All good characters need flaws. Flaws make a character interesting, to the point where we have the term Mary Sue for characters with no flaws to the point where they're boring at best, actively annoying at worst.
People don't like Superman because he's an immortal god who can do literally everything. People like Spider Man because despite the potential of his powers, he's crushed by responsibility.
What flaws do your characters have?
Hard mode: No dump stats.
A character I'm using in an upcoming campaign is a streetwise but completely illiterate rogue. Reading just never came up as an important skill on the streets.
Superman has huge flaws, what are you talking about? The only superman really without flaws was silverage, and we haven't seen that shit in decades.
Honestly it's more about a character being relatable than them having flaws. A perfect being really is hard to relate to in a narrative.
This isn't it either. A character being 'relatable' or 'flawed' does not make them good. In order to be good, all that is required of a character is that he be interesting.
People keep trying to shove this stupid idea that in order for a character to be good he has to be flawed and tragic and 'something I can relate to' and yet the public keeps eating up characters who are larger then life, have few flaws, and are barely relatable.
Relatability and 'flawedness' are both terrible metrics for judging characters.
I played a character who was a melee combat god due to decades upon decades of training but because of the way his race aged he was essentially a 15 year old boy with all the flaws such a person has.
He would boast about his skill but would quickly become embarrassed at any sign of failure, he would constantly try and act like a ladies man while have no real experience with women and not really knowing how to deal with them, and he cared way to much about living up to the legacy of his father. Fun character to play all in all.
>People don't like Superman
Yes. I'm sure some people like him, but at least most people I know dislike him because he's not flawed enough to relate to most people.
>Characters need large obvious 'flaws' to make them interesting
No, but even small flaws go a long way to making a character relatable.
True, but they're severely outweighed by his strengths and abilities. A flying, super-strong, invulnerable, superfast, superintelligent alien isn't about to be crippled in combat because he doesn't fit in. The only flaw I know of that he has that really comes into play is the whole "world of cardboard" thing.
I'm not trying to use flawedness as a metric for judging characters. But flawedness and relatability both contribute to a character being interesting.
I wasn't trying to say that the #1 important thing in a character is their flaws, I'm just interested in what flaws people have in their characters. Everything in the OP other than the question was just because just having an image and greentext/a question seems lazy for an OP.
You know, it's kinda funny.
People talk about liking Batman and hating superman because of relatability...but of them, Superman is really the more relatable one and the more HUMAN of them.
Superman's a kid from Kansas who realized that he's got talents and he's going to use them to help people. He's not doing that due to trauma or duty but because he thinks it's the right thing to do.
Batman is a guy who had his parents killed and as a result used his nigh-infinite amount of money to become a super detective ninja billionaire and is driven almost entirely by how fucked up he is.
I find it a lot harder to related to Batman than Supes because of who each of them is under the powers (And holy hell is money a power and a half when you've got as much as batman)
I've thought about it too, especially with the normie meme "i do X, because i'm batman". I think it's really more a problem of power creep than concept for Batman. As a concept, he's a rich asshole who's dished out a lot of money for gadgets and an unholy amount of time into training, but in the end is still human and thus fallible. But, because people liked him they just had him fight stronger and stronger enemies, sent him into space, gave him a shit tonne more money and gadgets, amped up his physical stats to superhuman levels and now he's kinda shit.
I can't really relate to either, but I'm able to suspend my belief further that Batman is going to fail. That, or I just enjoy that he needs to be ingenious to a certain extent to succeed, making his ridiculous victories more interesting to me.
Sidenote, Deadpool is the worst thing in existence.
>Sidenote, Deadpool is the worst thing in existence.
Eh, as a lot of people see him 'lol just random and funny' he's ok but nothing special.
I do like the comics that show that underneath it all, he's a messed up person trying to do his best. He's fucking it up a lot but he's trying to be a hero.
I think he works a lot better with some Don Quitoxe in him.
Characters who struggle are relatable.
Characters who are flawless never struggle.
Fucking hell, it doesn't have to be anything melodramatic or tragic. A Barbarian might be able to rip a bear in half with his hands, but suck at interpersonal relations. A Paladin might be able to rally any man to his cause through sheer force of personality, but be terrible at lying convincingly. Put either of them in situations where their weaknesses are brought to the fore, and they will struggle.
That's not to say any character would be improved by the inclusion of flaws - that really depends on what their purpose within the story is - but it's a good rule of thumb for creating characters who are more than one-dimensional caricatures.
You've already made the fatal mistake of stating something more interesting than your core point.
As a nail in your coffin, I shall list the flaws of Superman:
First, the purely physical-
- Kryptonite weakening him. This is the freebie, of course, since it's not a huge flaw, but it is noticable.
-Magic. Superman is not invulnerable to magic, being cut by enchanted blades and burned by magic fire. He can resist these things better than a normal human, but is still vulnerable.
Now, the broader ones:
-Alienation. Clark Kent spent his whole life as a happy, normal boy, and learned in his teens (already a trying time for anyone) that he isn't. He's an alien, unlike any other person on earth. He has power, speed, and senses that no normal person can ever match. He has to remember every day what it was like to be normal, to see the world not through the eyes of a physical god, but as someone who just wants to help.
