# OP MC?



## DarkGhost (Feb 8, 2019)

When it comes to main characters we all want to avoid the dreaded “Mary Sue” syndrome. (Is that a thing?) But I do have a question, is it alright to have your main character to be the best at something that gives them an extreme advantage above other people?

for instance Rian (the primary main character of my story) is the best swordsman, period! He often takes on more than one at the same time with ease. While he does come across some tough opponents, in toe to toe combat he always wins. Now there is a fight where he is cut up pretty bad by two brothers who are almost as good as he is, he only wins when a friend shows up to help. 
so give me your thoughts on having a op mc!


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 8, 2019)

D.G., my MC makes superman look like a sissy... Seriously, he's designed, built... created... to take on gods. 

And win.

But it's all he can do to survive the people around him, and his own mind/thinking.

...so in the case of my story, it'd better be okay for the MC to be _really_ good at a lot of things, and be more than a little bad at what matters the most to _him_.

( At least without the help and guidance from those around him that matter most to him. )



G.D.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 8, 2019)

Yes it is 'alright'.

It's your character, you can do what you want.

As far as whether that kind of character will be effective or likeable, that's a whole other matter and you aren't going to get an endorsement based on a couple vague summary lines.

I will say generally speaking characters who are the best at _everything_ are pretty boring and/or unrealistic. Even Archilles needs a heel. You mentioned him being the 'best at _something_' which I assume means he still has weaknesses and flaws - but you didn't mention them.


----------



## JJBuchholz (Feb 8, 2019)

DarkGhost said:


> When it comes to main characters we all want to avoid the dreaded “Mary Sue” syndrome. (Is that a thing?) But I do have a question, is it alright to have your main character to be the best at something that gives them an extreme advantage above other people?
> 
> for instance Rian (the primary main character of my story) is the best swordsman, period! He often takes on more than one at the same time with ease. While he does come across some tough opponents, in toe to toe combat he always wins. Now there is a fight where he is cut up pretty bad by two brothers who are almost as good as he is, he only wins when a friend shows up to help.



In my series entitled 'Darksword', the main character, a one Darius Darksword, is a master swordsman himself. The elemental powers he receives in the beginning of the series also enhances his sword skills, and morphs the sword itself to a more powerful version of his own.

That being said, he had held his own against enemies in the series, both solitary, as well as an entire army. But.... he has also been brought close to death a couple of times, having been bested in combat by a deadly adversity, or overwhelmed to the point where he had to regroup. Sometimes his elemental powers have saved him, and sometimes his best friend (and master archer) has helped, and once his beloved (wife) saved the day.

As much as I like Darius being the champion of everything, I do not always want him to win too easily, and not learn anything either. Darius is mortal, after all. I have even killed him once, as a sacrifice to save everyone he cared about from a higher power. The Gods of the world he resides on (the mythical Dragons) revived him for being noble and giving his own life to save innocents.

Basically, if you make your MC out to be nearly invincible, the storytelling aspect and character development will be minimal, at best.

Hope this helped, and if you want to know more about Darius, I'll happily oblige.

-JJB


----------



## moderan (Feb 8, 2019)

It's all right but it's boring as hell.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Feb 8, 2019)

DarkGhost said:


> When it comes to main characters we all want to avoid the dreaded “Mary Sue” syndrome. (Is that a thing?) But I do have a question, is it alright to have your main character to be the best at something that gives them an extreme advantage above other people?
> 
> for instance Rian (the primary main character of my story) is the best swordsman, period! He often takes on more than one at the same time with ease. While he does come across some tough opponents, in toe to toe combat he always wins. Now there is a fight where he is cut up pretty bad by two brothers who are almost as good as he is, he only wins when a friend shows up to help.
> so give me your thoughts on having a op mc!



There are lots of main characters that are really great at something. Some are really great at a few or even several things. Often they are referred to as "heros". Many readers find them inspiring. And some find them boring.

Remember that writing is subjective. There's not really a right or wrong about most of it. Things that break "rules" are popular, and well crafted books languish, and visa versa. There's no truly magic formula that can guarantee success. But if YOU enjoy what you write, then at least one reader will be satisfied.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 8, 2019)

moderan said:


> It's all right but it's boring as hell.



It certainly can be, but there are ways around that.

My MC won a fight against an entire race of odd-ball 'ravagers'... then their ship blew up shortly after he left it.

Didn't hurt him too badly, but it completely destroyed the A.I. that ran his armor.

Armor that he really needed to pull off  what he had in mind to do next.

...and since that A.I. couldn't be easily repaired or replaced, another solution had to be found.

...which caused even further problems.

