How to avoid meeting Mary Sue

[QuirkyAngel]

Hmmmm....well, if I were to give an example that represented the peak of what I consider bad, that would be the "isolationist kindhearted badass" type of character.
It's a type of character characterized by having a personality that just hammers you about how misunderstood and how kind they are, but have this impossibly isolationist attitude and demeanor, then on top of all exclaims how they are actually the smartest, most powerful person on the planet. Usually come with the classical over dramatic background .


This, of course, will look like an exaggerated example (not that I haven't seen it), but I think it should be helpful in understanding where I stand.


Right away, you see that this character kills all standard forms of conflict, having no it's one room for growth forcing contrivencies on the plot and other characters. They have no bridge to interact with anyone else , and in fact are repellent of such interaction. They can easily kill the plot by solving more or less any problems with ease, stealing the spotlight in any scene, and then preventing anyone from coming close.


Functionally speaking, these characters are a complete disgrace. I am sure there are people who could pull off eve this type of character if they set their minds to it. But it's a really high bar these characters set right from the getgo and odds are, most will not be able to pull it off, especially if you clearly made this type of character without self-awareness regarding what you're getting into.


That to me is what a bad character is. It's a character that by itself makes your experience and RPing them properly without killing he RP much more complicated. It's a character that sets the bar of skill and effort necessary to accomplish even a decent presence in RP with that character too high for most to reach.


Clearer now?

What I find interesting is that a majority of people generally like well written mary sues/gary stus over well written non-mary sues/non-gary stus (in literature/movies at least). Characters like Batman and Tony Stark that are made to be "cool" and "likeable" badasses are more favorable than normal characters who show real flaws and encounter a myriad of problems that they struggle to overcome. In such a case, is a mary sue really a bad character if, when done well, is favored by the majority over not mary sue characters?


Regarding your example of a mary sue, a character being an isolationist is pretty much a flaw in my mind--a critical flaw that destroys the purpose of rping since an rp is a collaborative and interactive game. Such a character may be able to solve the story's external conflicts, but they won't make any friends in character if they have an isolationist demeanor. If that's the case, is that character really mary sue? It's a difficult to character to rp for sure when trying to interact with other rpers, but's not a bad character in the sense that it's without conflict or growth potential. And a character that exclaims they are smartest and most powerful on the planet, obviously have an arrogance problem.Then again, I'm the type of person that actually believes too much kindness is a flaw, not just a fake flaw. A rper who can showcase the flaw and create a conflict for that character will find that they have a well executed "mary sue".


The problems I see in rps isn't too many characters stealing the spotlight, but not enough characters trying to steal the spotlight. From my experience, most rps come to a grinding halt because most people don't want to step on each other's toes. Essentially, inaction kills an rp. I'd prefer an rp where characters all compete to be the "hero" of the story rather than one where no one does anything.


I guess what I'm trying to say is that people take these supposedly mary sue characters too seriously. Especially since no one can rp the perfect, flawless character unless they themselves are perfect in real life. A well executed mary sue is loved by most. A poorly executed mary sue is disliked. When looking at it this way, a mary sue doesn't define a bad character. I like what you said about mary sues setting a bar. It's true, mary sues are difficult to rp...but I don't consider the design bad. Most stories have a mary sue somewhere, though often not as the main character so I won't say they are function-less in a story either. Rather, the rper who chooses to create a mary sue character wants to create an accessory character rather than a "main character" since if their character is too op, I can't imagine their character growing in any way during the rp(except emotionally...maybe).

 

[Dark Half]

Although it is common sense to not have your RPC (Roleplay Character) become an overly perfect entity with no flaws whatsoever, it becomes an issue when the term Mary Sue starts being thrown around whenever there is a misunderstanding or simply a disagreement among roleplayers. I think the definition of a Mary Sue should definitely be spread about, rather than going on the assumption that if the character is better than the other, it's a Mary Sue. Unfortunately, accusations under these reasons do occur.

