I think that some kinds of characters are inherently, universally, more romantic than other types. Some examples of inherently romantic types: Bishonen-I''m hurt and lonely, cuddle me and make it all better. Puppydog-I''m playful, charming, cheerful, and spontaneous. Wouldn''t you like to take me home with you? Sprite-I can talk rings aroud anyone, exude charisthma, wrap people around my little finger. You''re fun to play tricks on, so you can be my pet. ?????-I''m an arrogant individualist, but I met you and all my defenses cracked; I need to have you or I''ll never get my strength back. ?????-I''m eloquent and powerful, but you, my rival, have proven yourself my true equal. You have earned my respect and my heart. We need a vocabulary of character types, so I challenge everyone to contribute some more types (romantic or otherwise) and think of good names for these types so we can refer to them easily in future discussions.

I question the usefulness of a standard measure for characters. In my meager experience as a writer, I''ve found that such classifications are only REALLY useful to the people who made them. For anyone else (so I have seen) they tend to become a crutch.

However, just because I say this doesn''t mean it''s not there, plain to see. Those are all traditional character archetypes, and I have this one to add to the mix-

The Sacrifice- A character who doesn''t qiestion love despite agression, hatred or any other barrier. Will sacrifice anything, no matter the cost, for his/her love of another.

You should not try to characterize things, when you characterize things you begin to forget about the other types that you did not characterize. When you come up with a chracter dont let that chracter be part of a chractization let it be his or her own character. It makes the game a whole lot better if you dont know the character type of the character, before playing the game.

quote:

---

Original post by OoMMMoO
You should not try to characterize things, when you characterize things you begin to forget about the other types that you did not characterize. When you come up with a chracter dont let that chracter be part of a chractization let it be his or her own character.

---

It''s part of my personality type to try to analyze and classify everything, and my writing process doesn''t work unless I know who my characters are when I start.

quote:

---

It makes the game a whole lot better if you dont know the character type of the character, before playing the game.

---

I don''t know, when I buy a book or a game I like to read the cover first and find out what the story and character motivations are going to be about. How else can you pick the right one to satisfy your current emotional needs?

I agree and I disagree... I think that a character definition needs to be made, but I don''t think that you *should* define your characer. Just put down that characters motivations, history and needs - that way you can define your characer and leave it open for a whole range. This way, it can be classified later, by the people who find it necessary to classify... That is just My Opinion though

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers'' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

quote:

---

Original post by dwarfsoft

I agree and I disagree... I think that a character definition needs to be made, but I don''t think that you *should* define your characer. Just put down that characters motivations, history and needs - that way you can define your characer and leave it open for a whole range. This way, it can be classified later, by the people who find it necessary to classify... That is just My Opinion though

---

I agree that it''s necessary to have a range, thst''s exactly why I want other people''s examples - because left to my own divices I''d only have the few types of characters that I could think of.

Each character should be characterized individually. You can use character types as a base but somewhere in there you need to add some new ideas. Don''t use too many cliches.
How about -
The all around nice guy,
and what about the mysterious tall, dark and handsome?



Think outside the dodecahedron

I like my tall, dark and handsome character to be the theif... With no morality

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers'' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

I want to jump back in here and say that I kind of regret injecting that idea about the evils of classification. It kinda screwed the thread up a bit, sorry S&S.

Yes, it''s true. Over-adhering to classifications and mechanical observations can ruin a story. You should never do ANYTHING just because it supposedly has psychological signifigance. But also, you shouldn''t go in blind. You should be prepared with your OWN set of classifications to guide you through your OWN story.

Trick is, often you want to take from the methods of others to arrive at your own understanding of a character. In that sense, a thread like this (or what it was intended for) is great... We should really be sharing our thoughts of what is cool, why it touches, and how to make it that way. Can we get back to that?

I agree with the fact that classification cannot be made. Psychiatrists have about 20-odd different characters that they can attribute to people. I know this because I have a friend with a very unstable mental health. As for classifying her, it can''t happen. She doesn''t fit classification... Is she then considered a character of her own? From time to time she fits different characters... What does this mean? Dynamic characterization... that could be where you could go

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers'' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche