I tend to prefer wounds to flaws: with a wound driving both positive and negative aspects of the character. For example a character is neglected as a child (the wound), so always seeks attention or praise, while also being highly supportive.

For people who want to go deeper into issues like this one, check out the term Bleed from larping (specifically originated in Nordic larp scene). Those are the situations where the emotional division between the player and the character blurs or breaks, and it can go either way (bleed in, bleed out) and may be wanted (think running a horror game where one of the best ways to make characters behave afraid is to instill the non-breaking amount of fear in the player), but is always a dangerous territory (psychologically, emotionally).

@lucethedoormat81

10 ай бұрын

character bleed is also just a common thing in theatre

I think it's important to have a level of self awareness when playing ttrpgs, because yes you're telling a story and you're playing a character, but you're also playing a game with your friends and that's the most important part. Playing a game. Having fun.

As the other campaigns have gone on, it's been really fun to watch Marisha role-play. More than any of the others, she embodies her characters and it's been really cool to see how her body language changes between the time she was playing Beauregard to when she's been playing Laudna. Session Zero is a great idea for tables to have. Our current group had one at the start and then something came up in role-play that hadn't been discussed that made at least one player really uncomfortable, so we had a mini session zero before one of our sessions. The point of contention was brought up and resolved and that was a really good thing. The other group that I used to do tabletop with sort of had a session zero, but we added a new player a few sessions in who was not part of the session zero and they ended up making the playing experience miserable for everyone else at the table. That led to the group ultimately not playing anymore. So yes, session zero (and keeping that communication open!) is very important. The one big difference between Critical Role (and other livestreams) and a regular game is that it's ultimately their game. If they enjoy more player conflict that their audience doesn't like, they don't owe anything to their audience to make the game enjoyable for anyone but the GM and the players. Yes, it's great that CR and others give people the opportunity to watch their games, but ultimately, it's their game and really, only their enjoyment of it matters. It's a privilege to be able to watch and share in their experiences, even from an audience perspective.

Definitely needed this video years ago so “fans” would understand it wasn’t Marisha “being a [insert insult here]” but Keyleth… Yet would praise the characters when they did something cool, rather than the players who thought of that cool thing.

My take is that roleplaying character flaws can veer into "its what my character would do" territory. Where the flaw being roleplayed might be fun for the person playing but horrible for everyone else.

ended up recently having to go back on one of my flaws because the only way i could have seen acting on it in a satisfyingly way would have come at another players expense. I really hate that i wasn't able to find a method that both players were satisfied with.

She'd been playing Keyleth for years - not just the stream..,. Maybe she felt that around all those experienced actors.

I'm playing a character who has a laundry list of flaws right now, and I like to point out "I have the choice between something smart and something in-character" and I detail both choices and let the party weigh in on it above table before I make a choice. If we don't want to blow our cover during a time when my character would fly off the hinge, we hand wave the fact that our fighter catches on and restrains him, or he gives him a kick before he can say something stupid. I find it actually gives our party a bit of a fun sibling dynamic with all of the bickering our characters do

Choosing your own flaws as character flaws CAN be very risky and I would not recommend it in many cases. For example, if someone is very silent because they often don't know what to say, it might hurt them if other players refer ask "Why don't you hardly ever say something?" as they hear it constantly themselves in their normal life. Also, it can limit yourself because you have to overcome your own flaws to develop your character (and it might end with not developing your character at all): If a taciturn player plays a taciturn character, there are not speaking opportunities and if makes it super hard for them to talk to other characters. In that case, it would be better to play a character who is talkative in some occasions (they might like to tell everyone about their grandmother's favourite recipe, something like that). "Being new" is not a flaw, it is a temporary situation. To the topic in general: I find it quite difficult to play flaws because I'm always afraid that I will annoy the other players. But I guess I will just talk to them before the next session about it :)

I'm just thankful for the animated series where they are fixing various issues. A TTRP looks much like a first writing draft tbh, and a first draft is always very rough.

You’ve talked about how to role play flaws properly, but what about role playing frogs properly? 🤔 (great vod as always!!)

@jandiqar

10 ай бұрын

Insert Neverafter joke here.

