I'm not quite sure how to put it, but I guess when I look at the characteristics that make a marysue or garystu, they seem to be...
What makes my character unique in a desirable way without adding depth?
By depth I mean drawback...
And by drawback I mean something I *actually* wouldn't want to have to deal with.
So, for example if your characters drawback were that they're a poorly educated antisocial brute that kills everything in its path, but the player really wants to play a poorly educated antisocial brute that kills everything in its path... Thats kind of a mary sue even though antisocial, poor education, and killer are 'drawbacks' that I wouldn't in real life personally want to deal with. But the person who makes this character, despite its drawbacks, is really looking forward to, not the drawbacks of such a character, but the joys of being 'Mongo just pawn in game of life'.
I look back on my characters and think... I always play characters that I'd want to be. Even when I have the option to choose drawbacks, I still choose drawbacks that I wouldn't mind having to face... (thus I've never played a dull antisocial brute that kills everything in its path for example... I've never played 'frail emo pixie' either...)
EVEN while such things might be considered a drawback to the CHARACTER... Those 'drawback's arent really considered to be drawbacks to the PLAYER... And by that metric I've played nothing but marys and garys.
If every thing I've ever played is something that I *wanted* to try playing, then EVERY of the things (even the ones with big drawbacks) were sues.
I mean... I'm no literary major, so I can't say I have an eye or an appreciation for 'character development' and 'character arcs'... While I do enjoy analyzing a character's personal tropes/perspectives/mores and finding ways to challenge them (force them to face those tropes/perspectives/mores in ways that either reinforce or debunk them...) I've never seen the character whose tropes/perspectives/mores being debunked (creating a transformative character arc) as necessarily very interesting to me. If being marysue is about having a character without consequence, and the drawbacks I have chosen in fact have consequences that I'd find either enjoyable or, worse, not consequential at all to me as a player... Then what's not a mary sue?
With that in mind my question is... whats on the other side of the spectrum? What characters have you played were characters that you're glad you aren't? If 'drawback' means not just a penalty or inconvenience, but one that you actually find annoying and not enjoyable... What drawbacks have you chosen that turned out to be more of a pain in the butt than you expected and ended up being every bit the drawback they had a reputation for being (and then some)? What are the characteristics of an anti sue? What are the characters and characteristics you've played that you *think* are anti sue and are they really?
If 'Anti sue' is a character that is full of consequences the player doesn't enjoy and characteristics that nobody likes... I guess I can think of a few that fit that description... Lawful stupid... 'its what my character would do...'... So I guess people *are* playing those things...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're being too hard on yourself about it.
1. There's a very wide range of definitions for Mary Sue (you can read about that on tvtropes), and for sufficiently broad ones, you start including a lot of popular characters. Your definition is really broad, and seems to boil down to "characters people want to play".
I'm going to assume that we're using different definitions of Mary Sue, and say that your definition doesn't necessarily (or even usually) make for a bad character.
2. If your definition of depth is drawback, you're also kind of limiting yourself there. Depth could also include goals, passions outside of the adventuring life, and other little details.
And defining drawback as something you don't like playing just means you're insisting you play characters you won't enjoy as much.
3. It's a tabletop RPG rather than a book that's being published. Wish fulfillment, escapism, and being the center of attention are part of the genre. Heck, playing Mary Sue as an Aasimar Bard would be kind of fun.
4. Anti-Sue isn't something to strive for. The opposite of a bad thing can still be bad. If you come into a game with an Ernest Hemingway character, that's going to be really boring despite all its literary merits.
---
Whew… anyway, character stuff! I have plenty of characters I'm glad I'm not, and with drawbacks (by your definition). It's almost synonymous with low-charisma characters for me, since I like charismatic trickster figures. That's been a bit mixed- they've sometimes been too standoffish or serious to play well in the group they were with. Other times, it's worked out great. I've got an antisocial and low-key sadistic Kineticist in a Skull and Shackles game. Her lack of social skills is a drawback that is frequently a nuisance, but she's still fun to play. Writing offputting dialogue can be enjoyable, after all.
That said, my characters with drawbacks I do enjoy playing also work well in games. So do my characters without drawbacks. The best metric is going to be how much you and your friends are enjoying the character! If you want to improve, look for enjoyable characters, not ones that hit certain trope or literary checkboxes.
