Experiences Every Possible Problem associated with putting a Personality Section in your Application Skeleton

[Crow]

I see a lot of things on this section that go 'they put their personality there but they ditch it a while later' or 'the character's waaay too confined from trying to follow the sheet's personality' or 'this personality sheet feels pointless and quirky for the sake of it'.

I use Personality Sections sometimes, sometimes I don't.

Well, what are your experiences and complaints associated with such problems - things that are ultimately linked to overrelying on or ignoring one's personality section of a character sheet?

 

[Enkerzed]

Whenever I'm running a roleplay, I like to think of the personality section as more for the roleplayer's sake than anything else. Let people figure out what their characters are like in terms of general behavior then go from there. Just like irl, sometimes we do things out of character and sometimes we don't know what we'll do in a certain situation until it happens. People can change over time too, so there's also that. Point is, whether someone conforms to their character's personality or ignores it entirely is their own business imo, because they know their own character best.

 

[Ace Cream]

I'm fine with personality section, I use it as a starting point to what kind of character that I want to play, but sometimes the GM ask me to write more of it, which ended up with me padding it with shallow information that most of the time I will throw away. This is especially true when I'm making a new character.

 

[Grey]

I assume it's just there for the player themselves to reference if they start slipping or forgetting - I only pay attention to how their character actually behaves in the RP.

I see great results, though, when players use their history or a few formative events in place of a personality section. Less 'what is my personality?' and more 'how does a person with this history behave in this situation?'

 

[Crayons]

A personality section should be like a rough guide of what you think your character is like before you start playing them. You definitely shouldn't see this as a manual that you have to stick to or the word of God. Just use it as a way of expressing your character's main traits and drives, and then let them change and develop as you play them. Sticking to it too hard makes your character awkward, hard to write and makes the process of RP feel stilted.

I do like to make a personality section on a CS. I find its useful for myself to distil down the essence of the character, and also for others especially if characters are supposed to have known each other previously or have heard of each other. For example - if the King's player writes in their sheet "he is known to be incredibly tight with money, and hates when people don't laugh at his jokes" then my character would approach interacting with him in a different way, and would have formed a different opinion about him prior to the events of the RP than if the King's player wrote "He is often seen in the town distributing alms to the poor and is sensitive and pious".

I don't think it needs to be more than a paragraph or two. There's no point fluffing it up with hundreds of likes and dislikes, hobbies, etc.

 

[Murdergurl]

My feelings on personality fields being included on a CS is that it shouldn't just be a bland list of personality traits.

• Cruel
• Psychotic
• Headstrong
• Greedy

This does fuck all to give any depth to your character. If anything, it makes them look very generic and like you didn't put a lot of thought into it. I think if you include a personality section, it should exemplify the traits and how they come about.
For example:

Spoiler: Nadia

PERSONALITY:
Smart mouthed and crass, Nadia takes shit from no one. Her bite is just as bad as her bark (if not worse), and she will not hesitate to throw down into a fight when met with contention. She is highly flirtatious, but more to the end of being a frustrating tease than anything else. Nadia always has her eye on the prize, and is constantly scheming new tricks on how to outplay her rivals. In her opinion, the surest way to lose is to fight fair. So always bring a starship to a gunfight. And while she loves monetary gain as much as the next criminal, Nadia is in her line of work for more than just the pay. She enjoys the rush of the job, and loves to undermine the laws of the status quo. She has developed a taste for violence over the years, and has fostered a sadistic trait that bares its teeth when the woman becomes involved in altercations.

Regarding her love interests, Nadia prefers to remain unattached. Hers is a life that rarely stands still, and “romantic” partners are always temporary. While she will indulge her desires across genders and species, Nadia most predominantly enjoys the company of other females.

Now the inherent problem with setting the personality field in your CS, is that you no longer have a chance to make them more mutable to the RP. You could have played them differently than what you put down. You could have made them a different kind of person derived from the background you had. BUT because you set it in stone, you'll look rather foolish if you go all wayward from what you included in the field.

So I guess it depends on how variable you want that character to be. If you are hard-lined about them being in that specific persona, then put it in your CS. If not, and you want to be able to adapt them, then leave it out.

I don't think it needs to be more than a paragraph or two. There's no point fluffing it up with hundreds of likes and dislikes, hobbies, etc.

