(07-15-2016, 11:36 AM)Andromeda Wrote:As I said, its a personal preference. For the most part, people who I've RPed with who rely on things that happen to them to sell their character rather than rely on their character to sell their character aren't as enjoyable for me to RP with as someone who does - therefore better for me.(07-13-2016, 05:22 AM)V Wrote:The use of "better" rubs me the wrong way as well. I have characters that are products of unlikely pasts and characters that are just a Brume thief or Lominsian trade ship proprietor. Is the Garlean defector somehow less valuable than the history professor on her first teaching assignment? Or somehow offensive for having an unusual past? I don't believe so.(07-13-2016, 04:41 AM)Miah Gamduhla Wrote: I'm a pretty fervent believer that more "average" characters make better characters.
"Better" is a fairly loaded worded. I'd say average characters are much safer/easier characters to play, for a variety of reasons, and that ease of play results in less skilled or experienced writers getting much better results instead of fumbling around with a more complex and extravagant character that would require more finesse to play to appropriate effect.
I also don't believe either one is more of a challenge to write than the other. They present different challenges. The more generic characters require a lot of extra work to make them feel like an actual part of the world instead of something that could be cut and pasted into any environment, and the more uncommon characters require a lot of delving into lore and a huge dose of humility to not overplay them into some shounen fever-dream of power and uniqueness.Â
"Better" is way, way too value based a word to use here, I think. And I'm sure it slights a lot of talented writers who've developed interesting characters that happen to have bombastic backstories.
In reply to your example... a Garlean defector is 100% fine in my book and totally lore-friendly. I am sure that there are Garleans that aren't loyal to the empire and would defect - there are examples of this in the MSQ. I have no problem with that at all. What I'm referring to when I say outlandish are things like... characters who jump around back and forth from other dimensions, characters who are from some station of high influence and power and impose that on others (things like characters who are in the Heaven's Ward or play as some deity in disguise) and other things like that. Even then, a lot of this would be fine as long as it wasn't the main draw of their character - snowflakes.
Please don't assume that I use the word better to slight others, give me the benefit of the doubt here. If I have slighted anyone, I'm sorry. I don't know if my word use hurt anyones feelings, but know that it wasn't my intention to do so.
Everyone has things that they like more than others. I like plain cheese pizza better than pepperoni pizza. Does that mean that I dislike pepperoni pizza or that I think less of people who like that topping more than plain cheese? No. If I could only have one slice of pizza and my only options were cheese or pepperoni, would I take the cheese? Yes. People have different tastes and that is fine.
Knowledge seeks no man.
