Does the idea of being too "Mary-Sue" scare people away from certain tropes?

[kibou]

So I was just thinking about things that are typically seen as traits that make a character Mary-Sue, such as a "tragic background," and being extremely beautiful/attractive.


Usually these things, when all seen in the same character make people scream "Mary-sue!" and point their fingers.


I've discussed Mary-Sueness with @Pine, and after hearing the wonderful plant's ideas on how any character with any collection of traits can be a good, enjoyable character if played correctly I agree.


Most people aren't capable of that, though. Which is where the whole idea of "Mary-Sue" comes from....


(Sorry if this is worded badly, I just lost my specific train of thought and I don't think I'll be getting it back any time soon.)


Anyways, there are certain tropes that are common and for whatever reason are played badly, and after having those things labeled as "Mary-Sue," could it be that capable roleplayers are frightened or hesitant, or don't even think of giving their character a particular trait because of the Mary-Sue label, or even the idea of Mary-Sueness?


Recently a lot of my OC's have been given "fairly normal upbringings." Of course, giving every single character a similar background (not necessarily similar in details, but in general mood and tone if that makes sense) is a bad idea, because it's unrealistic. Not everyone in real life has a "fairly normal upbringing." And I wonder now if I'm just trying to avoid looking like a Mary-Sue.


This feels like a messy and phrased badly post, but what are your guys' thoughts on it?

 

[Quilboarian]

Sometimes I give my characters fairly normal upbringings. Usually, they're assumed to have a "fairly normal upbringing" by default, if their past is mostly vague and never explored [assuming a backstory isn't asked for in the CS.]


I tend to not make their backstories stray too far from the ordinary. Sometimes I make their upbringing crappy, but still reasonably realistic. I never have backstories with excessive tragedy involved, unless the RP I'm in involves an apocalypse, or something where a lot of tragedy is appropriate.


Sometimes I have characters with shitty pasts, though. I always make it have an exclusively detrimental effect on them; I don't make it so that they became "stronger" from it, but I also don't make them cry about it and suck in pity from everyone else. I just make them generally gloomy/assholish for unknown reasons until you bother to find out.

 

[kibou]

Yeah, I have one or two characters that have a shitty or kind-of messed up past, but I usually do something like that. None of them are "stronger" for it.


The backstory thing was honestly just an example, but I feel like the "mary-sue part" of most mary-sues is the dreaded "way too tragic back-story."

 

[Bandages]

I think some of the best roleplayers have fairly normal characters, whatever that means, because it shows they aren't relying on a tragic character history to make their character goods or exciting. I think what weer consider tragic ranges from character to character. For example, people forget how simple things like their parents splitting can be just as effective. If you have a weak character, they could have a history where they've always been the weak one and they could end up becoming a strong villain. I'm going with the fact that if it's played out well, it could work. As long as the character isn't too OP and their negative and positive traits are fairly balanced.

 

[Ignitedstar]

I'm a bit torn on this.


On one end, I think you shouldn't give a damn and let characters roll the way they are. Most people don't reference their character's back stories while they are roleplaying. What's more important is what that character is doing while the story is running.


On the other end, I can see how people will judge another person's character as being too "perfect". Especially if they fit too well, despite the potential hells they've experienced in the past. I would only truly get peeved if that perfection is constantly brought up by the poster in the story. Not just in story, but out of it in OOC as well. "My character should be treated better because X happened in their character bio" or something along those lines.

 

[Prudentia]

Going off of @Ignitedstar 's comment/post, I also think the problem is over-powering traits. Perfection can also be translated to overpowering characteristics that make one's abilities and skills, even their personality above all and therefore flawless, impenetrable, and wanted by the "enemy." In some cases, I guess. The problem I see is that Mary-Sue and Gary-Stu show a lack of room for improvement from the start when they have so many abilities, even though they are young and "in-training." I have seen this in plenty of my role-plays and it is easily derailed. Does this make sense?