So, even if the MC is over-powered and nearly indestructible... not everything or everyone he wants or needs is.

And as I mentioned earlier, in a lot of ways he is his own worst enemy, and has a hard time 'getting out of his own way' at times.

There's also a character in the story that, well... they cancel each other out.

Neither can beat the other. If they fight, it can go on indefinitely, without a winner, or both of 'em lose. ( They run each other through at the same time, on one occasion. )


G.D.


----------



## Cephus (Feb 8, 2019)

As far as I'm concerned, at the beginning of a story, no character should  be the best at everything, in fact, they shouldn't  be the best at anything. They need room to grow and evolve. Maybe by the very end, they might be competent at some things but certainly they should never be great at everything.  That's just absurdly unrealistic.


----------



## Dluuni (Feb 8, 2019)

It's okay for a character to be The Best There Is At The Thing, as long as most of their problems are not solvable via The Thing. If the Ultimate Swordsman gets put into a gladiatorial arena, then the story cannot be about 'winning the gladiator matches'. Because it's assumed that they will win. It's not bad that they get put there for some reason, but that's not the conflict. They're solving a mystery or trying to get information from someone or some such thing.


----------



## moderan (Feb 8, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> It certainly can be, but there are ways around that.
> 
> My MC won a fight against an entire race of odd-ball 'ravagers'... then their ship blew up shortly after he left it.
> 
> ...



Yeah. I've read thousands of comic books. And this is all comic-book-level stuff. That doesn't necessarily mean good or bad, just it is what it is. I wasn't talking about 'your' characters or story, just in general. My things transact on those levels fairly often as there's considerable demigod activity and Lovecraft/Smith gods show up from time to time, plus I deal with AI and nanotech.


----------



## velo (Feb 8, 2019)

"I have a very specific set of skills..." 

OP MCs have to be handled very carefully, IMO.  If they are OP they also have to have weaknesses and vulnerabilities (so...can they really be said to be OP?)  

Let's take comic books as a guide. I was a big x-men reader as a teen and read a fair few other marvel titles, but I only read batman from DC.  It took me a couple decades to realise why.  DC often creates gods.  Look at Superman, he's so far from our experience that we can't relate to him.  But Bats is, under the suit, just a guy.  Yeah he's got a lot of cash, tech, and training but these are all things we can related to in some form of our experience.  

Marvel did a much better job of building 3-dimensional characters.  The x-men, when I read them, had many storylines about being persecuted and discriminated against.  They often evinced fear of the rest of humanity.  They were relatable because they had human flaws.  I understood Wolverine in a way I could never understand Kal-El.  Logan was, underneath it all, a flawed human being.  

A character that has tremendous gifts also needs to be given tremendous humanity (even if it's an alien...Spock was relatable because he was so freaking human in his struggle to control his passions) otherwise it's going to be a pretty boring story.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 8, 2019)

moderan said:


> I wasn't talking about 'your' characters or story, just in general. My things transact on those levels fairly often as there's considerable demigod activity and Lovecraft/Smith gods show up from time to time, plus I deal with AI and nanotech.



I know. I'm simply using the only example I've currently got to offer.

My story does a lot of the same, btw... a mixture of science... nanotech, quantum physics, A.I., 'constructed intelligence', etc. 

All of it used to explain magic, legends, and myths, as well as to give some 'reality' to what's basically pure fantasy.

Hell, I even have... er, had... a race of aliens that were entangled on the quantum level. One of them couldn't be killed because the entanglement, and the mass of the rest of the race simply restored 'em to their previous state. ( And yeah, I gave myself headaches trying to work that one out, and make it work for the story. )

And the MC, J.D., is way over-powered. To the point that if it were just him butting heads with the bad guys, it'd be boring as hell.

So, it depends on the people around him, and his own psychology, to 'liven him up', and make him interesting.

I mean, think about it; a fellow with the ability to destroy gods, but all the usual human foibles, hang-ups, and insecurities?

...and the fact he just plain doesn't want the job, but feels obligated to take it any way? 

Things get interesting, to say the least. Especially when the women-folk start getting bent out of shape and fighting over his... affections.

Add all that together, plus throw him some curves with the things that _can_ hurt or damage him... well, that's how I made him - and the story - a lot more surprising than it could be. 

...I hope.

Oh, and speaking of comic books... were you aware that early in Superman's career/existence, there was no kryptonite? It was added later on precisely so he would have a weakness, and to give the writers a mechanism to kick his legs out from under him, every now and then, in order to keep the stories from getting monotonous. 

He's also been powered both up and down over the years, for the same reason. 