 

[Idea]

What I find interesting is that a majority of people generally like well written mary sues/gary stus over well written non-mary sues/non-gary stus (in literature/movies at least). Characters like Batman and Tony Stark that are made to be "cool" and "likeable" badasses are more favorable than normal characters who show real flaws and encounter a myriad of problems that they struggle to overcome. In such a case, is a mary sue really a bad character if, when done well, is favored by the majority over not mary sue characters?
Regarding your example of a mary sue, a character being an isolationist is pretty much a flaw in my mind--a critical flaw that destroys the purpose of rping since an rp is a collaborative and interactive game. Such a character may be able to solve the story's external conflicts, but they won't make any friends in character if they have an isolationist demeanor. If that's the case, is that character really mary sue? It's a difficult to character to rp for sure when trying to interact with other rpers, but's not a bad character in the sense that it's without conflict or growth potential. And a character that exclaims they are smartest and most powerful on the planet, obviously have an arrogance problem.Then again, I'm the type of person that actually believes too much kindness is a flaw, not just a fake flaw. A rper who can showcase the flaw and create a conflict for that character will find that they have a well executed "mary sue".


The problems I see in rps isn't too many characters stealing the spotlight, but not enough characters trying to steal the spotlight. From my experience, most rps come to a grinding halt because most people don't want to step on each other's toes. Essentially, inaction kills an rp. I'd prefer an rp where characters all compete to be the "hero" of the story rather than one where no one does anything.


I guess what I'm trying to say is that people take these supposedly mary sue characters too seriously. Especially since no one can rp the perfect, flawless character unless they themselves are perfect in real life. A well executed mary sue is loved by most. A poorly executed mary sue is disliked. When looking at it this way, a mary sue doesn't define a bad character. I like what you said about mary sues setting a bar. It's true, mary sues are difficult to rp...but I don't consider the design bad. Most stories have a mary sue somewhere, though often not as the main character so I won't say they are function-less in a story either. Rather, the rper who chooses to create a mary sue character wants to create an accessory character rather than a "main character" since if their character is too op, I can't imagine their character growing in any way during the rp(except emotionally...maybe).

It is indeed an interesting phenomena that you brought up. I do believe that even a bad character can be enjoyed, and not just for one all-encompassing reason, but due to a plentora of them. However, I don't think it matters in saying that those are still bad characters (well not all that you brought up are bad characters, but taht is not the point of relevance here), though. Upon inspection, for example, the entire Sword Art Online anime is really crappy in terms of writing, execution, plot holes, setting holes, poor characters , etc... But not everyone is going to go and do that closer inspection. A lot will just sit back and enjoy the superficial, which is a way to enjoy a show- if we analyzed the continuity of sitcoms it would probably be a nightmare, but sitcoms are not meant to have continuity. So overall, enjoyment and quality have very little to do with one another.


Now I want to quickly clarify I wasn't giving an example of a Mary Sue there, I was giving an example of what I think is a peak bad character, meaning, a character that peaks in the traits that I consider to be inertly harmful to a character's quality. Mary Sues aren't by far the only problem there is, but the tip of the iceberg for a larger problem. The term "Mary Sue" gets thrown around because it is unclear as to what exactly qualifies as it, but also precisely because it is THE term that gets thrown around. It's the one people know. But there are many other bad characters.


The thing I explained about raising a bar has one simple conclusion, but I will make an analogy for you: imagine walking through a mine field (step on one and you blow up), looking up. The only time you're allowed to look anywhere but up, is when picking at the crossroads: some paths just go in a straight line and other paths make zigzags and the like. Each path has the exact same proportion of mines per square foot, and all paths lead to the exact same location, where you HAVE to GO no stopping. So, obviously, while you technically can take any path to get to that location, taking the straight paths is ultimately advantageous, as you have to walk less and thus run less risks of stepping on a mine and getting blown to bits.


Likewise , the higher the bar is set for a character to be executed well, the bigger are the chances you just won't be able to. The bigger the effort path you have to take to get it somewhere in decency , the bigger the chances that you will f*** up along the way. That to me, is what makes them bad characters.


