How much time do you spend ON and what kinds OF Character Flaws do you use?

[blackjack50]

This is something all of my characters have. It may not be much, but it is something I want added in to their backstory so that they have exploits for the DM and things that could be particularly funny to advance the plot or give my character a reputation.

An example I have is a monk who has terrible instincts when drunk. Specifically? With women and decision making. Waking up naked and walking home in daylight with nothing more than a tankard strapped over his bits (yes strapped like a....cup). This lead to several interactions that went south in the most colossally hilarious manners at times because he was a sailor monk who got drunk frequently with profits.

Or the guy who was a military commander...but was only in charge of supplies. He got NOT respect from any actual military or combat types. And so it meant I couldn’t really rally anyone.

So do you do this? And what fun ones or interesting ones do you have?

[firelistener]

I do, but I see it pretty rarely from other players. I think it's the most difficult part of building a character. I've also lost count of the number of alcoholics I've seen played; it seems like the go-to flaw.

I have a barbarian that's scared of snakes and impatient. The impatience was actually nice since I played him alongside a group of players that would derail into time-consuming meta discussions fairly often, so my character would just rush in and pull the lever or knock down the door.

Another one is a monk that's really bad with money and would blow it all on luxuries. Didn't really come up much other than the party freaking out that I didn't bother with the usually obligatory haggling any time we bought something.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Right now I have this:

A super stupid sorcerer that believe everything she is told.

A lore bard obsess with knowledge (after identifying an artifact she said "guys, it may kill us all but it worth it").

A vengeance paladin that always try to talk and if he failed go on full massacre mode, no mercy. And he always take vows to revenge in some name(to a treant he vowed to use the ones who burned their trees blood as fertilizer).

A warlock who is a Pathological Liar(no hurtful lies to friends, but only half truths that is easy to understand so it won't hurt the party).

A feodal LN samurai, this creates great talks with the lizard folk druid in the same party. They have so different world views.

[Laserlight]

The monk whose first language was Profanity, second language French, no English (which was our "common"). The rogue could translate into French, if he was around.

One character was a noble cop by day, vigilante by night, and he was obsessed with maintain a secret identity. This also meant he was too busy for romance, despite his mother's pointed reminders that "you're the heir" and "how about that nice baroness? How about that not-so-nice temple assassin woman you keep hanging out with? How about ANY woman, at all?"

One of the characters in my current game has "blunt, unable to keep a secret"

[Chronos]

My first character was overly curious, to the point that he wouldn't flee when he should, if there was a puzzle still to be solved. But enough other party members had similar flaws that it didn't matter much. Though I did once get Inspiration for persisting on some maddening illithid inscriptions, even after they gave him a headache so bad it needed a Restoration spell.

My current character is racist and condescending. Gnomes of course are the superior race, but dwarves and halflings are OK. The oversized races, though (humans and elves) are little better than orcs. It hasn't mattered much with NPCs, but I'm constantly gnomesplaining things to my party-mates, and mostly don't bother remembering their names (the human quarterstaff fighter is "Stick-girl", the human cleric is "Shaman", and the elf wizard is "Sorcerer").

The next character I'll play eventually is a bard who can't stand to go unrecognized. He'll flat out refuse to use stealth or disguise (though he'll be more than happy to be the frontal assault to distract attention away from the guys sneaking around back).

[blackjack50]

I do, but I see it pretty rarely from other players. I think it's the most difficult part of building a character. I've also lost count of the number of alcoholics I've seen played; it seems like the go-to flaw.

I have a barbarian that's scared of snakes and impatient. The impatience was actually nice since I played him alongside a group of players that would derail into time-consuming meta discussions fairly often, so my character would just rush in and pull the lever or knock down the door.

Another one is a monk that's really bad with money and would blow it all on luxuries. Didn't really come up much other than the party freaking out that I didn't bother with the usually obligatory haggling any time we bought something.

