The Campaign Builder's Guild

Over on ENworld there's this thread on Mary Sues that I thought was going to be interesting but quickly degenerated into a discussion over whether Elminster was one. (//thisthread)

Thing is the idea of a "character without character flaws" struck off another reference to flaws in my brain, specifically that of people wanting a setting with lots of bad stuff to go out and fight or correct.  So that leaves me wondering if a setting could sort of Mary Sue in a way: be too good to be interesting.

What does everyone else think?

Seems to me that there are two kinds of characters without flaws; there's the kind that have no flaws because they're not readily visible or put the effort/energy/experience into things they do to the point that they are very well-rounded and don't have obvious weaknesses, and then there's the kind of character that is in every way ideal in the mind of a specific person or group of persons, and everything that is thrown at them is easily brushed aside like a fly by a flyswatter.

I'm trying to find a good comparison, and I'm getting Batman for the first type, but the second type can be applied to pretty much any character that came out of an Instant Mix box. Batman is good at pretty much everything and to those who don't know his inner workings he's not going to have a weakness - he's wealthy, extremely athletic, intelligent, and strong-willed. There are few things that, with time, he can't find a counter to if he doesn't already have the strength to deal with it. A mary sue along these lines is probably going to mimic him in a lot of ways, except the only obstacles that will actually challenge him will be ones solely to make you either feel bad for the character or think about how ABSOLUTELY AWESOME he/she is.

The problem with these two divisions is there's a very fine line... Again, I feel it comes down more to the history. Where Bruce Wayne worked hard and relentlessly to be able to deal with threats, traveling the world and studying martial arts and various sciences, a Mary Sue seems like they're just naturally good at everything from the start. It's just that sometimes people either can't tell the difference, or the creator of the Mary Sue doesn't make it believable/reasonable enough to be any more than "My character is so hot no one can kill him haha don't you guys like him you should buy my books look at him fight".

Translating this over to settings can be mostly the same deal. You want your setting to be believable whether you're running it or playing in it; even if no reason is given there should be an assumption possible about the way the setting was formed. If a setting is all good like you suggest then by nature it's probably impossible unless you've got some sort of utopia/dystopia thing going on like you see in movies such as 1984, THX 1138, or Equilibrium. It's hard to read about a setting where everything is happy and peaceful and awesome without getting bored, if it stays that way.

I think silver meant a setting that is absolutely perfect. No flaws/logic breaks/things you dislike. A setting that makes you think "This is the absolute perfect setting."

Quote from: Loch BelthaddI think silver meant a setting that is absolutely perfect. No flaws/logic breaks/things you dislike. A setting that makes you think "This is the absolute perfect setting."

People can feel free to interpret what I mean.  The point is to start a discussion on settings that are "too good", but "too good" can mean a variety of things.

I just thought if there was some sort of litmus test for a character that's "too good" that maybe the CBG could come up with some guidelines for the same thing in settings.

Quote from: Loch BelthaddI think silver meant a setting that is absolutely perfect. No flaws/logic breaks/things you dislike. A setting that makes you think "This is the absolute perfect setting."

There're several on this board which I look at and go 'ugh! This makes me feel so insufficient! I'm giving up campaign building and going to live in a monastery for failed setting writers!' because they're so good. This doesn't make me disinterested in them, though.

What do we mean by absolutely perfect? Do we mean there's no internal conflict...? I would say that's far from a perfect or ideal setting.

I don't think a setting can be too perfect in terms of the definition "too well-crafted," just as a character can't be too perfect by being too well-crafted; Mary Sues, however aren't very well crafted because they don't have internal flaws.  Likewise, a "perfact" setting would, as Elemental Elf notes, have far too little conflict to keep it interesting.

While Light Dragon has shwon that even Utopia needs maintenance (the Culture novels of Iain M Banks also come to mind) a truly ideal setting/society would be unplayable.  Personally, I favor the dystopian approach (as I'm sure has been noted) because it means that conflict is everywhere.  Likewise I tend to enjoy anti-heroes, lunatics, rebels, and plain old villains much more than goody-two-shoes characters in fiction; of course, in a dystopian, setting, a goody-two-shoes character would generate a lot of conflict...

