Using TvTropes for inspiration...

[Zovc]

Earlier today I fell into the trap that is TvTropes. Just now, I decided to take a break and eat and drink things. I figured now might be my only chance to post on here before I'm too far gone (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DespairEventHorizon).

I've never really GM'd a campaign or developed a campaign setting, but have always wanted to. Problems with recording and communicating my ideas have often held me back. It occured to me that TvTropes can help me crystallize my thoughts a lot. I'm however self conscious that using tropes for inspiration might make everything a little too bland.

Currently, I've been devouring the TvTropes page on the Shin Megami Tensei franchise, and have opened several tabs containing pages dedicated to specific entries in the series. A lot of the tropes are making me think of (what I believe are) interesting worlds and situations.

Thoughts?

[Calen]

By all means if you are getting inspiration from TVTropes more power to ya. Make sure to subvert a few tropes now and again.

"What! The guy with the goatee is NOT a villain!?!?"

[inexorabletruth]

Stealing TV tropes is acceptable… in most cases it's even expected. And in reality, it's unavoidable. Do you have any idea how many tropes there are? There's basically a trope for everything. It's almost unfair to call them tropes anymore.

Also, if you want to DM a campaign, I'm constantly bored and would like to play in it, if it's D&D 3.5 or 4e and on the PbP forum. I'd love to give a fresh new DM a whirl. :smallbiggrin:

[Zovc]

Thanks, I figured that is the general reaction I would garner. Just wanted to do a smell test to be sure. :)

I appreciate the support, inexorabletruth, but I doubt I'll be using any incarnation of Dungeons and Dragons. I'm actually giving consideration to doing something in real time with roll20 and/or Skype, though having to dedicate a specific few-hour-long timeslot once or twice every one or two weeks might be difficult with this coming semester and a new job.

I am still accepting suggestions for game systems. Chances are, combat will take a back seat in the campaign I'm thinking of. Beyond that, combat likely won't resemble any of the JRPGs I'm drawing inspiration from because they're so heavily rooted in Rock/Paper/Scissors and big numbers.

Battles which are mostly puzzles and attrition combined don't seem like the most engaging thing to put a group of players through. It's challenging and engaging when you're commanding a party of characters who each need to fill in specific roles at specific times, but I get the feeling it wouldn't translate well to a tabletop experience.

[Sith_Happens]

And in reality, it's unavoidable. Do you have any idea how many tropes there are? There's basically a trope for everything. It's almost unfair to call them tropes anymore.

It's less that there's a trope for everything, and more that anything that's been done more than once qualifies as a trope.

[Joe the Rat]

Yeah, if you are telling a coherent story, you will likely be using several tropes in so doing - not conciously, not as a checklist, but simply by the nature of what tropes are: descriptions of story and character methods.

There's nothing wrong with using Tropes for inspiration (or TVTropes entries in general) to come up with ideas. It's no worse than using landscapes or cities or video games or stories or other games as inspirations. You can get so some fun calculus that way too.

TVTropes was where I got my inspiration for one of my current characters:
The Big Guy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheBigGuy) + Pintsized Powerhouse (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PintSizedPowerhouse) + The Napoleon (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheNapoleon) + Carry a Big Stick (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CarryABigStick) + Groin Attack (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GroinAttack) = Pug Walksoft, Halfling Fighter (http://www.teluria.org/tiki-view_blog.php?blogId=2&offset=20)

[Rhynn]

It's less that there's a trope for everything, and more that anything that's been done more than once qualifies as a trope.

Yeah. Read your Joe Campbell, people. Tropes aren't "stuff that's on TVTropes", tropes are elements in culture that have been repeated in many cases for as long as written history and records go... in many cases the world over, independently of each other.

[Snowbluff]

By all means if you are getting inspiration from TVTropes more power to ya. Make sure to subvert a few tropes now and again.

"What! The guy with the goatee is NOT a villain!?!?"

Replace "guy with the goatee" with "viceroy" and I've done this a hundred times. The best part is that party always wastes a ton of time trying to expose his "treachery.":smalltongue:

[Rhynn]

Yeah, if you are telling a coherent story, you will likely be using several tropes in so doing - not conciously, not as a checklist, but simply by the nature of what tropes are: descriptions of story and character methods.

You can tell a pretty good story by using them on purpose, too: filmmakers especially do it all the time, and then there's extreme examples like Star Wars (based on the Hero's Journey, the model describing multiple ancient hero epics).

[Yora]

I like to use TV tropes to hunt for inspirational source material. When I have an idea that is somewhat like one of the things on the site, I look it up to get a decent lists of works that did something similar, which I can then look at to see what those creators did with that concept.

[Actana]

Tropes are fine to use as inspiration. However, you should never only have tropes defining a character (or place, plot, anything). If you do, you usually end up with an unimaginative and dull checklist of tropes you're using, without any character attached. People aren't a list of tropes: they're people who just happen to adhere to certain tropes. They can be used as inspiration (like, "I want to build a Lightning Bruiser") and go from there, but you have to go beyond tropes to build an actual character.

Think about how the tropes affect the thing you're building, and resort to trope-hunting only once you don't have any other ideas, or want to start on a different area of what you're building (in the case of settings, a new nation for example). Things affect each other and should be considered when building anything. Use as few direct tropes as possible to start with, and only once you have something concrete try to find the tropes that fit what you've already built, instead of finding tropes to use as all the building blocks.

This post does talk about tropes in the way of TvTropes, and not the more general meaning.

