[PRIMER]Roleplaying 101: Writing builds character.

[Code: PIRULUK]

Hihi~ This is Acquiescence here~ welcome to my fanfiction 101 series - a set of primers on writing decent fanfiction. Naturally, this is relevant, as RP is technically fanfiction.

Aaaaaanyway, today I'm going to be talking about character creation. So bear with me.

1) What makes a good character?

First, let's think about what we want in a good character. We want a believable, well-fleshed-out character which stands out from the crowd. We want our character to be interesting and unique. We want a character which either makes others either go "I really wish I could meet this guy, he'd be a great guy to know"

2) What's in a name?

Now that we've established what we want in a character, let's start working towards it. Give your character an interesting but believable name, one that's actually used, just not too often. Like Melissa. Or Rai. Definitely not "Jasper Thoth Lucifer Viridion von Theria el Ronte e Yoke", but also not "Bob".

3) Clothes make the woman/man

Now that you've named your character, start with appearances. How unusual you wish to make your character's appearance is up to you, but do show some restraint. Robotic limbs would not make sense in a fantasy/non-scifi context. Eyepatches should have a good reason for being there. Long black coats with multiple layers makes no sense in a hot environment. Always remember: a character does not need to look special to be special. The best characters are those that look just like the average person, but have strong personalities and unique personality quirks.

4) I couldn't come up with a good title so: Character Traits

Ah, yes. The key defining feature that makes or breaks a character: the character traits. A character's personality and unique quirks is what establishes the character as a good or a bad one. Make your character interesting, give it a unique personality. "Sarcastic" is not a unique trait, neither is "lazy". "Has aspirations to be a florist" is. The best traits are those that go with a common profession to make a character stand out. Is your character a detective? Give him a speech disorder to impede his communication of deductions.

5) The power within.

Characters having powers of abilities of some sort are common within most universes. Be it intelligence, strength, magic, or martial arts expertise, abilities are good; they add more opportunities for character development. That said, don't go overboard with them. It's one thing to be a "court magus with command of powerful magic", it's another thing entirely to be a "world-class enchanter with various demon summons at your beck and call, who can still defeat any opponent in swordplay, is a master of 24 weapons, has 15 PhDs, knows 13 languages, plays chess and makes amazing coffee." balance out your character's abilities with weaknesses. Your character knows 15 martial arts? Ok, make him an idiot who doesn't know when to use what move and makes things worse before making them better. Your character is an all-powerful mage? Okay, make him extremely squishy with long cast times and cooldowns. Your character is basically a living god? Ok, make him lose his divinity when in the presence of something interesting, like cats.

6) The Mary Sues Cometh

Okay, so you have a character. What? She's called Xyron Eridanir Feriroseka? Ummm... Ok, strange name. What? She has telepathy/pyrokinesis/telekinesis/electrokinesis/Molecular Control/Time powers/Space powers/Teleportation/All of the above? Oh, no. She wears a fluffy pink trenchcoat with violent streaks of red across it, has (totally natural) hair that flows in 17 different colours with various highlights, wears ankle-length skirts that she is still totally able to move about quickly in, and wears a cape? She has demon/vampire/warlock/angel/divine/holy one blood AND is the chosen one? She knows 14 different fighting style and can phase in and out of existence? She has an IQ of 9001, is the best chef in the world, can play all instruments (at the same time) and is the world's leading expert on everything from Alchemy to Zoology?

Enter the Mary Sue; the OC archetype despised by all. Nobody likes a Mary Sue, and for good reason: She is too perfect. A Mary Sue is unbelievable, has no room to grow/develop, tends to have terrible characterisation, and can solve all conflicts by flipping her hair and winking.

Now, Self-inserts are a good thing; no convincing character can be written without some aspect of yourself as an individual included; after all, how can you write a convincing character if you don't have the same mindset, at some level, as that character? However, Self-inserts come in two forms. The first, is the benign, authorly self-insert, where your character contains some elements of yourself as an individual. This is the good kind, the kind of self-insert that makes great characters. Then there's the dreaded "Wish fulfillment" self-insert. The Wish-fulfillment self-insert is when you take a part of yourself and insert it into a character...then proceed to add in all the things that you wish you could be, all the powers you wish you could have. This kind of self-insert is bad and evil. The Wish Fulfillment Self-insert creates Mary Sues.