And I definitely agree with that. All the likes, dislikes, favorite food, and hobbies stuff is useless fluff that is probably never going to matter in the context of the narrative.

 

[AndPeggy]

I really don't care for personality sections. Every time I've made a character, they never totally match what I wrote in the profile before I started playing them. Sometimes you don't get a real feel for them until you start writing with piney other people.

I've been in RPs that last a long time and going back to read the outdated profile is so hard to do because it totally isn't accurate or relevant anymore.

 

[Onmyoji]

I don't mind personality sections if they don't turn into an essay about the character and none of that excess info is ever used later on in the rp.

For my characters, if I need to fill a CS, I define personality in a couple of sentences max. It gives me (and other players) general direction on how the character will behave, without limiting me too much if I ever wish to change or develop the personality in a different way over the course of rp.

A big problem is that a lot of people misuse Personality section in CS and write something like "character stutters" or "character is blind" . Stuttering is not a personality trait. It can be 'stuttering due to shyness', for example, but not on its own and being blind can certainly affect their personality but is not a personality trait on its own either.

 

[TPBx]

I've said this in other threads but whenever I've GM'd I've made it a point to never require a personality section and even encourage players to skip over it. The personality section as I see it absolves players of the responsibility to write with a voice unique to the character they are playing and lowers the potential depth of the character. And instead rely on caricatures based on their stated personality to interact with others.

I'd rather be shown that your character is a cold, logical and calculative. I want to see the inner workings of their mind as they break down a situation and figure out the best course of action. I want to see your hot headed characters rage build up internally and explode expressively, rather than be told they're angry and an asshole without reason.

 

[Crayons]

Gotta say to all those people who don't like personality sections cos it restricts their ability to play the character effectively and develop it: if that happens, you're using it wrong.

 

[Chordling]

I do not like “personality” as much as I prefer a belief system. I like to use what I call a “three-to-five pillar system”. These pillars are strong beliefs phrased as philosophies that the character holds onto based on events that affected them in their life. I say three-to-five because a character that is 20 will not have the same experience as a character who is 43. Describing a belief system over personality traits feels more liberating to me because the character can still be “sassy” and “shy” without conflicting so much that was put onto the CS.

I have not asked for my players to do this themselves though since I am a bit hesitant to break the traditional mold but maybe I will in the future.

 

[Grey]

I do not like “personality” as much as I prefer a belief system. I like to use what I call a “three-to-five pillar system”. These pillars are strong beliefs phrased as philosophies that the character holds onto based on events that affected them in their life. I say three-to-five because a character that is 20 will not have the same experience as a character who is 43. Describing a belief system over personality traits feels more liberating to me because the character can still be “sassy” and “shy” without conflicting so much that was put onto the CS.

I have not asked for my players to do this themselves though since I am a bit hesitant to break the traditional mold but maybe I will in the future.

If you don't do it first I definitely will. I know I've experimented with some similar in the past but it was long enough ago I don't remember it. Pretty sure this is also baked into some modern RPGs too.

 

[Chordling]

If you don't do it first I definitely will. I know I've experimented with some similar in the past but it was long enough ago I don't remember it. Pretty sure this is also baked into some modern RPGs too.

I am sure it has been done before but it is just not commonly observed. (We could collaborate on a tutorial together if you wanted.)

 

[Syntra]

I just straight up hate writing about a character's personality. It's not fun to me, and due to my perfectionism, I know I will force myself to write pages upon pages of character analysis. It's not an exaggeration-- I've done that in the past. Plus, I dislike writing bios altogether because I keep retconning things all the time. I know this practice is (likely) widely frowned upon, but I don't do it to give mcs bullshit power ups and such-- I do it because, often, I come up with a better backstory/motivation for the characters like ten posts in, and I always retcon things carefully enough so that it still fits in with what I've written about them. Nobody has ever noticed, and in my opinion, the story was always richer for it. When I'm forced to write things down, I can't do that anymore and I feel trapped.

 

[Delinquent]

I think it's more for the GM than for the players, tbh. For example, the GM can use it to make sure that there's some diversity among the characters and you don't end up with an rp populated solely by edgy characters that just sit and sulk in the nearest dark corner. Or to make sure that all of the characters fit the setting.

Plus, knowing the characters personality can help you make the roleplay more engaging.

Also, I don't really get why people consider it restrictive.