[AMFV]

Tropes are fine to use as inspiration. However, you should never only have tropes defining a character (or place, plot, anything). If you do, you usually end up with an unimaginative and dull checklist of tropes you're using, without any character attached. People aren't a list of tropes: they're people who just happen to adhere to certain tropes. They can be used as inspiration (like, "I want to build a Lightning Bruiser") and go from there, but you have to go beyond tropes to build an actual character.

Think about how the tropes affect the thing you're building, and resort to trope-hunting only once you don't have any other ideas, or want to start on a different area of what you're building (in the case of settings, a new nation for example). Things affect each other and should be considered when building anything. Use as few direct tropes as possible to start with, and only once you have something concrete try to find the tropes that fit what you've already built, instead of finding tropes to use as all the building blocks.


I'm not sure if that's always the case, Star Wars was clearly built using primarily tropes as was the Belgariad. Those are both considered "good" works as far as they go. Trope are important because they are in some sense expected, because breaking tropes to be more realistic will often be confusing to people as opposed to helpful.

For example if a Hollywood movie portrayed a firefight accurately, people simply wouldn't understand what was going on, because they've been trained to accept the tropes over the realism. I think that to use the tropes is in some sense better than using a more concrete and real approach. Although it may be different from DM to DM.

[Actana]

I'm not sure if that's always the case, Star Wars was clearly built using primarily tropes as was the Belgariad. Those are both considered "good" works as far as they go. Trope are important because they are in some sense expected, because breaking tropes to be more realistic will often be confusing to people as opposed to helpful.

I'd be willing to argue that the two quoted pieces work because they were made with that intention, and the writers knew they were doing so. With gamers, however, I wouldn't be so generous as to say that they have knowledge and experience of these things. Knowing what you're going to do obviously is a big thing, and knowing how to intentionally pick tropes to use and playing them straight can make for good products, but you have to know how.


For example if a Hollywood movie portrayed a firefight accurately, people simply wouldn't understand what was going on, because they've been trained to accept the tropes over the realism. I think that to use the tropes is in some sense better than using a more concrete and real approach. Although it may be different from DM to DM.

That's not really what I'm talking about in terms of not using tropes as they are. Hollywood firefights are used because they make firefighting interesting and exciting to watch - not because Hollywood does firefights like that. It boils down to the reason you're using the tropes. You shouldn't use tropes just because they're tropes (unless you really know what you're doing, as above), but instead because they can help the original concept grow and help define it, but not completely define it. Just having a list of tropes and thinking they justify themselves is bad.

[AMFV]

I'd be willing to argue that the two quoted pieces work because they were made with that intention, and the writers knew they were doing so. With gamers, however, I wouldn't be so generous as to say that they have knowledge and experience of these things. Knowing what you're going to do obviously is a big thing, and knowing how to intentionally pick tropes to use and playing them straight can make for good products, but you have to know how.

I would argue that playing them straight is easier and less challenging for an author than violating them. Deconstruction is harder than writing something straight, at least in my experience. Also writing characters believably in a roleplay is easier, as such you may be mistaken, NPCs can get by as a series of tropes without needing better explanation.



That's not really what I'm talking about in terms of not using tropes as they are. Hollywood firefights are used because they make firefighting interesting and exciting to watch - not because Hollywood does firefights like that. It boils down to the reason you're using the tropes. You shouldn't use tropes just because they're tropes (unless you really know what you're doing, as above), but instead because they can help the original concept grow and help define it, but not completely define it. Just having a list of tropes and thinking they justify themselves is bad.

But even in the case where fire fights are less interesting in the Hollywood way, people don't believe it. It's the same reason as certain kinds of effects are often unrealistic or seen as unrealistic when they're closer to real life in movies. Injuries is one of those. The tropes are fine to use because they're tropes, often because somebody expects something is a good enough reason to do it that way, and sometimes the reverse as well.

[Actana]

I would argue that playing them straight is easier and less challenging for an author than violating them. Deconstruction is harder than writing something straight, at least in my experience. Also writing characters believably in a roleplay is easier, as such you may be mistaken, NPCs can get by as a series of tropes without needing better explanation.

Playing straight or subverting isn't really my point, and I agree with you on that part. My original point was that just having a list of tropes and nothing beyond that isn't good for the character (or world, etc). Minor NPCs and things that don't have that much substance can work with just a trope list to go for, but anything more developed will require more than a list of tropes, preferably developed so that the character is developed first and the tropes expand upon that, rather than developing the character based on a list of tropes. It can work, but that's more the exception than the rule.
In essence: using tropes to build characters = good. Using only tropes to build characters = bad.



But even in the case where fire fights are less interesting in the Hollywood way, people don't believe it. It's the same reason as certain kinds of effects are often unrealistic or seen as unrealistic when they're closer to real life in movies. Injuries is one of those. The tropes are fine to use because they're tropes, often because somebody expects something is a good enough reason to do it that way, and sometimes the reverse as well.

Tropes are fine to use when there's a reason to use them (such as the reason you've mentioned). Using tropes just because they're tropes isn't. There needs to be a reason to use the trope (even if the only reason is that the audience is expecting it). Subverting or playing straight doesn't especially matter. That's what I'm trying to get at here, but might have been less clear about it than I was intending to.