That is actually a good idea. I don’t like to use the common ones, but alcohol was good because it kept my party from spending too much time in the bars...which was nice because our quest involved getting things for a bar lol.

[Warlush]

A buddy of mine played a Monk with a homebrew background called "unknown". He had amnesia and couldn't remember anything from before the campaign started. It was really cool. It was super fun for all of us when the DM would give him clues. Every single NPC we encountered, he'd ask the same thing, "Do I know them?". It was hilarious.

[Lupine]

I think a lot of players think that the "personality section" of the character is for them. They are wrong.
That section is really meant to be a tool for the DM (and to a lesser extent, the other players): the Characteristics give the DM tools to encourage the player into the spotlight, and be able to trigger NPC situations by involving characters. The bonds gives the DM levers to encourage the player into deciding certain things, but not really to force them to do so. The Ideal sets the DM up for introducing dilemmas. and the Flaw gives the DM tools to really play with the player and force them into making a certain decision, even if they hate that they are making that decision (like a railroad, but it is a railroad that player themself writes themself into. Generally, it really brings the RP out of players, as they work to "correct" their decision. Unlike a railroad, the player doesn't have to go along with it, and its not forced on them, so it doesn't suck).

As such, I hate when players play "flaw:drunkard" because it gives the table very little to play with. As a result, it kind of makes a flatter character, because they don't have a rich flaw that really paints the character as real. If you want to have a drunkard character, great, but put that in the personality traits. It fits better there anyway.

/rant

[blackjack50]

A buddy of mine played a Monk with a homebrew background called "unknown". He had amnesia and couldn't remember anything from before the campaign started. It was really cool. It was super fun for all of us when the DM would give him clues. Every single NPC we encountered, he'd ask the same thing, "Do I know them?". It was hilarious.

Reminds me of Bourne Identity. A good choice for backstory. The books were very different than the movies and probably would be even better source material for a Shadow Monk in D&D.

[blackjack50]

I think a lot of players think that the "personality section" of the character is for them. They are wrong.
That section is really meant to be a tool for the DM (and to a lesser extent, the other players): the Characteristics give the DM tools to encourage the player into the spotlight, and be able to trigger NPC situations by involving characters. The bonds gives the DM levers to encourage the player into deciding certain things, but not really to force them to do so. The Ideal sets the DM up for introducing dilemmas. and the Flaw gives the DM tools to really play with the player and force them into making a certain decision, even if they hate that they are making that decision (like a railroad, but it is a railroad that player themself writes themself into. Generally, it really brings the RP out of players, as they work to "correct" their decision. Unlike a railroad, the player doesn't have to go along with it, and its not forced on them, so it doesn't suck).

As such, I hate when players play "flaw:drunkard" because it gives the table very little to play with. As a result, it kind of makes a flatter character, because they don't have a rich flaw that really paints the character as real. If you want to have a drunkard character, great, but put that in the personality traits. It fits better there anyway.

/rant

I’ve always been one to believe that tropes exist for a reason. And while they get old and stagnant...that is because one doesn’t bother to play the trope in a new manner. Or use the trope when it applies. Being a Bad drunk is an annoying “flaw” or trope that one has that is boring. Sure. But if your characters run a bar? That goes from a “personality trait” to a flaw real quick lol. Especially if your DM properly used that to throw you into debt with a thieves guild and so on.

That being said? I totally get it. Flaws are used to advance the plot for the DM. Or to be used as plot points to create character growth. Anger Management has Adam Sandler as an angry passive guy. And the entire movie revolves around that character growth of that flaw. Which is a good example of character flaws being used for Plot :)

[Imbalance]

My basic human fighter had a gambling addiction, which I think I just rolled on a table. The DM made pretty good use of it.

My next character for that campaign might be the fighter's mentor, a banished Duergar passing as an elderly Mountain Dwarf with an inverse fear of heights - that is, the further away a ceiling, the more nervous he gets, resulting in an innate phobia about the open sky. He is often plagued by nightmares about falling off of the surface world into the endless air above. Reluctant to allow both feet to leave the ground, he never jumps unless in a cave, regards sailing as a very bad idea, and considers it suicide to climb up anything unless securely fastened to bedrock by ropes. He feels very sorry for birds and even dragons, for surely they would dwell among the grounded but for their cursed wings dragging them away.