The Mary Sue is a character you want to avoid at all costs, no matter what. Below I'll share a few tips to avoid making a Mary Sue.

6a) Nobody's Perfect.

The easiest way to prevent a character from becoming a Mary Sue (besides simple discretion and restraint) is by implementing flaws. All humans have problems, and OCs are no different. If your character is becoming way too powerful, give it something that checks its power. For example, perhaps a mage with the ability to cast a super-powerful spell needs rare ingredients from around the world, along with a couple of willing human sacrifices as the catalyst. Or perhaps the fighter with mastery in various weapons has narcolepsy and falls asleep in the middle of battles. Or maybe the mad scientist with an I.Q. of over 9000 is mute and frail, or suffers from constant migraines that prevent him/her from using all of this brainpower.

That said, making a character completely useless at everything isn't a good thing either.The key is to achieve balance. A character should have a roughly equal number of strengths and weaknesses - for every area in which one is amazingly gifted, there must be another significant area in which one is amazingly lacking. For every good thing about the person (strong-willed, creative, funny, etc.) there must be a negative trait (narcissistic, defeatist, pessimistic, dull, has bad luck, etc.). Only then can your character appear more human and believable.

6b) Extremism must DIE.

One common characteristic of Mary Sues is that their characters are often taken to extremes. If they're not peppy, excitable and practically oozing sunshine and rainbows and good morality all the time, they're probably dark, angsty, irredeemably amoral/immoral and extremely evil. That is bad. To quote Oscar Wilde, "I don't think now that people can be divided into the good and the bad as though they were two separate races or creations." Every good person has some evil aspects, and every evil person has some good aspects. If you decide to make an evil character, give it some good points, like having a soft spot for kittens. Or being an active philanthropist. Similarly, if you decide to make a good-aligned character, give it some evil elements, like a sadistic streak, or selfishness. Doing so adds more depth to your character and prevents it from being too one-dimensional.

6c) Sob stories make me cry.

Another thing to note when doing a Sue test is the angst. Sues traditionally serve as a palette upon which the author can project his/her angst. That's the reason why most Sues (even those who are incredibly hyper and peppy) tend to have extremely tragic, normally ludicrous backstories. Like being abandoned at the age of 3 weeks, found, brought up and abandoned again at the age of 2, entered an orphanage, was bullied, was starved, was abused in all sorts of ways, ran away at the age of 9, lived on the streets, made a friend who happened to be living on the run despite her young age, then saw that friend die in a scene which typically involves guns, cars, helicopters, electric wires and various top-secret government agencies.

Yeah...Angst is good, backstories are good, but there's a limit. That right there just broke the ceiling. And possibly the sky. And maybe even Alpha Centauri. Your backstory should be believable. Your angst should be believable. Do not angst for the sake of having a "dark and mysterious" character. Do not angst for the sake of angst. If you want a tragic backstory, fine. Moderate it. Show its visible effects on the character. Keep it within the realms of plausibility and belief.

6d) Poketalking OP.

Here I'm going to list a couple of things that are pretty popular in Mary Sues for a few of the fandoms I follow.

1)Talking to Pokemon (Pokemon)

2) Random Psychological Ailment (EVERYTHING)

3) Three or more Servants (Fate/Stay Night)

4) Parseltongue (Harry Potter)

I'm guessing the two most relevant to this forum are 1) and 2). So, let's address those. For 1), talking to Pokemon. There is basically almost no possible way for a character to have this ability without becoming a Sue. N got away with it because he's also a naive, secluded, self-deluded, idealistic, sheltered, ignorant child - a plethora of faults to help compensate for this ability - and the effect on his character is highly visible. A trainer, willingly engaging in battles, keeping Pokemon in Pokeballs, having the ability to speak to Pokemon? Definitely not the same level of visible impact, and therefore, not welcome.

As for 2), this is an issue for most fandoms. A lot of people enjoy making their characters have some sort of psychological condition, under the illusion that it makes the character more interesting. The thing is, such conditions have a trigger. And if you want a psychological problem on your character, you must be prepared to justify it in his/her backstory. For example, Multiple Personality Disorder normally occurs as a result of repression of some sort, either internal or external. An inferiority complex is derived from external influences shaping one's view of life and society. A character who has one of these ailments for not apparent reason is, without doubt, a Sue.