[AMFV]

Playing straight or subverting isn't really my point, and I agree with you on that part. My original point was that just having a list of tropes and nothing beyond that isn't good for the character (or world, etc). Minor NPCs and things that don't have that much substance can work with just a trope list to go for, but anything more developed will require more than a list of tropes, preferably developed so that the character is developed first and the tropes expand upon that, rather than developing the character based on a list of tropes. It can work, but that's more the exception than the rule.
In essence: using tropes to build characters = good. Using only tropes to build characters = bad.

Why? We've already pointed out entire works completely constructed around tropes. That were good works, so using tropes to build something is fine, in fact if you wanted to go that far every characteristic is in some way a trope or a rejection of a trope, every single one pretty much could be characterized in that fashion.



Tropes are fine to use when there's a reason to use them (such as the reason you've mentioned). Using tropes just because they're tropes isn't. There needs to be a reason to use the trope (even if the only reason is that the audience is expecting it). Subverting or playing straight doesn't especially matter. That's what I'm trying to get at here, but might have been less clear about it than I was intending to.

How would you use a trope only because it's a trope. If you're using it to tell a story, you're using it in that it's a convention of telling stories, if you're using it to explain a character, you're drawing on things other people are relating to, if you're using it because it's cool, well that's self-explanatory. The tropes are simply a method of characterization of traits, and I see no problem in using them as often or as infrequently as folks like.

[Actana]

Very often the result is just a dull character, all in all. There's not really much more to it. If you begin your character by defining things by tropes and do nothing more, the end result is just a character with a list of tropes attached to them, which in turn has a high chance of being just a walking list of tropes in character form without any extra thought put into them.

It's not always true, of course. But that's the way I've seen things happen quite a few times.

[Tengu_temp]

Using TV Tropes as inspiration is a good idea, but inspiration is the important part. Don't create characters/settings/storylines just by taking several tropes from that site and smashing them together; the end result will be shallow and uninteresting, and your inspiration will be really obvious. Every story or character, except some really bad and cliche ones, is more than just a collection of tropes.

[AMFV]

Very often the result is just a dull character, all in all. There's not really much more to it. If you begin your character by defining things by tropes and do nothing more, the end result is just a character with a list of tropes attached to them, which in turn has a high chance of being just a walking list of tropes in character form without any extra thought put into them.

It's not always true, of course. But that's the way I've seen things happen quite a few times.

Well of course you should think about the tropes and how they interact, but the walking collection of tropes is likely a problem only when all of the tropes are the expected ones, or when the tropes are not sufficiently worked into the character.

What you're seeing as a problem in usage, I'm seeing as a problem of integration.


Using TV Tropes as inspiration is a good idea, but inspiration is the important part. Don't create characters/settings/storylines just by taking several tropes from that site and smashing them together; the end result will be shallow and uninteresting, and your inspiration will be really obvious. Every story or character, except some really bad and cliche ones, is more than just a collection of tropes.

Again, Star Wars, The Belgeriad, the Inheritance Cycle. Many works were deliberately taken from codified tropes. In fact if you include enough tropes then things aren't going to be dis-interesting. It's tantamount to saying, don't use personality traits to create characters because they'll be just a mess of personality types. It's a system for defining things. Being an Adventurer is a trope, being a stuffy noble is a trope, many people have tons of tropes, it's just integrating them well enough to produce a finished character that's important.

[Actana]

Well of course you should think about the tropes and how they interact, but the walking collection of tropes is likely a problem only when all of the tropes are the expected ones, or when the tropes are not sufficiently worked into the character.

What you're seeing as a problem in usage, I'm seeing as a problem of integration.

Indeed, a proper integration does take care of the problem. However, I am not convinced that most people would know how to do a proper integration well enough, and even if they did it'd be harder and less imaginative to integrate the tropes than to create the character without resorting to TvTropes articles.

Hence, when people ask for advice on the matter, my advice is to use TvTropes as a foundation, not as a pillar. It takes care of the walking trope problem quite well, and makes the integration of character traits far easier than when you have a list of tropes you like.

[AMFV]

Indeed, a proper integration does take care of the problem. However, I am not convinced that most people would know how to do a proper integration well enough, and even if they did it'd be harder and less imaginative to integrate the tropes than to create the character without resorting to TvTropes articles.

Hence, when people ask for advice on the matter, my advice is to use TvTropes as a foundation, not as a pillar. It takes care of the walking trope problem quite well, and makes the integration of character traits far easier than when you have a list of tropes you like.

Most people that are willing to DM a roleplaying game should be able to create an integrated character, if nobody in the group is capable of creating a believable character, then nobody is going to expect it. It's not difficult to pull integrate multiple tropes into the same character, not even a little bit, if you're good at analysis and character development.

[Tengu_temp]

Again, Star Wars, The Belgeriad, the Inheritance Cycle. Many works were deliberately taken from codified tropes.

There's a difference between tropes and tropes - it's the difference between "I'll make the character a mad scientist, a homage to such characters from cheesy 50s movies" and "let's use the Mad Scientist trope". None of those stories you mention could be made the way I described, because they weren't made using TV Tropes. I am purposely describing the process of "let's take this trope, that trope, and that trope, all of them straight from the TV Tropes page, smash them together, and voila, new story element!", and before you ask, yes - quite a bit of amateur writers who are in love with TV Tropes actually do that.

[AMFV]

There's a difference between tropes and tropes - it's the difference between "I'll make the character a mad scientist, a homage to such characters from cheesy 50s movies" and "let's use the Mad Scientist trope". None of those stories you mention could be made the way I described, because they weren't made using TV Tropes. I am purposely describing the process of "let's take this trope, that trope, and that trope, all of them straight from the TV Tropes page, smash them together, and voila, new story element!", and before you ask, yes - quite a bit of amateur writers who are in love with TV Tropes actually do that.