Anyway, it's just an example of how a massively over-powered and capable MC can be made interesting, in spite of the fact he really should be one boring sum'bitch.


G.D.


----------



## velo (Feb 8, 2019)

Honestly, I always found Sups boring.  Even in the movies.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 8, 2019)

velo said:


> Honestly, I always found Sups boring.  Even in the movies.



Him being a big freakin' boyscout doesn't help matters. 

A few bad habits would make him a lot more interesting.

Batman, on the other hand... well, there's that whole 'mental health' issue... and the willingness to bend the rules to get what he's after.

I'm also with ya on the Marvel vs DC thing... and I started collecting and reading comics in the early 70s. The X-Men were a favorite as well.

Oh, and speaking of 'Super powered and boring'... I was hoping when the Supergirl TV series started, we'd get more of the angst-y, angry teenager from the animated stuff. She was/is fun.

But the one in the TV series is just too... sweet. She'd be a lot more interesting if she'd lose her temper more often, and really just bitch-slap some of the folks that desperately need it.

So I guess what I'm saying is that an over-powered goody two-shoes is the ultimate yawn-fest for me.

People like Deadpool, Wolverine, Harley Quinn and Lobo are much more interesting.

So I suppose the moral of the story is make your over-powered MC a bit of a flawed asshole, if you want him to be appealing.  *shrug*

One other thing... Let your MC forget every once in a while that everybody around him/her isn't as invulnerable to harm as he/she is... and let it cost 'em.

Doesn't matter if it's something or someone they need, or a relationship, or what. It's a good way good way to make 'em more... human and relatable?


G.D.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Feb 8, 2019)

Good call on superman who is considered to be by a lot of people a "mary sue" character. But  he needs to make choices from time to time sometime such as exposing his identity to louis lane and other people or save the world. That is the decision he has to make, often with a great cost. Does this add depth, probably not a whole lot. Kryptonite isn't a mental weakness. I read that superman's decisions were like having a bomb under the table. He always had two choices, bad ones.

 Now how to create a flawed character is something I hope I understand to do. Just writing helps to an extent have something worth polishing. But since it is a random act, basing characters on real people has proven elusive to me. Maybe make a character behave without defining their traits is how I create a character. 

Mary sue by popular definition always wins. There are many definitions of what it is. I think shallow characterization is always going to be the main problem. I'd explore how to weaken the character to be more sympathetic to his or her flaws. Flaws obviously for me can be a strength in the right situation, or a weakness. We should  think the more weakness the more the character will make bad decisions. I call flaws signature behaviors of people I know and have seen, and this is what I will consider a flaw. Sometimes positives are flaws. Doesn't like to spend money on himself or herself is such an example, that could prove a good example. It's a habit in a person I know. So I will call that a flaw. The mary sue charcater still needs flaws. They can win their opponent and adversary, but that's why people consider them boring afterwards.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 9, 2019)

What exactly is the purpose in such characters, though? What are they for?

It's easy to write 'being good'. It's easy to write 'doing well'. We all know what that means. We've all seen Tom Brady play football. So the motivation behind creating a character that exemplifies goodness/talent to such an extreme and ostentatious degree seems kind of dubious. It's essentially a form of jock worship, isn't it?

I realize modern imaginings of superheroes have tried to introduce complexity and intrigue (and politics, dog help us) to these characters. I find that even more annoying. It always feels like some marketing department got wind that they can broaden their consumer base with a bit of moral ambiguity and 'personality' and exploring whatever 'issue' is in vogue. Next thing  we have ancillary subplots tacked on. Ones that have 'relevance'. Suddenly James Bond gets sad. Suddenly Batman has mental health issues. Suddenly Superman is haunted by his failure to save a drowning infant. Suddenly Captain America misses his mother. Suddenly we have 'depth' and 'humanity' in the friggin' Joker. It's bull, IMO. 

Not to pontificate on the subject. I get it, and if it tickles your fancy then that is fine. It's not like it's going anywhere. Little kids will certainly always have a place in their heart for a square-jaw in a red-cape. I just think this character type's day in the sun as anything meaningful is long over. 

Considering all the interesting manifestations of 'heroism' that you find in modern protagonists, having yet another tough guy or girl with a sword and a heart of gold just seems super regressive.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 9, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I just think this character type's day in the sun as anything meaningful is long over.



Actually, if money is the objective, it's only really just beginning.

Look at the movie industry right now. Aquaman made over a billion dollars... Black Panther got into the Oscars...

...and the comics industry is booming.

So again, if writing for the purpose of getting published and making money is the goal, a person could do far worse that come up with some kind of 'Super Hero'.

