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

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.

Common tropes to avoid

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