RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

Marisa · **11-04-2017, 06:41 AM**

(11-02-2017, 05:46 PM)Kamome Wrote: I think a good metric for testing tropes is running your character concept through the Mary Sue test. Mary Sue stereotypes tend to line up pretty well with what ends up being somewhat common as the basic heroic archetypes many players go with naturally when making up a character.

Some examples of quizzes that can be used to help guide:

http://www.springhole.net/writing/marysue.htm

http://www.gotoquiz.com/is_your_character_a_mary_sue_2

Again, just a good measuring stick and tool to use to gauge generic traits, in the end. Donâ€™t worry too much. Just do what you enjoy. The most important thing is to have a character you actually enjoy playing. ï¼¾ï¼¾

Huh. I wasn't aware that an anti-sue was a thing or that it was general frowned upon. I just think its more fun to fill out the 'weakness' section than the 'strength' section. Scored -3 on that first test. The scoring scale didn't even go that low.

**Unnamed Mercenary** · **11-04-2017, 11:48 AM**

(11-04-2017, 06:41 AM)Marisa Wrote: Huh. I wasn't aware that an anti-sue was a thing or that it was general frowned upon. I just think its more fun to fill out the 'weakness' section than the 'strength' section. Scored -3 on that first test. The scoring scale didn't even go that low.

I think it can kinda go in both extremes. Like, it can be problematic when a character is "too" special or so not-special that they lack any defining traits. Both can be indicators that the character isn't going to seem real or relatable when they're hitting those extremes.

But it's also important to take the Mary Sue tests with a heavy heap of salt. What's special and overpowered in one setting may not be the same in another setting. And this is something that's had some pretty heated debate in FFXIV because we have a mix of high and low fantasy ideas. And even the people living in the world are splattered across a gradient of abilities. We have adventurers and named NPCs who would likely check all the boxes on a Mary Sue test. We also have other NPCs who would check few, if any. It's why I'd generally recommend looking for people who are into the same type of RP than trying to make a character that can be and do everything.

S'imba · **11-04-2017, 05:20 PM**

Yeah while weaknesses are great and all something that kills a scene fast is a character who is so helpless that most of the scene becomes protecting them.Â

Another one to be careful with in my opinion is the emotionally fragile to the point they break down and cry whenever anything goes wrong. Which tends to lead to the emotional crisis dominating the scene.Â

But yeah both of those types of characters tend to lose my interest fast since they tend to lack character except for weaknesses. I find it ok at first but if there isn't really any character development going into overcoming those weaknesses it just gets feeling repetitive.

Asyria · **11-04-2017, 06:25 PM**

Just don't have your whole family dead, is all I'm gonna say. Tongue

Verad · **11-04-2017, 08:07 PM**

(11-04-2017, 06:25 PM)Asyria Wrote: Just don't have your whole family dead, is all I'm gonna say.

There was a continent-spanning not-quite-apocalypse six years ago in-game, dead families are fine.

Asyria · **11-04-2017, 10:20 PM**

Not saying it's unrealistic, but it's the most overdone trope.

Caspar · **11-04-2017, 11:57 PM**

(11-04-2017, 08:07 PM)Verad Wrote:
(11-04-2017, 06:25 PM)Asyria Wrote: Just don't have your whole family dead, is all I'm gonna say.

There was a continent-spanning not-quite-apocalypse six years ago in-game, dead families are fine.

And the huge war. And the swarms of ravenous monsters. Beastmen attacks. "Minor" disasters caused by aetheric imbalance in the environment. Considerable sickness among the poor as well as starvation...

Regarding the topic of Mary Sue, it can be contentious because many people mean different things when they apply it to a character, often just "they have features that deliver too much distinctiveness to an undeserving character," but the basic idea I've perceived to be consistent is that many people tend to feel it best applies to a character who draws a disproportionate level of narrative impact. In other words, a character who is remarkable for being exceptionally incapable in areas that count is just as likely to weigh the plot in their favor as a character who is exceptionally incapable, depending on the narrative. Say, a character with no combat ability thrown into a warrior society setting, or a machine-hater (and not the kind who knows how to use them in order to destroy them.) in a technocracy. Or maybe a mundane soldier with no ability to channel aether, who is somehow not released from his elite unit for being a logistical stubbed toe, unable to use the aethernet for rapid travel or be treated using minor recovery magic. These aren't inherently bad concepts, mind you, since these kinds of characters can work in a group of characters that interact well with them.Â (And they're very popular in fiction since the narrative does cater to them.)

A character who was made deliberately lacking in proficiency and then thrown into a situation in which they ought to perform at least passably well may strain credibility OOCly to the other players involved, or worse, draw attention from their mundane success to the exceptional failure. It won't draw as much ire if they don't make the scene about them alone by failing, if they're just good enough to struggle in a way that entertains other players and squeak by, or not bad enough to render their RP moot. The only reason why this isn't harped on more is because there is more negative stigma attached to being distinctive in ways that confer power within the setting, rather than weakness. Making a strong character is seen as selfish, weak as selfless, distinctiveness is derided and scorned, and mundane exalted. The idea of creating characters who are proficient in the necessary skills to articulate the story you want to tell is ignored.Â

And sometimes the Anti-Sue is just a boring character with really nothing to make them stand out, and somehow the player manages to become confused as to why nobody remembers them among the countless other samefaces. There are plenty of characters in fiction who would easily mark high on these tests that people remember because they're entertaining. Would they be fun to RP across from? That's where people disagree, but standing out in some way is useful.Â

If nothing else, Mary Sue tests are very useful in determining fads, or trends. Many of them give points for features the authors and others like them specifically do not like, regardless of whether they actually make the character a plot black hole. By my perception, the original Mary Sue concept has a lot more to do with how much your character draws the narrative focus away from where the audience believes should be and to themselves.

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Pages (2): « Previous 1 2

Common tropes to avoid

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes