[PRIMER]Roleplaying 101: Writing builds character.

[Connor]

Ah, that last bit wasn't meant to be read with malicious intent, so I apologize if that's what it came out to look like. I also apologize if I came out to be too aggressive, but as Will was reading out many of those RP character posts (and after reading one too many extremely subpar stories on ff) I was irritable and took it out via the internet like any angry computer man would. As for that last part, being

In conclusion, if this were a bit more generally speaking and not so much your style of writing, it would be well thought out and written.

I didn't, by any means, mean that your particular style was bad, everyone has their own style and it separates authors into who they are. It's just my opinion that as a guide, much of the advice is taken from the writing community as a whole, rather from one style. But as you said, it was simply to assist people in their endeavors to create better RP characters, rather than writing as a whole, so my point is moot in that sense. I do hope that I haven't truly offended you in any way, and if I have let me know how to make it up to you.

Quickedit : Storm = Amethyst, cuz AmethystStorm and shit

[The Fush]

3: It really depends. Just as there are some characters who have rather defining appearances (Phoenix Wright's Maya and Franziska come to mind) there are also other characters who are good characters because the lack of a noticable appearance draws greater attention to the character's innate qualities (Think NGE's Ikari Shinji (Corrected for your convenience!). Yes, he's whiny and yes, he's annoying, but he remains a strong character nonetheless. Another, more clear-cut example of a strong character with an unassuming appearance is Light Yagami). That said, it's true that both extravagance and simplicity can be used to enhance a character, however my key objective when writing this post was to increase the believability of characters in the RPs on here, which is aided by believable attire. Not to mention, it takes a certain level of mastery to make a character have a unique appearance while still focusing on development to distinguish said characters from others, and thus I felt it would be more prudent to leave that to another topic.

To support this: One problem is that in RPs, and, less commonly, fanfiction, is that appearance of a character is left down to the reader's visualisation because the work tends to be mostly writing, meaning that you almost never get a picture that shows the person's appearance; this means that defining a character through clothing and appearance is especially hard when it comes to writing; focusing more on who they are, and what they're like is what leads the reader to identify them when it comes to written work, meanign that the most apperance tends to do is apply either extravagance or simplicity to enhance the character, as mentioned. Of course, if Connor has an argument against this, I'm going to be the first in line to listen.

4: Okay, I'll admit I was being somewhat extreme. However, that was mostly in an attempt to be funny. The reason why I was discouraging "sarcastic" or "lazy" or "smart" wasn't so much because I consider them "weak", per se, but really it was because of the entries I was seeing in the RP OC thread. At the time, almost every entry ended the description of the character's personality with "sarcastic", "smart", "lazy" or "smart but lazy". While I agree that it's perfectly possible to build up a strong character from such generic traits, when that's the only thing that you can say about your character's personality, or when that's the only distinguishing trait of your character, there is clearly something wrong.

Personally, I think both their traits and things such as the "being a florist" example you mentioned work better in conjunction than working alone; each one has flaws that the other one can hold on their backs.

6: While a Sue may not always be bad, it does take a high level of mastery to give a Sue character development. The key issue is ultimately one of believability. If the Sue seems too perfect (as most Sues are) no reader will be able to relate and therefore no meaningful connection can be made with said character. In the case of Kirito, he may have the potential to become a Sue, but the fact that he is fallible (for example, when he let Sachi die, or when he almost died in that bit with the first KoB mission) redeems him. Yes, it gives him unnecessary angst fuel, but his character would likely never have developed to the same extent otherwise. It takes a master to make a Sue worth reading, and this primer, directed at beginners, was not made with this level of mastery in mind. The Mary Sue is a pitfall that many new authors fall into, and the objective of this topic is to construct a platform on top of said pitfall.

Just because a Sue is fallible, it doesn't mean that it's immediatly discountable as one; many Sues have "flaws" that are more endearing than how they actually add to the character (personal opinion with Kirito but that's beside the point), and that's because the flaws are idealistic ones too; one that the author creates based on how he idealises a character, meaning that said flaws end up making the character more "Sue-ish" (created term) than actually redeeming.

Point: Just because a Sue has flaws, doesn't mean they're not a sue.

7a: You seem to have missed my point here. The point I was trying to make was not that the character should not have a trait to differentiate him or herself from others, but rather that this trait should in no way allow him or her an objective advantage over other people, which can be achieved by an equivalent weakness. There's nothing wrong with a character being skilled at something, so long as he/she is equivalently unskilled in another, equally relevant area. The objective here is balance and believability. As for the extreme examples given, again: Exaggeration for the purpose of generating humour.