The stuff I was reading when I was 7 or 8 years old that everyone thought was silly or a waste of time  is now 'mainstream', and being taken seriously. Both because of the audience it's finding, and the money it's making.

Hey, everybody says readers are changing, and that a writer has to change with 'em...  *shrug*

G.D.
P.S. Batman has always had mental health issues. Hell, his parents were killed right in front of him, and he dresses up like a bat and goes out at night and beats up criminals.  Think about that, and tell me where you find 'sane' in there anywhere.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 9, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> Actually, if money is the objective, it's only really just beginning.
> 
> Look at the movie industry right now. Aquaman made over a billion dollars... Black Panther got into the Oscars...
> 
> ...



Aye, but there's a difference between adapting to the reader and writing that is regressive, right?

The market *is* changing, you're right, but it's not, by and large, changing toward the _traditional_ ideas of superheroes and the kind of traditional "roundhouse kick the bad guy" plots...is it? That was the point I was trying to make with my railing about 'modern interpretations'. If the old-style worked, they would not have to be reinventing.

What _those_ are (again, IMO) is a cynical ploy to blend an existing subculture fan base, the people who really liked the superheroes, mostly children and a few oddball adults, and make them appealing to the intelligentsia by reinventing them into 'complex' characters. Characters whose attributes and actions can be related to contemporary, relevant issues whether it be mental health, racial identity, gender politics, whatever's trending on Twitter this week. 

And that's fine, really it is. I have no major objection to the messaging or the idea-in-theory (I just don't feel it is sincere) and this thread isn't about that anyway. My point is simply that this proves to me that ol' "Macho Man With His Sword" isn't where the market is going when it comes to _new _characters by _new _authors. At least not outside of certain niches, maybe, that could be discussed. I would sure like to hear the reasoning if anybody disagrees with this.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Feb 9, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Aye, but there's a difference between adapting to the reader and writing that is regressive, right?
> 
> The market *is* changing, you're right, but it's not, by and large, changing toward the _traditional_ ideas of superheroes and the kind of traditional "roundhouse kick the bad guy" plots...is it? That was the point I was trying to make with my railing about 'modern interpretations'. If the old-style worked, they would not have to be reinventing.
> 
> ...



This argument is old. Look at classic books and movies with boy scout, great at stuff characters. They're still being watched and read. Why, if modern audiences don't like that kind of character? And like everything in art, labeling something as 'regressive' is a subjective view.

Some will always like/love the good guy winning every time. Some want flaws they can identify with. There's a wide variety of readers out there. It's not a one-size-fits-all scenario. Unlikely stories end up huge audience draws.

I think there's room for each of us to write what we like to write.


----------



## Harper J. Cole (Feb 9, 2019)

Dluuni said:


> It's okay for a character to be The Best There Is At The Thing, as long as most of their problems are not solvable via The Thing. If the Ultimate Swordsman gets put into a gladiatorial arena, then the story cannot be about 'winning the gladiator matches'. Because it's assumed that they will win. It's not bad that they get put there for some reason, but that's not the conflict. They're solving a mystery or trying to get information from someone or some such thing.



Agree with this - make sure to put your character in situations where their special skills are useless, and see how they manage when calling on weaker attributes.


----------



## Tettsuo (Feb 9, 2019)

DarkGhost said:


> When it comes to main characters we all want to avoid the dreaded “Mary Sue” syndrome. (Is that a thing?) But I do have a question, is it alright to have your main character to be the best at something that gives them an extreme advantage above other people?
> 
> for instance Rian (the primary main character of my story) is the best swordsman, period! He often takes on more than one at the same time with ease. While he does come across some tough opponents, in toe to toe combat he always wins. Now there is a fight where he is cut up pretty bad by two brothers who are almost as good as he is, he only wins when a friend shows up to help.
> so give me your thoughts on having a op mc!


Sure it's fine.

But, don't make your story centered around sword fighting. The result would be a foregone conclusion and provide the audience zero tension.


----------



## JJBuchholz (Feb 9, 2019)

Harper J. Cole said:


> Agree with this - make sure to put your character in situations where their special skills are useless, and see how they manage when calling on weaker attributes.



That does work well in certain situations, as does giving the MC a formidable antagonist that is at the very least his equal, if not a little greater. In this case, those 'weaker attributes' usually come in handy.

-JJB


----------



## DarkGhost (Feb 9, 2019)

Tettsuo said:


> Sure it's fine.
> 
> But, don't make your story centered around sword fighting. The result would be a foregone conclusion and provide the audience zero tension.



I hear you loud and clear, there is quite a few sword fights, but not all involve this particular character. I have several main characters and story arcs but Rian’s is very center stage one.