There is most likely a lot of role players put off by this but also WEARY of their character traits, so they avoid making their backgrounds too tragic. Although, tons of the role plays I am in have characters from all sorts of backgrounds (lots of tragedy, normalcy, and/or passivity). Maybe this is just a trend going around at the time you looked on the forums? =-) This is a great discussion, though. People shouldn't be worried to make traits somewhat "perfect" but should avoid making their character over-powered and the like. I mean, there are really beautiful, smart, skilled, etcetera people out there but they all have some weaknesses as well. I guess that should be considered.

 

[JayTee]

An quick and dirty litmus test I've developed to determine the mary sue factor is how the character is described.


If she's just described as being beautiful, then it's not a problem for me because how your character looks is up to you and not my concern.


If she's described as "everyone who looks upon her falls in love with her beauty" my kneejerk reaction is to tell you to bite me and stop telling me what my character thinks, you hack.


Bottom line, describing your character is fine, telling me what my character thinks in relation to your character is not.


This goes double for the lone brooder guy, or the angsty hero with a tragic backstory. The more your character is off in their own little corner, the more I'm going to write you off as a hack and ignore your character in game. The more you contribute to the game and work with others, the more I'll be willing to work with you.


None of these things are inherently bad, but they've been executed poorly so many times that they've become tainted in the minds of many gamers.

 

[kibou]

Thank you all for responding! I'd write a longer post/response but I don't have any time at the moment...


I did want to let you guys know that I read and appreciate your posts, though!

 

[Blumenkranz]

I don't think being beautiful is a Mary Sue trait, nor is being smart (smart, not "look at these arbitrarily high numbers I made up that are supposed to be my IQ", in which case you have probably entered deep into Mary Sue territory), nor is having a tragic past. Very little traits are inherently Mary Sue-ish, because Mary Sues come from unrealistic mixes of positive traits.


Wikipedia has an article on the term Mary Sue, and I always thought it explains fairly well what it actually means.

Mary Sue stories—the adventures of the youngest and smartest ever person to graduate from the academy and ever get a commission at such a tender age. Usually characterized by unprecedented skill in everything from art to zoology, including karate and arm-wrestling. This character can also be found burrowing her way into the good graces/heart/mind of one of the Big Three [Kirk, Spock, and McCoy], if not all three at once. She saves the day by her wit and ability, and, if we are lucky, has the good grace to die at the end, being grieved by the entire ship.

Mary Sues are, essentially, characters with many outstanding skills or out-of-place traits. Because yeah, how the hell is a 15 years old kid going to be able to be a master strategist? Not even taking into account said child is also so skilled in the art of fighting that could be thrown into the torpedo bay and punch a spaceship to death. Like, how the hell did they acquire all those skills in so very little time?


Thing is, you will never see a character that is a Mary Sue just for being too beautiful, or for being too cheerful, or even for being knowledgeable about a handful of things. Very often, Mary Sues become Mary Sues for what's in their heads, namely their natural intelligence.


How did this person become a master strategist in so very little time? Well duh, she has an IQ of 400, of course she can! That also explains why she became a master of Kung Fu at 12, got fifteen PhD before becoming 13, solved P=NP during breakfast and the first program she wrote was a sentient AI instead of a Hello World.


I am having a very hard time trying to find a Mary Sue whose only trait is being too beautiful or too strong. Mary Sues, to their most basic level, are in the mind, both a combination of certain types of personalities and outstanding intelligences. Nobody is going to complain about an autist whose only skill is solving any maths problem at the speed of light, but what about a persuasive and even manipulative kid who can do much more than said human calculator and whose only justification for all those skills is "he is a genius"? Now, that's where you got a Mary Sue: he is young, unrealistically intelligent and well versed in social skills.


Now, let's change the above concept a bit. Instead of a kid, put a grumpy 80 year old man in its place. He may not be as intelligent, but he knows many things due to having lived for so long. Perhaps he used to be a maths teacher whose hobbies were wargaming and watching historical documentaries, which is why he is extremely knowledgeable in those aspects. What's the difference? This character makes sense, has actual defects (he is angry, so he can't be very persuasive) and has justified the entirety of himself with something else than "well, it's the first person that has ever existed with such a high IQ!" or something equally bullshit-y, like "he is a demigod".