Regarding the spotlight problem, the issue isn't taking the spotlight itself. The issue is taking the spotlight by worthlessly solving the problem, holding the spotlight, not moving forward with it and blocking others from getting there through your own isolationism- all traits of the straightforward execution of this character.


You mentioned making your character be part of the sidelines, but that is not how Roleplay (at least in the traditional format, which is the standard so it's the one we should be thinking of as we discuss this) works: in roelplay, you are becoming the character. And nobody in their right mind thinks of the world as main character and side characters unless they think of themselves as the main one. It's a basic rule of Roleplay that nobody is more important than the others. But even if that wasn't true, why would putting a character on the sidelines mean they weren't bad anymore?


As a final conclusion, I think ultimately one cannot say that things that are external to something are a good basis for which to determine their quality. Enjoyment and execution depend on so many things more than a character's quality and can be better or worse regardless of the character also being better or worse. While I believe your examples were flawed (since you didn't give RP examples, but ones of very different mediums), they do make us think about their own popularity and how that applies to how we make our characters. But the problem, the real problem is not taking Mary Sues too seriously- it is not taking the other problems seriously enough just because those seem overshadowed by the Mary Sues.

 

[augmentedspartan]

What I find interesting is that a majority of people generally like well written mary sues/gary stus over well written non-mary sues/non-gary stus (in literature/movies at least). Characters like Batman and Tony Stark that are made to be "cool" and "likeable" badasses are more favorable than normal characters who show real flaws and encounter a myriad of problems that they struggle to overcome. In such a case, is a mary sue really a bad character if, when done well, is favored by the majority over not mary sue characters?

Except neither character you mentioned is a Mary Sue. Just because a character is badass or cool doesn't mean they don't go through obstacles or struggle to overcome enemies. Batman doesn't resolve everything on the first try. He is outsmarted by villains such as the Joker, or beaten to a pulp by the likes of Bane. Mask of the Phantasm is a perfect example of why people like Batman. Same with Tony Stark. Sure, the audience loves him, but there's plenty of characters who outright hate him or who don't care for him. In the later movies he is shown as having doubts about his abilities and outright has a panic attack on the third movie. None of those things would happen to a Mary Sue. A Mary Sue Batman would "out madness" the Joker, or some other nonsense like that, or would beat Bane in a fight no problem. There would be no obstacles he wouldn't be able to shrug. Same thing with Tony, everyone would love him and no one would dare go against him. His house wouldn't be destroyed, his suit wouldn't be stolen, and no one would try to shut him down. Because not only are Mary Sues capable of doing everything no problem, everyone also loves them no matter what. A capable or badass character isn't a Mary Sue, because Mary Sues are capable, badass, and everything else that can be shoved into a character to the point that they stop being a character and turn into a caricature.

 

[QuirkyAngel]

It is indeed an interesting phenomena that you brought up. I do believe that even a bad character can be enjoyed, and not just for one all-encompassing reason, but due to a plentora of them. However, I don't think it matters in saying that those are still bad characters (well not all that you brought up are bad characters, but taht is not the point of relevance here), though. Upon inspection, for example, the entire Sword Art Online anime is really crappy in terms of writing, execution, plot holes, setting holes, poor characters , etc... But not everyone is going to go and do that closer inspection. A lot will just sit back and enjoy the superficial, which is a way to enjoy a show- if we analyzed the continuity of sitcoms it would probably be a nightmare, but sitcoms are not meant to have continuity. So overall, enjoyment and quality have very little to do with one another.

I don't actually like SAO=P Kirito never really interested me as a character and his relationship with Asuna didn't make me go doki doki in the least. That said, I don't think he was necessarily a bad character. Or that SAO was a bad anime. The only point I was trying to make is that everyone has a different interpretation of what's good or bad. Who determines what's good or bad? If anime or character has millions of fans, how can we say for sure they are "bad" when number-wise they trump many others? Does an anime have to be deep, original, and have an intricate plot to be considered good? For me, quality and enjoyment go hand in hand...but then I guess I'm a simple person like that.