----------



## DarkGhost (Feb 9, 2019)

Harper J. Cole said:


> Agree with this - make sure to put your character in situations where their special skills are useless, and see how they manage when calling on weaker attributes.


Yes, and I am planning on doing this.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 9, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> ...My point is simply that this proves to me that ol' "Macho Man With His Sword" isn't where the market is going when it comes to _new _characters by _new _authors. At least not outside of certain niches, maybe, that could be discussed...



I'm pretty sure the kinds of characters you're talking about here haven't been around since the late 1950s. Most faded out back in the '40s, with Doc Savage, The Avenger/Justice Inc. and The Shadow. And even they show back up, now and then.

The days when Batman carried a gun are long gone. Superman being nothing more than a modern version of Hercules is past as well.

And making stories relevant to contemporary issues has been going on since the 60s, at very least.

( Star Trek did it, back in '66, and the comics industry has been doing it a bit longer. The X-Men came into existence in 1963. )

And if you wanna see a complex character, read the 1970s, Neil Adams run of Batman... which is the source material for a lot of what you see in recent movies.  

The fact is, very few of the people reading/watching the super hero offerings these days have a clue about the origins of the characters and characterizations they see these days. It's the "Comic Book Geeks" that know the most about it.

So, Superman really is about the last hold-out for the type you're talking about. And even he has become a much more complex character.
( By the way, I grinned the first time I saw that they'd given Wonder Woman back her sword. So there's you a _very_ strong WOMAN with a sword. )

And that's why my last suggestion to the OP is to make his story about WHO his character is, as much as it's about WHAT his character does.



G.D.


----------



## Jeko (Feb 9, 2019)

If a character is the best at something, I want to know how they became the best at it. If they were just born or destined to be that way, that's boring. Tell me what it cost them. Tell me what they have to have in the back of their mind whenever they use their amazing strength or skill. Power earned without conflict is generally unbelievable in fiction.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 9, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> I'm pretty sure the kinds of characters you're talking about here haven't been around since the late 1950s. Most faded out back in the '40s, with Doc Savage, The Avenger/Justice Inc. and The Shadow. And even they show back up, now and then.
> 
> 
> The days when Batman carried a gun are long gone. Superman being nothing more than a modern version of Hercules is past as well.




Yes and that was the point I was making: The OP wants to create a new character in 2019 who (by his description) is effectively a throwback. 

...Which he is welcome to do, but I wouldn't read it.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 9, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Yes and that was the point I was making: The OP wants to create a new character in 2019 who (by his description) is effectively a throwback.
> 
> ...Which he is welcome to do, but I wouldn't read it.



I wouldn't say he's a throw-back... Especially since he hasn't told us a helluva lot about him.

Oh, anybody recognize this line?
*
"I'm the best there is at what I do."*

No?  That one is from Wolverine. Nearly indestructible, damn near unstoppable, and not a nice guy when he's pissed off.

...and one of the most popular characters you'll find. Been around since The Incredible Hulk #180 and #181. (October 1974)






G.D.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 9, 2019)

Jack of all trades said:


> This argument is old. Look at classic books and movies with boy scout, great at stuff characters. They're still being watched and read. Why, if modern audiences don't like that kind of character? And like everything in art, labeling something as 'regressive' is a subjective view.
> 
> Some will always like/love the good guy winning every time. Some want flaws they can identify with. There's a wide variety of readers out there. It's not a one-size-fits-all scenario. Unlikely stories end up huge audience draws.
> 
> I think there's room for each of us to write what we like to write.



Okay. But this is a discussion about what we think works, right?

You are entitled to disagree, and I would enjoy that, but parroting 'it's subjective' and 'write what you like' seems like nothing but a creative arts themed take on virtue signaling: You are repeating a truism in lieu of taking any defined view on the topic, and framing it as though it is a counterpoint to what I am saying. When you know full well I never said or implied people could not write what they want. Of course writing is _subjective_. I am talking about what I _think_ works/does not work and why. That is all.

As far as your point, just because people read old books doesn't mean they should write like them and expect it to work - IMO. I like medieval castles but I don't think they are good houses for the 21st century. Appreciation does not need to lead to emulation. 

Now if writing such characters is your bag, cool, but if defending two-dimensional characters using classic novels isn't the definition of regressive thinking then I don't know what is.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 9, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> ...but if defending two-dimensional characters using classic novels as justification isn't the definition regressive thinking then I don't know what is.



Now where in the hell, anywhere in this thread, is anybody arguing FOR two-dimensional characters?

You're just arguing against something here that nobody's even remotely suggesting in the first place.

