>has a lazy eye
>scarred
>unattractive
>takes a shit before every fight
What's the best way to play a badass character without venturing into either the "edgy self insert Gary Stu" realm or the "so randumb ditzy secret badass" Jack Sparrow/Vash the Stampede realm?
Like someone who is obviously a badass but also someone you might also look down on? Most people who try to play un-respectable badasses just end up looking like a typical BBEG.
>>47735560
I think you're a lost cause op.
The first step is not trying to be badass.
Badasery is like illumination, is a golden fish that you can not catch, but that will jump in you hand once you are ready.
Yeah don't try to be badass, but if you're talking about a character that's very good at fighting and strong try and play up the disadvantages of spending your life mostly just learning how to murder. Have the badass loner actually have their social or intellectual ineptitude be a burden. Also realistically they would have a few scars and probably won't be crazy good-looking.
You either have it natural or you will never have it.
>>47735560
One of the characters in the manga Rokudenashi Blues misses an entire fight because he forgot to check if there was any toilet paper before taking a shit. I'm not sure how that could apply to tabletop, but it's the first thing that came to mind.
I guess you just need to actually give them things they're bad at, and make sure that those things are actually presented as flaws. None of that "her flaw is that she's clumsy, but it makes her cuter" bullshit.
Actually roleplay his dump stats. If your barbarian has terrible wisdom have him make bad decisions. If his charisma is terrible, don't play it as him being a mysterious loner with no friends, have him just be generally unpleasant. Maybe he's too blunt because he can't read the mood. If he has low intelligence have him be illiterate. Make him bad at doing basic math. He frequently forgets how many potions or how much ammunition he has left as a result.
I think one of the most important parts of presenting a character as having flaws is not to have them try to shoehorn their good points into situations they're bad at. If your barbarian is trying to reason with someone and doesn't know what to do think of a way to fuck the situation up without going back to violence. When you have him threaten or attack the person he's talking to you may have had him fail at something, but you still brought attention back to his strong points. You also make him look like less of a character and more of a skillset that talks.
>>47735560
First off you're not a super model by any means. You're strong and "fit" but only in the sense that you do a physically intensive activity (i.e. fighting people and killing them) so maybe you have a horrible diet otherwise and you have a beer gut even though you could smash people through tables with little trouble and take more then your fair shair of kicks to the head.
Your face is probably a mess from not treating various injuries so your nose is slightly offset because it didn't set right or you have a nasty scar that you treated with basically bandaids from a first aid kit instead of actually going to a doctor like a sane human being
Unless your guy is actively violent and looking for fights you don't flaunt your badassness and it becomes apparent when you suddenly deck a guy who goes on about being a 4th dan or some shit.
Perhaps you've completely given up on the idea of living a long life and your very existence exudes this so you are crass and have long since stopped maintence on the fuck giving machine so maybe once in a while it kicks on if you can turn it over like an old ass lawnmower.
>>47735885
Too bad nobody asked for your opinion.
>>47735943
That is a terrible story sifu, in which i find no wisdom
>>47736360
>Rokudenashi Blues
high quality taste
>>47735560
I think you're creating a contradiction. You can't have someone who is obviously badass is also obviously not badass, that's just nonsense.
Instead, you can have someone who is obviously badass, but the way they're badass causes scorn from other people. Think a weird fetish or awkward social faux pas they participate in. Smough from Dark Souls comes to mind.
The other side is, you can have someone who is not immediately badass, but is badass through their actions. For example, you know that fat neck-bearded fedora wearing atheist who talks shit about their swordsmanship? Have them actually be good at sword fighting, but show it sparingly, so the overwhelming autism drowns out their badass fighting abilities.
You could also make a "holier than thou" paragon with insane ability, but tremendous apathy/disdain towards using them.
>>47735560
>What's the best way to play a badass character without venturing into either the "edgy self insert Gary Stu" realm or the "so randumb ditzy secret badass" Jack Sparrow/Vash the Stampede realm?
Optimize him properly and make proper combat decisions.
You can be the PC with the man on the street attitude or even a total coward but appear pretty damn bad ass if your pc always handles himself well in a fight.