I brought up Tony Stark and Batman as examples of good Mary Sues. I never said they were bad characters. In fact, the whole point I'd been trying to make is Mary Sue characters aren't inherently bad.

Now I want to quickly clarify I wasn't giving an example of a Mary Sue there, I was giving an example of what I think is a peak bad character, meaning, a character that peaks in the traits that I consider to be inertly harmful to a character's quality. Mary Sues aren't by far the only problem there is, but the tip of the iceberg for a larger problem. The term "Mary Sue" gets thrown around because it is unclear as to what exactly qualifies as it, but also precisely because it is THE term that gets thrown around. It's the one people know. But there are many other bad characters.

Oh. I thought you were giving a example of a Mary Sue (' :| )


The thing is, I don't think the isolationist, kindhearted, badass character is a bad trope that makes for a poor quality character either (thinking of Itachi). I think it makes for a difficult character to rp...simply because of the nature rps...but that has nothing to do with character quality.

The thing I explained about raising a bar has one simple conclusion, but I will make an analogy for you: imagine walking through a mine field (step on one and you blow up), looking up. The only time you're allowed to look anywhere but up, is when picking at the crossroads: some paths just go in a straight line and other paths make zigzags and the like. Each path has the exact same proportion of mines per square foot, and all paths lead to the exact same location, where you HAVE to GO no stopping. So, obviously, while you technically can take any path to get to that location, taking the straight paths is ultimately advantageous, as you have to walk less and thus run less risks of stepping on a mine and getting blown to bits.


Likewise , the higher the bar is set for a character to be executed well, the bigger are the chances you just won't be able to. The bigger the effort path you have to take to get it somewhere in decency , the bigger the chances that you will f*** up along the way. That to me, is what makes them bad characters.

Difficult, not bad. Some people like taking difficult and needlessly complicated paths because it gives them more enjoyment


Along with Mary Sues, deep/complicated characters are pretty hard to properly rp as well. Ones that come from an extensive and intricate background and have varying shades to their personality. Mentally ill characters are also difficult. Does that make them inherently bad characters? No. Does that mean they are more likely to be rped badly. Yes.

Regarding the spotlight problem, the issue isn't taking the spotlight itself. The issue is taking the spotlight by worthlessly solving the problem, holding the spotlight, not moving forward with it and blocking others from getting there through your own isolationism- all traits of the straightforward execution of this character.

Can you give me an example of this? All this metaphorical talk is making me confused :/ How does the straightforward execution of a "bad" character block others from getting the spotlight?

You mentioned making your character be part of the sidelines, but that is not how Roleplay (at least in the traditional format, which is the standard so it's the one we should be thinking of as we discuss this) works: in roelplay, you are becoming the character. And nobody in their right mind thinks of the world as main character and side characters unless they think of themselves as the main one. It's a basic rule of Roleplay that nobody is more important than the others. But even if that wasn't true, why would putting a character on the sidelines mean they weren't bad anymore?

I don't remember mentioning anything about making my character a part of the sidelines...(correct me if I'm wrong :/ )


I've always thought of every character, every person, as the main character of their own story. Roleplaying for me has always been collaborative storybuilding were every rper is the main character and npcs are the side characters. Since it is the interaction of the rpers that drive the plot, they are the main characters. Though I don't think I was ever talking about that...


I don't know. Why would putting a character on the sidelines mean they weren't bad anymore? I completely disagree with that statement. In fact, if anything, I believe that characters constantly staying in the sidelines is what kills the rp.

As a final conclusion, I think ultimately one cannot say that things that are external to something are a good basis for which to determine their quality. Enjoyment and execution depend on so many things more than a character's quality and can be better or worse regardless of the character also being better or worse. While I believe your examples were flawed (since you didn't give RP examples, but ones of very different mediums), they do make us think about their own popularity and how that applies to how we make our characters. But the problem, the real problem is not taking Mary Sues too seriously- it is not taking the other problems seriously enough just because those seem overshadowed by the Mary Sues.

