It's a very simple equation. Personal flaws are the key to conflict. And conflict is the key to storytelling. The whole history of storytelling is about overcoming conflict -- inner conflict, societal conflict, inter-personal conflict, whatever. Without conflict you have no story.
The key phrase is "grinding edges". Shakespeare knew this best. His strategy for creating a living, breathing character was to start with himself as a template. And then he'd find one characteristic about himself that he didn't like and magnify that a thousand-fold. Consider Othello's jealousy and his paranoid fear of betrayal, Hamlet's masturbatory and debilitating self-analysis, Romeo's crying need to be in love with somebody -- anybody. All of these characters are merely Shakespeare's reflections of himself, with a few grinding edges added. Without these grinding edges, the stories go nowhere.
How interesting would it have been if Othello had the good sense to say, "Hey Desdemona, are you really cheatin' on me, baby?" Or if Romeo had the patience to say, "Hey Lord Capulet, can't we just bury the hatchet? I think your daughter is swell." Or if Hamlet had the courage to say, "Eat lead you bloody, bawdy, villainous, remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, kindless, murdering mother-fucker!!!!" in Act Three instead of Act Five.
If any of those three scenarios had taken place, everybody in the three plays would've been better off (except for Iago and Claudius, of course) and all three plays would've been over in about 30 minutes minus commercials. That's great if you're into watching Three's Company. But it sucks if you're into real drama.
Flaws make characters interesting! Othello, Romeo, and Hamlet were fucked-up people: they lived fucked-up lives; they died fucked-up deaths. But they're great characters! Four-hundred years later, we're still reading about them, writing about them, gossiping about them. Why? Simple. Because they're more interesting than you are - more interesting than you or your friends.
Folks, let's be honest. Most of us lead boring, prosaic, reprehensibly safe little lives. So why should you be that way when you're role-playing? Role-playing allows you the freedom to be the bastard you've always dreamed of being: the one who takes shit from nobody; the one who can charm the pants off of a nun; the one who can buy and sell men's dreams and then throw them all away when you tire of them. And the best part is: there's no guilt; no health risks; and most importantly, no jail time.
Yes, you can shoot that cop in the head and laugh about it when the game is over. You can plot the Prince's demise and still scarf her French fries at Plato's that night. You can treat your friends like shit and still be friends with them the morning after.
But there's more to it than just doing evil deeds and getting away with it. The key is grinding edges. If you create a character who just wants to kill, kill, kill, and kick some butt with no rhyme or reason, eventually, you will get bored. (You'll also end up ruining the game for a lot of people.) Similarly, if you create a character who's so well-adjusted that she doesn't have a problem in the world, then you're guaranteed to be bored off your ass. It's those grinding edges that give your character a life of her own.
Okay, personal example. Let's look at Scott Munroe. Folks, I played Scott for an entire year. I was never, never bored -- burnt out once or twice, sure. But that's more the result of having too much to do. I based Scott Munroe on two very messed-up historical/literary figures:
1. F. Scott Fitzgerald (A 1920's playboy, flapper, novelist, alcoholic, and lady's man. He lived fast, partied late, wrote hard, married one crazy bitch, and died at the ripe age of 41 from acute liver failure. By the way: F. Scott Fitzgerald, Scott Munroe -- no accident.)
2. King Richard III, Shakespeare's most ambitious and maniacal villain. A deformed, runt of a man who murdered all of his brothers and two of his nephews to ensure his claim to the British throne. He overcompensated for his physical handicap by imposing his iron will on all of Great Britain.
Scott Munroe was a talentless nobody who was Embraced more for his good looks and charm than his writing ability. As a Toreador Poseur, Scott received little respect from the upper echelons of Toreador society. Because he could never gain prestige as an artist, Scott was determined to advance in Camarilla politics, no matter what the cost. Like Richard III, Scott was an overcompensater. He was a massive control freak who was determined never to rest until he replaced Jeremiah Crowley as Seneschal.
From this character's inception, you can see his grinding edges, a flaw that's so ingrained in his background that it forms the basis for an entire year's worth of role-playing. (And all that without any assistance from the storytellers!) It's the one tragic flaw that gives rise to all the inner conflicts, societal conflicts, and interpersonal conflicts that follow. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what role-playing is about in the deepest sense. Without those grinding edges to fuel this life that you've created, believe me folks, there is nothing.
Tuesday, 19 August 1997
Back to The Character Creation Tips Page
Paul M. M. Jacobus (vampire@digex.net)