[blackjack50]

My basic human fighter had a gambling addiction, which I think I just rolled on a table. The DM made pretty good use of it.

My next character for that campaign might be the fighter's mentor, a banished Duergar passing as an elderly Mountain Dwarf with an inverse fear of heights - that is, the further away a ceiling, the more nervous he gets, resulting in an innate phobia about the open sky. He is often plagued by nightmares about falling off of the surface world into the endless air above. Reluctant to allow both feet to leave the ground, he never jumps unless in a cave, regards sailing as a very bad idea, and considers it suicide to climb up anything unless securely fastened to bedrock by ropes. He feels very sorry for birds and even dragons, for surely they would dwell among the grounded but for their cursed wings dragging them away.

That is quite amusing.

[Lupine]

Another problem is players who think their flaw is absolute. Things like the anti-claustrophobic Duergar are interesting, instead of annoying, because the character can get over it, with the help of the other players.

That's a flaw that encourages the others at the table to RP, and can even introduce some interesting plots.

[Imbalance]

Another problem is players who think their flaw is absolute. Things like the anti-claustrophobic Duergar are interesting, instead of annoying, because the character can get over it, with the help of the other players.

That's a flaw that encourages the others at the table to RP, and can even introduce some interesting plots.

Totally agreed, but based on my very limited experience. In my first example (my first true foray into D&D), gambling seemed like such a mundane choice, yet the DM made it far more interesting as part of getting my character endeared to the rest of the party who had been playing some months before I joined. It wasn't just my character gambling, it was all of us gambling that the chemistry would work.

Now that I have a better idea of things, part of the idea behind this new character's superstitions comes out of what I learned from those early experiences. But I also expect to have to temper it in accordance with what the campaign is, what the DM can work with, and the needs of the party. "Character never grows" is not a flaw; it's a terminal condition.

[sithlordnergal]

To be honest, I don't give a character that much personality outside of a basic "I wanna play a noble" when I build them. I don't give them flaws, boons, or any of that. Instead I give them some relationships, a back story, and their background, then I develop them more as I play them. For example, I had a Bard in Barovia. He started as a non-violent, peaceful, "I'm never going to hurt anyone"...until he was left to die by the party three times, and accidentally set fire to the forest. He went from being friendly fellow to a more sneaky, conniving person that cared little about the loss of life.

Or my Goblin noble. I was originally making him to be comic relief, but he ended up being the brave party face who helped his friends while using his position to aid the group.

[dragoeniex]

Personally, I'll base a lot of quirks and flaws off significant backstory moments and what the character does most of the time.

Example: Bard/shadow attack survivor who was scared of being alone in the dark and would press into whoever was holding the torch during underground missions. He was also the primary face and was suave, smooth, and charming in public... but was frankly worn-out by all the social manipulation and let his guard down when he was alone with the party. More snark and world-weary comments.

Being an ex-spy, he would also sometimes take a shady route to help. Like drugging the wizard's food and drink after too many downtime all-nighters in the name of research. (Wizard's player had fun making this a running gag with me.)



Other times, it's just a fun thing that pops to mind while playing or a bit of wordplay.

Example: Investigator character who was very "grounded" in personality and the mental image I had when building her. Further in, when the group first had to travel by helicopter, I thought it would be amusing if she preferred being literally grounded as well and had it come out she hated flying. Still a tough-as-nails character, but one who had to spend the trip with eyes squeezed shut and fingers burrowed into the seat cushion.

Character was also a coffee fiend prone to all-nighters and probably could have used a teammate proficient in subtle sleep drugging.

