I made my own personal character test

[Scowling Dragon]

People have heard of the Plinket character test:

Describe your character without mentioning what they do or how they look. And thats very complicated but a good test.

I have my own: If the character existed in our world (No special powers or such), and worked at a box mart. How high up the ladder would they be? How would they work? What would their interactions be?

I find often with bland characters once you take them out of the circumstances of their situation they posses no personality, a "My backstory is my character" sort of thing.

[Killer Angel]

People have heard of the Plinket character test:

Describe your character without mentioning what they do or how they look. And thats very complicated but a good test.

Never heard of it, but it isn't simple.
The background of any character, is described by its history, by what he does (or did in the past).
If you remove this, basically you'll end with only the personality. Which may be somewhat baseless, without its living history...

[Anarion]

Never heard of it, but it isn't simple.
The background of any character, is described by its history, by what he does (or did in the past).
If you remove this, basically you'll end with only the personality. Which may be somewhat baseless, without its living history...

It's not saying you have to take it out of context, the Plinkett test is to describe someone without mentioning looks or the person's job, you can say other stuff they do. For example, Jean-Luc Picard is a formal, cultured man who enjoys reading classic literature, examines a situation thoughtfully, and takes command decisively when it's required.

What would fail is to say that he's a bald white guy who captain's a starship.

OotS also makes good use of the idea with Belkar in this comic, where the whole point is that there's more to him than could be replaced by any random halfling ranger/barbarian.

[SiuiS]

"Anarion is a moral man who understands when and how to apply morality, and when and how not. He is capable of understanding things regardless of personal agreement and is perfectly willing to support a losin strategy if he feels it is the morally superior one. This is not to say that he has no sense of self preservation, strictly the opposite; he has a strong enough sense of personal value to know when high risks provide high rewards, and knows that moral plays often require stacking the deck and gaming the system and the application of the system"

Versus

"Anarion is a lawyer who got into it for a love of justice and has, according to witnesses, an adorable voice".

The first one is better, methinks.

[Crow]

Show, don't tell.

[JustSomeGuy]

Conceal, don't feel
Don't let them knooow

[Killer Angel]

It's not saying you have to take it out of context, the Plinkett test is to describe someone without mentioning looks or the person's job, you can say other stuff they do. For example, Jean-Luc Picard is a formal, cultured man who enjoys reading classic literature, examines a situation thoughtfully, and takes command decisively when it's required.

What would fail is to say that he's a bald white guy who captain's a starship.

Ah, then it makes sense. Tnx.
Indeed, it requires some thought.

[Zrak]

"Anarion is a moral man who understands when and how to apply morality, and when and how not. He is capable of understanding things regardless of personal agreement and is perfectly willing to support a losin strategy if he feels it is the morally superior one. This is not to say that he has no sense of self preservation, strictly the opposite; he has a strong enough sense of personal value to know when high risks provide high rewards, and knows that moral plays often require stacking the deck and gaming the system and the application of the system"

Versus

"Anarion is a lawyer who got into it for a love of justice and has, according to witnesses, an adorable voice".

The first one is better, methinks.

Sure, but one is a paragraph and the other a sentence; comparing the two does not so much compare the style of characterization as the volume of characterization.