In fact, here:


luckyscars said:


> Aye, but there's a difference between adapting to the reader and writing that is regressive, right?
> 
> The market *is* changing, you're right, but it's not, by and large, changing toward the _traditional_ ideas of superheroes and the kind of traditional "roundhouse kick the bad guy" plots...is it? That was the point I was trying to make with my railing about 'modern interpretations'. If the old-style worked, they would not have to be reinventing.
> 
> ...



...you seem to be arguing AGAINST making those characters far more than two-dimensional.

By the way... Aquaman... the boring-ass guy who breathes underwater and talks to fish... is really freakin' popular right now.

...unless you think a movie can be unpopular and gross a billion dollars?

( By the way, they turned him into a super-strong surfer-dude, more or less, in the Justice League movie, which led to the rise in his popularity. )

Sorry, 'Scars, but it looks very much like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, and possibly just because you simply don't like something.

You and Jodie Foster might make a good match. ( She hates comic book movies, and has said so. )


G.D.


----------



## JJBuchholz (Feb 9, 2019)

Jeko said:


> If a character is the best at something, I want to know how they became the best at it. If they were just born or destined to be that way, that's boring. Tell me what it cost them. Tell me what they have to have in the back of their mind whenever they use their amazing strength or skill. Power earned without conflict is generally unbelievable in fiction.



I don't understand why you think a character who was born or destined to to be the best at something has to lose something, or pay a cost to be the best. While I agree this could help the character development in some cases, shouldn't the reader be able to draw their own conclusions and actually think about why this happened the way it did? If one were to give the reader too much backstory and information, that would become boring in a hurry. 

When I read a work of fiction, I don't want everything right away, and enjoy deducing things for myself.

-JJB


----------



## Theglasshouse (Feb 9, 2019)

It's a preexisting plot situation involving the past and present. The fact the Mary sue character got an emotional wound this way seems to be a good plot device. The worse the past is the more potential for conflicts. It's something that can be ordered chronologically. Personally it seems plotting it this way can create some obstacles for the main character.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 9, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> Now where in the hell, anywhere in this thread, is anybody arguing FOR two-dimensional characters?
> 
> 
> You're just arguing against something here that nobody's even remotely suggesting in the first place.




https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/two-dimensional


"If you describe fictional characters as two-dimensional, you are critical of them because they are very simple and not realistic enough to be taken seriously."


I find it hard to imagine a protagonist who can sword fight seven men at the same time and win as being anything remotely complex, much less realistic. But feel free to prove me wrong with your character who 'makes superman look like a sissy'. 

As for this thread, it has eaten itself into a coma. Needs digested then flushed. Shall reserve further value judgments and go see Jodi. Have a good day/night.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 9, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I find it hard to imagine...



Yeah, that too is pretty obvious.

And no, I'll not be wasting my time with a closed mind.

Do say 'Hi' to Jodie for us.

By the way... How many folks are familiar with the name 'Thanos'?  Probably a lot more than were 20 years ago... He's a pretty fierce guy. Also pretty complex. :friendly_wink:

G.D.


----------



## Dyeeeee (Feb 10, 2019)

Op characters are fun to write at least from my viewpoint. What I do when I realized I've overpowered a character is invent ways to defeat him. 

Not like pulling 'kryptonite' or 'black zetsus' out of my butt, but actually taking my time and coming up with an unfavorable scenario for them. As long as sword fighting isn't the make or break for your combat system, this should be very easy to accomplish.

Hope I helped.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Feb 10, 2019)

JJBuchholz said:


> I don't understand why you think a character who was born or destined to to be the best at something has to lose something, or pay a cost to be the best. While I agree this could help the character development in some cases, shouldn't the reader be able to draw their own conclusions and actually think about why this happened the way it did? If one were to give the reader too much backstory and information, that would become boring in a hurry.
> 
> When I read a work of fiction, I don't want everything right away, and enjoy deducing things for myself.
> 
> -JJB



Characters, and real people, who are outstanding at something have challenges already built in. There's no need to invent anything. And the more things they excel at, the more they struggle with one particular area. That area is social situations.

It's not even because of the stereotypical not understanding or having social skills. It's because others will always be trying to knock them down a peg or two. And the better they are at something, the further down others will want to knock them.

So the sword fighting hero will be challenged, possibly to the point of exhaustion. No matter great you are at sword fighting, when tired you will make mistakes. When hungry, you will miss obvious points of attack. When he enters an eating establishment, he may be denied service because the owner doesn't want the swordsman attracting trouble. A simple stroll through town might trigger a duel -- just because some narcissistic fool wants to brag about having "defeated" the great swordsman. (Those narcissistic types always lie.)