[MikeRoxTheBoat]

My character process is essentially pick a class that fits the party -> find a neat picture -> build a story/stats around the picture. After that, I rummage through all the background personalities and flaws and such and if one fits my character out of the box, I take it. If nothing does, I make a custom one based off the story I concocted.

Honestly, the personality traits section is the part that takes the least time for me, simply 'cause I have all the answers for it in the background story I built before filling it in.

Some of my favorites tend to be personality quirks that are only marginally disruptive. For instance, I had a sorcerer that had a long list of luck based rituals he'd perform. Usually stuff like throwing salt at people, putting coins in dead corpses mouths, and always sleeping with his head facing north. It would let me play out natural 1's pretty easily though, like shouting "No, there's a crack there, don't step on it, it's unlucky" when I get a natural 1 in stealth.

My current character has the "I'm prone to telling long stories at inopportune times" flaw and it's pretty entertaining.

[Undyne]

Me? I like to do my flaws based on the 7 deadly sins (Wrath, Sloth, Greed, Envy, Pride, Gluttony, and Lust). Its especially fun with religious characters- A Paladin who took his oath to atone for his Wrath, A Monk who went into asceticism to atone for Lust, a Cleric who worships a humble god in order to atone for his Pride. But non-religious is fun, too- Barbarian who suffers from Sloth, a Gluttonous Rogue.

[Guy Lombard-O]

I spend some time picking them out, because they're just as likely to cause problems at the table as to enhance the fun. Whenever I come up with a general personality and some congruent flaws, I then imagine how I'd like to be sitting next to somebody else playing that character. If it seems likely that I'd want to punch that person, then I keep thinking.

Most of my flaws are fairly minor. Things like "trusts those in authority too much, even in the face of some evidence they're not good people", or "thinks the best of people, and will give people second (and third) chances if asked". I creating a Marine background character now, who shirks hard work or gripes about conditions, always wants his "fair share" regardless of his actual contributions, and gets salty when he feels "cheated". But flaws like that will have to be played very carefully and kept toned down most of the time, or they'd be too annoying for everyone else at the table. I'll see how that goes, and adjust as I go accordingly.

[Lupine]

I repeat my previous assertion, with people's comments about how they "give" their character the sheet personalities (bond, flaw etc) Its not for you: you already know everything about your character. Its for the rest of the table to know how to interact with that character.

[MikeRoxTheBoat]

I repeat my previous assertion, with people's comments about how they "give" their character the sheet personalities (bond, flaw etc) Its not for you: you already know everything about your character. Its for the rest of the table to know how to interact with that character.

I can see this for the DM, but every game I've played in, the players don't get to see the other player's sheets at all. I can see the DM using it to add situations to put those personality traits in play.

I honestly think they're a bit like RP training wheels. I think your assertion that players already know everything about their character isn't necessarily correct (especially with a wily DM). Not everyone who plays has a very deep backstory or is super comfortable RP'ing, so having a brief list of how they should teach to certain situations is helpful in that regard.

[Chronos]

Yeah, a good roleplayer doesn't need those. But for a new player, or one who doesn't have as much of a knack for roleplaying, it's a good way to add some structure to the concept of "give your character a personality".

Another useful tool is to always ask, what's something you would do that your character wouldn't? What's something your character would do that you wouldn't? Some of my most fun gaming moments have come when I've realized that, while I would never even consider doing something, my character totally would.

Though, of course, the DM can and should also use those hooks. Twice recently, the DM has tried to tempt me by dangling rewards that would go against my personality hooks. I turned both down.

[Wraith]

My most recent character, a Tortle Monk (No, neither mutant nor a teenage one, before you ask...) was polite to a fault.

He'd quite happily stand around having a nice chat with anyone who approached him - which occasionally included muggers, bandits, a cannibalistic mutant troll and a group of slaving Sahaugin, most of whom were already chewing on the rest of the party.... But that was no excuse to have bad manners and snub the guy who was patiently explaining that he'd like me to disarm myself then step quietly into his net, was it?