The kid may be a cripple or very ugly, but it's still going to be a Mary Sue as long as it's not consistent with himself, specially if all you did to balance him is giving him a tragic backstory. This is not some sort of game of minmaxing, and the extreme intelligence and assertive personality will still allow him to do wonders and make him appear like an obnoxious asshole.


Now, in comparison, let's make a character whose only trait is being beautiful. Essentially, a dumb blonde archetype character. Smug, flashy, stylish, gorgeous... but dumb as rocks and completely incapable of engaging in combat. Does this sound like a Mary Sue? Same for a guy who is stupidly strong, but is actually ugly and dumb and so the only way he has for solving problems is punching them.


Truth is, most of what a person is is their mind, and it only makes sense to assume Mary Sues will also be defined mostly by their mental capabilities. Yeah, you can make a Mary Sue even more obnoxious by also making their bodies far above average, but don't think you will get away with that by making them ugly and physically weak.


In other words, and to solve your question, as long as you don't get overboard with a character's intelligence and skills (I'm looking at you, "master tactician" teenagers) you should be alright. It's not bad to put a focus on your character's mental capabilities, but try to make them coherent. As I said, if your character is described to be smart but the only skill they have is being fairly good at maths, nobody is going to complain, but what about the best mecha pilot of the academy who is actually 16 years old and a genius and a master tactician so he is sent to fight as part of the frontline infantry (and could take down half of the enemy army without any help!) and is also a master of romance?


But it's okay, he has an IQ of 300.

 

[Ixacise]

Mary sue requires a certain amount of narrative favoritism which outside of being in the form of player favoritism or GMPC shenanigans is going to be hard to do. By themselves they're more like special snowflake traits because they can be stacked to make the character pop out by being well, special. And judging by the amount of Exalted threads I don't anyone is terribly afraid of them.

 

[Tabby]

(I'm looking at you, "master tactician" teenagers)

Literally worse than Hitler.


I don't have many pet peeves about character archetypes, I've seen the dumbest ideas played surprisingly well and awesome ideas played horribly, but that one just rustles my jimmies more than most. Probably because it tends to be done the most lazily of all the 'supergenius at x' stereotypes.


(the rest of your post is great I just kinda had a small aneurysm when I got to that line and wanted to comment)

 

[JayTee]

A tactical genius is an interesting trait to give a character. The other forms of genius can be faked by looking up the answers on line, but this one is is ultimately dependent on your own ability to think creatively in a combat scenario.


Because of that, you either really are a tactical genius (and I've seen people pull some really clever tricks (that weren't just complete bullshit godmodding*)), or you're a poser who's ability to maneuver the battlefield will be more a hindrance than an asset because what you think is clever and cool is actually really stupid.


*Remember that old topic back on Pattern Spider, Tabby?

 

[Mugcake]

Warning: A lot of pointless rambling!

​

I usually just use my hunch to determine if a character sounds like a Mary Sue. If they make you squirm, it's either you're already itching to interact with that character to explore them (character done right), or you're dying to get out of the seat and away from that character because they scream "overdone and/or idealistic" everywhere (character done very wrong). Throughout my years in roleplaying, I've encountered various characters that either greatly fail my expectations or far exceed them.

Spoiler

Take this one OC I've interacted with for example. He had no tragic backstory, but he was very driven to be the best, to the point where he almost lost sight of what matters to "normal" people. In his defence, he claims that everyone has a different idea of what makes them feel fulfilled in life. Because of his headstrong personality, he has very little friends (the only guy who liked him in-game was his partner, who grew used to his brash personality instead of "enjoying" it). Again, he wasn't ostracised because he was the son of Satan or anything. It was his character growing up that made people avoid him! He was lonesome, but good with what he polishes up on, since he had no buddies to hang out with in his spare time. (^U^)


Some people told me that they felt like he was a Gary Stu, for being so good in combat, but eh, I'd disagree. It's just like that nerd in class who spent his weekends revising instead of going out - naturally he'd be better than his peers in studies then, right?


And then there was another one long, long ago that I met, where in the CS the character was described as "beautiful and always gets what she wants through flirting". I was playing as a nerdy boy who spent too much time with his Anime Club homies, and compared what was perceived as real-life "beautiful" to be sub-par in comparison to his 2-D goddess' anatomy. The group roleplay didn't end well, since everyone was upset that my character didn't fall straight for "the beautiful cheerleader".