These are common, everyday things that too many writers overlook.

Sometimes folks make it harder than is necessary.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 10, 2019)

There's something about this whole 'two-dimensional' thing I wanna address.

And that's the fact that such a character will be pretty much the same with or without any hyper-abilities.

It's not what they can or can't do that makes them believable, it's how they act all the way around, and how they handle both themselves and whatever situation they find themselves in.

If they only ever display the same emotion - or none at all - or if they don't show any change or growth as the story progresses, then they are very much two-dimensional. 

The same is true if they don't relate to the people around them in a varying manner.

Take Data from Star Trek: The next Generation, for example.

He could have been a very different character, and one a whole lot less interesting.

But his own interest in and attempts to learn, change, and become better gave him personality, and made him believable... even without the _usual_ emotional displays. It made him a person and not just a machine.

The same's gotta be true of any character. And if it is, whether they can lift a few metric tons, or can't pick themselves up off the floor won't make any difference. They'll still be believable if the writer has done their job right.

'Two-Dimensional' has nothing to do with whether a person _chooses_ not to believe a character could or should be able to do a particular thing, or just doesn't like it. That's entirely on them.


G.D.


----------



## Jeko (Feb 10, 2019)

JJBuchholz said:


> I don't understand why you think a character who was born or destined to to be the best at something has to lose something, or pay a cost to be the best. While I agree this could help the character development in some cases, shouldn't the reader be able to draw their own conclusions and actually think about why this happened the way it did? If one were to give the reader too much backstory and information, that would become boring in a hurry.
> 
> When I read a work of fiction, I don't want everything right away, and enjoy deducing things for myself.
> 
> -JJB



I never said you have to know it right away, I just want to know it at some point in the story. Preferably before the fact they're the bst at something starts becoming samey, because it will eventually become samey if there's no conflict behind it.

A character who's the best at something with no price attached - that's the definition of a Mary Sue for me.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Feb 10, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Okay. But this is a discussion about what we think works, right?
> 
> You are entitled to disagree, and I would enjoy that, but parroting 'it's subjective' and 'write what you like' seems like nothing but a creative arts themed take on virtue signaling: You are repeating a truism in lieu of taking any defined view on the topic, and framing it as though it is a counterpoint to what I am saying. When you know full well I never said or implied people could not write what they want. Of course writing is _subjective_. I am talking about what I _think_ works/does not work and why. That is all.
> 
> ...



What stands the test of time has potential to be popular in something new.

A character that's good, great or best at something is NOT guaranteed two dimensional.

I get that you dislike such characters, but that doesn't make your view the only one or even the most popular.

Harry Potter is an example of something not that old with a character who was very good at something, and a good human being. The popularity of those books convinces me there's still a market for such characters.


----------



## Cephus (Feb 10, 2019)

velo said:


> "I have a very specific set of skills..."
> 
> OP MCs have to be handled very carefully, IMO.  If they are OP they also have to have weaknesses and vulnerabilities (so...can they really be said to be OP?)
> 
> ...



I read comics for about 40 years and they have a cyclical nature that, while it might work in comics, it absolutely doesn't work in most literature.  The hero gets beaten by the bad guy, the hero has to dig deep to summon up new strength, defeats the bad guy, lather, rinse, repeat.  After a while of this, the hero is so absurdly powerful that nobody can challenge him so they reboot the character, reset everything back to the beginning and it all starts over again.  DC and Marvel are both guilty of this, although IMO, DC is much worse.  But you really can't do this in most literature because, over the long term, readers won't accept the character being reset.  For something like James Bond, where the MC never really changes, it's fine because they never improve, they never have to get better, they are already the  best at what they do, yadda yadda yadda.  But most genres today don't allow for that kind of character, it pretty much ended in the 70s or 80s and has never been very popular since.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 10, 2019)

Most Literature doesn't keep a character running as long as comics have, therefore less need for any changes.

Then there's the matter of multiple writers coming and going, each having their own take on things... and the feedback from the readers.

That can and does make a mess of things.

Here, have a look at this, if you wanna see how much of a mess: The Weird History of Supergirl & Power Girl

Most literature simply doesn't have the problem of character longevity that comics have.

And movies get reboots, so...



G.D.


----------



## Sir-KP (Feb 10, 2019)

You can and nobody's gonna stop you, but you gotta make sure there is something that reader or viewer can enjoy following through his OP journey mowing people down.

So what do you have for your OP swordsman? Is it his swordfighting style? Is it his wits and tricks that solve any obstacle?

Your best example is Steven Seagal here. He's always a badass in movies. Anyone he touches basically flips around or broke their joints and that's where the entertainment come from.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 10, 2019)

Sir-KP is right, you're gonna want to break his skills down so the reader understands what's going on and why.