Or you can be the scrub who tries to intimidates everyone, charges in first without any though and end up getting carried by your team 24/7.
>>47736360
>None of that "her flaw is that she's clumsy, but it makes her cuter" bullshit.
Honestly though, I think that's how you make popular characters though. If you present a perfect character, people will reject it. But if you make a character with flaws, and those flaws seem like serious flaws, that go so far as to make them seem unlikable, you get Skylar White. To a degree you have to have flaws in the character that endear them to the audience/players/readers. Sometimes you hear people rage on imageboards against these characters, because they're not actually flawed, it's all an illusion, except they, unlike true Mary Sues, often have a majority of people who actually like the character despite/because of their flaws and the way they're portrayed/written. Because in the hands of a good storyteller, that illusion WORKS.
I mean if we're gonna keep talking manga you can have characters like Ichi the Killer who's certainly not an archetype "badass", he's clearly messed up in a way that actually impacts him and those few close to him, he's being used constantly but can hardly function without his handler and has a fair amount of personal growth to go through during the book but he holds his own in a fight and I think definitely qualified as a badass in terms of the realistic power level his universe is set in.
Obviously don't feel like you need to go all the way but he always came off as a unique spin on a heavily minmaxed martial fighter. He'd be sicced on people as an assassin but when it came down to it Ichi fought to survive, there were no quips or flourishes so channeling some of that might help. A character who puts their all simply because they're not keen on dying has every right to be badass.
>>47738374
Here's the thing, flaws are meant to something that impairs the character in some way.
Walter's flaw was his pride, his need to show off how much better he was than everyone else which also caused him to make poor decisions simply because it garnered him a leg up on the competition or showed off how great of a cook/chemist he was.
Yet at the same time, Walter is also a greenhorn going up against seasoned drug dealers who have killed people in the past for doing less, yet he also has an innate survival instinct that allowed him to escape death on multiple occasions. That and, deep down, he truly does care about his family...even if he becomes more and more morally corrupt as the series went on.
If you just make arbitrary flaws like "she's clumsy but that makes her more adorable" then that's not really a flaw, it's a flaw in name only that only serves to highlight that character's strong points and has no basis on the plot.
If Walter White didn't have his pride, most of the events in the story wouldn't have happened because he would've taken that job offer back in season 1.
But because he does have this flaw, he rises through the ranks of the drug trade, many innocent people die, and he puts his family, friends, and associates in jeopardy just so that he can say "I won."
>>47738374
I think it's more that you want your character to have an emotional arc, and also feel like a real person.
Like maybe your heroine starts out the journey a bit immature and airheaded, but also kind, sweet, and brave. Maybe the flaws lead to comedy as she bickers with other party members, which is also endearing because we can relate to it, being similarly imperfect ourselves.
But maybe her immaturity also gets her and her friends into serious trouble, and impedes her goals. The audience roots for her to overcome the more serious flaws (character development) and fulfill her quest because we admire her positive traits and sympathize with her negative traits.
Pic related.
>>47736918
OP did.
>>47735560
Be a proper paladin. Not the meme smitehappy deusvulter, but a true paladin.
>>47739245
While this is true, we also have to keep in mind that this is a party member we're talking about. "My Barbarian threatens the king" is a trick you get to do once before the party starts to wonder if they're not strapped to a you-shaped time bomb. If you're going to have a flaw that causes serious ramifications, it better be in retrospect, because otherwise your other players will grow to resent you, and nobody wants that.
>>47739332
There is a flaw in ShadowRun 5e called "uncouth" or something along those lines.
It's a flaw that gives you shitloads of extra karma but it's also a flaw that states that your character is an ornery, foul mouthed git who would flip off the Johnson if they said anything that rubbed you the wrong way.
It's possible to play characters like that well though, like when I played SR, my uncouth character was insulting to his brothers (two other PCs) and also would take the piss out of another character being played by the resident tryhard.
It led to great roleplay since my "brothers" were in on it as well and we treated it as basic sibling rivalry type shit.
The point I'm trying to make is, flaws are things that hamper your character in some way.