-Guilt. Superman knows he's the most powerful man in the world. He, unlike some, as never needed it explained to him that great power demands great responsibility. Superman's tragedy is that, for all his speed, all his power, he CAN'T save the world. Not all of it. He can't catch every mugger, every white-collar criminal, he can't stop every accidental death or industrial accident. Superman lives in a world where he has to accept, every day, that there are thousands of people who are going to die, and he can do nothing to save them. Yes, he can save two, three thousand, but sixteen thousand children are going to starve to death today. He can't fly to all of them, he can't make food magically appear. And at any given second, he has to measure whether he should save this person's life, or that person's. He has to weigh the cost of his personal time against the lives he could save. Every minute Superman spends being a normal person, blood is on his hands.
He's too singular-minded in that he believes the goal he is struggling for will make him happy because it will make his life simple, when in reality he's just running away from his problems. Even if he reaches his goal, his life problems will still persist and rather than face them he'll only set his goal higher and higher. The truth is that there is no happiness for him at the end of this path he's chosen, but it's simpler to just continue on it because the pain of sticking to it is less than the pain of stepping off of the path or changing it. Unfortunately that's what he's come to value more than his own happiness, ambitions or future; simplicity. If things are simple, then it's easy to focus on and ignore the real problems of his life, yet the more he ignores them the bigger they become and the harder they'll crash.
Ironically because of this, the alien characters in the group are more "human" than he is.
>Characters who are flawless never struggle.
Incorrect. There are a vast multitude of things with which a person with no actual flaws could struggle against. You're thinking of 'limits'.
A perfect swordsman, good of heart and strong of arm, in a realistic universe can't stop an entire army. There's simply too many people.
The barbarian can, without any 'flaws', feel alienated and distant because the beliefs and customs of his people are ignored, violated, or illegal in other lands he travels to.
The original Hercules myth wasn't a particularly flawed man, the worst thing he'd ever done was because he was under the mental influence of someone else, but his efforts to atone for those actions in a world that sought to take advantage of his powers were interesting.
Further, people can relate to a character's strengths as well as weaknesses.
I've had a ship captain/drug dealer that sold opium to the chinese for the british empire that was fantastically racist against everyone, even "wrongwhites" like the irish, italians and slavs. WASP or gtfo. He would deny any and all assistance from them, even when he clearly needed it. It was all rooted in his complete shit-poor upbringing and constantly being reminded that despite his successes as a captain he would always be dirt among the elite, so to validate himself he shits on everyone he can for whatever reason he can come up with to show that he's superior.
Had another character that wasa cheyenne indian who was a tracker for the US amy out west. He was a completely westernized race traitor that didn't give shit about his culture and just wanted to get ahead. He was a naturally greedy person who couldn't look beyond himself for even a moment, completely self-absorbed. He couldn't see how his culture could help him advance in terms of wealth, power and prestige and so jumped on with whitey. It's not as edgy as it sounds, because his selfishness generally hurt him in the long run and his need for advancement was more like a desperate drug-addict at times than a power-hungry megolomaniac.
Another was an expert driver and car mechanic in a post-apocolyptic setting who was the strong silent type but clearly more due to inability to express his own feelings rather than any unwillingness. Largely socially inept, some shit clearly went down with him in the past due to episodes of waking up in the middle of the night, badly drawing creepy and traumatic pictures that he couldn't even explain to his wife.
None of these characters were ever part of a complete campaign, unfortunately, so they didn't get fully fleshed out/resolved. I'd love to pick any of them backm up again though.
>Sidenote, Deadpool is the worst thing in existence.
Go skydive without a parachute you flaming homosexual. There are two writers for Deadpool. You have the lol so randum one, and the one where he's an actual character.
In my last game, I played a mage who's family were basically glorified servants for the noble family in her province. Despite her family not being nobles themselves, they were treated well, she grew up well taken care of and was in a position to interact with people from the upper class, furthermore, she actually believed everything that was said about nobles being the reason the country was so progressive and strong and safe and ect (because when your parents have it better off than 99% of the rest of the rest of the peasants, they're not going to say anything about about the hand that feeds them). The nobles her family served even paid for her to go to magic school.
So yeah... it turns out in the real world, people with money and power are usually assholes. In fact, they're usually worse, debauched or immoral to the core. Turns out my character had just had just been in a freakishly lucky situation... unfortunately it took the party getting screwed over a few times and almost killed/enslaved for her to realize this.
well, i found Superman more likable than Spider-Man not because he's like the textbook definition of a perfect superhero. It's because as a person, he can be rather endearing in his kindness to help people any way he can. It doesn't matter if he has tons of super powers if he doesn't have that character. Else, he'll be Dr. Mahattan. He fills people with hope and helps people out of kindness when some could be corrupted by sheer power. that's why they look up to him
most shitty writers focus entirely on what he can do with his powers rather than superman as a character. because he's tough as shit so there's not much he can do than win by super strength punching out the head of a BBEG. good writers show why he wanted to help people in the first place.
And of course he has flaws since he's only mortal. if he loses his identity as Clark Kent, he's pretty much a workaholic megalomaniac who's tried too hard to save the world despite his best intentions; whether you like it or not
Blame Grant Morrison and his almost pathological need to see superheroes as modern mythology. Also you need to read Kelly's, Nicieza's and Posehn & Duggan's run on Deadpool for the good Deadpool characterization.
You forgot telepathy.