I felt that she was a Mary Sue, but maybe she was more a stereotype and I misunderstood? It certainly did affect me one way: I am extremely tentative to interact with any cheerleaders in-RP anymore, considering what Hollywood has been screening about them on my TV as well.

Are Mary Sue and Gary Sue actually just idealised stereotypes, created for the sole purpose of being the "hero" in the story, then? Hmm.

 

[amdreams]

Note: For the short version, ignore the spoilers. They're just examples really that don't add anything in terms of additional information of my standpoint of the situation.


Well, personally, I believe what truly defines a mary sue/gary stu is how they relate and interact with their environment or universe. Of course there are plenty of traits that irk me to no end, like when "witches" get to have every power simply because they're a witch, but before I can label someone a mary sue, I usually have to ask myself a few questions.

1. Are the things that make me think they may be a sue canonical with the universe? Is it very much possible for them to be able to do this? Both by the universe's laws and the laws of basic science/phyics. (I once rped with a character who developed a special martial arts that focuses on pressure points and when said points were hit, they could make the opponent's ligaments stop working. Their ligaments.)
   
2. How does the rper interact with the other rpers and characters? This includes how they use npcs and background characters. Like do they make background characters treat or react with their character in a certain way for no real reason? Do they change the personalities of npcs to suit what they want for them? Do they demand other players' characters to act a certain way when they don't? Do they manipulate the situation so that the other character must act the way they wish? Etc.
   

Basically, I think a mary sue depends heavily on not on the character but how the rper plays them. Individual traits and skills don't exactly make a mary sue though there are time when they can be warning signs. This is because though on paper they can be idealized, that doesn't mean that they will be played that way.

Spoiler

I once rped with someone I'd definitely label as a mary sue. Though she was royalty, her parents raised her and her sister in the countryside, making them believe that they were peasants. When she was 6, her entire family was murdered. Then she was captured and "tortured" by some mad scientist I think until she was 14. But somehow she was also the general during a big war when she was 10, killing countless enemies despite the fact that we have no idea how or when she was even trained. She was described as beautiful, even with the scars on her back from her torture. And was established by the rper as the strongest person in the school.


And though all these things are extremely red flags, I don't consider her a full fledged mary sue by this alone. What truly cinched the label was how she played the character. The rper seemed to play her as if she was a flawless and tragic heroine, and continued to believe so even though she was sort of failing at it . . . This girl, IC, was incredibly spoiled, self-centered, irresponsible, at some points delusional, and in general a rather bad person. And yet, the rper kept on pushing the fact that this girl was perfect. She "never made mistakes" and when she did, it was either "someone else's fault" or she'd bring up her "tragic past". She was "incredibly beautiful", enough so that she can't go swimming in public places anymore because "all the boys would drool over her". She was "the strongest person in the school, period", to the point where she actually told people ooc that the villains she made could only be defeated by her and that she had the "power of a god". And if anyone didn't agree with the rper, she'd bring in "powerful" npcs to pummel us only to be saved at the last second by her character.


I say it's more important to see how a character is played, rather than focus on its "resume". If a character is a "genius tactician", that doesn't mean that they will be able to act like one. They could easily be outsmarted by other players whose tactics are better. If a character is "beautiful", it doesn't mean everyone will see her that way. If a character is "stupidly strong", it doesn't mean he can't get beaten in arm wrestling or whatever.






Example: Let's say we have 2 characters: Mary and May. Both are described as beautiful. Both their parents have been murdered by a dark, unknown force. Both, though young, are described as skilled in fighting, let's say hand to hand combat. And both are those tough at first but sweet and gooey on the inside type of girls. On paper, they are virtually the same person, right? But let's put them in some situations.


1. Despite them being so beautiful, Alex does not find them attractive.

• Mary flirts with Alex anyway while her rper is telling Alex's rper that he must fall for her. This may even escalate into an ooc fight or Mary bunnying Alex into liking her.
  
• May is shocked and confused, but rper acknowledges and accepts this. This can become a bit of development where May either loses confidence in herself or starts becoming obsessed with why he thinks she's ugly.
  