I'm not referencing tropes because they are simply methods for organizing story characteristics, I argue that a good story can be built entirely using tropes, and there's no real way to disprove that allegation. TV tropes are just as valid a building block as "The Heroes Journey" or Cliches from the past, in fact they can be useful in knowing how people expect things to be covered.

If I wanted to make a character based on a certain trope I would examine works that feature that trope, then examine the logical conclusions of having that trope, but basing the character on the trope, not bad at all. In fact basing a character completely on logical conclusions of tropes is perfectly fine, you can easily build a well-rounded character there.

[Actana]

If I wanted to make a character based on a certain trope I would examine works that feature that trope, then examine the logical conclusions of having that trope, but basing the character on the trope, not bad at all. In fact basing a character completely on logical conclusions of tropes is perfectly fine, you can easily build a well-rounded character there.

Using a trope as a base for a character isn't bad at all. As I said earlier, foundation, not pillar. But taking just tropes upon tropes and mashing them together, it's just... Lazy, truth be told, and has a very high chance of producing a haphazard result even with integration. The same could be done without using TvTropes, and the end result would very likely be more organic and better thought out.

You can create a character by solely using TvTropes articles and then integrating them to fit each other, and it might even turn out good. But should you? No, I don't think so.


There's a difference between tropes and tropes - it's the difference between "I'll make the character a mad scientist, a homage to such characters from cheesy 50s movies" and "let's use the Mad Scientist trope". None of those stories you mention could be made the way I described, because they weren't made using TV Tropes. I am purposely describing the process of "let's take this trope, that trope, and that trope, all of them straight from the TV Tropes page, smash them together, and voila, new story element!", and before you ask, yes - quite a bit of amateur writers who are in love with TV Tropes actually do that.

I'm pretty much in agreement with this. Using solely the TvTropes 'tropes' isn't what I'd recommend, because I've seen it end badly. While it's anecdotal evidence at best (though I still think my reasoning is sound enough for analytical arguments at the very least), it still colors what I would recommend people to do in regards to the topic.

[AMFV]

Using a trope as a base for a character isn't bad at all. As I said earlier, foundation, not pillar. But taking just tropes upon tropes and mashing them together, it's just... Lazy, truth be told, and has a very high chance of producing a haphazard result even with integration. The same could be done without using TvTropes, and the end result would very likely be more organic and better thought out.

You can create a character by solely using TvTropes articles and then integrating them to fit each other, and it might even turn out good. But should you? No, I don't think so.

When Imradil was born it seemed that he was born to be of poorer fortune than most other men, born into poverty and squalor. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BornUnlucky) and what's worse is that his parents died when he was young to marauding Orc attack, causing him to be dedicated to (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ConvenientlyAnOrphan), a result as most Orphans are he was dedicated to a life among the Ranger patrolling the forest for those who had slain his parents in such a terrible fervor. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ForestRanger)He spent most of his time in the Northern mountains hunting the Orcs, when he was old enough having devoted his life to their killing, training for years under.]Arctus Talanis, the old master Ranger who had trained his grandfather before him, he quickly learned the skills to hunt and defeat his enemies, killing many Goblins. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouKilledMyFather) They even grew to love each other as they lasted out the hard winter. But the other Rangers and the Goblins rejected them and their forbidden love, chasing them into the wilds, after this Imradil and his newfound bride (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EnemyMine]He was hunting the Orcish and Goblin hordes in the Northern mountains when a landslide separated him from most of his fellows. He was trapped with a lone Goblin and together they had to work to stay alive, learning that their hatred was misplaced.[URL="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StarCrossedLovers) travel the long hard road together, fighting evil and corruption wherever they find it. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightErrant)

Perhaps a little cliche, mostly because I was doing this off the top of my head and just going from one random trope to the next, but it's better than many D&D character stories I've read some of those even in published material. They're tools, and using tools isn't bad, unless you don't understand those tools.

[scsimodem]

Making a good story for the first time is challenging, and TV Tropes provides a great resource for shortcuts. I'd recommend not going too crazy straight out of the gate. First, read the page 'tropes are tools,' which details two main points:

Tropes are not bad: They're tools. Tropes often looked down on as cliched or outdated can still be used if you know what you're doing.

Tropes are not good: Even tropes that show up all over the place, if used improperly, can be to a work's detriment.

I would then recommend looking up the trope pages for a work of fiction you would like to have run as a game if it wasn't already something your players were familiar with. Read the tropes and pick out the ones you like. Try to stick to playing them straight as often as possible and stick to playing with them (subversion, inversions, deconstructions, etc.) in limited quantities, as doing this is more difficult and takes practice. Also, take a look at 'tropes of legend,' which are some of the most commonly used tropes ever.

Now, twists, deception, and good RP are my fortes in both playing and running, but, just like the first couple characters I made were straight forward beat sticks (well, a beat stick and an archer), the first couple games I ran that I wrote myself were of the format "There's a bad guy. Take him down and you win."

