Refining Characters

[Demagul Riwe]

So towards the end of the spring, while I was still able to play PS, I ran into a problem that I think any others have experienced or are experiencing: over-complicating a character. While I do have alts, I've become so attached to Demagul that I often try cramming all of my characterization ideas into this one person. While I AM looking for ideas for how I can refine him without breaking character, I also thought it would make an interesting thread to discuss where that "too much" point is, and maybe even how to build realistic characters (in terms of how much there is to them). Has anyone else experienced this problem? If so, how do you refine your character(s) when it happens?

[Rigwyn]

Have you considered making multiple characters? Sometimes I get an idea for a characater that I really want to try. If it's not a good match for an existing character, I'll sometimes start a new one. For me, it allows me to try different things without breaking character.

[Aramara Meibi]

I think it's hard to try and retroactively incorporate new characteristics into an already established character. The only way I've found that this happens realistically is if it organically grows out of the course of roleplay. For instance, my character Icerra, when I first established her was young, belligerent, magic intolerant, rebellious, and impulsive. By the time she died, she was an adamant devotee of Dakkru, an amputee, a cold an emotionless murderer who attempted to permakill her pregnant sister and unborn cubs. Now she's a mere whisp lost in the abyss of the Death Realm. None of that could have ever been foreseeable, I actually originally foresaw her becoming a gladiator of sorts, but that's what the course of RP did to her.

So, I guess my point is, if you have an idea for character growth or direction, don't force it, or it will come off as unnatural. You gotta get in touch with the tao of roleplay and the state of your character, let that guide you in character development.

[MishkaL1138]

I think it's hard to try and retroactively incorporate new characteristics into an already established character. The only way I've found that this happens realistically is if it organically grows out of the course of roleplay. For instance, my character Icerra, when I first established her was young, belligerent, magic intolerant, rebellious, and impulsive. By the time she died, she was an adamant devotee of Dakkru, an amputee, a cold an emotionless murderer who attempted to permakill her pregnant sister and unborn cubs. Now she's a mere whisp lost in the abyss of the Death Realm. None of that could have ever been foreseeable, I actually originally foresaw her becoming a gladiator of sorts, but that's what the course of RP did to her.

Hey, I like where this is going! My turn: when I started playing Mishka, she was a young, naive fenki with dreams of becoming the best blacksmith the Dome has seen, and not much else. Nowadays, though... She's a bitter, resentful divorcee, taking care of an independent child who doesn't want to become like her mother. She lost (and recovered) an eye, is slowly becoming blind from the heat and the brightness of the forge, and is parched with scars and sewn holes. Instead of becoming a master smith (getting there, though) she took a turn for a completely different path, and went on to become a heartless mercenary hunter, and the best duelist in the Dome - and this is objective! One Kore Irka Tournament and one Champion's Cup prove it.

What I'm trying to say here, along with Aramara, is that you shouldn't be afraid of the complexity of your character. They've become so different from what they used to be, because you've roleplayed them so well and allowed them to grow out of hand. This means you've done a good job, if they feel like they're real.

I guess, answering your question, that the "too much" point is that point where you don't feel comfortable playing your character anymore, and that the only way to play them properly is to... just play them.

@Aramara: you forgot the zinc fangs

[Aramara Meibi]

@Aramara: you forgot the zinc fangs

Silver 

[Volki]

let it be known sarras has beaten mishka in duels

fite me

[MishkaL1138]

let it be known sarras has beaten mishka in duels

fite me

Let it be known Sarras got punted by Mishka in a certain place that hurts a lot.

[Can-ned Food]

I take a note from Tolkien and discover more about characters and histories as I develop them.  There's a few advantages to doing it that way, and less disadvantages than you may think.  For example, I didn't know that Gedundk was orphaned until I asked Aramara for a portrait of kras gemmor.  I then understood a lot more about krans, especially some of the quirks which previously had been insignificant (or not so significant as they are now, rather).
I guess I always knew that kra wouldn't be a run-of-the-mill, so to speak, but I also wanted to avoid the stranger–with–a–dark–past (or a terrible secret, or an epic destiny) cliché.

If you go about “over-complicating” a character, then all you are really doing is burdening.  Most authors avoid this, but it's only a problem if used as a lazy nexus.  Most “real” people are presented with enough to over–complicate them, but they choose to select and focus on certain things.
My advice would be to not narrow characters unless it works for some reason.

[Rigwyn]

but I also wanted to avoid the stranger–with–a–dark–past (or a terrible secret, or an epic destiny) cliché.

I think what makes this bad is when its too predictable or too similar to a previous work. There will always be characters with troubled pasts and hidden secrets. I think the trick is in how it's presented. We kind of knew that Frodo would have an epic destiny ahead of him, but that was revealed slowly through the course of the story.  I think there's a difference in being told that a character has a troubled past and actually discovering this on our own as we read/watch.

[Aramara Meibi]

and also, a character (and player) can really be defined by how they deal with their troubled past/epic destiny. yeah, it's one thing to declare a major background event (which is how most retroactive characterization is handled, through an evolving backstory), but if it has no bearing on how the character is played in the present, it fails and falls flat. As an example of how this can be handled well, LOST.

[Volki]

Fringe > Lost

Pretty much every TV show is like that, though.

Sometimes players take it too far and reject character evolution in favor of focusing on the past. Those make for some very boring characters.

[Demagul Riwe]

I thought I'd post this this general character creation guide (many thanks to Lialym for showing this to me!  ) I found it pretty effective for designing some alts I'll have in the future, and I think some people will find it very helpful too!

http://rpg.ashami.com

[Aramara Meibi]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheEnneagram

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BigFivePersonalityTraits

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MyersBriggs

[Rigwyn]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheEnneagram

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BigFivePersonalityTraits

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MyersBriggs

Interesting... I read a book about the eneagram 20 or so years ago. For those who have not, it's basically a tool that categorizes people by their core faults rather than by their core virtues. The eneagram consists of nine major faults similar to the "seven deadly sins" and is used to help a person to understand themselves better by identifying their greatest fault and analyzing how that fault affects them internally and when interacting with others.

[Aramara Meibi]

the theory behind it closely follows alongside the ego-defense mechanisms of freud. simplistically put, the behavior we adapt to protect us from our greatest fears causes our fears to come true.