I mean, doesn't everyone have, at the very least, a basic idea of how to write their character when creating them? Or do some people write their characters backstory with no idea if they are going to a be a violent, edgy loner or a pacifist, happy-go-lucky extrovert?

 

[M.J. Saulnier]

I think having an established personality is important. It shows that you have an intimate understanding of the character you're supposed to be playing, and it serves as a baseline for the GM(s) to evaluate potential chemistry and dynamic within the existing roster.

I don't think the problem, or the answer lies in having or not having personality sections in CS/bios/skeletons, but rather begins and ends with the average player in a given community.


When used properly (from comprehension of the system to execution of it in character), the traditional alignment system can serve as a great generalization of character type, without having to go into detail about personality. I always include character alignment in my personality descriptions, and tend to keep them to more of a summary in the context of the RP,, vs a long, winded breakdown of their very essence as a human being.

For example, here are some descriptions from summary bios I was working on earlier this year.

Spoiler: Crusader

Personality: Owen is a withdrawn introvert. Bottling up his emotions allows him to avoid them and focus his energy on the needs of others. He is a pacifist and peacekeeper by nature and struggles with the moral complexities of fighting crime. A true neutral good, Owen goes into every situation with a problem solving mentality. Rather than fight the problem, Owen tries to solve it. Like his father, he is a selfless man who thinks only of others in his daily life, and at his job. A natural leader and humanitarian, his response to distress and suffering is to take care of both sides.

Spoiler: Black Tempest

Personality: Tempest is rarely found in situations that could be considered overly social. As a result, he hardly ever speaks, or shows his face. He is an introvert with an extremely high intellect some might say is wasted as a mercenary. He is cold, border-line sociopathic, and his chaotic neutral alignment makes him selfish in his motives and choices. He is a man of absolute conviction and willpower. Methodical, precise and organised; a modern day warrior.

Both convey what you'd be dealing with in the average hero vs villain plot, and a bit about the philosophies and natures that guide their over-all personality. I don't rant about Owen's anxiety, Tempest's discontent with servitude, or the other gory details best left for IC developments. Now having said all of that, they were extremely short summaries for database purposes. The full bio would be a bit more fleshed in the Personality department, after their first appearance was completed so those gory developments have been naturally revealed and are now available for reference.

But my point remains, you don't have to give a us a psych evaluation prior to breaking ground IC. I'm a subpar writer so if I can finesse personality sections, anyone can if they rework their approach to it slightly.

 

[MG Maggio]

I've DM'ed for a number of years now, and I love getting a good idea of motivations and goals- personality is less important, unless I have a few players who are interested in playing a grey area/antagonistic character. In that case, I typically have a hook that encourages group cohesion in a way that places antagonistic characters either under the thumb of a protagonist (with enthusiastic permission from both players) or ties their incentive very firmly to whatever their goals resemble.

Beyond that, I'm of the opinion that personality descriptions are best left for the private characterization needs of each player secretly. This avoids metagaming each other, which can happen even with the most skilled rpers.

 

[Janey]

I never put a personality, some people ask about it. Characters evolve in the story.

 

[Delinquent]

I never put a personality, some people ask about it. Characters evolve in the story.

True, but does that really invalidate the need for a personality section of a CS?

I mean, you can just update the CS as the story progresses.

 

[TPBx]

True, but does that really invalidate the need for a personality section of a CS?

I mean, you can just update the CS as the story progresses.

Well it really depends on your criteria as a GM. Do you particularly care if you have a diverse group of personalities. If you dont then yeah the personality section doesnt matter. I've personally never cared about having diverse groups as my criteria for character submission has always revolved around biography fitting the setting and skills/abilities being balanced. Of course this is because I run fantasy and fandom RPs, and I've been blessed with having groups that tend to diversify the cast on their own. Though I can see how this can be different for Realistic RPs that revolve less around PvP or PvE and instead focus on character interactions.

 

[Murdergurl]

I don't know if anyone has brought this up yet... but aren't there some system games that award points based on how well you played your character to the personality you prescribed them with? In those cases, it's literally part of the game, yeah?

...Though I can see how this can be different for Realistic RPs that revolve less around PvP or PvE and instead focus on character interactions.

*yawns* Oh! sorry. Did I do that out loud?