Now, I've got a game with layers of bad guys, an enigmatic big bad, and no reliable source of exposition. My last campaign started as a standard 'our kingdom is occupied by foreign invaders,' but eventually morphed into a 'you've been working for the big bad' campaign when the charismatic leader of the resistance turned into a megalomaniacal dictator once he took over. I modeled the whole thing off of 1930s-40s Germany. The trick for both of these campaigns was to drop clues here and there that not everything was as it seemed, but use audience expectations (tropes normally played straight) to fool them over what's true/false and who's a good/bad guy, but in a way that didn't feel cheap or out of left field. This took a LOT of practice and started with small subversions and deceptions, and I also learned along the way that, every once in a while, you just have to let them kick down a door, kill a bad guy, and win.

[Amphetryon]

Using a trope as a base for a character isn't bad at all. As I said earlier, foundation, not pillar. But taking just tropes upon tropes and mashing them together, it's just... Lazy, truth be told, and has a very high chance of producing a haphazard result even with integration. The same could be done without using TvTropes, and the end result would very likely be more organic and better thought out.

You can create a character by solely using TvTropes articles and then integrating them to fit each other, and it might even turn out good. But should you? No, I don't think so.



I'm pretty much in agreement with this. Using solely the TvTropes 'tropes' isn't what I'd recommend, because I've seen it end badly. While it's anecdotal evidence at best (though I still think my reasoning is sound enough for analytical arguments at the very least), it still colors what I would recommend people to do in regards to the topic.

How would you propose to create a Character that an unbiased, 3rd party observer wouldn't be able to look at in terms of his/her tropes (including subversions of tropes)?

[Tengu_temp]

How would you propose to create a Character that an unbiased, 3rd party observer wouldn't be able to look at in terms of his/her tropes (including subversions of tropes)?

That's pretty much impossible, because every character will have some tropes to them. But the thing is: a good character is more than just a collection of tropes. There's something to it that cannot be described through tropes.

[AMFV]

That's pretty much impossible, because every character will have some tropes to them. But the thing is: a good character is more than just a collection of tropes. There's something to it that cannot be described through tropes.

Is there? I've created an example character using only tropes, and what's more using only random tropes, and I'm fairly sure that's not a bad backstory, considering it was done in 20 minutes, using semi randomized tropes.

I think the "something intangible" argument, is kind of weak, since I feel that any characteristic can be described as working with or violating a trope, every characteristic, even if you're violating a trope, it can still be described using tropes.

[Actana]

How would you propose to create a Character that an unbiased, 3rd party observer wouldn't be able to look at in terms of his/her tropes (including subversions of tropes)?

I'm not trying to argue that characters can't have tropes attached to them. I'm just trying to say that characters should not be built only upon a list of tropes and that there is more to a character than the tropes that apply to them. The character should come first. What specific tropes the character is an example of should come later when analysing the finished product. That's how I prefer to build things anyway.

Personally, I utilise tropes indirectly. I've read enough of TvTropes to start listing tropes left and right, but I don't read the site much when creating characters. If I want to do some research on other similar characters, I usually look them up there for inspiration. But I create my characters without using individual tropes. Once the character is finished I might amuse myself by seeing what tropes the character is an example of, but during creation the tropes stay out of my mind. Instead, I try to apply the things I have read (both on TvTropes and off it) on a general and broad basis without naming any tropes. The tropes still happen in the end, because as people have been saying there's a trope for pretty much everything, but I don't let the tropes themselves guide the process of creating a character.

Tropes are tools. They can be used well and can be used badly. They shouldn't not be used, but likewise you shouldn't only use them. Leave some room for independent thinking. Relying only upon tropes eventually creates a reliance on them, and it might end you up in a situation where you can't think outside of tropes. TvTropes is a useful tool and a good resource for finding and comparing characters, tropes and situations between similar ones, but you should rely more on absorbing the knowledge on the site and using it on your own instead of consulting the site every time you want an idea on characterisation.

As for the question, Tengu put it well:


That's pretty much impossible, because every character will have some tropes to them. But the thing is: a good character is more than just a collection of tropes. There's something to it that cannot be described through tropes.


Edit:

Is there? I've created an example character using only tropes, and what's more using only random tropes, and I'm fairly sure that's not a bad backstory, considering it was done in 20 minutes, using semi randomized tropes.

I think the "something intangible" argument, is kind of weak, since I feel that any characteristic can be described as working with or violating a trope, every characteristic, even if you're violating a trope, it can still be described using tropes.

I think there is a thing that can't be described by tropes. And even if there isn't, the argument that "everything is tropes" is just so analytical and downright dull. The idea that everything can and should be categorised and catalogued feels so clinical and depressive from a creative standpoint. Sure, tropes aren't bad, but neither are they some sort of divine narrative mandate that are always present.

Besides, I'm pretty sure there can be two characters who both have the same list of tropes, and one is good and the other is bad. That alone would prove that there is something that tropes do not cover (but of course given the quite frankly obtuse nature of TvTropes there'd be a trope for that situation too. Although, it depends on the category of the trope itself. Character tropes and reader-reaction tropes are quite different).


Other than that, I think this discussion will very soon be going nowhere with people repeating their points endlessly back and forth. I've enjoyed it so far, and I've been given a chance to re-evaluate and refine my stance on the matter, for which I thank those involved.

[AMFV]

I'm not trying to argue that characters can't have tropes attached to them. I'm just trying to say that characters should not be built only upon a list of tropes and that there is more to a character than the tropes that apply to them. The character should come first. What specific tropes the character is an example of should come later when analysing the finished product. That's how I prefer to build things anyway.