We simply have a different opinion on character quality. As long as the character fits into the world, interacts with other characters, and actively participates in the plot I believe that's all an rp needs. I've always been pretty lenient in that regard.


When talking about the quality of a characters design(that's what I thought you were talking about), that not only refers to rps, but other storybuilding mediums as well. When you create a character for a fanfiction/novel, is that really different from creating a character for an rp? Many rps are inspired by stories, tv shows, etc. In that regard, I'm not sure how my examples are flawed...especially if we're talking about Mary Sues...Unless what you're saying is that the Mary Sues of rps are different than the Mary Sues of other mediums...


Tbh, I'm not sure if we're talking about the same things anymore

 

[augmentedspartan]

I brought up Tony Stark and Batman as examples of good Mary Sues. I never said they were bad characters. In fact, the whole point I'd been trying to make is Mary Sue characters aren't inherently bad.

That's not what I meant, I meant that they're not Mary Sues at all. Neither good nor bad. They don't have enough of the qualities that Mary Sues have to be classified as one.

 

[QuirkyAngel]

Except neither character you mentioned is a Mary Sue. Just because a character is badass or cool doesn't mean they don't go through obstacles or struggle to overcome enemies. Batman doesn't resolve everything on the first try. He is outsmarted by villains such as the Joker, or beaten to a pulp by the likes of Bane. Mask of the Phantasm is a perfect example of why people like Batman. Same with Tony Stark. Sure, the audience loves him, but there's plenty of characters who outright hate him or who don't care for him. In the later movies he is shown as having doubts about his abilities and outright has a panic attack on the third movie. None of those things would happen to a Mary Sue. A Mary Sue Batman would "out madness" the Joker, or some other nonsense like that, or would beat Bane in a fight no problem. There would be no obstacles he wouldn't be able to shrug. Same thing with Tony, everyone would love him and no one would dare go against him. His house wouldn't be destroyed, his suit wouldn't be stolen, and no one would try to shut him down. Because not only are Mary Sues capable of doing everything no problem, everyone also loves them no matter what. A capable or badass character isn't a Mary Sue, because Mary Sues are capable, badass, and everything else that can be shoved into a character to the point that they stop being a character and turn into a caricature.

In a broad term, Mary Sues are characters with little to no flaws. However, in rps, I've seen Mary Sue applied to characters that have overpowered abilities, have seemingly perfect personalities, unnecessary dichromic eyes, unnecessarily tragic backstories, wish fulfillment characters, etc.


Batman is a brilliant detective, knows billions of martial arts(exaggeration), tragically orphaned, super rich, females fall in love with him but he chooses to be alone because he's dedicated to defeating crime, has no superhuman abilities but stands his own against those with superpowers. He is the epitome of a human without superpowers.


Tony Stark is super duper rich, has super-genius level intellect, good looks, charming, females adore him, and all his flaws actually make him likeable.


All of these are Mary Sue traits. What made them good characters was their execution in their story. The movies portrayed them in a very human manner. They had good villains. Therefore I used them for my example of well executed Mary Sues, but I do see why you wouldn't consider them Mary Sues. They have their flaws. The term Mary Sue has always been very subjective in my mind...since I've seen so many ways people define them. Perhaps I should've stuck with Superman or 25th Baam from Tower of God.

 

[Idea]

I don't actually like SAO=P Kirito never really interested me as a character and his relationship with Asuna didn't make me go doki doki in the least. That said, I don't think he was necessarily a bad character. Or that SAO was a bad anime. The only point I was trying to make is that everyone has a different interpretation of what's good or bad. Who determines what's good or bad? If anime or character has millions of fans, how can we say for sure they are "bad" when number-wise they trump many others? Does an anime have to be deep, original, and have an intricate plot to be considered good? For me, quality and enjoyment go hand in hand...but then I guess I'm a simple person like that.
I brought up Tony Stark and Batman as examples of good Mary Sues. I never said they were bad characters. In fact, the whole point I'd been trying to make is Mary Sue characters aren't inherently bad.