7) Get Motivated

Now that you've (hopefully) created a good character, the last thing to do is to take it one level deeper, by examining your character's motivations and goals. Since Ame was nice enough to type it out for me, I'll just save myself some effort and quote her here.

yo imma let you finish but

I feel like there are some key points missing here. Now this isn't a formula I followed when writing Reborn unfortunately (although I have with things since) but it is a technically sound backbone for characters-

Very simple good character formula:

1) What do they want?

2) What about them is stopping them from reaching #1?

3) What strengths will they use to overcome #2 to get to #1?

This is the basic character development and story progression outline: They have a goal, they have flaws that stop them from reaching that goal, and they have strengths that through the story will overcome their flaws to reach their goal.

.02

Full credits to Amethyst for this section.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------END OF GUIDE------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well then, that's it for the first installment of Fanfiction 101. I hope this Primer helped, and hope to see some good characters coming out :> Note: If you'd like me to critique a character, feel free to send me a PM; I'll look over it and tell you how/where you can improve. I may not be a very accomplished writer, but I should be able to help just a bit :> If you found this primer helpful, feel free to donate some R$ as thanks(I kid)

Until next time,

Acquiescence

Edited October 21, 2013 by Acquiescence

[NeoDarklight]

This is EXACTLY what I was talking about in the Johto OOC thread. There also needs to be a section on writing styles. I'd write it now, but it would take me two hours to write something that is both relevant AND interesting, and my meds wore off for today already. ;

Also, this needs to be stickied.

Edited September 18, 2013 by NeoDarklight

[rustytengo]

wait so does that make my character bad then that i use things like lazy and sarcastic to describe him.

[The Radiant Aeon]

This is why I shall friend you!! Enough with this childish "Nocturne" shit..Bring out Alvin Jones!! (Basically the same syllables of my name)

Edit: Someone pin this topic

Edited September 18, 2013 by Lunar081

[NeoDarklight]

@rustytengo: No offense, but it isn't your character that you need to work on, so much as it is the way you present him and the events surrounding him. Fortunately, yours is a problem that will be corrected by gaining more experience as an RPer and by slowing the pacing of events and providing more details. Mostly, the pokemon interactions could have been less rushed, meeting Boulder for the first time could have been worded better and the battle could have been more flushed out. Like, saying "Boulder used a horn attack and knocked out the Teddiursa" is a lot less descriptive than desired, given the context.

Also things like "Out rushed Boulder from the bushes that we where hiding in charging start at the bear hitting it and slamming it into a tree nearly knocking it out in just one hit the bear could barely get up before I had Boulder hit it with another Horn Attack this one much weaker without the surprise that we had earlier the bear nearly out of energy tried to retaliate by scratching at Boulder but it claws basically just bounced of Boulder's rock like hide the bear realizing that it could do nothing against Boulder tried to run but before it could get to far I tossed a pokeball at it." is a run-on sentence, and that REALLY messes things up. Seriously, that's not just two or three sentences, that thing can be cut up into, like, 7 sentences. Remember, you aren't talking, you're writing, so try to spread things out so people can understand it more easily.

Again, I am not trying to get on your back or anything, I'm just trying to help you grow as an RPer.

[Amethyst]

yo imma let you finish but

I feel like there are some key points missing here. Now this isn't a formula I followed when writing Reborn unfortunately (although I have with things since) but it is a technically sound backbone for characters-

Very simple good character formula:

1) What do they want?

2) What about them is stopping them from reaching #1?

3) What strengths will they use to overcome #2 to get to #1?

This is the basic character development and story progression outline: They have a goal, they have flaws that stop them from reaching that goal, and they have strengths that through the story will overcome their flaws to reach their goal.

.02

[Color]

Patience is key young grasshoppa...

But no seriously, it takes a lot of patience to sit down and write a full flesh post like a lot of people did in the RP.

I had to rewrite mine at least twice.

Btw, how can you guys write in first-person?

I think it's sooooo friggin hard to do that. x_x

[rustytengo]

@rustytengo: No offense, but it isn't your character that you need to work on, so much as it is the way you present him and the events surrounding him. Fortunately, yours is a problem that will be corrected by gaining more experience as an RPer and by slowing the pacing of events and providing more details. Mostly, the pokemon interactions could have been less rushed, meeting Boulder for the first time could have been worded better and the battle could have been more flushed out. Like, saying "Boulder used a horn attack and knocked out the Teddiursa" is a lot less descriptive than desired, given the context.