But in comparison to the feats of strength he's able to accomplish, those goals are nothing. Magic levels the playing field, not provide a particularly difficult task. And Kryptonite is boring, because it's so well known and will so obviously be somehow reversed.
And witht he character traits, alienation and guilt are felt by Clark Kent, not the unstoppable Superman. You don't feel guilt during an action, you feel it afterwards. And alienation means nothing if you're not dealing with normal people. This might make a Catcher in the Rye style internal monologue of Clark interesting, but it doesn't really factor when dealing with the latest fantastical threat.
Sounds like a great character arc, would play with/10.
>And with the character traits, alienation and guilt are felt by Clark Kent, not the unstoppable Superman.
Someone's never read Hitman #34. Your argument also hinges on Superman and Clark Kent being two distinct people essentially when Superman is more or less a role being played.
My point was less that they were different characters, which they aren't, but that those traits are mostly applicable between adventures, when he's Clark Kent. Think about when Iron Man was recruited into the Avengers, they state that they want Iron Man not Tony Stark. This is because Tony Stark has different issues out the suit than in.
And no, I haven't read Hitman #34, as you might've noticed, I'm entirely disinterested in Superman.
I played a guy who joined an army because he wasn't smart enough to do much else and in his eyes it was the best option. In that world, average combat life expectancy is pretty short (not IG level short but still very short). He survived and saw many die in the short time he was in the army and believed that he was unkillable.
>how fun would it be to be with a stupid guy who thinks he's unkillable?
>we have the term Mary Sue for characters with no flaws
No, that's not what Mary Sue means. A Mary Sue is a character that tries to suck up all the attention. That's it. Some of the most heavily flawed characters possible can be Mary Sue at the same time.
Depends how much the GM wants to play along. If you're taking heavy damage every fight as soon as the game begins, it kinda stops making sense for the character to believe he's invincible.
No, that's just an attention whore. Using urban dictionary:
See Mary-Sue. A female fanfiction character who is so perfect as to be annoying.
At most they might have a couple trivial flaws with no actual effect, or ones that are flat out contradicted by what actually happens, like "oh no, I'm lowranking and nobody listens to me", to be contradicted later when everyone goes to them for advice.
Except many Mary Sues are the opposite of perfect. How do you explain that paradox?
A Mary Sue can't be an attention whore, and an attention whore can't be a Mary Sue, because an attention whore is a real life person, while a Mary Sue is a fictional character. Otherwise they are pretty closely related, except that it's the Mary Sue's author that's doing the actual attention whoring.
The line about them needing Iron Man not Tony Stark is about Tony's issues impacting him as Iron Man. If they wanted Iron Man without Tony Stark they would have just gotten War Machine.
Also, you should read Hitman, fantastic book.
While I'll grant you that attention whore was describing the wrong person, the tvtropes article says exactly what I said in the OP. The first line "If a Mary Sue is "perfect", then the easiest way to avoid making one is to do the opposite, right?", and if you're talking about anti-sues still being mary sues it's because of the other thing I talked about with their flaws often being meaningless, see where it says "When other characters still worship her and the plot still bends over backwards to facilitate her, she's still a Mary Sue, despite now being described as an unspeakably ugly and incredibly pathetic loser." basically, her being ugly and pathetic doesn't matter because people still for some reason worship them.
The explanation of that paradox is that there isn't one. Being allergic to doesn'texistium isn't a flaw.
The point is still that there is a division between the people (Clark Kent and Tony Stark) and their superhero personas (Iron Man and Superman) and while the people do impact their personas to an extent, they aren't the issues faced by the persona.
>they aren't the issues faced by the persona.
That's because the personas are constructs created for the sake of appearance and thus can't face any personal issues as they don't exist.
That's part of the thing about them having such a stark (heheheh) division between their persona and their character. See Spiderman again, where his issues directly relate to his persona and balancing them out, as well as there generally being more of a focus on Peter than Spiderman.
>The first line "If a Mary Sue is "perfect", then the easiest way to avoid making one is to do the opposite, right?"
Except the article uses that as an example of faulty logic.
Come on, anon, it's not like I linked you to something long.
> I talked about with their flaws often being meaningless
Except their flaws aren't necessarily meaningless, small, or few, and they can still be complete sues.
>The explanation of that paradox is that there isn't one. Being allergic to doesn'texistium isn't a flaw.
You're ignoring the point.
You're wrong about Spider-Man though, almost all of his issues have a basis in his overriding sense of guilt as Peter Parker. While their manifestations are frequently due to his persona, Peter's martyrdom complex is his primary motivating factor and the root cause of most everything he does as Spider-Man.
You got it bud.
The thing is Hitman is about a smalltime character in the DC universe, a hitman named Tommy Monaghan. This is just a one-off kind of issue but Tommy's entire run is incredible.
When I said that they directly relate, I wasn't saying that the problems belonged to Spiderman, it's just that Peter Parker's problems are directly concerned with balancing being himself and being the Spiderman persona, as well as the focus on Peter. Also, >>44622146 Spidey is really fun to kick in the dick.
Wow I'm fucking shit at phrasing. "as well as the focus on Peter" is me saying that Spiderman (the franchise) more focuses on Peter not that "focus on Peter" is one of his problems.
The term Mary Sue isn't for a character without flaws. It's a term for an obvious and annoying self-insert, resulting from the flood of Star Trek fan-fiction where people (usually girls) inserted themselves into the Star Trek universe, and Kirk, Spock, and McCoy bent over backwards to please them.