The point that I addressed about that (and I already did address it) is that popularity, or enjoyment could have a cazillion other causes that have nothing to do with the character´s quality. The place in the narrative and the execution are two important examples of things that could have such an influence. Some characters are enjoyed for belonging to a given archetype, sometimes you´ll just feel in a better mood the first time you watch it and get a better impression at first... all of this suggests that enjoyment is a terrible criteria to define quality.


Also, I´ll address what I meant by flawed examples now. Your examples work according to your definition of a Mary Sue, but I had stated a different one. Now this would be fine, if you were not contesting my statements towards my own definition by bringing up examples that don´t fit the definition I was working from, nor without putting up a proper contesting (if there was any at all) of the way I defined it.

The thing is, I don't think the isolationist, kindhearted, badass character is a bad trope that makes for a poor quality character either (thinking of Itachi). I think it makes for a difficult character to rp...simply because of the nature rps...but that has nothing to do with character quality.

You asked what defined good or bad, how we could. It´s true a perfect definition is impossible to achieve, however, better defintions are always possible to achieve. It´s like natural selection: You can never achieve a flawless result, but you can eliminate those that ddefintely don´t work and even those that work worse can be eliminated as well, though it takes more time and effort.


So, the criteria I set for good and bad is PRECISELY the functionality. The bar that was aforementioned.

Difficult, not bad. Some people like taking difficult and needlessly complicated paths because it gives them more enjoyment

Some people think it´s a good idea to crash a plane against a couple buildings, some people think it´s a good idea to drive with a bottle of whiskey at hand, it doesn´t make those decisions good ones. In this case, though, yeah, some people can and will be able to pull off executing even more difficult characters. But as repeated over and over before, it is NEVER impossible to excute a character right... But if you can´t handle it, you shouldn´t be doing it, you should try to improve with something a bit easier first, for the same reason you shouldn´t run a marathon if you can´t run across the street without getting exhausted.


Here, I want to state the difference between accurately playing a character and playing a character well. Mentally ill and more complex characters are indeed harder to RP as well, but not because they are harder to do well, but because they are harder to do with accuracy, that is, to actually roleplay the character you set out to roleplay. If you want to RP a character with a certain mental decease but don´t know enough to and start aking things up, chances are, the character you are RPing in practice doesn´t have at least the mental decease you set out to depict.


However, this isn´t removing functionality from a character, because when a character isn´t accurately depicted, then you are roleplaying a different character not that one.In that sense, unless the character is depectied with accuracy, you never actually get to RP the character.


And here´s the deal: Accurately depiected mental illnesses and other factors you mentioned are not detrimental to the ease in, say, getting interactions. Or in having a motivation for action. Or in... well, I think you get my point. Or I hope, because it´s nearly three and I´m starting to get dizzy.

Can you give me an example of this? All this metaphorical talk is making me confused :/ How does the straightforward execution of a "bad" character block others from getting the spotlight?

because this character once taking it, doesn´t let go. They HAVE to be the one solving the problem. They have to have the flashiest moves, the most tragic and overly dramatic backstory.


Note that I am not talking about just any bad character, but the peak bad character that I spoke of. Some bad characters do the exact opposite, trying to stay so away from the spotlight they drag everyone into stalling to get them out of there.


It´s hard to come up with an example of the top of my head, because it´s such a general thing. it´s having one problem after the other, always taken over by the same character that then distances his/herself from everyone else. Everyone is left in their shadow and not allowed to approach.


Make sense?

I don't remember mentioning anything about making my character a part of the sidelines...(correct me if I'm wrong :/ )

right there:

Rather, the rper who chooses to create a mary sue character wants to create an accessory character rather than a "main character"

I´ll withdraw from answering to the rest of the segment until you have time to reply so we can see if it was just a misunderstdanding from my part.