Love your videos. They’ve been helping me reflect on the way I build characters and understand what I like/dislike about other characters. Something I’ve noticed from playing with a lot of new players is that insecurity seems to be a character flaw almost every single new player uses (in my personal experience), so I think this video really makes a valid point about flaws tending to line up with whatever the player is personally dealing with

character flaws are pretty common in Deadlands and GURPs so i’ve actually never had these issues transpire because flaws were public onto the character sheet

Great video. I appreciate the positive spin on the subject and showing examples of how to do things right :D

I like using character flaws to justify stats instead of simply waving away a low roll or where the 8 in the point array goes. My current PC (an MCDM illrigger) dumped Wisdom, which I treat as them having a massive ego that constantly gets them into trouble, either socially or by picking fights they can't win. I try to avoid making decisions that are reckless to the entire party, and instead have my PC leap into fights like they're borderline s*icidal. That being said, I have caught personal issues creeping into my PCs, but I try to avoid making them "flaws" so much as part of my PC's internal story arc. I think this approach works best for my group, since we tend to be a little light on RP most sessions.

Another aspect I like to play with is consider which block you want to emphasize. For instance, your paladin or cleric might be so deadset on their ideals that their personalities, flaws, etc are subserviant to them. Or you might have a rogue captively lead by their insecurities and flaws that all but a few things compliment that. Now, if the paladin and the rogue campaigned together, they can use their modivations to compliment each other.

"On this day, it is that about which we speak."

Hmm I mean, I write flaws but it’s very hard for me to articulate them enough to write down in a concise manner. Not that I don’t know them. I know my character’s flaws very very well. No, it’s that I have a hard time boiling them down to a sentence or two in describing them enough to communicate outside of the context of their use in rp. I do have character flaws for my main one I play though. At least one of them is easy to articulate. Namely, their flaw is their sense of responsibility. Before anyone jumps down my throat saying that isn’t a flaw, yes it is, especially since I play it in a caretaking type of person. This is the type of person who keeps taking on responsibility beyond even their limits and, because they are often the caretaker, is taken for granted in doing so because it’s their normal role. The same individual doesn’t speak up and frankly doesn’t know to stop. It’s compulsive. Further, this flaw is made worse by them taking responsibility for things that were very much beyond their control. Why? Because that’s the role they’ve always had. I’m playing a parentified eldest child adventurer. While they are not with the family they grew up with, those habits have stayed, that sense of responsibility because it always was their responsibility even as a child themself, and that stuck as an adult. This comes into play in a variety of ways. Namely, it means my character gets more reckless in their combat tactics, jumping on the back of a dragon to bring it down from flight for instance, even though it’s going to hurt them by a LOT, and all because a team member is being being cornered by said dragon. Going to raid a dragon’s hoard to get the right value diamond to revive a fallen party member? Absolutely will go. Normally? My character is practical and deeply intelligent, is a scholar in fact, despite also being a fighter. But when they get desperate it’s not because they are in danger, but their party is. Also in their backstory they fully blame themself for the death of their fiancé. Is it their fault? Nope! It was a random creature attack and my character just had the bad luck of being the only survivor and having to live with that grief. See, they constantly will take responsibility for that stuff, even though they can and do turn around and tell their party members to not take responsibility for things that aren’t theirs to take responsibility for. Yes, my character is a hypocrite. It’s another flaw. But this is how I further push that my character thinks they are an exception, not because they are better, but because their needs aren’t as important, including the need to tell themself to not take responsibility for things they shouldn’t and aren’t theirs to do so. But yeah, that’s how I play in flaws for my dnd character. I understand my character and how one thing leads to another behavior and so on, but shortening that is so difficult. Playing it out is easier. Still, one needs to sometimes communicate that with the party. And I did, to make sure it wasn’t going to be an issue for anyone else. For one, I didn’t want to make anyone feel like their character was being condescended to by being this older sibling/parent type of character. And second, if anyone themselves was in that position, I didn’t want to ruin their fun by saying or doing anything that hit too close to home that is knocks them out of the immersion of the game and makes it not fun for them. So yeah, be careful with your flaws. They can cause bleed over which is something to watch out for. And depending on the other person, it may not have the effect you want to convey about your character too. I lucked out and managed to integrate my character’s caretaking quite well with little things. Offering a piggy back ride for the smallest party member, bundling someone up who was out of it, preparing a meal, even tricking the hyper focused artificer who is crafting to eat some finger food, helping our recently revived party member to sit up and drink tea and food, and even carry them around as they wish, even offering to brush the hair and braid it for our childlike and sheltered party member. Telling stories and just being over all indulgent, offering a listening ear, making sure no one is alone that really shouldn’t be so they have someone to watch their back. That sort of thing. Caretaking. But it easily could have come off as bossy and condescending so I did my best to make sure that wouldn't be an issue by talking it out. I have the good fortune of this not being a live play so I don't need to justify my choices to an audience. But talking with my table so we are on the same page? Always important. And yes, as a side note, I did build out some of this flaw from my own experience, I will say this. I was not parentified. I am an eldest child. I did grow up with some of the responsibility from that role due to both my parents also being eldest siblings too, one even having been parentified. I am also a caretaker by nature. It took me a long time to stop being insecure about whether my caretaking compulsion was coming from a habitual thing because of my family role or because I genuinely wanted and felt like being a caretaker. And yes, I did end up having to set boundaries at some point with my family regarding taking for granted my caretaking and the volunteering me for things before asking permission. But those are past things, stuff I have conquered and have a sense of security over. I am playing a character though, that hasn’t learned that, or is still learning that. And by discussing this with my party, it informs them where they fit in that story arc too. And lastly, one other reason I selected this flaw is because I was a recent addition to an ongoing campaign. After getting information and sitting in on a session before my official one, I realized the party did need such the counterbalance vibe of a sibling/caretaker type of character. Not only did I feel it would contrast, but also highlight the arcs their characters they built were going through. Would teach the artificer to calm down and see the people side of the equations, would teach the wizard to be more confident and bold in his role as the heart, would have the sheltered one have a protector who would help them be better and face their own insecurities about such a out of control world and life, would give our ranger, torn between godly chosen blessings, someone to speak to and look to for advice, and even highlight the change in our monk who would go from being jaded to trying to be more of a optimist, a bit more idealistic, and more emphatic. Basically I created a character with this flaw so the party had someone to bounce their flaws and character arcs off of and would only help them reach their goals in those. So this flaw was chosen with that in mind.