That may indeed be the dragon that I'm chasing... I was looking at that online 'mary sue' test and it immediately struck me how you could hit mary sue territory with a character simply by being 'purple eyed attractive female' and I thought geez... Don't take much, does it? By that definition every character from every show and every movie is sue because every character in a show I like is a sue simply because I like them. By that measure sue does strike me as being 'too broad'
It is perhaps from a literary perspective that I think I get a better idea of what a 'true sue' is and that a true sue is a character that has no challenges. Life is good and nothing ever bothers them. While a character in the marvel universe is fundamentally never 'truly challenged'... Perhaps why nobody likes a 20th level wizard. That kind of thing.
I don't think I've ever seen a player with a Sue or Stu. Usually it's an NPC or DMPC, when it arises.
It's a common shortfall to story telling that one character would embody everything needed at any given time to overcome any difficulty "just cuz".
The only time this works, honestly, is when said character is the only main character, and the main focus of the story. Even then, it takes a bit of suspension of disbelief to fall into the story fully.
Fortunately, TTRPG, for the most part, should have multiple player characters so that their combined skills and abilities can overcome a scenario, not any one of them alone.
My 2 cents, freely offered.
That may indeed be the dragon that I'm chasing... I was looking at that online 'mary sue' test and it immediately struck me how you could hit mary sue territory with a character simply by being 'purple eyed attractive female' and I thought geez... Don't take much, does it? By that definition every character from every show and every movie is sue because every character in a show I like is a sue simply because I like them. By that measure sue does strike me as being 'too broad'
It is perhaps from a literary perspective that I think I get a better idea of what a 'true sue' is and that a true sue is a character that has no challenges. Life is good and nothing ever bothers them. While a character in the marvel universe is fundamentally never 'truly challenged'... Perhaps why nobody likes a 20th level wizard. That kind of thing.
People who play or theorycraft 20th level wizards seem fond of them.
The truth of the matter is tha very few people are up to GMing games at that level... and it's understandable. Running D20/Pathfinder at those levels is not the same game you are running at 11th and below. It's a lot more work and balancing the game for everyone is a bit dicey whe the 20th level wizard player is the charop min-maxer type who enjoys dominating the sessions.
It becomes even more obnoxious when 20th level characters are built instead of getting there the long way from first.
It's more than just having no challenges- there's also a certain element of things being bent their way against reason. Characters who shouldn't like them do, rules have exceptions made for them without a valid reason, things they shouldn't be able to do succeed, and so on. The story has to bend over backwards to accomodate them. Online Mary Sue tests ask about commonly associated things- some of which are built in to Pathfinder.
A twentieth level Wizard can do a lot, but the rest is in the GM's hands. People won't always like them without magical compulsion, it'll take threats, bribes, or more enchantments to get exceptions made to the rules, and the game has rules about what they can and can't do. The Sue is probably the level one Wizard that beats the level twenty Wizard.
Not sure what you mean by Marvel characters never being challenged, though. They frequently are? Sure, there's a strong narrative bias towards their success, but that's true of most protagonists.
Actually, there's a bit of a trend (at least in what I've been watching) of telling interesting stories with Sue-like characters (ones massively more powerful than anybody else, who can easily overcome any challenge). One Punch Man, Mob Psycho 100, and Overlord.
Oh no, that was kind of my point. At the end of the day we know the marvel character is going to win the day... and theyre all incredibly good looking and everyone has a marvel character they'd like to be... so by one definition they're absolutely sues... They always have whatever they need to get the job done...
But to say they're without challenge? Quite the opposite.
The difference in sue definitions I think is the crux of my trouble with sue as a concept.
I think the 'likeable=sue' is a little too broad for me, but I agree that the 'never runs into trouble they cant handle dismissively=sue does seem to get at 'whats not to like about a sue' better.
If I examine all my characters from the lens of 'are they likeable and do I want to be them' they'd all be sues... But if I reframe the definition of sue to be 'do they never run into challenges' then hillariously no... quite the opposite. Though I do have a penchant for playing 'convenience casters'... Leomunds secure shelter... Winter boots that make you immune to cold... Those kinds of things.
You might want to check Ensign Sue Must Die.
You might want to check Ensign Sue Must Die.
This is painfully funny
You might want to check Ensign Sue Must Die.This is painfully funny
Glad you like it! It's also good for perspective on what reasonable Sue levels are.
Why the sudden interest in these types of characters?
Is this, yet again, another "oh, by the way, the rest of you aren't playing this game correctly," threads?
I think my interest came at being a bit surprised by how easily my sue scores would go through the roof on that online sue test. I think the comic probably covered it best when the cast winds up in the marvel dimension... Have you seen someone fitting this description? Why... That's half the people on the planet!