Quote from: SteerpikeWhile Light Dragon has shwon that even Utopia needs maintenance (the Culture novels of Iain M Banks also come to mind) a truly ideal setting/society would be unplayable.  Personally, I favor the dystopian approach (as I'm sure has been noted) because it means that conflict is everywhere.  Likewise I tend to enjoy anti-heroes, lunatics, rebels, and plain old villains much more than goody-two-shoes characters in fiction; of course, in a dystopian, setting, a goody-two-shoes character would generate a lot of conflict...

And not surprisingly I'm the exact opposite (which doesn't mean pure utopia, just a general feeling that the world is generally a worthwhile place to live, or at the very boring).  I used to think it was all about not wanting to feel depressed about people suffering (and that's part of it).  But having analyzed the situation it's because depressed worlds have a lack of opportunities to carry out my favorite activity: being an annoying little reminder of reality.  That's really hard when the reality around you is upstaging.

But to get back on topic I should amend my earlier statement: "Mary Sue settings" should also mean settings that a designer makes to the point at which they can't let go.  I've certainly heard the horror stories about GMs who have a pet setting such that they won't make an changes to accommidate player ideas, in some cases won't even let PCs have a meaningful impact on their world.  My thinking is that it could be easy to fall into that trap and would there be some self-critiquing process one could go through to realize they are too attached to a setting for it to work?

To me that would depend on what kind of change was being requested.  If it was a change that the players affected in-game - say for example, a well-conceived plot to assassinate a key political figure, thus plunging a kingdom into civil war, or something - I think it's unfair and poor DMing to disallow such a change purely because it would irreversably alter "your baby" (at least, within that particular iteration of the world, in that campaign).

If, on the other hand, the players insist that you arbitrarily include/exclude certain elements from your world right at the start purely on the basis of whim, I don't feel a DM should be obliged to comply, unless perhaps it's an element the player is genuinely made very uncomfortable by, in which case of course there are compromises to be made, since the players are supposed to be having fun.  But the DM is supposed to be having fun too, and their character is the world.  Just as I wouldn't insist that players speak or act a certain way while playing (even if I would have spoken or acted very differently) so, in my opinion, should players allow the DM full reign in world-creation - unless they're explicitly being invited to collaborate beyond the scope of their characters.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawBut to get back on topic I should amend my earlier statement: "Mary Sue settings" should also mean settings that a designer makes to the point at which they can't let go.  I've certainly heard the horror stories about GMs who have a pet setting such that they won't make an changes to accommidate player ideas, in some cases won't even let PCs have a meaningful impact on their world.  My thinking is that it could be easy to fall into that trap and would there be some self-critiquing process one could go through to realize they are too attached to a setting for it to work?

the question to ask yourself, if you're worried that you might be too attached to the setting: "when DM'ing a campaign in the setting, am I trying to tell the settings story at the cost of the players story?" if the answer is yes, then yep, I would say that's being too attached.  In my opinion, then a campaign settings purpose is to set the stage for the players adventure and story. if an campaign setting strays from that, then writting a novel might be a better outlet for ones creativity.

the quik and dirty self-critigueing question. "am I rail roading?"

Edit: something to add, to make myself more clear on a point, that I realised I as too unclear on after reading steerpikes post: I'm talking purely about in-game action, like in his first example.

Disclaimer: Nevermind the reasoning in this post. It probably doesn't exist.


Everyone in this setting is fundamentally above average. They are all appealing enough to charm and seduce whoever they please, intelligent enough to know when they are being seduced, and moral enough to wait out for True Love. Everyone finds True Love. They are sublimely likable, thus being to their obligatory bitter lifelong rival. They will, invariably, find their soul mate, and they will live Happily Ever After, with gratuitous drama.


How's that?

Heh so everyone has all 18s.  I wonder what society would actually look like if that were the case  - say, through genetic engineering; if the utopia was the result of the people in it, biologically, rather than predominantly social and non-genetic technological constructs.  A hyper-individualistic society, or a collectivist one?  Suppose it'd depend on a lot of other factors...

...rambles...

Quote from: SteerpikeHeh so everyone has all 18s.  I wonder what society would actually look like if that were the case  - say, through genetic engineering; if the utopia was the result of the people in it, biologically, rather than predominantly social and non-genetic technological constructs.  A hyper-individualistic society, or a collectivist one?  Suppose it'd depend on a lot of other factors...

...rambles...

Probably a collectivist society based around shared hedonism...

Sounds amazing.

But would there be muffins?