In the words of a good friend of mine: "A conversation must be had by humans"

Im one of the people that wasn't a fan of marisha in campaign 1 because of the kraken fight episode were she was pretty much drunk for real because of her bday and from learning she's a sore sport from the battle royal at the end of the campaign where tailson pretty much ignored her and thru the game so shed win.

Flaws add to a character & can add to a better role-paly experience in a campaign but I agree that flaws should be discussed in session 0 so everyone is on board and a party that can be built that can still be cohesive (e.g., someone playing a kleptomaniac rogue would encourage another player wanting to play a paladin to play a paladin with a 'more forgiving of others' misdeeds' outlook). The player in question does have to walk a very thin line to keep the character's flaw(s) from taking away from the fun of the rest of the party and becoming a 'that's just what my character would do.' Also, need to be careful that a character's flaws do not unbalance the party. I was in a Curse of Strahd campaign with only 4 players & one was a pacifist priest. The player did adjust the character's pacifism not to include undead. That said, things were still a challenge for the party, combat-wise, when we weren't fighting undead & the DM had issues balance encounters because of that. So, everyone involved, players & DMs, need to be on the same page from the beginning - obvious I know but it doesn't always happen. Kato

Oh. So I shouldn't have done that. I got kicked, well they would've kicked me but I left cause I felt unwanted and one of the players was very aggressive towards me and she played a aggressive character but I could feel that it wasn't her character but her directing through her character to try and push me out of the group in game and put of game. Apparently the one question asked was too much. I asked if they were gonna take their brand new puppy to doggy school and then she went on a tangent on how she raised sheep dogs and knew how to train dogs and the dog would want to play and I like playing with dogs so I obliged but she should've said to not play with the dog if she didn't want me to.