2. Despite being strong, they are fighting with a martial arts teacher, Mr. Howard (who is also taller and in a higher weight class than them), and is quickly pinned to the ground.

• Mary gets a sudden burst of strength out of anger, breaks out his hold and proceeds to do a bunch of backflips before flying at Mr. Howard and punching him, breaking his jaw and making him pass out. Then she proceeds to flip her hair and saying some cliched phrase about either girl power or not underestimating her again.
  
• May struggles against his weight but ultimately taps out and admits her defeat. She's not happy about it but acknowledges that Mr. Howard is stronger than her.
  

3. Due to both being rude to Ella, a girl they just met, Ella calls them a *****.

• Mary breaks down in either anger or sorrow. She then screams about how her parents were murdered in front of her face and sort of forces Ella to either take pity on her or be painted as the bad guy. There may also be a fight in which Mary wins, of course.
  
• May feels insulted and says another rude thing to Ella before storming off in anger for some alone time.
  

As for if people are afraid of certain tropes, I don't really think so. If there are some who are, it's most likely a small percentage. I mean roleplaying in general is just for fun, so I think people are just going to make characters they can have fun with.

 

[Xenonia]

No, that's definitely not it. A HUGE part of it has to do with the character themselves, specifically abilities/relationship to canon. If your character in a Harry Potter RP is Snape's gay lover, they're a form of Mary Sue. If they can speak that snake language and cast spells with no wand? That's a different form.

 

[amdreams]

As I don't have exerience in fandom, I wasn't exactly referring to it specifically (I was speaking from my experience with none fandom rps), but aren't your examples violations of my questions?


Isn't being Snape's gay lover an example of how a character interacts with other characters? And as for the snake language and casting without wands, wouldn't they violate the rules of the universe? Since only certain people can speak parseltongue and no one can cast magic without a wand?


Though those are traits of a character, they're there due to how the rper wants to play the character, right? They chose to ignore the rules of the universe?


But I may just be reading this wrong.


 
Made a mistake. I looked it up. Wandless spells are possible. I'll come back once I read up on this more.

 

[Xenonia]

What I mean to say is, plenty of things fit within the confines of the universe but are still Mary Sue traits when combined. And honestly, even if it's never brought up, it's just bad form to hide that kind of shit in your sheet as a backdoor out of problems.

 

[amdreams]

While I do agree with what you say that mary sues can have canonical abilities, I do personally believe a mary sue depends more heavily on how a character is played, including how true they stay to the rules of their universe. This is my opinion though. I'm not saying yours is wrong. Mine is simply different.


Using your Harry Potter example. Wandless magic, from what I can gather from this wikipedia article, is very much possible but can only be used effectively by well trained and powerful wizards. So, many teens and kids, though possible to use it, wouldn't have mastered such a feat. Now if some teenage wizard with little schooling was able to successfully cast a wide array of complicated spells without a wand and with little issue, I'd of course have to call shenanigans on that bs. But if that same teen could only use wandless magic to make themselves fall a bit slower, with a considerable amount of concentration, I'd personally be okay with that.


That's just my opinion. But then again, I've seen someone use light manipulation magic to put out a raging forest fire by "absorbing the light from the fire", so my grading scale might be a little different from normal standards.


Of course, like I said, I don't do fandom. So my views are only from the perspective I have from my own experiences in non-fandom rps. I don't think it would matter if I've played in fandom rps or not, but in case it does, this hopefully acts as a disclaimer.

 

[Olive Tome]

I rarely come across anything in roleplays that makes my mind think of "mary sue". Most roleplay creators put limits on powers and create environments that make it hard for someone to create a mary sue. Especially when the idea of mary sue is so widespread that everyone knows about it.


My only issue is when I read novels and I see them. That is where the mary sue issue comes into effect for me.

 

[Blumenkranz]

A tactical genius is an interesting trait to give a character. The other forms of genius can be faked by looking up the answers on line, but this one is is ultimately dependent on your own ability to think creatively in a combat scenario.
Because of that, you either really are a tactical genius (and I've seen people pull some really clever tricks (that weren't just complete bullshit godmodding*)), or you're a poser who's ability to maneuver the battlefield will be more a hindrance than an asset because what you think is clever and cool is actually really stupid.