We simply have a different opinion on character quality. As long as the character fits into the world, interacts with other characters, and actively participates in the plot I believe that's all an rp needs. I've always been pretty lenient in that regard.

I more or less agree with that, actually. But that is the reason, precisely, why that peak bad guy is such a terrible character:


1. They are too powerful/badass to fit into any wolrd with a thread of logic, espeiclaly their own


2.They are isolationists, so they will isolate themselves from others. You will need to FORCE interaction or break character.


3.Too much power makes it contrived for the character to participate in the plot


among many other reasons. Even by your own statements of what an RP needs, those characters are inherently structurally harmful. Mary Sues are also inherently bad, for similar reasons to those (though not the same).

When you create a character for a fanfiction/novel, is that really different from creating a character for an rp?

let me answer this in your own words:

Roleplaying for me has always been collaborative storybuilding were every rper is the main character and npcs are the side characters.

let me highlight:

collaborative storybuilding

the rules for roleplay have not just to take you yourself into account but everyone you´re working with. Moreover, your skill becomes even more important, and so does knowing what is good or bad fuctionally, as it determines what you can pull off when.

Tbh, I'm not sure if we're talking about the same things anymore

the impression I am given is that we weren´t talking about the same things to begin with.

 

[QuirkyAngel]

@Idea


lol. I think I understand what you're trying to get at now. We were indeed talking about different things. While I don't agree with everything you said(mainly about the spotlight stuff), I more or less agree with most of it...so let's just leave it like that=P

Rather' date=' the rper who chooses to create a mary sue character wants to create an accessory character rather than a "main character"[/quote']
When I said this, I was talking about the purpose of a Mary Sue in stories. A few stories may have a Mary Sue as a main character, but most stories will use them as accessory characters that help build the plot--the perfect mother, the unbeatable villain, the wise sage, the teacher, etc. Someone who creates a Mary Sue likely wants to take on that role.


I mean, if an rp starts every character at lvl 1 and someone creates a lvl 20 character, such a character doesn't really have a place fighting lvl 1 monsters with the lvl 1 group. If I were the gm, I'd talk to the owner of the lvl 20 character and see if we can figure out different role for the lvl 20 character--one that allows them to interact with the lvl 1 group, but not as part of that group. They would still help the progression of the rp...just in a different way than the lvl 1 characters.

 

[Idea]

When I said this, I was talking about the purpose of a Mary Sue in stories. A few stories may have a Mary Sue as a main character, but most stories will use them as accessory characters that help build the plot--the perfect mother, the unbeatable villain, the wise sage, the teacher, etc. Someone who creates a Mary Sue likely wants to take on that role.
I mean, if an rp starts every character at lvl 1 and someone creates a lvl 20 character, such a character doesn't really have a place fighting lvl 1 monsters with the lvl 1 group. If I were the gm, I'd talk to the owner of the lvl 20 character and see if we can figure out different role for the lvl 20 character--one that allows them to interact with the lvl 1 group, but not as part of that group. They would still help the progression of the rp...just in a different way than the lvl 1 characters.

But thing is shouldn't those characters, by your own rule and statement of what a roleplay IS, be limited to NPCs?


Here:

Roleplaying for me has always been collaborative storybuilding were every rper is the main character and npcs are the side characters.

Ultimately, wouldn´t this mean that as a roleplayer, your character should always be part of the main group? (when there is one, of course)

lol. I think I understand what you're trying to get at now. We were indeed talking about different things. While I don't agree with everything you said(mainly about the spotlight stuff), I more or less agree with most of it...so let's just leave it like that=P

Alright, let us leave it at that. I´m glad we came to an understanding, in a way. It´s not like we have to agree about everything, anyway. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. What bothers me is when someone makes statements based on opinions that are not only baseless, but clearly and deeply flawed, and then the person refuses to as much as rethink things upon criticism.


