Experiences The exact opposite of Mary Sue.

[Crow]

and only has one tacked-on stupid weakness that isn't part of his character: Kryptonite.

Being goody two shoes is part of a weakness. It's often explored how his power could harm good as much as it hurts evil, and how he could very easily do that, even if unintentionally.

 

[M.J. Saulnier]

Batman's biggest flaw is his PTS. His 'paranoia' or caution, as I would put it, is one of his greatest strengths as someone who only possesses a superhuman intellect. It's kept him alive, and relevant in the JL for this long. It's what drives and motivates his entire character... What do you mean, flaw??


Very few people actually understand Batman, they usually collect 'facts' to use against him.


The entire concept of Batman is Bruce trying to atone for 'allowing' his parents to die. it's his way of doing whatever he can to make sure there will never be another kid in his shoes (enter the Robins). That 'paranoia' is his fuel, his driving factor.

 

[Crow]

Is there any reason something can't be a flaw and strength at the same time?

 

[M.J. Saulnier]

Is there any reason something can't be a flaw and strength at the same time?

It may present itself as a flaw at times, but to say it's among his greatest flaws is to misunderstand him completely.

 

[Phantom Thief of Hearts]

Cautious/non-active (forgot a better word to describe this)

Passive is the word you're looking for.

It is interesting to see how taking certain virtues to an extreme and twisting them can actually create many flaws.

Honestly this is a great way to make villains also. Some of the best villains had good intentions.

 

[Daisie]

Y'all should get back on topic, but to be completely fair, this discussion is interesting as heck.

About time I watched this thread, the character theory and variety of opinions is fascinating.

Just please, PLEASE stay respectful, guys.

 

[Crayons]

Not wanting to derail the thread, but on the topic that is being discussed, I think that "pushing" virtues into flaws when creating a character somehow gives them a more tridimensional personality, as that paradoxical concept can actually bring a cohesive and logical outcome.

A practical example of this is when a character is too passionate about something that they get hostile to others if they differ in opinions, for example. Whilst being extremely dedicated to that specific thing can be a good thing, taking a fanatic view over it is definitely a flaw.
There are many other similar dichotomies:
Prideful/arrogant
Friendly/meddling
Cautious/non-active (forgot a better word to describe this)
Action-oriented/reckless

It is interesting to see how taking certain virtues to an extreme and twisting them can actually create many flaws.

Yesssss! This is my go-to way to make and play characters and to advise people to do with their own character creation. It's a much better way of getting a well-rounded character than thinking of flaws and strengths being separate things. And one of the great things about it, which isn't present in ol' Mary Sue is that it gives room for other characters to perceive them differently.

Mary Sue thinks she's extremely likeable to everyone (for example) and writes that on her sheet, and her player plays her as if thats a given, but in a rounded character, lets call em Sarah Moo because why not, the traits that some people find to be virtues/strengths are what others think of as flaws. Example: Sarah Moo is asking questions to people she just met about their life, how they got here, what they are up to. Character A thinks Sarah is really interested in them and is flattered by the attention, and thinks Sarah would make a great friend. Character B thinks Sarah is intrusive, annoying, possibly a spy.

Sarah Moo never takes things too seriously, she's always got a smile on her face and a quip ready. Character C is falling about the place with laughter and wants to take Sarah to the local inn and have a roaring good time. Character D thinks she's vacuous, should take her responsibilities with the gravitas they deserve, and that she is a silly child.

It's not just taking virtues to extremes and twisting them (although it can definitely be that) but accepting that not everyone finds the same traits appealing in a person. In a way there are no true virtues and flaws, because what is a strength in one situation can be a weakness in another. This is how people are IRL. Making a character this way gives way more interesting opportunities for interaction IC, which is what roleplay is all about.

 

[Crayons]

Whilst I agree, I think that a lot of what you mentioned has also to do with how the roleplayer(s) and their character(s) interpret our character's actions and demeanours. I can make a character behave in a certain way, but it is up to the other roleplayer(s) to evaluate them and formulate opinions on such character based on such information. And, as you mentioned, such opinions will be variated, because not everyone has the same personality and tastes. Therefore, I don't think it is a responsibility that should be attributed solely to the roleplayer roleplaying certain character, but also to the other(s) roleplayer(s) and secondary characters/NPCs that are interacting with said character.