Personally, I utilise tropes indirectly. I've read enough of TvTropes to start listing tropes left and right, but I don't read the site much when creating characters. If I want to do some research on other similar characters, I usually look them up there for inspiration. But I create my characters without using individual tropes. Once the character is finished I might amuse myself by seeing what tropes the character is an example of, but during creation the tropes stay out of my mind. Instead, I try to apply the things I have read (both on TvTropes and off it) on a general and broad basis without naming any tropes. The tropes still happen in the end, because as people have been saying there's a trope for pretty much everything, but I don't let the tropes themselves guide the process of creating a character.

Tropes are tools. They can be used well and can be used badly. They shouldn't not be used, but likewise you shouldn't only use them. Leave some room for independent thinking. Relying only upon tropes eventually creates a reliance on them, and it might end you up in a situation where you can't think outside of tropes. TvTropes is a useful tool and a good resource for finding and comparing characters, tropes and situations between similar ones, but you should rely more on absorbing the knowledge on the site and using it on your own instead of consulting the site every time you want an idea on characterisation.

As for the question, Tengu put it well:




Edit:


I think there is a thing that can't be described by tropes. And even if there isn't, the argument that "everything is tropes" is just so analytical and downright dull. The idea that everything can and should be categorised and catalogued feels so clinical and depressive from a creative standpoint. Sure, tropes aren't bad, but neither are they some sort of divine narrative mandate that are always present.

Besides, I'm pretty sure there can be two characters who both have the same list of tropes, and one is good and the other is bad. That alone would prove that there is something that tropes do not cover (but of course given the quite frankly obtuse nature of TvTropes there'd be a trope for that situation too. Although, it depends on the category of the trope itself. Character tropes and reader-reaction tropes are quite different).


Other than that, I think this discussion will very soon be going nowhere with people repeating their points endlessly back and forth. I've enjoyed it so far, and I've been given a chance to re-evaluate and refine my stance on the matter, for which I thank those involved.

But neither of you can define this intangible "thingy"... I would argue that tropes could be used to build a character in their entirety, and I did just that further up the thread, admittedly it's kind of a generic fantasy character but it certainly has a personality, particularly for coming up with randomized tropes, and you could add many more tropes and flesh it out, also the links thing was extremely clunky, so it wound up being not as fleshed out as I'd have liked. But with sufficient time I could build a believable character using only the logical extension of tropes.

[Actana]

But neither of you can define this intangible "thingy"... I would argue that tropes could be used to build a character in their entirety, and I did just that further up the thread, admittedly it's kind of a generic fantasy character but it certainly has a personality, particularly for coming up with randomized tropes, and you could add many more tropes and flesh it out, also the links thing was extremely clunky, so it wound up being not as fleshed out as I'd have liked. But with sufficient time I could build a believable character using only the logical extension of tropes.

I never said you couldn't. I said you (and other people seeking advice in the thread) shouldn't, because you'd get a better and more organic character without them and with some more original creativity instead of a website's article list. In a way it's also about the journey of creating the character, not only the result. Maybe like creating your own table from wood you've gathered from the forest personally compared to buying the parts from IKEA and assembling them. The results might be the same (highly unlikely, but possible), but the former would just feel better. Likely a poor allegory, but I'll leave it there anyway.

Just by the by, there are a number of things I'd criticise about the character generated (at the very least that it contains very little personality, only backstory), but they'd all be extremely moot given that you created it in a very short time and that the tropes used were randomised (to what degree I don't know, but I'll take your word for it). Also, the fact that you were able to create a generic character doesn't say much about the use of tropes, but that too can be attributed to the small amount of time used to create it.

[Rhynn]

I think there is a thing that can't be described by tropes. And even if there isn't, the argument that "everything is tropes" is just so analytical and downright dull. The idea that everything can and should be categorised and catalogued feels so clinical and depressive from a creative standpoint. Sure, tropes aren't bad, but neither are they some sort of divine narrative mandate that are always present.

That's silly. That may be your personal preference, but that's it.

Of course stories and characters can be reduced to tropes. Can someone think of one that can't? We're thousands of years and probably millions or billions of stories down the line, here, just within written history. Tropes are a very top-level abstracted description - that alone makes them broad enough that you're not going to escape them.

Despairing because your idea isn't 100% original is silly, although it's certainly common for amateur creators. Don't worry - there is no such thing as complete originality! And it doesn't matter! "Otherworld" or "Journey to the Other Side" may be a trope, but all the difference is in how you present it.

TVTropes has apparently made people think of tropes as something quite different than they are. Of course they're not a mandate, but you, being a human being brought up in a culture on this Earth (by now almost certainly, given you're on the Internet, part of the larger global culture), are only capable of telling stories that employ tropes, because tropes describe elements we use in stories, and we learn to tell stories by hearing stories.

Anyway, I'd seriously like to read some examples of stories or even characters that use no tropes.

[Knaight]

It's worth noting that there are several different ways to draw inspiration from even the TV tropes website. For instance, there's the deliberate creation of a character from tropes there, and then there is reading the tropes and examples there in such a way as to let the seeds of characters, setting elements, plot elements, etc. come to mind. The second method is fine, as everything but the starting point could easily be an organic development.

In short, it's the difference between deciding that whatever set of tropes are popular, and so you should make a character out of them, and reading a website and having a character or piece of characterization come to mind.