Character flaws tend to flow from the nature of the character. The cowardly kobold or the rash barbarian are classic flaws, but they make sense and are fun to play.
The character im currently playing is a brilliant swordsman, but hes ignorant. he thinks black powder firearms are magic, thinks the gunslinger is a witch, and had to be convinced that elves dont steal babies. Honestly hes been fun to play and ive got a lot of laughs out of the other players at his ignorant antics.
>People don't like Superman
Fuck you. Superman is hands down the single greatest superhero ever created, and is not only flawed but also far more human and easily relatable than someone like Batman.
Calm yourself, friend, no need to challenge one against another.
There's this shitty comic on the internet. It shows Batman, Superman, and the Flash lining up for a footrace, with the latter two already sniggering. But then they start, and the Flash's feet are bound with a batarang, and Superman has kryptonite in his pants while Bats runs to an easy victory.
Someone made a reaction to that, showing how ridiculous it is. Supes just snuck in and gave Batman AIDS or something, because he's fucking Superman and can move faster than Batman can see. And Batman is a normal human, which means you don't even need fucking kryptonite to make him sick.
Honestly, it's a wonder he never got stuck with a dirty needle while fucking around in those dark alleys.
Boy, what a shitty storyarc this is.
>i let someone down, bwaha
I wish he had mentioned his father and how he must be disappoint too.
Yeah... but in Shadowrun it's usually in a sorta angsty black-and-white light where you pretty much accept by default that the world is corrupt and you need to be more corrupt to survive.
I didn't really enjoy Preacher. A lot of it came off as mighty stupid.
Mind you, I can get behind the IDEA of the america as shown in this comic. Mostly because it's not going 'America is here and we've got it right'.
Still, at least Preacher wasn't fucking Crossed.
Well, if your job is saving people's lives it can be harder than leaving your meaningless office work. And when you experience time like Superman you can hear every beat of the heart until the last one of someone you let die. And Superman never forgets. Fact that this guy doesn't have a mother of all PTSDs is a fucking miracle.
Black and gray.
I think, ruthless is more apt. Corrupt runners are unreliable, they might go through with the deal, or extort the better offer, they end up dead though.
As it moved more post-cyberpunk it got less angst, more gritty edgy, and then less gritty edgy around 4th it got a mirrors edge makeover. Now it's going back again.
No matter your ideals, there's going to be a group out there that think like you, that you might want to help, if you're not totally consumed by greed.
The question becomes how far will you take your convictions over your survival. Or at least you could run it that way.
Topic related, Lofwyr is a Marry Sue
Tommy Monaghan is someone affected by alien nonsense that left him with superpowers, just mindreading and x-ray vision that gives him migraines and pitch black eyes, hence the sunglasses at night.
He's got a sorta shitty past that's coming close to catching up with him, because he also has a penchant for killing and assassinating. His run is about his misadventures involving other DC characters hither and tither. He's like Punisher, in that he only kills who has it coming. But his adventures include at times, BAYTOR the demon king of insanity, Etrigan, Kyle Reiner, Catwoman, and Section 8, the most slapdash hapless combination of characters in comics.
It's less 'I can't save people' as he says in the comic and more 'It's heartbreaking to see people realize that I'm here and won't be saving them'. It's about breaking other people's heart and expectations of him.
>around 4th it got a mirrors edge makeover
I really liked that and am kinda annoyed at Stormfront onwards where it tried to drag if backwards. It's a large chunk of why I drifted away come 5e.
>Topic related, Lofwyr is a Marry Sue
I don't think that sort of deal should ever be made with a dragon.
you can't make a flawless character. consider goku, superman... flawed because they're males supporting the patriarch. you can make similarly arbitrary declarations about any character.
mary sues are characters that abuse deus ex. they don't expend narrative effort to solve their problems.
OK, I'm out.
This illustrates my biggest problem with Superman and all supers. It's insanely ethnocentric, especially Superman. And this talk about not measuring up, trying and failing etc. is REALLY annoying in a comic with bad art. Superhero comics consistently have really shitty art, and this is no exception. And I don't get it. How am I supposed to get into these stories about superhuman people when it all looks so bland? Though, with Ennis writing, I suppose I should be glad that people aren't exploding like blood sausages.
He's not looking for the gun. Nice guy on the roof having a smoke, shoots the shit with him, why would he check for a gun? Even Superman can misplace his keys or blink and miss something. There's a two-issue followup that explores this little meeting and how Supes and the rest of the JL views Monaghan.
I'd argue that it's more about inner conflict. A character like Superman, even if you could say his flaw is poor judgement or whatever, has no inner conflict over his actions. It's a lot more relateable seeing a character who has a bit of self doubt than one who righteously marches onward.
It's also why Paladins tend to be the worse class.
Yes, but the issue going on about how even Superman isn't infallible shouldn't bring up questions of why Superman wasn't perfect. The chapter OPENS with him not even realizing Monaghan was on the roof. When you're deep in thought, you can't notice shit. Superman is still a goddamn person, holy shit.
>It's insanely ethnocentric
That'd be Ennis, not Superman in itself.
>Superhero comics consistently have really shitty art¨
Often, perhaps. But not consistently. The trick is to read comics drawn by people who are competent and not just cheap labour.
>That'd be Ennis, not Superman in itself.