If your character threatens the king, but shows off his prowess that makes him useful, maybe the king starts sending the party on "suicide" missions that nobody else can perform.
That way, either he removes the upstart or he removes a threat to the kingdom. Also, the Barbarian gets to hit stuff so in a way, everybody wins.
>>47735560
>Trying this hard to subvert tropes for the sake of subverting tropes
I mean whatever you find enjoyable OP but I can guarantee almost everyone doesn't really give a shit
I said it once on /co/, I'll say it again now.
The trick is predatory stillness. The ability to not have to prove you're dangerous or bad ass all the time, only to strike decisively when the perfect time comes.
Think in your mind of two people, one that thinks he can fuck you up and one that knows it.
Instantly I can guarantee you that the try hard is more loud mouthed in your mind, because they feel they have to remind everyone they're dangerous as oppose to actually, you know, being dangerous.
Your character can be the silliest, most irreverent or apparently naive motherfucker in the land, but if you predatory stillness, there's always that undercurrent where everyone knows that if shit hits the fan, you can and will dominate the shit out of any poor fuck that crosses you, it has the same effect as a big fuckoff lion having a nap under a tree.
Everyone knows you're dangerous, you're just not dangerous right this second and could be if things happen.
>>47739395
The problem is the "useful" part. Maybe you're the best fucking street sam this side of the NAN, but if the party is only ever finding themselves in need of a street sam because of fights the street sam himself is starting, maybe they decide they don't need "the best." The muscle is the single most expendable member of the team; there's always more shaved apes in the world.
Besides, it's the nature of the party dynamic to cover each others flaws. I'm willing to bet your SR character never got within 30 yards of a Johnson. It doesn't matter if your Barbarian can't read as long as the party wizard is around.
If you want a real fatal flaw and not just some fluff, what it needs to be is something specific within your character's skillset they don't handle well. Walter White was the brains, but sometimes his pride overcame his sense. Maybe your character refuses to fight women, or maybe he gets sloppy when he's mad. In Deadlands I once played a gunslinger who refused to fight near a church. It's a problem that you can't ignore, but not something that's so common that it throws your value to the team into question. You take out the bad guys no problem until they take shelter in an abandoned mission. Now suddenly it's a problem, and a much more interesting one than "the barbarian has run into the next room alone. Again."
>>47739659
>I'm willing to bet your SR character never got within 30 yards of a Johnson.
I actually came close to killing one Johnson when he decided to put a hit out on us to get out of payment.
Whenever we actually dealt with a Johnson though, I'd just have my guy playing something on his not!smartphone or something, it's disrespectful yet doesn't get in the way of the party face doing his business.
>If you want a real fatal flaw and not just some fluff, what it needs to be is something specific within your character's skillset they don't handle well.
>Maybe your character refuses to fight women, or maybe he gets sloppy when he's mad.
So what's the difference between "gets sloppy when he's mad" and "runs into next room alone because he's an idiot?"
At least when the Barbarian runs into the room, he has the greatest chance to not dying in comparison to the other party members.
That, and what's the point of having a flaw if it's something that only shows up when the GM decides to fuck with you?
I mean, Walter White pride was a problem that persisted throughout Walter's tenure as a drug manufacturer.
He could've taken the job, if he wasn't prideful. Hecould've saved Jane, if he didn't need Jesse to act as his whipping boy. He could've stayed within his area and preventedCombofrom getting shot, which also would've preventedTomasfrom getting shot, which would've side-stepped most of the issues from season 3-4...but he let his pride give him the idea that they could ride off of a rumor to scare off potential rivals.
I mean fuck, he made his own son drink booze to the point of vomiting because he found out that his cancer wasin remission.
A flaw is something a character has to live with at all times, something that paints their character and directs their actions.
It's not something that only crops up the GM feels like exploiting it.
>>47739619
this. I don't know where the concept of bad-assery came from, but when I think of it, I think wild west cowboys. Not the shoot-you-over-a-card-game guys, the ones that are the will shoot a man at high noon and never say anything about it again. Actions speak louder than words.
>>47739781
>So what's the difference between "gets sloppy when he's mad" and "runs into next room alone because he's an idiot?"