The problem with tactical geniuses is that they are never tactical geniuses. That trait is often shoehorned into character sheets just so they can say "it was all according to my keikaku, guise!" after they get out of a situation by sheer luck or the power of plot armor that all freeform characters have.


As a rule of thumb, their "master tactician" skills will only show against enemies with an AI as dumb as those Bethesda programs, against enemies controlled by a conceding GM or against enemies controlled by themselves. Introduce PvP or dice mechanics and their strategies suddenly become not so brilliant.

Example: Let's say we have 2 characters: Mary and May...

The problem here is not that Mary is a Mary Sue, but a huge godmodder and awful person in general.

 

[Mugcake]

The problem with tactical geniuses is that they are never tactical geniuses. That trait is often shoehorned into character sheets just so they can say "it was all according to my keikaku, guise!" after they get out of a situation by sheer luck or the power of plot armor that all freeform characters have.
As a rule of thumb, their "master tactician" skills will only show against enemies with an AI as dumb as those Bethesda programs, against enemies controlled by a conceding GM or against enemies controlled by themselves. Introduce PvP or dice mechanics and their strategies suddenly become not so brilliant.


The problem here is not that Mary is a Mary Sue, but a huge godmodder and awful person in general.

So then, a Mary Sue is someone with an elite repertoire, with no reasoning as to how they attained such godly skills, usually attached with a diced-up-unicorn sob story, and is a character with little to no merits but due to Word of God (aka, the mun) has been portrayed as so-and-so-because-I-said-so in the roleplay? ( )


Also, regarding the master tactician comment some of you guys mentioned... I personally think it's near impossibru for anyone to pull that off unless it's one of those Mafia-type of roleplaying games. As well as "manipulative", but it usually isn't the alleged Mary Sue's roleplayer's fault, but rather whoever they are interacting with has a mun who has mixed fourth wall knowledge and is constantly trying to derail their character from schemes and dangers. So, in my opinion, a character who's stated to be good with planning strategies and one-upping their foes through trickeries isn't automatically a Mary Sue, but if the roleplayer couldn't chew what they bit off (i.e.: unable to show and instead told what the character is like), then the "Mary Sue" is not a Mary Sue, but just a character poorly described by their own creator.

Spoiler

Note: Bold for original copy, unbolded for reader's comments.


Name: Merrie Tsoo (what's wrong with spelling 'Mary Sue' the usual way?!)


Age: 16


Skills: Close quarter combat, horse riding, fencing, cooking, swimming, painting, Morse code, telepathy, flying a jet, drifting a Mustang. (Well, you know what they say about "it's not the years in your life, but the life in your years"... but how the hell did she find that much time to learn all that and still be only sixteen?!)


Appearance: insert a paragraph elaborating their stunning beauty, complete with the "flaxen-haired, sapphire-eyed" package, and nobody can resist her (... but my character isn't into blondes at all. And blue eyes remind him of someone from his dark past. Oh my god, what if he doesn't find her attractive?! Will this cause quantum science to blow up the universe?)


Backstory: someone chopped up their imaginary unicorn, kicked their puppy, ate their slice of pizza and, oh, right, something about dead parents.


Personality: outshines even Bubbles from Powerpuff Girls. (Behold, the embodiment of Mother Mary and Goku fused together!)


Likes: candies, cute stuff, making friends ^^, more cute stuff, an adorable plush toy she called Kawaii.


Dislikes: mean people (I plead guilty.)

 

[JayTee]

I just had war flashbacks.

 

[Blumenkranz]

So then, a Mary Sue is someone with an elite repertoire, with no reasoning as to how they attained such godly skills, usually attached with a diced-up-unicorn sob story, and is a character with little to no merits but due to Word of God (aka, the mun) has been portrayed as so-and-so-because-I-said-so in the roleplay? ( )

That's a very good explanation, actually. You could save it and paste it whenever someone asks you about what does Mary Sue mean because it goes straight to the point.