Also things like "Out rushed Boulder from the bushes that we where hiding in charging start at the bear hitting it and slamming it into a tree nearly knocking it out in just one hit the bear could barely get up before I had Boulder hit it with another Horn Attack this one much weaker without the surprise that we had earlier the bear nearly out of energy tried to retaliate by scratching at Boulder but it claws basically just bounced of Boulder's rock like hide the bear realizing that it could do nothing against Boulder tried to run but before it could get to far I tossed a pokeball at it." is a run-on sentence, and that REALLY messes things up. Seriously, that's not just two or three sentences, that thing can be cut up into, like, 7 sentences. Remember, you aren't talking, you're writing, so try to spread things out so people can understand it more easily.

Again, I am not trying to get on your back or anything, I'm just trying to help you grow as an RPer.

Don't worry i asked so criticzume is fine by me. Yeah run on sentience have always been a major problem for me mainly because i don't always remember where punctuation goes and i can never seem to catch them when i reread my stuff. Most of the writing that I have(other then stuff for school) ever done has been either just for me or my friend to read so i am not to use to used to having other people read stuff i write. With details they are hard for me because i may actually know what i want in my head but when i write it i can't spell the word that i want (i am a horrible speller) and spell check does not always work for me.All of the RPing that i have done other then this has always been Dungeons and Dragons with my friends so all of it has been talking.I also didn't think it was rush i though it was just going on and on and on with things in it.

@Color the reason i posted mine like i did was because i really don't have that much time to do things like this unless its the weekend other then that i am at work or just to tired to do things. Also it i don't write what i have when i have it i will end up forgetting it or just not doing it for a really long time. Also with first person that was my first time doing it i just used i a lot in it.

Edited September 18, 2013 by rustytengo

[NeoDarklight]

@Color: It's a literary technique, but I can't remember what it's called for the life of me right now. Basically, you write from the character's perspective by following their train of thought so as to give meaning to their actions. It's a pretty high-level technique, and only the really good authors can pull it off well.

@rustytengo: For what it's worth, try picturing each action, and maybe one, possibly two, related actions as one segment, and make that into its own sentence. And when I say related actions, I mean actions that directly affect the first action, or lead from it. Following the example I gave, one possible rewrite would be something along the lines of "Boulder rushed out of the bushes we were hiding in, slamming it into a tree and nearly knocking it out. As the Teddiursa tried to get up, Boulder hit it again with a smaller Horn Attack." Basically, consider each action, and if it doesn't seem quite right, try to rearrange it in a way that you can break it into smaller fragments.

Edited September 18, 2013 by NeoDarklight

[Color]

Which probably explains why I am better off working with third person.

I can describe things really well, and explain feelings, emotions, thoughts in that format but I cannot do that with first person for the life of me.

For some reason it just does not click ._.

[NeoDarklight]

Think of it like the character is writing into a diary, with the character's thoughts interspersed between some of the actions.

[Code: PIRULUK]

yo imma let you finish but

I feel like there are some key points missing here. Now this isn't a formula I followed when writing Reborn unfortunately (although I have with things since) but it is a technically sound backbone for characters-

Very simple good character formula:

1) What do they want?

2) What about them is stopping them from reaching #1?

3) What strengths will they use to overcome #2 to get to #1?

This is the basic character development and story progression outline: They have a goal, they have flaws that stop them from reaching that goal, and they have strengths that through the story will overcome their flaws to reach their goal.

.02

Yeah I was going to add that in once I got home, that's only near the end of the creation process. I was going to be a lot more verbiose about it, though. I'll put that up as a TL;DR :3

[Code: PIRULUK]

@Color: It's a literary technique, but I can't remember what it's called for the life of me right now. Basically, you write from the character's perspective by following their train of thought so as to give meaning to their actions. It's a pretty high-level technique, and only the really good authors can pull it off well.

Stream of consciousness?

[NeoDarklight]

Stream of consciousness?

THANK you. I was trying to remember it, but couldn't for some reason.

[Jory]

Think of it like the character is writing into a diary, with the character's thoughts interspersed between some of the actions.

I don't mean to disrespect, as you seem quite intelligent and actually know what the fuck you're talking about. I know what you're trying to say here, but saying "diary" gives it a much more personal perspective and lends itself to a "this made me feel like this because this" format.