Aside from "one comes up in a specific scenario, and the other can happen at any moment," the difference is
>At least when the Barbarian runs into the room, he has the greatest chance to not dying in comparison to the other party members.
Getting sloppy is you suffering from your own flaws. The only way the party suffers is via your under-performance. Running in is the party suffering from your flaws, not you. Either they're now in a fight they aren't ready for, or the players are going to text each other about what an asshole you are while their characters wait in the last room for you to win or die.
>That, and what's the point of having a flaw if it's something that only shows up when the GM decides to fuck with you?
What's the point of having a flaw if it's something that only shows up when you decide to fuck with the party? Someone is arbitrarily deciding your barbarian is retarded today, either you or the GM, AKA "Officially Designated Arbitrator."
Once I was GMing Shadowrun, and I had a guy with 1 Logic who kept trying to make Logic checks to not do retarded shit, but he and I both knew (though he'd never admit it) that he just wanted to ruin shit for the party, and wanted a justification to do so. You do not want to be the guy who decides "Today the party is fucked because I'm going to fuck up." At best the characters will solve the problem by kicking yours to the curb. At worst the players will solve the problem by kicking you to the curb.
>>47740072
>Aside from "one comes up in a specific scenario, and the other can happen at any moment," the difference is
That's the thing though, you're not supposed to choose when your flaws occur during.
Otherwise, why would someone choose to have clinical depression, anxiety, sociopathy, or any number of physical/mental/emotional ailments?
>Running in is the party suffering from your flaws, not you.
Okay...
How is my character risking his life by running into an adjacent room not me suffering?
As you said, either I win the fight or I end up losing, which affects me personally since my character is the one who is putting his life on the line.
>What's the point of having a flaw if it's something that only shows up when you decide to fuck with the party?
I don't decide when it fucks with anyone or anything, it's something that's an aspect of my character.
If my character is reckless because he hasn't fought something outside of his power level before and he routinely wrestles bears for fun, then he's going to continue being reckless until something pushes his shit in and he realizes that he's not as strong as he thinks he is.
Granted, he'd still be incredibly strong in comparison to most people in the party and could take on most creatures that are around his level of power, which is why he's an important asset to the team and not just a nuisance.
I'd guarantee though, if he fought something like an elder dragon and lived, he'd start to consider the possibility of not charging into a room at every opportunity.
>Once I was GMing Shadowrun, and I had a guy with 1 Logic who kept trying to make Logic checks to not do retarded shit, but he and I both knew (though he'd never admit it) that he just wanted to ruin shit for the party, and wanted a justification to do so.
It honestly sounds like you're just playing with shitty players, not people who treat flaws as something that adds dimensions to their character.
There are only two key factors to being a badass.
1. Be a fighter of some sort
2. Be very aged/old
Anyone who doesn't know not to fight an old warrior is stupid and deserves their player death
>>47740304
>That's the thing though, you're not supposed to choose when your flaws occur during.
>I don't decide when it fucks with anyone or anything, it's something that's an aspect of my character.
I'm not saying your character "decides" to be dumb, I'm saying, you, the player, decide "my character is going to do something dumb." No one else is making that call but you.
>How is my character risking his life by running into an adjacent room not me suffering?
For the character? If they win then they got exactly what they wanted out of the scenario, and if they die then they're not feeling much of anything.
More importantly, though, are your fellow players, who now have to decide between risking the arc of their characters ending with "and then the barbarian charged a bunch of goblins and got them all killed" or sitting around and waiting for half an hour while you and the GM resolve combat because "it's what my character would do."
>Granted, he'd still be incredibly strong in comparison to most people in the party and could take on most creatures that are around his level of power, which is why he's an important asset to the team and not just a nuisance.
Again, it doesn't matter if he can solo Abbadon, if the only reason the party is fighting Abbadon in the first place is because the barbarian picked a fight, he's more than a nuisance, he's a liability.
>I'd guarantee though, if he fought something like an elder dragon and lived, he'd start to consider the possibility of not charging into a room at every opportunity.