A Mary Sue, as you said, will believe that everyone will see her in perfect eyes, that no one see flaws on her. And a good roleplayer will definitely be able to break this notion when presented with such character.
It is interesting to see how in a group of characters some will spot some incongruencies about the character's presentation and demeanour or even truthfulness and act based on it. Recently, in a D&D campaign I am partaking in, one of our party members was the only one to actually mistrust a character, simply because of how she behaved towards us, in an overly nice way, taking in consideration that the place is slightly hostile to outsiders and that our party is, indeed, deemed as outsiders. She did so in a very subtle way though, which only made it even more difficult to spot.
A good roleplayer will be careful about those details and they will spot them, acting accordingly to them, but also taking reconsideration their character sheet. If we are speaking about a character who is very naive, even though they spot such suspicious behaviour, maybe their character won't be able to do so.

Nevertheless, when we talk about character sheets, they can somehow have a negative impact on how the characters interpret each other's behaviours. Sometimes, there is a tendency to make the character be able to perceive exactly what their roleplayer is perceiving all the time, therefore, there is a tendency for metagaming, that I do believe that is also quite present in Mary Sues. Characters won't always be able to understand what the other(s) character(s) are feeling and/or plotting, but, for some reason, they do.
Furthermore, I don't think that the Mary Sue "problem" is solely connected with the character themselves, but rather with their roleplayer too. And, to some degree, such "problem" can also be attributed to the other(s) roleplayer(s), if they conform to such views.
It is also important to have in mind that first impressions are not settled in stone. Characters can change their opinions over someone as they get to know them. A Mary Sue expects that everybody will see them as perfect from start to end.

There is something that I wanted to say in order to conclude my response, to be honest. Still, I can't really remember what I wanted to say (I blame it on a lack of caffeine XD). Maybe you all well be able to help me out on that. But still, my point is that such responsibility is definitely not solely to be attributed to one roleplayer, but to all roleplayers.

Yes I agree with all of those things!

While I was focusing a little on character interactions last post - it is definitely attendant on the other players to not humour the Mary Sue and to act truthfully to their character - there are other situations in which the strength/weakness traits apply that don't depend on the reactions of others specifically.

For example tenacious/stubborn. My character is very adept at keeping at things. They won't rest until they have finished their task, whether that's looking for the mcguffin or trying to get a date from their uninterested crush. They will not give up with their studies despite failing that exam 6 times. However they are also a sucker for the sunk cost fallacy and keep going with a bone-headed direction long after it has proven unsuccessful.

Courageous/reckless. My character is always the first to call out injustice, stand up to the bully, and put on their battle armour. However, they do this without bothering to think first. See that cliff? You'd have to be brave to climb that! Or wander alone unarmed through bandit territory while carrying the mcguffin!

These types of strengths/weaknesses don't have to be taken to extremes to form a virtue/flaw pair. They instead help a player give "in-characterness" to all kinds of activities, which will sometimes have good or bad consequences depending entirely upon context.

 

[Cosmo]

A character that has a lot of flaws, struggles often and fails in a lot of what they do doesn't make them annoying. A character like that varies greatly depending on their personality. If they are a whiny character that can't do anything? Oh, boy, yea, they are going to be super annoying but a whiny character is often annoying regardless of their capabilities. But a character that has a lot of flaws and fails often but keeps getting back up because of stubbornness or determination? Those characters tend to be the ones you sympathize with and invest so much into.

There is a reason Tobey Maguire in Spider-Man 2 is so dang sympathetic and makes you root for him because this is exactly what happens. To be blunt, kicking the shit out of your character is one of the best ways to build a connection between your character and the reader.

 

[Phantom Thief of Hearts]

There is a reason Tobey Maguire in Spider-Man 2 is so dang sympathetic and makes you root for him because this is exactly what happens. To be blunt, kicking the shit out of your character is one of the best ways to build a connection between your character and the reader.

You basically nailed why I love Spider-Man so much.

 

[Mirgris]

We all know what Mary Sues are.

Actually, we don't, we very clearly don't.

A Mary Sue is a character who is depicted as unrealistically lacking in flaws or weaknesses.

Now, we all scorn Mary Sues. We want to make sure our characters are as far away from being them as possible. Oh yes, let's give them flaws!

But... what if you give them too many flaws to the point where they become the most annoying member of the cast? Too many weaknesses to the point where they're the most useless of the group?

People hate Mary Sues, but what do you all think of the exact opposite end of the spectrum? Have you encountered them before?

Every game I run, has a test for all PCs.

It is called the sand-which test.

If the PC can not go to the store and buy a sand-which they are banned.


This is because many dice systems allow you to take disadvantages for bonus points, and players will do so, taking every single disadvantage that doesn't threaten the very narrow range of combat they wish to master.

This is why this test exists, and I'll be honest, it has a pretty high failure rate, for how easy it is.