Sword fights are hard to describe in the first place, and most real ones wouldn't look anything like the movies usually present them.

So what is it about your guy? Speed? The ability to be in the right place at the right time, so when that opening shows up, he can use it, while leaving none for anyone else to stab him?

Strength won't be of much use to a swordsman, but stamina will... 

And a good dose of luck won't hurt matters either.

Oh, and the ability to stay on the outside of a group during a fight, so they get in their own way is a 'must' as well.
( He gets in the middle of 5 or 6 armed men, I don't care how good he is, he's a pin cushion. )

Yes, I had many strange hobbies when I was younger... including swords and learning how to use them.


G.D.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Feb 10, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I like medieval castles but I don't think they are good houses for the 21st century.



Why ever not? If I had the money to build myself a mansion, naturally I'd make it a castle. . . 

Ok, but seriously, I don't think the term "regressive" (or "progressive," for that matter) is super useful in talking about what makes good fiction. There's an assumption underlying the term that old ideas and techniques are inherently bad, whereas new ones are inherently good. People use pretty much the same characters, plots, and themes over and over anyways, and, as you mentioned, the new takes on the old heroes aren't necessarily good. 

A super-powerful character is fine as long as the conflict and tension remain. Victory should not come easily to him/her. In fact, that's what makes those "hero with a sword" characters so cool--the massive obstacles they encounter to achieve their goal. I'll always have a place in my heart for really good good guys with big weapons and really bad bad guys with even bigger weapons. I don't think those kinds of stories will ever be truly outdated--even if they may be out of fashion for a couple decades or so.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 10, 2019)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> Why ever not? If I had the money to build myself a mansion, naturally I'd make it a castle. . .



There's a guy here in TN that lives in this:




He runs the TN Ren festival.

...I guess it's how he pays his mortgage.

I was there twenty-odd years ago, when he first started building it, and got a chance to talk to him.

At the time, he only had a phone down in the kitchen, and his bedroom was at the top of that left tower.

Said he always hated hearing the phone ring, 'cause he was usually upstairs when it did, and far too often it was a wrong number.

...I wonder if he ever installed elevators.



G.D.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Feb 11, 2019)

Arrow,

I think mostly we agree. I would like to expand a little on some of your points.



ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> Why ever not? If I had the money to build myself a mansion, naturally I'd make it a castle. . .



There's good stuff that's now being used that came from (inspired by) castles. Learning from the old can be beneficial. Too many prefer to discard the old.

The thickness of castle and stone house walls is being used in green house building, in case anyone was wondering.



ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> Ok, but seriously, I don't think the term "regressive" (or "progressive," for that matter) is super useful in talking about what makes good fiction. There's an assumption underlying the term that old ideas and techniques are inherently bad, whereas new ones are inherently good. People use pretty much the same characters, plots, and themes over and over anyways, and, as you mentioned, the new takes on the old heroes aren't necessarily good.



It's the use of inherently negative terms that I object to more than the subjective like or dislike expressed. Doing something that used to be popular can be labeled regressive or retro. Characters that excel at one or a few things can be labeled two dimensional or inspirational. I agree that such characters may not be everyone's choice, but I object to a blanket "do not use" attachment. 



ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> A super-powerful character is fine as long as the conflict and tension remain. Victory should not come easily to him/her. In fact, that's what makes those "hero with a sword" characters so cool--the massive obstacles they encounter to achieve their goal. I'll always have a place in my heart for really good good guys with big weapons and really bad bad guys with even bigger weapons. I don't think those kinds of stories will ever be truly outdated--even if they may be out of fashion for a couple decades or so.



As I said before, there's always challenges.


----------



## Rojack79 (Feb 12, 2019)

The best advice I can give, (I didn't go through and read all five pages of this thread.) Is to make you villain stronger than your hero. No matter how good, awesome, capable, powerful your hero is there always has to be someone who's better. Otherwise there no conflict and thus no story.


----------



## JJBuchholz (Feb 13, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> The best advice I can give, (I didn't go through and read all five pages of this thread.) Is to make you villain stronger than your hero. No matter how good, awesome, capable, powerful your hero is there always has to be someone who's better. Otherwise there no conflict and thus no story.



Strength works, but sometimes a villain that is much more cunning sets an interesting tone. A baddie that can out think and out plan the protagonist can add a lot more to the story than a baddie who only uses sheer strength. This would force the hero to think outside the box and come at the problem from a direction in which he wouldn't normally. Taking the hero way out of his comfort zone makes for some interesting character development as well.

-JJB


----------