Well, Ennis is quite infamous for his distaste for everything that is not british or american. His comics can sometimes out of nothing go on rants about how french are subhumans and catholics rape children.
The Dark Knight movies are exactly how you should do a Superman movie - Batman is very rarely beaten in a fight, and most of it is villains putting him into a series of moral quandaries to test what he's willing to sacrifice to save Gotham,
which is everything.
>The Dark Knight movies are exactly how you should do a Superman movie
No. The Dark Knight is pretty much the opposite of how you should treat Superman, even when done right. They're two different stories with completely different styles. What works for one of them does not necessarily do so for the other.
Nah. Just looking at a character on its own can never tell you if it's a mary sue or not.
You can only tell if it's a mary sue or not in the context of the setting the character inhabits, and how they affect it.
They got back allot of their 2ed and some 3st addition players with 5.
But to me, it just feels like regressive nostalgia. I did like the flavor of the old eds. But you can't drag that shit on forever.
3rd ed angled towards more mature, post cyberpunk, it felt like it was genuinely evolving and forth felt like the logical progression. But 5th seems to be a mountain of handwavium just to drag it back so the grognards will buy new books. The plot is basically System Failure all over again now but now tech is 2nd ed again. It makes me want to pull my face off. But I'm not bitter.
Any way thanks other Anon for the super man comic, that's one of the first super mans I've enjoyed in ever.
No, the question is how they affect the world around them, not their inner conflict or lack thereof.
Does superman have detractors? Does he have real difficulties in certain situations?
Yeah, he kind of does.
He'd only be a mary sue if everything went his way for inexplicable setting defying reasons.
my original response was directed at the person who did. i asked questions suited for that person or at least people who shared his opinion.
to clarify: i agree with what you are saying. the questions are designed to point out how inner conflict is a bad metric.
Batman is in fact far more of a Mary Sue, though even he isn't one by definition. But think about it, when Superman isn't being Superman he's just a regular working class man who can't even build up the courage to talk to the girl he has had a crush on for years. When Batman isn't Batman he's still practically a superhero who's the head of a multi-billion dollar corporation, who gets to drive cars normally reserved for James Bond, and who's constantly surrounded by women who wants to sleep with him.
I think the reason so many people are confused about what a Mary Sue is is because they haven't actually seen one. Really seen it, in a story, not one of those "nothin personnel" meme images.
A Mary Sue is just extremely unlikely to appear in any kind of official story. Even if a writer comes up with one, no decent editor and publisher would let them get away with it.
If you want to see real Mary Sues, you'll have to go read fanfiction and other amateur writing.
I never suggested it was the sole aspect in determining mary sues, I merely said it was better than "flaws" as as a measure for that part of it. It determines relateability, which is a factor in mary sues but not the sole measure. Littlefinger is not a mary sue despite the lack of inner conflict and relateability because the universe doesn't seem biased for them, and a character that shit always right for torm up about the right thing to do would still be relateable and not a mary sue either.
I feel like Batman's "I spent eight years training in the Tibetan mountains for this exact scenario" has always felt more Sue-y to me than Superman's "I just happen to have a relevant superpower." They both have the answer to any problem, it's just one has the answer because his range of super powers is diverse and the other has the answer because "he's just that good bro!"
My character is a Unchained Monk Half-Dragon that has a ridiculously high strength and con. There's a lot of people he could KO in one punch.
But he's also extremely hot-headed and isn't patient in the slightest, and certain derogatory words will easily set him off. So even though he's fairly powerful, he gets himself into trouble pretty often.
I mean seriously. I once read a story that managed to sucker me in and I just kept going against my better judgment.
The characters didn't have any opinion or use except as foils for the MC. Calling them one dimensional would be generous. The world had meticulously designed rules and customs, which were only there so the MC could show how awesome they are while breaking them.
So I wondered what people were talking about in the comments. Guess what I found? "Incredible, you are a true master!" "Oh my god, this touched my soul!"
Yes, really. That "touched my soul" comment really touched my soul that day. In a bad way.
Warhammer Fantasy roleplaying game, 2nd edition
Bounty hunter > scout > Verenian Investigator
Think Ranger by way of Witch Hunter.
> Positive qualities
Brave, devout, relentless, honest
> Negative qualities
Paranoid, harsh, violent, fights dirty, pursues goals obsessively
Has a pet hunting hound he dotes on, Disinterested in sex with either gender.
A magical girl.
Self-righteous, fairly selfish in her need to matter to others and to do something that she would like praise for, stubborn when confronted with disagreement, somewhat bossy and single minded and prone to act without thinking, and tends to cover for insecurity and doubt by doubling down on an arrogant front.
>3rd ed angled towards more mature, post cyberpunk, it felt like it was genuinely evolving and forth felt like the logical progression. But 5th seems to be a mountain of handwavium just to drag it back so the grognards will buy new books. The plot is basically System Failure all over again now but now tech is 2nd ed again. It makes me want to pull my face off. But I'm not bitter.
Did they really get the numbers back? I hadn't heard anything about the results of 5e.
5e annoys me on a few levels. I can't stand how the fluff went backwards for the sake of backwards. We've been here before and we had interesting plot threads left hanging from 4e.
That and I really don't like limits as a basic idea. If you want to keep players in a given range, work on how much bonus dice they can get. Don't go 'That one in a million straight 6s roll? Yeah, you can't use that unless you spend edge'. That feeling is crushing to a player from my experience.