Why can't a trait be used to differentiate a character? As long as it's done well (which is possible for a beginner), it's not exactly the same thing as having an advantage over other people; because those people likely have an advantage aswell. Advantages and Disadvantages can define the words "Strength" and "Weakness". Not to mention, a trait isn't positively based; for example, a kid being bad at sports is essentially a trait. Not to mention, you don't always have to completely balance out the weaknesses and strengths of a character; in fact, leaving them slightly unbalanced is what gives them room for development in the first place, and is something that can help to make them more enjoyable.

I'd say that balancing the good and bad sides of a character and unbalancing them can both be used in a way that makes a character believeable; unless that's not what you're going for in the first place (which is done deliberately with some characters, particularly in fanfiction (ESPECIALLY if the based work doesn't exactly score high on the believeability meter in the first place)).

7b: I'm afraid this is the area where I'm going to have to outright disagree with you. Human beings are flawed; there's no way around it. I maintain that there is no such thing as a person wholly good or wholly bad. To cite your examples of the heartless serial killer and the clergy: What's the probability that said serial killer has never had a benevolent thought in his or her life? Similarly, what's the probability that the clergy have never had an evil or unfaithful thought in their life? The heartless serial killer may experience regret on his or her deathbed. Mother Theresa experienced crises of faith. Humanity is flawed. Everybody who is human is fallible. All of us have the capacity to experience negative emotions such as anger, guilt, envy, lust, impatience. Similarly, all of us have the capacity to experience positive emotions like compassion, charity, empathy, generosity.

It's not impossible for a character to be unflawed; after all, you're the person who creates it. A person doesn't have to create a character that's flawed in order to make him/her good (although I will admit that for beginner writers that's a lot harder to do). It's possible to explore the possibilities with an unflawed character, either by creating flaws in future development or through experimentation with their character as a result of being flawless; however, I will admit that it's incredibly hard to pull off as differing ideals from different creators can easily lead to characters becoming Sues, or just being flawed in the eyes of another person.

EDIT: Yeah, I will admit that this last point is a far bigger stretch for beginner writers, which is what this guide is made for.

[Connor]

To support this: One problem is that in RPs, and, less commonly, fanfiction, is that appearance of a character is left down to the reader's visualisation because the work tends to be mostly writing, meaning that you almost never get a picture that shows the person's appearance; this means that defining a character through clothing and appearance is especially hard when it comes to writing; focusing more on who they are, and what they're like is what leads the reader to identify them when it comes to written work, meaning that the most appearance tends to do is apply either extravagance or simplicity to enhance the character, as mentioned. Of course, if Connor has an argument against this, I'm going to be the first in line to listen.

I suppose you have a point, as many FF writers tend to go for the plot over the detail and character development (if they're not balls-deep in writing lemons). I still stand by though, that if written correctly, a character can be defined by their clothes. For instance, characters that don't talk, or talk very little (can't think of that blue-haired girl from Familiar of Zero, although she's a bad example) can be defined by what they show up in. Although, I am just pulling hairs at this point, as people actually USING this are very far and few in between, so I guess I must concede.

It's not impossible for a character to be unflawed; after all, you're the person who creates it. A person doesn't have to create a character that's flawed in order to make him/her good (although I will admit that for beginner writers that's a lot harder to do). It's possible to explore the possibilities with an unflawed character, either by creating flaws in future development or through experimentation with their character as a result of being flawless; however, I will admit that it's incredibly hard to pull off as differing ideals from different creators can easily lead to characters becoming Sues, or just being flawed in the eyes of another person.

EDIT: Yeah, I will admit that this last point is a far bigger stretch for beginner writers, which is what this guide is made for.

And, as I read this, I again realize that this was for beginning writers, and I look at how far off the handle I went. However, I believe that creating a character without flaws (and without flaws in their backstory, as that could lead to confusion) is the point in creating unflawed characters to begin with. Intoducing a character that seems perfect would lead many people astray in both interaction in RP's and whether or not people decide to stay and read the rest of the FF. By introducing a flaw to begin with, no matter how small, the reader can see that the character ISN'T perfect, and that there may be more flaws in the future. By creating them as the ideal image of someone, the reader has no reason to believe that the image will be tarnished in any way.