So, in my opinion, a character who's stated to be good with planning strategies and one-upping their foes through trickeries isn't automatically a Mary Sue, but if the roleplayer couldn't chew what they bit off (i.e.: unable to show and instead told what the character is like), then the "Mary Sue" is not a Mary Sue, but just a character poorly described by their own creator.

Actually, making a master tactician is not inherently Mary Sue (although you are almost there just by using this trait alone). What's Mary Sue is making any kind of character archetype and then adding "and also a genius strategist" in the CS, even though it makes no sense.


I mean, nobody is going to get mad if you are planning to play a 54 years old general who has fought in enough wars to know all the tricks, but if you are going to make the best mecha pilot of history who is also a master tactician who knows better than his superiors, then you are probably pushing it too much.


Honestly, I think the master tactician trait should never be listed unless it is the character's only gimmick, period. Why? Because if you, as a player, know how to make good strategies, then just do them (unless you are intentionally playing someone really dumb). If you don't know how to design good strategies and it's not your character's only gimmick (which means you will get to do other stuff), why even bother? It is a pointless bit of information you will never get to demonstrate.

 

[Mugcake]

I mean, nobody is going to get mad if you are planning to play a 54 years old general who has fought in enough wars to know all the tricks, but if you are going to make the best mecha pilot of history who is also a master tactician who knows better than his superiors, then you are probably pushing it too much.

Agreed! Conclusion: Rule of thumb, use your common sense. (> )

Honestly, I think the master tactician trait should never be listed unless it is the character's only gimmick, period. Why? Because if you, as a player, know how to make good strategies, then just do them (unless you are intentionally playing someone really dumb). If you don't know how to design good strategies and it's not your character's only gimmick (which means you will get to do other stuff), why even bother? It is a pointless bit of information you will never get to demonstrate.

This is why I support Wikia-style Character Sheets! (If anyone wants the codes for it, just pop me a message. I didn't spend hours of my afternoon just to keep all the codes to myself.) The idea that I can describe my character as a "witty and cunning manipulator" in the Character Sheet after I demonstrated such traits in the roleplay seems acceptable to me. But I guess this method will turn off quite some people since any roleplayer who tries to squirrel out of godmodding could constantly update their character's details with tidbits that give them an escape from a losing situation. (On that note, I realised that people who make Mary Sues are often those who only "play to win". If their character loses at first, it's okay; rest assured that they will come out on top end-game.)


I think the reason some people state that their character is good with tactics is because they are misguidedly trying to list out the character's redeeming points, as well as write down the character design and concept for people who are interested in the roleplay, but didn't realise that: 1) they don't know the trait enough to show it, and 2) roleplaying is volatile unless everyone involved agreed to stick to a strict and linear plot, and you are either the hero who saves the world, the obiwan guiding said hero, or the villain who engineered the doom of our world. It's hard to predict the other person/people's next moves and mastermind successfully.


So to those who are unsure: in short, if you aren't confident that you can live up to what you described your character as, just don't mention that trait. Not only does it make you look like a god-moddy roleplayer ("you can't do that because ___ won't be able to say he had everything all according to plan!" or "you gotta make your character like mine because ___ is a super great flirt!"), it also bogs down the appeal of your character if he fails to show the list of traits you threw in.


I'm about to go off-topic so I'll stop here now. Much sorry and very thank you to those that read my post from head to toe!

 

[SkyPiratesAssemble]

While everyone's definition of a Mary Sue is different but there are a few basic themes. A Sue is usually a sign of bad writing and/or self-insertion. Here's a list of traits and behaviours that are generally agreed to be definitive of a Sue.


1. Are they a special snowflake?


2. Do they outperform an established master in a work of fiction with less experience? ( e.g. 15 yr old that's smarter than Spock)


3. Does their only flaws include being "too nice for their own good" or clumsy while having superhuman agility?


4. Does she have a completely illogical romance during the story?


5. Can a character hate them without being perceived as evil?


6. Are they basically elves?


The more criteria your character meets, the more likely that they are a Sue. No one likes perfect character. There has to be some tangible character flaws. Sue characters are flat, annoying, and overall terrible characters to have in a story. People are wary of the tropes because it is a slippery slope. For the epitome of horrendous and blatant Mary Sues, look up Chakats at your own risk.