For >>44621493 we had a full story, which showed a character arc and the ignorance had its limit (wasn't going to rush into anything, just doesn't see the worst in people), but in >>44621774 we only saw the base character concept and it was one specifically geared to getting the party into combat.
not who you're responding to, but the mage who grew up as a servant creates conflict for interesting reasons that expand the setting. the two chaotic dumbos just create conflict in a dumb way. honestly, the half-dragon could be okay if isn't just making all social situations impossible for the party.
A better example that Superman is The Doctor. Is an immortal almost all-knowing being with an everytool riding around in a time travel machine that can also sometimes travel through different universes while itself being a universe that has unbound potential.
Doctor Who fucking sucks.
Those just sound like "flaws" that someone who's lazy and doesn't want to deal with roleplay would take. The flaws are actually pure strengths to the type of character you seem to be making. Basically everything on there is an excuse for you to be a maximum omnicidal edgelord.
Of players? I doubt it supremely, but I do hear a fair bit of people day they bought the new ed because it felt like the old shadowrun. Then I hear a bunch of newbies saying it's the greatest thing ever, even though the rules are just as complicated, if not more so. They're just billing it as streamlined. But when I played it was the exact same shit, but with a bunch of arbitrary limitations put in place.
The only thing I liked were the new weapon stats and how initiative works, a couple other minor things, bit no real improvements.
I don't mind the limits, but they had the schizophrenic decision of both curbing dice, and imposing limits.
Dice curb by reducing tech power to about 1/2 to 1/3rd, while increasing price to 4x-10x
Still suggesting slave labour pay outs. A hit, today, for a discount is 50'000, that's on nobody important. Extraction was suggested at 60'000¥ in one of the books. But no, 2-6'000 for the whole party, that's milk run with hazard pay money, and the decker who can't do legwork any more has to shell out enough money to retire permanently with style to get a working deck that does anything.
Couple in nanite retardation, and how the matrix is basically a pointless place to be and it's a more straight jacketed 3rd ed character creation wise.
They forced the hacker into a completely unreasonable role while taking away their actual utility. They nerfed all tech, but that doesn't stop broken as fuck characters. No one will ever play a technomancer now either.
They did improve normies though, which is good, but getting above human normal is basically not happening beyond Johnny Mnemonic the movie levels, unless you're really gaming the meta.
Any way, we both agree, I'm just venting. I'll be running a 4th ed game again soon in the sea of Thailand.
seems like an unfair assessment to me. just as you're interpreting the negatives in a positive light, you can interpret the positives in a negative light too. it isn't the most inventive character, but it certainly isn't a that guy.
>I feel like he could take Superman and I am infinitely more intrigued by his story.
He is some dude who trained a lot and got more power than he actually was aiming for.
>maximum omnicidal edgelord
That isn't even remotely how i play the character, and frankly, sir, I am insulted.
Allow me to elaborate with examples
This one is kina cheating, because I rolled it as an actual "disorder" as a result of failing a willpower check after getting 6 insanity points.
The way I have been playing it is kina tongue in cheek, as we are currently hunting a slaneshie cult in a large city, and at pretty much every party pow-wow discussing the hunt for the cult, my character makes wild accusations about random nobility "Rape cult? Obviously the nobility is involved"
Read as: asshole. Pretty much the only person in the party he gets along with is the White Wolf knight, because A: he considers him above suspicion and B: the white wolf has directly saved his life twice.
My character is a singularly antagonistic and unpleasant person.
I rolled a very low Fel, so i decided to play the character as having a low tolerance for those "faceman" moments in the campaign, when diplomacy would clearly be the best call. I would go so far as to say that the character is aware that he is a poor speaker and couldn't blather his way out of a paper bag, and compensates with bluster and threats of violence.
Simply put, does not fight in an honorable or civilized fashion. Is not above using poisons or traps, and on a scale of 1-10, 10 being a refined fencer, and 1 being a bare knuckle pit-fighter, he is like a 3.
This story is the result of random dice rolls, so i can;t take credit for it, but its a good example.
> large scale battle
> wind up 2v1 with my PC, our "faceman" PC, and a hulking champion of khorne
> "faceman" drops, sans a leg
> roll the dice (2nd edition has locational dammage on crits) crit
> run the Champion through the groin with sword
> champion stuned for a few rounds
> Exploit the poor champion, clutching his balls, hacking at him like a wood cutter
that's his backstory, yeah. at least what we know of it.
his story is his struggle to find an actual opponent, his relationships with heroes who have to try, the quest of a simple man finding what matters to him in life.
>his story is his struggle to find an actual opponent
Totally relateable, yeah. You really thing people get invested for this?
>his relationships with heroes who have to try
Superman also has this and thousand times better.
>the quest of a simple man finding what matters to him in life
Now you are just making things up.
I was actually not a huge fan of rolled init passes. I found it a bit swingy as Shadowrun battles rarely go past 2 full turns so getting lower than average init passes on one turn can be crippling.
That's just personal opinion though.
>I'll be running a 4th ed game again soon in the sea of Thailand.
Nice. I'm playing a 4e Los Angeles game.
Running in the City of Angels is a weird place full of weird people all tied up in Running being as much showbiz as normal work. The weirdest part being the producer of the show who seems to consume novacoke by the bucketload.