Or maybe fighting an elder dragon and coming out with his life goes to his head, and he starts charging into every room at every opportunity. Why would the other characters trust someone who might just charge a dragon? Why would the other players trust you to not just decide to charge something else? Why would you trust your life with someone who is actively creating life-endangering situations?
>>47739547
Well, from what I gathered about OP's Mongolian Pictureshow, the character gives several.
>>47740686
>I'm not saying your character "decides" to be dumb, I'm saying, you, the player, decide "my character is going to do something dumb."
At what point does the character stop being the player and vice-versa?
Is the character itself arbitrary since you're just using it as a vehicle to interact with the GM's setting?
Because honestly, that's some pretty flawed logic since any fucking action your character performs is done on your direction, not autonomously.
>2
>3
>4
To your other points, I just want to raise an important question.
What are the rest of the party doing?
Because honestly, I'd expect someone in the party to take my Barbarian aside and explain to him why charging into every room is a terrible idea.
Or at least make it so he only charges in at their direction.
Because my Barbarian is reckless, not stubborn, if someone took him aside and explained how it's dangerous to the rest of the party, he'd listen and only charge in if he were given a signal or something.
If the party just allows my guy to charge in and pick fights after the first time it almost went tits up, they're just as guilty as I am since they know my guy is going to charge into a room unless there's a reason why he shouldn't yet they're perfectly okay to just let the shit happen.
>>47739619
>>47739790
Any of Bruce Lee's characters. The Man With No Name. Mr Miyagi. Uncle Iroh. Never talk about how tough they are, just show it.
Iroh's a great example. You see what makes him laugh, what makes him cry. You see his hobbies. You see him at his lowest points. Only when it matters do you see him fight, and I don't think he lost once in the entire run of the show.
So that's being a badass out of the way. How do you makr them sympathetic?
One way is to show the price they've paid for their skill. Durzo Blint from the Night Angel books is a textbook example. He's scarred, abrasive, and it takes about a decade of knowing him before he'll start to show any sort of kindness. He's also capable of killing you in more ways than you can imagine. That's because he's failed enough times to know the EXACT cost of failure. Enough that he pushes himself to the limit, that he does horrible things, purely because he can't stand to see himself fail again.
Harry Dresden's another great example. Gangly looking pop culture geek. Most dialogue is Star Wars references. Drives a shitty old car. Lives in a basement with his cat.
The catch is, he's (at heart) a good person. Someone who'll do a heap of work for nothing because it's the "right thing" to do. Someone who'll go to any length for those he considers family. He doesn't need to brag about it, and if he does it's because he's looking for an advantage.
>>47743224
The thing is, your RPG character shouldn't be a straight up protagonist. You've got to share a spotlight.
Armsmaster, from the web serial novel Worm. He's a gadget inventing genius superhero. He fights things that sink continents. He's also let his image define him, enough that he'll risk the lives of others to make himself look good.
Sandor Clegane seems like a great example. Fuck-ugly. Horribly scarred. Phobia of fire. Kills children. Renowned fighter. Half the cast of ASOIAF could fit honestly.
>>47743357
Mate, neither Mr Miyagi, nor Iroh were the Protagonists of their story.
And there's nothing wrong with having a protagonist mentality as long as you're willing to share without hesitation.
>>47739619
A more fun way of looking at it for me is the difference between a rattlesnake and a chihuahua.
The Chihuahua makes noise because it wants to hurt you but can't.
They Rattlesnake makes noise because it could hurt you but doesn't want to.
>>47743357
sharing a spotlight and being a badass aren't mutually exclusive at all
>>47736360
The one running trait of delinquent manga is that the MC is always a fucking idiot with a heart of gold
>>47744234
>>47743616
Well now I feel stupid.
>>47735560
>can operate a million-dollar combat vehicle
>can't get a job parking cars
>>47745764
Got someone playing something like this in my campaign. Ranger type. Lots of field experience. Ended up being drafted into the secret service for a bunch of reasons.
It's fun, but she's causing problems by clearly being an outlier to the rest of the group. Like how she's barely conversational in the language the party speaks.
>I allowed it because she came with great story hooks. And the party needed someone who could build a shelter in the woods.