[Actana]

Once more, it's not about the tropes. It's about creating things through explicitly named tropes, and only through those tropes. I feel that this approach feels too clinical and deprived of personal creativity (it might not be, but to me it feels just wrong). Neither am I worried about originality or anything like that, I know that's a wholly futile effort (indeed, I'm writing my thesis about the evolution of literature, namely the epic).


Edit: Also this:

It's worth noting that there are several different ways to draw inspiration from even the TV tropes website. For instance, there's the deliberate creation of a character from tropes there, and then there is reading the tropes and examples there in such a way as to let the seeds of characters, setting elements, plot elements, etc. come to mind. The second method is fine, as everything but the starting point could easily be an organic development.

In short, it's the difference between deciding that whatever set of tropes are popular, and so you should make a character out of them, and reading a website and having a character or piece of characterization come to mind.
That first method is the one I'm mainly talking about. While it can produce a character, it just won't be as good as one produced by the latter.

[AMFV]

Once more, it's not about the tropes. It's about creating things through explicitly named tropes, and only through those tropes. I feel that this approach feels too clinical and deprived of personal creativity (it might not be, but to me it feels just wrong). Neither am I worried about originality or anything like that, I know that's a wholly futile effort (indeed, I'm writing my thesis about the evolution of literature, namely the epic).

You feel that way, and that's fine, in fact you're an English major, which is pretty awesome. But there are people who are not and who are much clinical or organized in other fashions with regards to their creativity. Arguing that they produce work of less merit because they use a specific method is frankly bunk. There is so much variation in what produces a successful work that any one method to another is simply a matter of preference. And I find tropes easier to work with, often than coming up with an idea on my own, sometimes it will spark an idea, or if I search at random I may see unrelated ideas that I can combine to make a new whole.

Because it is a not a good method for you does not mean that you should deride it as a poor choice for everybody, particularly in a field so diverse in method as the creation of campaigns for roleplaying.

[Rhynn]

(it might not be, but to me it feels just wrong)

Well, that's a strong argument right there. :smallconfused: "It feels wrong."

[Actana]

You feel that way, and that's fine, in fact you're an English major, which is pretty awesome. But there are people who are not and who are much clinical or organized in other fashions with regards to their creativity. Arguing that they produce work of less merit because they use a specific method is frankly bunk. There is so much variation in what produces a successful work that any one method to another is simply a matter of preference. And I find tropes easier to work with, often than coming up with an idea on my own, sometimes it will spark an idea, or if I search at random I may see unrelated ideas that I can combine to make a new whole.

Because it is a not a good method for you does not mean that you should deride it as a poor choice for everybody, particularly in a field so diverse in method as the creation of campaigns for roleplaying.

Fair enough, you are right in this regard: different things do work for different people. I have my opinion on using tropes, and you have yours. I do understand where you're coming from too, I merely respectfully disagree. I prefer a trope-light approach when actually creating things, though I do read a lot of TvTropes for light research and amusement and draw from that a lot.

But hey, the thread asked for advice, and I gave mine. And an opinion on the contrary is useful too, for both me to organize and re-evaluate my opinions and for anyone seeking advice to get another viewpoint. :smallsmile:


On a sidenote, I think it is rather amusing that a system I like, Fate, practically incorporates tropes into the mechanics. Aspects are kinda like tropes when it comes down to it, though not necessarily structured as such.


Edit ALL the posts:

Well, that's a strong argument right there. :smallconfused: "It feels wrong."
I'm not sure how I'm supposed to take this, but yeah, that's pretty much the blunt of my argument on how I feel (on a personal subjective level) on that particular matter, plus the parts I talked about earlier about more organic characters, eliminating a possible future reliance on tropes, and what else I decided to say (but have already said and am not particularly interested in continuing). To me, it just "feels wrong" in some way. Not any sort of disgusting or reprehensible way, but just... kinda wrong. Can't say there's really more to it. It's not objectively wrong or bad or badwrongfun, but I just don't like that approach. So yes, to me it feels wrong. To each their own, I suppose.

[MukkTB]

TVTropes is a pretty solid tool. Its a good place to start from, but obviously doesn't do the whole job.

[Broken Twin]

Heck, we used TV Tropes in a lot more of a direct way.

If we wanted to run a one-off game, we'd go to the main page, hit the random button three times, and use those three tropes as the basis of the story for that session. Led to some absurdly hilarious games. Good stretch of acting chops too.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Understand that tropes exist, and sure--you can draw on them for inspiration. But never let them be a language that you use to describe your characters and plots. Tropes can turn into a steel trap where you feel that X must lead to Y because that's how the trope works. ("I have to set up the Heel Face Turn by establishing the villain as a Well Intentioned Extremist being played by a Manipulative Bastard.")

The reason this is bad is because you stop thinking of the characters as characters; they become walking pop-plot devices. Characters are motivated by feelings, by logic, by their personality, by promises made in hasty moments. They are not motivated by the plot. They don't care that they're in a story (unless they're Tarquin :smallwink: ), and they should never be "advancing to the next plot point". (This is actually doubly-problematic in an RPG, because players definitely don't strive to follow tropes.)

The "Destined to Do X" trope is a wonderful case study of how to succeed and fail at this. The failure of this trope happens when writers see "oh hey, this 'Destined to Do X' thing pops up in all these stories, let's put it in ours!" They use the Destiny trope as a reason for the hero to continue forward and chase after the MacGuffin, because "It is your destiny!" Stop and think about that. It's a creative choice that makes a character's desires and agency subservient to a plot device...and that's definitely bad.