3:37 What do you say lines up and doesn't really line up because she made the character way before the live stream playing her in the home game. Your point still stands. She did say in an interview that she makes characters that have flaws she has so she can relate to the character a lot easier.

I thought your shirt said Slur Wars for a minute

I HATED the hate Marisha got for Keyleth

I think where you should be very careful with are flaws, that have the potential to disrupt the gameplay of the other players, and thus their fun. Take a character with the flaw, that they are cowardly and when things get spicy they panic. Let's imagine a b´fight against a boss that isn't going too well, but the other payers are very invested in winning the fight even still, discussing their strategies, how they can use their abilities to maximum effect, to maybe turn the tide of battle. But you with your character decide to play to your flaws and run away. In the wrong moment something like that can just completely disrupt the fun the other players have at the table. You can play to your character's weaknesses, but before you do so, read the vibe in the room, and see whether this would be something to disrupt the other players fun. I think the reason why it is so dangerous is, because you remove agency from the other players and their characters. In the end D&D in particular is generally a hero-power fantasy. And your character should fit somewhat into that and be able to do that most of the time. A character riddled with flaws just doesn't fit in this game (generally speaking, at certain tables this might not be true, but I wager for most of them it is. It is also what the games system support).

I'm one of the people that never liked Keyleth very much and it's not for the reasons mentioned in this video. I feel like I never got a good grasp of the character, of her personality and beliefs. At times she acted quite erratic. She could go on those long speeches but often by the end I wasn't quite sure what she wanted to communicate. It could be a good character flaw in itself but I don't feel like by the end she grew that much as a character. She went on the Aramente and became a leader of the Air Ashari but it felt like she's mostly the same as in the beginning, like she still wasn't ready to lead anyone. Add on to that that a lot of characters would go on to say how amazing and wise she is but it felt like they were telling me how I'm supposed to view her instead of showing me. I just feel like I never got her character development. Sure, some things changed but nothing major. Some of her flaws were annoying to me but that's fine as long as they'll be addressed but I never quite got that. I know that my comment isn't exactly on the topic of the video but I wanted to share that my, and many others, dislike of the character can stem from purely storytelling perspective. No hate to Marisha, love her other characters. And sorry for not providing more specific examples, it's been a long time since I watched C1 and I no longer remember the details.

@sparklefulpaladin

10 ай бұрын

Yeah. I couldn't really get behind Keyleth as a character, which made campaign 1 significantly harder to get into than either of their other campaigns. She didn't feel as real of a character as a lot of the others in Vox Machina did or as any of Marisha's other characters have.

To me, the topic involves two different problems (that slightly overlap): 1. Problem 1 is characters should grow. Because I 100% agree with this video when it comes to _early/late Campaign 1._ The problem is _late_ C1 where Keyleth is still acting insecure, still acting unwise (weirdly with 22 wisdom). It creates a tension where you feel like that character should know better by now, and have matured/changed based on the events of the story. 2. Problem 2 is consequences should feel realistic. Characters are going to make bad choices either in-character or as players. In P1 we saw that many of those bad choices are _completely fine_ (ie when they're in-character; they're intentional flaws). But regardless of the cause of the bad choice, consequences should feel consistent to the world. Some examples being: Case 1: Keyleth's famous "we're basically gods" moment comes late in C1, so it feels abnormally unwise for her character and is an example of Problem 1. But because the consequences are realistic, it completely avoids Problem 2. Case 2: Fearne steals from powerful people and her own party. This _doesn't_ cause Problem 1, since (barring significant life experiences changing her) we'd expect her character to _always_ be chaotic like that. However it frequently causes Problem 2, when people catch her but she doesn't really experience reasonable consequences (imagine you're traveling with a group of friends, and one of those "friends" constantly steals from your own group; clearly _some_ sort of confrontation is warranted, yet Fearne basically coasts by without consequence). And I do think if Problem 2 was solved, it would then put pressure on Problem 1 (because as she encountered more and more consequences for theft, we'd expect her to eventually want to change her behavior).

