Is your character a Mary Sue?

[Wylair]

With Wylair's updated backstory she scored -9

nnnHehe yes, this happens a lot after reading this thread.

nnWell this backstory update had already been planned prior to me taking this test the first time (and finding out what a Mary Sue was) and scoring negative 5. The changes are just some changes related to Cataclysm.

[Wylair]

My new alt which I'll be beginning in a day or two scored -5

[Loilaton]

Loil's new backstory got him a 5 Yay, now I need to do Mattrim.

[Kozaky]

Kozaky scored a 12... because well... Kozaky is an unusual name for a Blood Elf, and Kozaky is a nickname of mine. So... yeah. I'm considering switching to a Goblin and rewriting the name a bit. I'll have to look at Goblin names.

[Ianodil]

If there is anything one can learn from the Mary Sue exam, it is that you do not need an elaborate back story to compensate for Role-playing or the character itself. Sometimes individuals tend to forget that by simply playing the game, one ends up achieving incredible feats regardless. nnIt is my opinion that in an interaction, one tends to remember less of someone's history, and more of someone's current demeanor. So, if for example 'everyone' has a dire prehistory that makes them either brooding, stoic or melancholy, ( and of those are all valuable traits ) well, we can all see where the conformity lies in that.nnIn closing, one major issue with Role-playing is that egos tend to be bruised when one is shown that their Role-play is saturated, because the creativity of the 'player' was a part of the process and generally nobody likes to be told how to do anything when they pay currency to play this game. However, we could ALL take a lesson in humility and be willing to be critiqued now and then, for you never know what discoveries you can make when you simply live in the moment, instead of as a harbinger of your own past.

[Darkclouded]

Well ianodil backstory for a character is one of those optional things that people can do to make RP slightly more involved. If a character has a history they can EXPLAIN why they act that way instead of just saying "I'm happy because I can be right now" or "I'm angry because I decided it would be interesting". To cut out backstory is also cutting out a major part of RP storytelling in which the player gets to explain some things they just can't RP out in game or at least involve people who missed the initial RP. Overall the idea of RP overlapping with other RP is entirely possible and not always as bad as it's said to be however to tell people to simply focus on the now and put no thought into a characters history severely limits several players. Especially since having seen RP in progress and seen how different people make their characters and their character's choices alot of it would be completely random and odd if they didn't think of a bit of history to go with it. If anything the "mary sue" test can tell us more about the sheer number of people willing to take the time to make their RP and actually try to participate.nnPS: yes I said RP alot in that

[Thulcondar]

TCD is a 3 but I am not sure why eating flesh is a factor of an undead! AND there was no DK class.

[Ianodil]

Indeed, Darkclouded. However, know that I do not disagree with the application of a 'history', because we all have histories. This thread concerned 'Mary-Sues' and I was merely speaking in context that whereof. And do not think I don't regard history as unimportant... To make point of what I mean about the exaggeration of a back-ground, I'll use myself as an example. My father wasn't a fire-fighter beloved by the city, or in WoW terms the head of a noble house, granting me privileges that I can't necessarily prove in game; he was a cook. We were a normal lower-middle class family. However, the life I lead now is not that of a person born into such a mundane situation. I still am an amazing individual, regardless of my past.nnUnfortunately, it is quite a common occurrence that a character who makes up a complicated back-story tends to be a selfish role-player because they usually intend to push their story onto someone else. Not always, but you can not disagree that it is a common issue. They also tend to use it to compensate for the character's worth. nnAll in all, Role-playing is a very subjective topic. Some may not agree with the 'Mary-Sue' results, but know that it is intended to not dictate how role-play should be had, but instead what makes for a more unique, realistic, and less cliche role-play. nnIt all depends on what side of the spectrum you prefer... liberal or conservative. All in all, it is my personal opinion, not a law that this test tends to prove the occurance of a reoccurring theme; the theme being that complicated back-grounds are traits of a saturated role-player. Will it always be? No. Does it tend to be? Yes. nnThat is all.

[Darkclouded]

Personally I feel that even WITH cliched RP a good roleplayer can and often will pull it off, secondly if the use of an expansive backstory by some RPers has given the impression they will force their RP on others or are just using it to cover a lack of ability to RP then the only possible examples of that I've even seen are kingship and vyktur from sunsworn. if we judge the majority by the actions of a few instead of on a person by person basis then we are excluding ourselves from knowing SEVERAL good RPers. keep an open mind, don't exclude anyone and people will often astound you.

[Ianodil]

Agreed. I obviously am not one to say, "Okay, this guy's got waaaay too much of a developed history. He must be a terrible role-player." If that's how it was interpreted, then let me verify that I am definitely open to all types of role-play (Open, yet perhaps not willing to participate with certain types). While there certainly ARE great role-players with extensive and or even minimal histories, I think , as I said before, the Mary-Sue concept doesn't look to force itself upon the role-play community, but simply show that there are many people who make these toons that are intended to be 'bad-asses', or 'self-proclaimed (fill in the blank)'. And I also said that role-play is very subjective. Not many folk want to be told anything about how to role-play for many reasons. Commonly because they pride themselves on their own 'creativity' and egos tend to be bruised, and also because "Well, I paid $30.00 dollars to play this so shut up, and let me do what I want." nnAlso, to make a clearer point, there is a difference between 'extensive history' and 'exaggerated history' if that makes sense. nnAll in all, RP, as I've muttered many a time in this fun little discussion (no sarcasm intended because I like discussing things I enjoy), is incredibly subjective; which is beautiful. nnBut think on this Dark. Even if the most eloquent role-player known where to approach your toon and say, "I am Thrall's nephew", no matter how beautifully he described it, or how perfect his emotes, diction and language prevailed, would you accept the fact that he was Thrall's nephew? Some might be fine with it; some might get pissed. And that extenuates the subjective ideal of RP. It is NOT only subjective from the 'Person A's' stand-point, but the same interpretation is being executed by 'Person B'. nnIt's amazing how you could link role-play theory to many, many real word concepts like the dramatic arts, improv and even speech theory. nnRP Nerd. <-