Instead, I like to think of it as extremely similar to writing in the third person with what is called a "limited third person narrator." This is a device used by many authors to focus on the protagonist because the narrator can see into the mind of only a few or even only one of the characters. When writing in the first person, it is important to remember that people cannot see into the minds of others. What makes a first person narrative so effective is the centralization of the storytelling on the events from only one person's perspective. Therefore, it is important to remember to show, not tell.

Show, not tell is the cornerstone of a creative writing workshop. It emphasizes using visual cues to give away otherwise unattainable information. Take, for example, the following statement:

"After I banged his girlfriend, Bobby was angry at me."

Okay, maybe it's clear that Bobby would be angry at me for banging his girlfriend. But how do I know he's angry? Am I a fucking psychic? If the answer is no (which it is, unfortunately), then my knowledge of Bobby's emotions stems from how he reacts to said coitus. Now let's try a different approach:

"After I banged his girlfriend, Bobby punched me in the face."

Now we know that Bobby is angry at me because he lashed out physically, which is a common show of anger or malcontent. So we see here that not only does showing, not telling work more effectively and realistically, it also helps to advance the story because if a story becomes a string of emotions instead of a chain of events, the only people who will want to read it are the very same people who like to read Twilight. I am by no means discouraging the use of emotion as a powerful roleplaying tool; however, I am attempting to convey to you all a more effective way of doing so.

[NeoDarklight]

I don't mean to disrespect, as you seem quite intelligent and actually know what the fuck you're talking about. I know what you're trying to say here, but saying "diary" gives it a much more personal perspective and lends itself to a "this made me feel like this because this" format.

Instead, I like to think of it as extremely similar to writing in the third person with what is called a "limited third person narrator." This is a device used by many authors to focus on the protagonist because the narrator can see into the mind of only a few or even only one of the characters. When writing in the first person, it is important to remember that people cannot see into the minds of others. What makes a first person narrative so effective is the centralization of the storytelling on the events from only one person's perspective. Therefore, it is important to remember to show, not tell.

Show, not tell is the cornerstone of a creative writing workshop. It emphasizes using visual cues to give away otherwise unattainable information. Take, for example, the following statement:

"After I banged his girlfriend, Bobby was angry at me."

Okay, maybe it's clear that Bobby would be angry at me for banging his girlfriend. But how do I know he's angry? Am I a fucking psychic? If the answer is no (which it is, unfortunately), then my knowledge of Bobby's emotions stems from how he reacts to said coitus. Now let's try a different approach:

"After I banged his girlfriend, Bobby punched me in the face."

Now we know that Bobby is angry at me because he lashed out physically, which is a common show of anger or malcontent. So we see here that not only does showing, not telling work more effectively and realistically, it also helps to advance the story because if a story becomes a string of emotions instead of a chain of events, the only people who will want to read it are the very same people who like to read Twilight. I am by no means discouraging the use of emotion as a powerful roleplaying tool; however, I am attempting to convey to you all a more effective way of doing so.

MUCH better explanation than what I was going to give. Mostly because I hadn't gotten QUITE that far in how much I've learned. Also partially because I tend to forget some things when trying to turn a concept into words.

Edited September 18, 2013 by NeoDarklight

[Jory]

Another thing I've noticed is a distinct lack of line spacing. When dialogue shifts from one character to another, there should be a line space (I actually like to put an extra line in between to make it easier to read) like such:

Bobby walked up to me yesterday. He was walking quickly and his jaw was set. "Jory, what the fuck?"

"Um... Excuse me?" I asked, a bit puzzled as to why he was being so aggressive. He began wringing his hands and turned his back to me for several seconds. I distinctly heard him muttering to himself before he turned back around.

"I know what happened between you and Amy," he said quietly. Bobby was not historically the quietest guy. After all, he sang in his church choir and was the captain of our school's debate team.

"Oh shi-" was all I manged to get out before his tightly clenched fist collided with my face like a freight train with an aircraft carrier full of screaming babies.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Jory

[Code: PIRULUK]

Now we know that Bobby is angry at me because he lashed out physically, which is a common show of anger or malcontent. So we see here that not only does showing, not telling work more effectively and realistically, it also helps to advance the story because if a story becomes a string of emotions instead of a chain of events, the only people who will want to read it are the very same people who like to read Twilight. I am by no means discouraging the use of emotion as a powerful roleplaying tool; however, I am attempting to convey to you all a more effective way of doing so.

