If anyone needs a reference for the comment about there being no jet engines I'm afraid this one is a little obscure http://skyrates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4616&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=55 --Tethran 01:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't add it here as the Skybrary does not deal in such vagueries. If a player is godmoding/powergaming/whatever then they are being inappropriate regardless of their character.
No matter how legitimate your complaints are, character design advice always turns into "a Mary Sue is any character you don't like" section, or else is a list of ridiculous examples that are probably just trolling... oh, except for certain players who get a special exemption because they're the only person who could ever do it well.
Mostly, telling players what they shouldn't be doing doesn't help them understand what they should be doing.
If you want to give character design advice, Wikia has a blog function (which requires a user account) or just post on the forum. -- Kasarn 04:57, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
I don't know who put it up originally, but that was possibly the friendliest, least offensive way I've ever seen someone bring up the concept of Mary Sues. Indeed, "telling players what they shouldn't be doing" appears to be a gross mischaracterisation of the text to me, given that it included constructive suggestions.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, please justify your unilateral decision, because from over here it reads like personal offense being disguised in your own 'vagueries' as official skybrary policy.--Martin Andreysin 06:36, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
- If by "included constructive suggestions" you mean "doesn't really say anything". Compare with Sadistica's version, which says the same thing in a direct fashion.
- As for policy, I'm pretty much the only active editor, so this is a democracy consisting of me and my ten fingers... and they're a bunch of yes men. Calvin can give me the boot any time he likes (as can the other absent bureaucrats), but it's likely that nothing would get done. If you could find another editor, I'd probably lose interest and leave, just like I did with the Elona Wiki.
- Why did I make this decision? Because the last attempt was a trainwreck (and that is what I was referring to, and I could've been more clear about that), so as far as I'm concerned, any character advice will be scrutinized. I think Sadi's version is better than what was written here, but it could use a bit of cleaning up. Checking, Sadi's guide could probably use a bit of linking.
Everyone wants to be special, and be really good at things, or really popular. But how many people do you know who are ninja-ace pilot-rocket scientists? Not many, I'd bet.
- What is this trying to say? Who are "you" and "I"? Okay, it's obvious enough what it means, but it needs to be rewritten and could just be removed outright with no loss.
To make a character believeable, it's good if they have something, or several somethings, that they are not good at, as well as things that they are.
- This could be rewritten with fewer commas. In any case, unless being bad at something is a part of their backstory or personality, there's no need to think about it in advance.
If they are perfect at everything, and never get anything wrong, they have no room for growth.
- A character who plays to their strengths and either avoids or hides their weaknesses may appear perfect. It's not about character growth, but about creating an engaging RP. Characters who are good at everything are boring because they're good at everything and thus not as engaging to the other players, but that doesn't mean they're the only "bad characters". You can have a decent character and still play it poorly. I know it's why I don't RP: I'd be there like furniture is there.
This doesn't mean they need to be incompetant, although some times a character who doesn't fit the common professional pilot type can be an interesting change.
- Comma splice. The first part is basically an unnecessary qualification. The second half makes a point, but doesn't explain what that point actually is.
If you have an idea for a character, but aren't sure if you might have this problem, there's a quick quiz here.
- External links belong in an external links section. Moreover, a Mary Sue test shouldn't be necessary if the article was well written. Personally, I think a list of things to think about would be better on a creative level, but there's no reason both couldn't be included.
Keep in mind it's just a guideline, and if you still aren't sure, feel free to ask other players first.
- Disclaimers should be avoided and go at the beginning, not the end. If you can't write something without a disclaimer that could negate the entire text, then you've got question the point of writing that something in the first place.
- Anyway, kept doing other things and coming back to this. Hopefully it's coherent. -- Kasarn 15:58, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
Do we have an official standard? Generally, seeing people post actions in asterisks makes me feel they are mechanically lacking, even if they aren't. I suppose I'm personally offended by asterisks? (Curse you, *!) -- Maya Muldrake 23:09, June 15, 2011 (UTC)
- Asterisks are often used for action text in forums; however, I only really see them in light RP or in speech heavy posts where the text might be overlooked. In chat, everyone prefers to
/emoteand mark their speech with quotes (i.e. normal English), but I can understand why people would use them... especially during summer break. -- Kasarn 00:53, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
- Heh. Case closed, then. Seems I'm just picky. xD -- Maya Muldrake 20:16, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
One of the most common first mistakes I see a new Roleplayer make is assuming their character knows another character's name on the first meeting. I propose a specific case mention in the metagaming section about this frequent first-time error. Aye? -- Maya Muldrake 05:27, July 6, 2011 (UTC)