ex... and that character feels kind of substantial to me despite very limited interaction. Partly because of the way the environments put me into a mood of the guy... and the way that specific story elements relate directly to his personal life... he's not just soldier #3 in some random battle.

Quote from: jeff37923;327065An alternate approach:

If you have a character who is substantial, what would remove that substantiality from that character?

You limit choices, you decrease substantiality. (Of course this reply has no nuance)

Cheeky mister jeff, very cheeky. I have no problem with this discussion moving that way....

Edit: Jason, I'll get back to you.

Regards,
David R