"Oh shi-" was all I manged to get out before his tightly clenched fist collided with my face like a freight train with an aircraft carrier full of screaming babies.

I LoL'ed at both.

Also, I finally updated the rest with the content. I think you can tell how much I hate Sues LOL. Hope I helped, and enjoy! <3

Edited September 18, 2013 by Acquiescence

[The Fush]

I hate Mary Sues/Gary Stus with a passion too, so you're not alone here.

When it comes to creating characters, I usually tend to think about 3 things:

1. An Inner Life: Their past, their ideals and motivations, what drives them, what their dreams are, who they are below the surface and what the mask above it is.

2. A Compelling Design: Designing the character in a way that makes him/her/it unique, memorable and easily identified; the sort of appearance you can etch into your brain and looks like what it would be if you imagined it.

3. Expressive Quirks and Habits: This may not seem major, but it makes them a lot more human this way. The more subtle things, such as, perhaps, the distinct way they smile or raise a glass to toast, or how they have a certain obsession, e.g... they like hats? It's kinda hard to explain it, but you can pretty much tell what I mean when you start designing what a character looks like yourself.

Though to be honest, when it comes to character creation, storytelling, comic creating and anything of the like, how I tend to do it tends to be heavily inspired by Scott McCloud, mostly because what he says makes a ton of sense.

Though I'm more of a VISUAL storytelling guy, so what I say could be pretty redundant here. I think Jory and Amethyst have summed up most of what you missed anyway.

wow I suck at this

[NeoDarklight]

Hmm... We have a basic character creation guide, so now we need a basic storytelling guide. We already have a few things down here, so now we need to organize it and put it all together, while adding a few more relevant tips. Perhaps someone could find the time... I can help contribute, but I'll need someone a bit more fluent at explaining things to translate what I say into something most people can understand without the more advanced (or, in some of my cases, erroneous) terminology.

[Code: PIRULUK]

Hmm... We have a basic character creation guide, so now we need a basic storytelling guide. We already have a few things down here, so now we need to organize it and put it all together, while adding a few more relevant tips. Perhaps someone could find the time... I can help contribute, but I'll need someone a bit more fluent at explaining things to translate what I say into something most people can understand without the more advanced (or, in some of my cases, erroneous) terminology.

I plan on writing one, but only like next week (after this bout of exams)

EDIT: Also, thanks for the sticky.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Acquiescence

[Requieon]

So, let's address those. For 1), talking to Pokemon. There is basically almost no possible way for a character to have this ability without becoming a Sue.

So, this makes my OC bad? I mean, she can talk to pokemon, but she IS one...

It's not like I made her an OP pokemon...(she's a Mawile >.> and one with no stab and a sp.at move at that...)

Also, is the way I described her wrong too? since I called her humor sarcastic? (I'm pretty new to RP like this, only RP I've done is in MMO's, never on forums...)

[Code: PIRULUK]

So, this makes my OC bad? I mean, she can talk to pokemon, but she IS one...

It's not like I made her an OP pokemon...(she's a Mawile >.> and one with no stab and a sp.at move at that...)

Also, is the way I described her wrong too? since I called her humor sarcastic? (I'm pretty new to RP like this, only RP I've done is in MMO's, never on forums...)

I haven't seen your OC profile, but what you're telling me seems fine. Since your OC is a Pokemon, talking to other Pokemon is entirely natural.

As for the idea that describing a character as sarcastic is bad, it's perfectly ok for a character to be sarcastic. But if sarcasm is the key defining aspect of a character, then there's something wrong. For example, if the totality of your character can be summed up as "sarcastic and intelligent", then something is wrong.

[Connor]

K, so by coming over to Will's dorm and watching him browse threads for something to read, we came across this. I, being an avid fanfiction writer (and a damn good one at that), was naturally curious as to what point you would bring up. Thus, I read this. And I was disappointed on more than one account, which I will get into since I genuinely want to know what mindset you had in writing this up. That being said, I'm going to bulletpoint this shit so that it's easy for you to reply to.

.5 The title. Dubbing this "Fanfiction 101" wasn't exactly the best title for it, as much of your points on character development are based on Roleplaying characters. That being said, I'm not exactly sure what a better name would be, but if your intent was to make a guide for RP or FF, a more specific name would have been appreciated.