But, in the end, when a person can be polite, civilized and bother themselves to think, a debate can be enjoyable and helpful.

 

[QuirkyAngel]

Ultimately, wouldn´t this mean that as a roleplayer, your character should always be part of the main group? (when there is one, of course)

Not necessarily. I also said every rp character is the main character of their own story. While I compared the lvl 20's role in the progression of the rp to that of an accessory character in literature, I'll still view the lvl 20 as a main character of the rp in my mind since it is an rper's creation. I cannot control another person's character the way I control npcs. Meaning the lvl 20, like the lvl 1s, can affect and possibly alter the plot while npcs cannot. It's not like the lvl 20 has to be a part of the lvl 1 group to be a "main character". At least, that's how I see it.

Alright, let us leave it at that. I´m glad we came to an understanding, in a way. It´s not like we have to agree about everything, anyway. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. What bothers me is when someone makes statements based on opinions that are not only baseless, but clearly and deeply flawed, and then the person refuses to as much as rethink things upon criticism.


But, in the end, when a person can be polite, civilized and bother themselves to think, a debate can be enjoyable and helpful.

People don't like being proven wrong. I usually like when people point out the flaws of what I write (my thoughts) because it tells me they seriously read and analyzed what I wrote...not just skimmed it(which I'm sometimes guilty of). I also enjoy debates and like deep discussion. However, there are times when I can get pretty heated in an argument/debate as well...so I can somewhat relate to those people who refuse to acknowledge criticism.


I enjoyed talking with you. You seem like a very logical person. I, on the other hand, my thoughts tend to be all over the place^^

 

[Idea]

Not necessarily. I also said every rp character is the main character of their own story. While I compared the lvl 20's role in the progression of the rp to that of an accessory character in literature, I'll still view the lvl 20 as a main character of the rp in my mind since it is an rper's creation. I cannot control another person's character the way I control npcs. Meaning the lvl 20, like the lvl 1s, can affect and possibly alter the plot while npcs cannot. It's not like the lvl 20 has to be a part of the lvl 1 group to be a "main character". At least, that's how I see it.

hmmm....I think I kinda see your point. It definitely makes sense, however, for this that you´re saying to work out as it is supposed to, there is a major gap between the theory and the practice. In theory, this makes sense, a player gets more character freedom and makes a place in the story for him or herself, aiding the plot and other characters develop in the process. However, the theory falls short on the fact that most roleplayers seem to dread that kind of organization. Organization and role-assigning, etc.. implies some restrictions, and even if the end game is really beneficted by it, it does take an additional step of effort that even detailed roleplayers often refuse to burden.


You can see this by looking at character sheet discussions. Several roleplayers tend to think of more complex character sheet as too restricting, and as a block to character growth. While I find the second part to be nonsense, I cannot deny that many share that belief and it doesn´t limit itself to character sheets.


In short what this means is that I agree that if you can achieve that level of organization and your roleplayers are willing to add that extra layer of complexity, then Mary sues in that environment might have some beneficts (though I still think they would nonetheless be overall bad characters), but I have never once found a group of roleplayers that would be willing to go that far, and especially not one that would be able to handle it.

People don't like being proven wrong. I usually like when people point out the flaws of what I write (my thoughts) because it tells me they seriously read and analyzed what I wrote...not just skimmed it(which I'm sometimes guilty of). I also enjoy debates and like deep discussion. However, there are times when I can get pretty heated in an argument/debate as well...so I can somewhat relate to those people who refuse to acknowledge criticism

agreed. It is never easy to let go of an opinion, even if it is harshly wrong. ANd sometimes, the debate itself can be exhausting, time-consuming and even depressing. However, I still believe, in the end, opinions, ideas, all of that should still be debated. And it should be so, properly.

I enjoyed talking with you. You seem like a very logical person. I, on the other hand, my thoughts tend to be all over the place^^

Thank you for the compliments. The feeling is mutual. I do hope to get the opportunity to discuss things with you again in the future.