 

[Fable]

I have the opinion of not really sticking to the personality section of an application for the reasons some have already mentioned; character development and evolution. Events that happen in the rp could affect a character's personality drastically, does that mean they should force themselves to stick to the personality they wrote for their character months ago? I think something like a DnD alignment works better tbh.

My peeve mostly about personality sections is that so many people treat it as backstory more than anything. I don't need five pages to tell me why your character hates or loves something. It's like those damn recipe memes where you have to read the life-story of the person when all you want is the dang recipe. XD

 

[Crayons]

I don't know if anyone has brought this up yet... but aren't there some system games that award points based on how well you played your character to the personality you prescribed them with? In those cases, it's literally part of the game, yeah?

I'm not sure if this is what you mean but World Of Darkness had a system where you would assign your character two archetypes - basically a dominant value - for example Autocrat: you expect to be in charge and get people to follow you, or Jester: Life is too awful to face so make jokes and hope it goes away. (Paraphrasing.) One of these would be your character's Demeanour (how they acted) and one their Nature (what they are really like inside). The rulebooks recommended giving XP to players based on how well they played the character's Nature. (For example, Autocrat: Get one XP every time someone follows your orders even though they didn't want to.)

I wouldn't say that this is the same thing as playing according to the personality description, more that it's supposed to keep you on track with your characters main value/motive/neurosis so you don't go around doing tons of random shit. Essentially it worked something like an alignment but with more nuance. This method of assigning XP was optional and I think mainly designed for players who were inexperienced and likely to go off the rails doing "cool stuff" instead of sticking to a coherent character. Like ... training wheels I guess. You could, importantly, change your character's archetypes at any time during the story based on what you felt your character was like or how they behaved, so it wasn't set in stone either.

I haven't come across what you describe but it's certainly possible that it happened somewhere.

 

[Murdergurl]

I'm not sure if this is what you mean but World Of Darkness had a system where you would assign your character two archetypes - basically a dominant value - for example Autocrat: you expect to be in charge and get people to follow you, or Jester: Life is too awful to face so make jokes and hope it goes away. (Paraphrasing.) One of these would be your character's Demeanour (how they acted) and one their Nature (what they are really like inside). The rulebooks recommended giving XP to players based on how well they played the character's Nature. (For example, Autocrat: Get one XP every time someone follows your orders even though they didn't want to.)

I wouldn't say that this is the same thing as playing according to the personality description, more that it's supposed to keep you on track with your characters main value/motive/neurosis so you don't go around doing tons of random shit. Essentially it worked something like an alignment but with more nuance. This method of assigning XP was optional and I think mainly designed for players who were inexperienced and likely to go off the rails doing "cool stuff" instead of sticking to a coherent character. Like ... training wheels I guess. You could, importantly, change your character's archetypes at any time during the story based on what you felt your character was like or how they behaved, so it wasn't set in stone either.

I haven't come across what you describe but it's certainly possible that it happened somewhere.

I've honestly read so many different types of RPG stuff that I don't recall which one's they all were. But I've seen it at least a handful of times where it is explained that a GM can (and is encouraged to) award points at the end of a session if players RP'd their characters accordingly to what they descried their personality like. This manifests in different terms, but all semantics aside, it's personality traits. Usually these traits are not so freeform in nature so as to just freely write them in. More that you choose a handful of traits (for good or ill) and try to react your character accordingly in any given situation. TOON was one of them, I believe. Mouseguard does something like you had mentioned. And I think D&D does it if you fulfill actions according to your alignment.

 

[Crayons]

I've honestly read so many different types of RPG stuff that I don't recall which one's they all were. But I've seen it at least a handful of times where it is explained that a GM can (and is encouraged to) award points at the end of a session if players RP'd their characters accordingly to what they descried their personality like. This manifests in different terms, but all semantics aside, it's personality traits. Usually these traits are not so freeform in nature so as to just freely write them in. More that you choose a handful of traits (for good or ill) and try to react your character accordingly in any given situation. TOON was one of them, I believe. Mouseguard does something like you had mentioned. And I think D&D does it if you fulfill actions according to your alignment.

Yeah, I think this is for basic people who haven't got around to the whole "have my character act like a person" bit yet. Which is fine, if you're coming from a gaming angle rather than a writing angle maybe that is something you need to be introduced to. But it certainly doesn't seem relevant for online text based RPing.