1.

First, let's think about what we want in a good character. We want a believable, well-fleshed-out character which stands out from the crowd. We want our character to be interesting and unique.

While I can agree with your first statement, that being that the character needs to be believable and thought out, having them stand out or be interesting to other people does not make an objectively GOOD character. It simply makes them easier to develop, and gives the author a little cushion of safety to fall back on, should someone imply or put forward that the character is completely arbitrary, the author can state that the character is "unique" or "one of a kind". I'm not stating that this way is bad either, put simply, both ways work. They aren't required to have a certain level of "uniqueness" in order to be good. They can be average in every way, but still be a good character based on how they react with others in their environment.

2.

2) What's in a name?

Once again, why does the name matter that much? Or rather, I should say, why should underwhelming names be unused? While I agree that names that take it a bit too far should be used sparingly, something as simple as "Bob" or "Jeff" are perfectly fine. This goes back to your point that characters should be interesting in all aspects, while I argue that simplistic characters and names can have just as powerful an impact

3.

The best characters are those that look just like the average person, but have strong personalities and unique personality quirks.

Characters can be defined by their clothing. Popular manga/anime enforces that, and since fanfiction/roleplaying derived from that, it shouldn't be something completely left out. That being said, both extravagant AND plain clothing can be equally as important.

I'm going to take a quick break here to state the thing that comes to mind at this point, which is that this isn't a general guide for writing fanfiction. This is YOUR OUTLINE for character development. Having read through much more than what I've commented about, this is extremely biased towards the hate towards Sues. A general guideline would be more what Storm put after this was thrown up initially, just a bit more detail thrown in.

4.

A character's personality and unique quirks is what establishes the character as a good or a bad one. Make your character interesting, give it a unique personality. "Sarcastic" is not a unique trait, neither is "lazy". "Has aspirations to be a florist" is. The best traits are those that go with a common profession to make a character stand out. Is your character a detective? Give him a speech disorder to impede his communication of deductions.

OK, this one legitimately made me a bit angry. ANY traits from anyone makes a unique character, not what you deem to be a "good" or "bad" trait. What makes a solid character is the fact that they HAVE a personality. Both being sarcastic and lazy can make just as good a character as someone who is large on chivalry and justice, or intellect and knowledge. It's how you build the character from that point is how they become who they are. Being a florist has absolutely nothing to do with how they act towards their crush, or authority, or when faced with moral choices, etc. Their traits and quirks are what would influence them to want to be a florist, which leads to character development. Also, you don't need to give them something to directly impact their desire to be a certain thing. IE don't need a speech impediment if they want to be a detective/lawyer, don't need to be uncoordinated when they want to be a professional sports player, etc, because rarely will people have the drive to push them past those problems.

5.

5) The power within

Your definition of what's Mary Sue is pretty extreme here. Someone THAT overpowered seems like they would be put in as a satirical character, rather than a serious one. However, your next suggestions of "balance" once again seem too over the top for me. Having a character know a multitude of fighting moves is fine, you don't need to dumb him down to the point of uselessness, because that completely negates his good parts. Also, it is illogical to think in the long run, for two reasons. One, if he took that much time to learn fighting styles, learning isn't simply moving through the katas and becoming physically strong. To use the fighting style you HAVE to know how to counter your opponent, due to spars and practicing. So, if he were 14 fighting styles deep, how would he still know how to not counter his opponents? The second reason this doesn't follow logically, is, say that he were literally that dumb to not know how to counter simple attacks. How would he have the intelligence to even LEARN 14 fighting styles? Many practitioners don't master styles for years, so how could this dumbass learn 14 and not know how to counter. Also, living god? Really. A living god. In a 'guide' that crucifies Mary Sues.

No comment.

6.

Enter the Mary Sue; the OC archetype despised by all. Nobody likes a Mary Sue, and for good reason: She is too perfect. A Mary Sue is unbelievable, has no room to grow/develop, tends to have terrible characterisation, and can solve all conflicts by flipping her hair and winking.

Now, while I can agree that MAIN characters being Sue can make for a dull story, they aren't so transparent as to have no development whatsoever. As an example, look at Sword Art Online. The main character, Kirito, is objectively a Sue. He starts out with only a marginal amount of knowledge over all other players, and yet he goes through the entire series solo'ing what took entire groups of players only a few levels lower than him. He does this the entire series, obtaining several miracles in order to continue winning, both the game and hearts of people around him. Would you argue that he has no character development?