He was also very literal minded - not in the imbecilic way of a low INT character, but only because he wanted to be helpful. The insistence of the party's Sorcerer to "Go and get that guy who's shooting arrows at me!" was met with a quick grapple check and then a few resisted STR rolls as I grabbed the guy and dragged him over to land, unharmed, at the bewildered Sorcerer's feet.

"I got him!"
"...."
"...."
"...Okay. Good. Now kill him, please?"
"Righty-ho!" *flurry of blows to a prone opponent, turning him into red paste*
"That's... good. Very good. Well done."
"You're welcome!"

[blackjack50]

My most recent character, a Tortle Monk (No, neither mutant nor a teenage one, before you ask...) was polite to a fault.

He'd quite happily stand around having a nice chat with anyone who approached him - which occasionally included muggers, bandits, a cannibalistic mutant troll and a group of slaving Sahaugin, most of whom were already chewing on the rest of the party.... But that was no excuse to have bad manners and snub the guy who was patiently explaining that he'd like me to disarm myself then step quietly into his net, was it?

He was also very literal minded - not in the imbecilic way of a low INT character, but only because he wanted to be helpful. The insistence of the party's Sorcerer to "Go and get that guy who's shooting arrows at me!" was met with a quick grapple check and then a few resisted STR rolls as I grabbed the guy and dragged him over to land, unharmed, at the bewildered Sorcerer's feet.

"I got him!"
"...."
"...."
"...Okay. Good. Now kill him, please?"
"Righty-ho!" *flurry of blows to a prone opponent, turning him into red paste*
"That's... good. Very good. Well done."
"You're welcome!"

Oh I could totally see that working. Especially if one is playing a character with common as a second language.

[sithlordnergal]

I repeat my previous assertion, with people's comments about how they "give" their character the sheet personalities (bond, flaw etc) Its not for you: you already know everything about your character. Its for the rest of the table to know how to interact with that character.

Hah! That's a very large assumption. I never know anything about a character until I actually start playing them, outside of the basic "They're such-and-such race and such-and-such class with this background". I don't even know their alignment. I tend to develop their personality as I play them and get a feel for them

[Wraith]

Oh I could totally see that working. Especially if one is playing a character with common as a second language.

The trick is not to be disruptive by being a "literal genie" and deliberately doing things in a way that technically does what you've been asked, but also annoys the other players and their characters.

Ou (My Monk) was genuinely helpful to PCs and NPCs alike and often did things on his own initiative without having to be instructed - he wasn't an idiot that the party towed around as muscle. He really did help people who asked him to, albeit in a very direct manner. The other players were quietly amused; they kind of wanted to criticise him for seeming slightly annoying to them, but it was obvious that he wasn't doing it on purpose and had actually helped them get what they wanted and they didn't want to appear ungrateful.

[denthor]

Cleric/thief of a neutral god. He was ng church over party
Told the church about any magic item that came through the party. Always the first bidder on any knowledge things.

[Reevh]

Current character is a Githyanki Paladin. He knows little about the prime material plane, is unaccustomed to eating, drinking, defecating, or any of the other things you don’t have to worry about in the Astral Sea. Also has a very difficult time with the concept of time.

Because he knows he’s on the Prime Material Plane alone and can’t take on entire settlements himself, he doesn’t generally kill people and take their stuff, the way a Githyanki raiding party would, but he definitely thinks he’s better than all these non-Gith, and he uses fear and intimidation to get his way (as a conquest paladin). He’s not above committing evil acts if it’s in his interests, but he knows he needs the other party members, so he generally doesn’t do anything that would get him ostracized.

The whole party and the DM all seem to really enjoy him.

[Kalashak]

I used to spend quite a bit of time on it, I think putting a flaw in your character helps make it easier to role play them. Substance abuse, oblivious to social cues, arrogant, impatient, and a wet blanket are the examples that spring to mind. My most recent group reacted pretty negatively to the first flawed character I showed up with and that turned me off doing it.

[rel]

I make the character first. Then I pick flaws that match them.