>Tir na nOg Princess Mage/Face
>Racist Ork Ganger
>Clone of the Princess Rigger
>Technomancer who runs on Hackers (The movie) rules and thinks he's just that 1337
Not usual Shadowrun fare but a damn fun game with such a weirdass group and a weirdass concept. The GM makes it work. Helps that the players spend a good chunk of time not just on 'How will we make this run work' but 'How will it look on camera?' and have been pushing the limits on how to make it showy (And not get too shot)
The page you post illustrates the problem. Moebius is French, and worked in the Franco-Belgian tradition for years. Funnily enough cowboy comics used to be pretty popular in Europe, so some of his more enduring work is Blueberry.
You are right. Batman is an immense Mary Sue, and the way people treat him shows it. They don't argue that Batman is fallible, and should reasonably be performing at his absolute top to even keep up with moderate superpowered people. They say "fuck you, it's Batman", and that means Batman can do everything.
People fail to realize Mary Sue-ism isn't about powerlevels, it's about the universe making shit happen for the character that plain shouldn't happen, because they are at its centre. If Superman punches out an alien invader, that's because he has superstrength. But if Mary Sue has Captain Kirk fall in love with her, that's massively out of character for Kirk, and only happening because the person the Mary Sue is a self-insert for wants it to happen.
hey look... i am not the guy who dissed superman... i'm sorry he got your panties in a bunch... i am just another one punch watcher, and that was what i got out of the show. if it's impossible for you to perceive the show as about a character finding his way in life, then just hide my comments.
Moebius is great is all. But we wanna talk about brittish-american artists we also have Frank Quietly who has worked on some truly great comics together with in particular Grant Morrison.
>if it's impossible for you to perceive the show as about a character finding his way in life
You know, one punch man is a parody about super heroes and battle shounen in general right?
I think you interpret too much into that show.
Trying to find a way in his life requires him to struggle, but he doesn't and that's his problem. In the end he doesn't give a shit about what people think about him so there isn't any social problems either.
While the first one could potentially put the party in danger, it doesn't go as far out of it's way to create danger as the following two examples.
It doesn't matter how you try to justify recklessness or violent streaks, at the end of the day you're either playing a psychopath or an anime character. The mage example is far more believable and human than the others because it doesn't feel like a flimsy excuse to explain behaviors that would never make sense in any setting that took itself seriously. (I understand that DnD isn't exactly a serious setting to begin with, but still... people who act like people, instead of like videogame characters looting for their next drop of loot and experience points, have an easier time emotionally connecting on an emotional level.)
I'm playing a human barbarian female, rolled 18y, 80kg, STR 18, but CHR 7.
I'm roleplaying her with a lisp because she got no front teeth due to fight with her mother (the final straw why she left the tribe).
She is HIGHLY superficial, and is always bickering with our Pala and Ranger who both have CHR 15, and altough she is CG, she is the first to judge a book by its covers, even if she is illiterate.
Personal quest of her is to obtain two perfect diamonds to replace her missing teeths.
Cyberpsychosis, on a massive scale. He's become mostly convinced he can't actually die, and just keeps pushing harder and harder, livestreaming it as he goes. People being people, this has blossomed into outright fame.
Let's see: He was profoundly insane from the sort of magic he used, but he got healed from that, leaving only the mental issues that result from spending the bulk of your life after 16 being hunted for being an out of control magic user.
He's also profoundly racist, in character. He thinks pretty much everyone who isn't from 4 specific countries is an inbred idiot, regardless of evidence.
He's also got a lot of old injuries that never healed right, but that goes into dump stats (Dex of 6), still, the constant pain keeps him cranky.
My wizard is a scholarly sage and a discredited academic. He works as an arcane librarian and lead archivist at the Mage's College library.
His central ideals are a logical approach, and firmly believes that emotion should not cloud logical judgement.
However, his biggest bond is that he has vowed to protect, watch over, and guide all of his students which can sometimes lead him to stray away from his ideals for the sake of his pupils.
His major vice is the fact that he is easily distracted if there is a promise of information. I play this into the character very well and it sometimes pisses off my party members.
>What flaws do your characters have?
Mostly things I've suffered from personally (eg. sorcerer who's an indecisive manchild and blames his problems on others). It's easy to roleplay and feels authentic.
I was once playing a One Piece d20 campaign, (ask if interested), where I built my self a rogue character. he was the typical dashing rogue but the power plays I made made this look like a whole season of House of Cards. he had a bit of a messiah complex, developed over the course of his backstory, originating from wanting to be that one "shining example" to his fellow pirates (save others, hoor aong thieves, etc.). But being a pirate didn't provide many opportunities much for that, so he developed a sort of facade, one part messiah the other part killing off those who would get in his way. it sound a bit mediocre here, but it was pretty damn cool in the campaign.
Chicken infested and phobia(chicken) he grew up on a chicken farm and was regularly attacked by them.
My most recent character suffered from mommy issues, self destructive tendencies, no fingers on his dominant hand (he had trained enough to use his non-dominant one competently enough.) and a love triangle.
They all came up during the game.
I'm serious. Even if this post is bait.
>People don't like Superman because he's an immortal god who can do literally everything.
People don't like Superman because his personality still has to be written as John Q Everyman, All-American.
I played a not-raistlin warlock who hobbled along, coughed alot, needed sleep tonics to not let the nightmares wake him up, and generally relied on his magic to function properly.