While Sues can, for the most part, be boring and can completely kill the story, they aren't ALWAYS bad.

7.

6a) Nobody's Perfect.

Once again, you're being too extreme in your taking away of good traits of the character. If you're making a main character (even someone to RP as), the POINT is for your character to have something that sets him apart from the rest. If it's a character that has an extremely strong point, but another that cripples him to oblivion, that is more defined as a supporting role, since their strong point is extremely situational.

6b) Extremism must DIE.

Characters not being to be ABSOLUTELY good or ABSOLUTELY bad is, to me, just plain wrong. Do you not think, that in this world of over 5 billion people, that there isn't a SINGLE person who has no guilty pleasures, or not a single beacon of goodness inside them? Insane serial killers typically have no good traits, they lived their lives with problems, and went out (and took pleasure) in hurting and killing others. On the other hand, many nuns and religious clergy give up a good deal in order to help others. I'm sure, that in only these TWO examples, there is at least one in both situations that have absolutely nothing good or absolutely nothing bad on their minds at time of death (respectively)

6c) Sob stories make me cry.

Once again, you're looking at it from a plain, standard point of view. Stories as bad as losing your family, home, and friends and having to live off the streets are common in other countries. Sure, not that much here, but for the purpose of FANFICTION (hello title) they can be good tools to make both a setting and a plot.

6d) Poketalking OP.

For the most part, I can agree with this wholeheartedly. I hate people who give their character traits that aren't explained, simply to give them "depth"

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 especially enjoyed the lack of grammatical and spelling errors, as there is so much of that shit on FF.net that I want to put my head through a glass pane window. Feel free to argue me on any of these topics, as these are my opinions.

Shoutout to Blez and bestfriendkaru

[Code: PIRULUK]

Oh wow...ok... Um, I'll start by establishing that everything here is my personal opinion, I am by no means an expert, and yes, much of this guide is based on personal experience. You're free to disagree with me, I am in no way asserting that what I have written is a comprehensive guide. Now, I'll address your points in order:

0.5: Yes, While the topic is geared more towards RPing, it does serve as a borderline decent springboard for getting into fanfiction. It was initially supposed to be a part of a series, but between life and other games, I haven't really had the time to write any other parts yet. The title was just meant to sound catchy - note that this topic was not initially a pinned topic, hence I had to try and attract attention somehow.\

1: I agree. A character does not need to be interesting or unique to really be "good", per se. As you said, it's really more of a safety net; this primer was made to help people with creating their characters for RPing, with the assumption of the audience being complete beginners to creative writing. Not tp mention, that in an RP environment, Each RPer has less control over the interactions between characters than in a normal fic.

2: Again, agreed, but my answer is the same as for point #1.

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 Ikaru Shinji. 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.

As for your comment on how this is merely my outline for character development, and the Sue hate, I have to plead Guilty as charged. The motivation for this topic was seeing the many, many Mary Sues on the RP OC thread. As such, I was rather...liberal in terms of laying down the hate. Also, yes it is mainly my outline for character development, but that's the only way I know how to do it. I'm merely sharing my experiences to help aspiring new writers have a bit of help. Each writer has a different way of formulating characters, this is simply mine.

...Also, who's "Storm" ._.

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.

5: Again, exaggeration for the sake of humour. The "example" I gave was, obviously, satirical in nature. I understand that no individual would (probably) ever create a character like that, I was just illustrating the point that any character's strengths should be balanced with equivalent flaws. I didn't expect anyone to think my example was a legitimate suggestion ._.

Also, you didn't have to go and put "guide" in sarcastic inverted commas. It hurts, you know ;_;

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.

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.

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.

7c: Guilty as charged, but, again, this topic was for the primary purpose of RP.

It seems most of your concerns stem, at some level, from my somewhat inaccurate naming of this thread. I have since edited it, and I hope that my answers here are satisfactory. I welcome further discussion, though; thanks for your feedback.

As a final note, you didn't have to go and criticise my writing style in the manner below. You seem to be implying that my writing style detracts from the quality of the content, which I find to be a rather offensive comment, especially when I changed my usual writing style to try and cater to people with varying attention spans. I appreciate criticism of writing, but not in such an offensive and, quite honestly, rude manner.

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.