@jenny_of_oldstones3523

10 ай бұрын

I don't know.... the FEARNE thing has really started to irritate me by now.

@DParkerNunya

10 ай бұрын

I would like to point out that the "we're gods" was both an out of character line and a misunderstanding of the situation. She was genuinely surprised at the damage total and the fact that the cliff was as tall as it was. Throw in the fact that she thought she was being strategic (saving a wildshape to get back up the cliff by being able to swim already), and it's easy to see why she made the mistake. And in her defense for the actual spoken line, high level dnd characters basically ARE gods. Demi-gods at the least. It sounds like arrogance, when it's really just a genuine misunderstanding.

@BitterSweetKana

10 ай бұрын

Wisdom can mean many things, especially in the dnd verse. Taking it at face value will naturally pigeonhole characters who need a high wisdom for their class into being "wise". I really dislike it when people decide to take that one specific thing about Keyleth and act like it should matter so much towards her personality. Keyleth was 23 when campaign one started and that makes her a baby when you think about how long she'll likely live. Wisdom is a necessary stat for her class, man. Players don't HAVE to let their stats define their character if they don't want to.

@majmage

10 ай бұрын

@@BitterSweetKana Again the criticism is _late-character_ behavior. What percent of people in these game worlds do you think reach level 15+? It's probably less than 1 in 100,000 (0.001%). The idea of a person being that veteran, yet being played as a ditzy, immature, bad decision-maker just breaks immersion. It doesn't speak to whether a person should be an introvert or extrovert, but it definitely speaks to how their decisions should _feel,_ and Keyleth's felt bad even if your comment on wisdom makes sense (and I'm not sure it does).

@michaelguth4007

7 ай бұрын

@@majmage Levels and stats are usually game mechanics with no direct translation to the game world's setting or comparable to real life. The timescale isn't realistic, either. Some campaigns cover low to high-level play and take place within a couple of months. Characters change from being beginners to being masters of their craft in that time.

While flaws are necessary for conflict on multiple levels of a game, you as a player have a responsibility to the people at the table to not actively get in the way of the game. The "it's what my character would do" approach to gaming doesn't fly at my table because the people sitting at the table will always be more important than the game. That's not to say you can't play into these character flaws with dramatic flair, but it does mean that typical archetypes at tables (especially for new players) like a lone wolf trying to fit in with a party is going to be heavily monitored to make sure they aren't taking away from the experience.

I might be dumb but what did she do wrong?

@Alche_mist

10 ай бұрын

She didn't do anything wrong, but some of her roleplaying rubbed some people in the audience the wrong way. Whether you're talking about Marisha Ray or Jay's wife.

@PlayYourRole

10 ай бұрын

Lmfao I love the idea that somehow my wife got roped into this. But yeah, people thought she was being too self inserty with her character because they didnt know Marisha, and her characters flaws seemed to match too keenly with the perceived stuff she was going though (new to dnd liveplay ect.)

No one at the table had a single issue with Marisha and as much as other live plays hate to admit, no one but Critical Roll plays for a audience. Comparing role playing as nervous because you are and role playing someone is always in control or the smartest person in the room are literally night and day. If you are role playing that because its how you genuinely feel then im gonna be honest, it was never the character and was entirely the player. Its like claiming rolling dice CAN be bad because there are people who have thrown them at people's head.

it's fine to put aspects of yourself into your characters, but the table is not supposed to be a space for trauma dumping or a stand-in for addressing issues that require actual therapy. if someone has daddy issues, i don't want the table to be the place where they air out all their personal problems under the guise of 'my character.' i see this all the time, ESPECIALLY with people that came into the community as a result of crit role and subsequently also try to emulate the show. a lot of people make the same character over and over under a different name (they have no depth to their creation and just make a shallow representation of what THEY want to be). a lot of people make the most outlandish character they can with the most outlandish names and just scream special snowflake left and right.

Characters with overly active flaws are such a pain to play with. This is a game first, and a story second and its really annoying to have players who take choices away from their fellow teammates because its what there flaw compels them to do. In practice this is mostly just another version of "It's what my character would do" and often undermines the coop nature of this team game we enjoy.