I had a paladin with one eye and very messed up face. Made perception and diplomacy somewhat difficult.
Had a doctor specializing in anatomical necromancy spells who had a deathly fear of ghosts. Long story but around ghosts he would run.
Last character I played had a crippling sense of justice, to the point where he flat-out wouldn't attack someone unless he knew for a fact that they had broken a law of some sort(or in self-defense if they attack him first).
This caused my group to have to sneak through a goblin encampment once because maybe they dindu nuffin.
Then we found a stolen coinpurse and basically had free reign to slaughter them all there.
>not playing a mary sue
Fuck that. I'm literally incapable of playing anything but special snowflakes anymore.
My current character is a princess that has inherited the royal family's superhuman powers, making her the sole hope for giving humanity a chance to defeat the monsters invading her kingdom. Her only real character "flaw" is that she's the youngest heir and pretty much has no chance at ever becoming Queen, which has turned her into the NEET "literally who" princess who pretends to want attention and then freaks out when she gets it.
>What are your flaws
I kind of hate this question. A lot of people know that perfect characters are bad characters, so they try to make their characters less perfect to avoid that. The problem is, a lot of them think that you can take a grab-bag approach to flaws—just pick a few and you're set.
That's not really how to write a good character. Good characters have personality and motivations, and the flaws have to be a function of that.
Saying "my rouge is stoic and not afraid of anything but he's prone to rage at trivial things" is boring if there's no substance. If you can come up with a reason for that flaw, it's much better. Maybe the rogue is actually deeply afraid during battle, but can swallow that fear so he can fight—at the expense of all the repressed emotions manifesting themselves as anger later. Maybe he learned this technique from his father, who'd take it out on him. Or, if you don't want to go the daddy issues route, maybe he got really mad in battle once, and something went horribly wrong, so now he tries to remove all emotions when he's fighting.
Write characters holistically, not just as a list of traits.
I usually DM so i try to flesh out recurring NPC's I come up with. Like Hat, my traveling merchant with a magic backback that unfolds into a full item shop-stand at the pull of a string and all kinds of enchanted rings on his fingers. He is pretty good natured and helps the PC's but he is greedy to the core and will do everything he can to vacuum the money out of everyone around him.
>Not wanting your character to have daddy issues.
>people who think little quirks like "can't eat spicy things" are "flaws"
>people who try to pass shitty excuses like "always hits on girls" and kleptomania as "flaws"
>choose meme flaw
>treat it as normal character trait instead of something euphoric
My dervish is from a far-away land and he grew up in a monastery, so he barely knows about the civilization he is in right now. He also gets the "go away sandnigger" treatment and due to his religion, he gets a bit antagonistic when dealing with wielders of divine magic. Lawful stupid, too, but I feel there's an impending alignment shift.
Mechanics wise, he has bad will saves and only 18 AC as a level 6 melee fighter.
Okay, you've clearly applied your "all good content needs flaws" sentiment to your post in an overly literal manner. I'm sure you intended to leave your OP a little short of perfect to encourage discussion, but all it's done is out the mediocrity of your ideas and execution and make anyone above (I mean, unless you think you are actually the smartest person here, or just smarter than the people who disagree with you) you decide you're not worth talking to.
Oh look, someone in this thread who is even moderately familiar with the workings of fiction and how it compels our minds and hearts. Good job, #41.
>Nobody likes X
>Well I mean some people probably do but me and my circle dislike him
Saying "(some) people don't like X because" would have been perfectly acceptable, but just saying "people don't like X" has a totally different meaning from "(some) people dislike X".
>using urban dictionary and TVTropes as the definitive authority on what a Mary Sue is
You don't see the problem with this because you believe it just happens to support your point. You're better than that.
It took me the entire thread to get it because I was thinking too hard. It's a visual pun.
Say "floors" with a Bostonian accent, where car-keys and khakis are phonetically identical.
I had an idea of a humanoid fighting robot for a sci-fi "twenty minutes into the future" setting. The general idea was that "she" utilized an internal generator that ran off alcohol a la Bender to power her basic functions.
>Any high proof booze would work, which would be relatively inexpensive in the setting, especially in places that make it themselves. Moonshine FTW
>Since all the alcohol is burned off without negatively affecting her mental capabilities, she doesn't really get drunk
>Downing an entire bottle of 180 proof (90% pure ethanol) like its cola, turning heads immediately
>Crazy fucking mileage
>Potential upgrade gives her basic fire abilities by spraying extra reserves through a built-in lighter
>Since the generator runs via combustion, she's not very good at zero-oxygen/underwater environments. No oxygen=no flame. No flame=no electricity. No electricity=shutdown of basic functions. In short, robots can suffocate. Who knew?
>Also, only high proof alcohols will work properly. Anything less than 90 proof (45% alcohol) will be too diluted to burn properly and will basically drown her.
>Gets a lot of negative attention for this, people will occasionally make snide remarks about her "Drinking problem" not knowing that she needs it to fucking survive.
>Some areas have strict alcohol prohibition laws, which can be problematic if the party needs to go to these areas during a quest.
>Very bad chest injuries can possibly cause highly flammable liquor to leak out, which could be bad
>we have the term Mary Sue for characters with no flaws to the point where they're boring at best, actively annoying at worst
that's not part of any criteria for a mary sue, that's just the effect of being a mary sue.