On the flip side? Greek myths and drama are a sterling example of how to play the trope right. They play it...by making it exist alongside the desires and will of the characters. The classic formula of a Greek tragedy is "explain what Fate says, and then introduce a character who has their own independent will; bad things happen and the protagonist is brought to their knees for fighting Fate". It makes some of the best blasted drama around, because they understood that drama revolves around character, not around plot. :smallsmile:

Make character primary. Use tropes if you don't know where to start, but then think of characters as fleshed-out people, with a unique appearance, desires, secret wish, presentation, personality, philosophy--all the bits that come together to make one complete character. Make 'em live.

/rant, sorry; it's something I have a lot of feelings about.

[Rhynn]

/rant, sorry; it's something I have a lot of feelings about.

Thinking that you can or should control stories that happen in RPGs is, in general, a bad idea IMO. It leads to frustration, heartbreak, and railroading.

Creating the elements of those stories with an awareness of the culture they're based on is fine, but a RPG is not a novel or a movie, and never can be - there's other people involved, making their own decisions.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Oh, I'd say that writers of novels and movies could stand to learn the same lesson. :smallsmile: Too many plots bogged down in "the characters need to get to this point, so we'll make them!" and not enough "so the plot looks like it's headed in this direction, but the characters want something different! Drama!" (And like I said: "The characters want X but other pressures are pushing them to Y" is the essence of drama, as the characters fight to get what they want. But to pull it off, the characters must live and breathe from the page. :smallbiggrin: )

I'd add that referencing and using the literal fact of tropes is far less important than understanding why a particular trope exists. Think of it this way: a trope is a proven successful plot device or character trait/aspect. Why? Because the things which it consists of appeal to people, when placed in a context. For instance, anime fans enjoy the tsundere trope because it puts a character's desires in conflict with the front that they're trying to present to the world. (Hey there, conflict. :smallwink: )

It's more interesting and far better if you can break down a trope and understand why it appeals to so many people, because that will help you understand stories. Tropes are just a way to analyze and group the nebulous things that we like in stories. If you throw tropes onto a character without understanding why they work, you're like a marketing executive who says "X sells to Y demographic! Use more of X!"

Tropes don't work because they're tropes or because they have mystical Campbell power. :smalltongue: They work because the things that they describe are compelling. Tropes are the names that we give to bits of story that we find compelling. They're labels.

[AMFV]

Understand that tropes exist, and sure--you can draw on them for inspiration. But never let them be a language that you use to describe your characters and plots. Tropes can turn into a steel trap where you feel that X must lead to Y because that's how the trope works. ("I have to set up the Heel Face Turn by establishing the villain as a Well Intentioned Extremist being played by a Manipulative Bastard.")

You don't have to deal with tropes by confirming them, Tropes aren't Joseph Campbell, and the ways that you reject the tropes are as important as the ways that you preserve them, making all things definable in the same way. Furthermore there's nothing wrong with having a planned arc for your character.



The reason this is bad is because you stop thinking of the characters as characters; they become walking pop-plot devices. Characters are motivated by feelings, by logic, by their personality, by promises made in hasty moments. They are not motivated by the plot. They don't care that they're in a story (unless they're Tarquin :smallwink: ), and they should never be "advancing to the next plot point". (This is actually doubly-problematic in an RPG, because players definitely don't strive to follow tropes.)

They don't, but you should. At least in the sense that you are somewhat directing their advancement, if you treat them as abstractions it will allow you to produce a more accurate model than if you tried to get into their feelings. For example a trope based character already has dozens of ways to react to a given scenario, you know how they'll act in a hypothetical, or at least will have a good idea, whereas if you're just playing it by gut, you won't be able to make your character react consistently, which is likely to break verisimilitude into tiny little pieces.



The "Destined to Do X" trope is a wonderful case study of how to succeed and fail at this. The failure of this trope happens when writers see "oh hey, this 'Destined to Do X' thing pops up in all these stories, let's put it in ours!" They use the Destiny trope as a reason for the hero to continue forward and chase after the MacGuffin, because "It is your destiny!" Stop and think about that. It's a creative choice that makes a character's desires and agency subservient to a plot device...and that's definitely bad.

Desires and agency can be subservient to a plot device, in fact having one's desires not matter as much has been used as a plot device many many many many times. Lack of agency can be as meaningful for character development as agency, having a character not able to change their fate, no matter how much they try, makes a certain point about the character, actually several depending on how it's handled.



On the flip side? Greek myths and drama are a sterling example of how to play the trope right. They play it...by making it exist alongside the desires and will of the characters. The classic formula of a Greek tragedy is "explain what Fate says, and then introduce a character who has their own independent will; bad things happen and the protagonist is brought to their knees for fighting Fate". It makes some of the best blasted drama around, because they understood that drama revolves around character, not around plot. :smallsmile:

Actually many Greek Dramas are pretty terrible and inconsistent depending on different authors, they had a lot of good stuff, but as with all literary genres there were terrible things, you just don't hear about them because they suck, I call this the "Rose Colored Glasses Effect", it's very problematic in a lot of studies of literature, they assume that literature is a higher quality in the past because it is the stuff that has been preserved, not that it has been preserved because it was higher quality.



Make character primary. Use tropes if you don't know where to start, but then think of characters as fleshed-out people, with a unique appearance, desires, secret wish, presentation, personality, philosophy--all the bits that come together to make one complete character. Make 'em live.

/rant, sorry; it's something I have a lot of feelings about.

Unique appearance can be defined through tropes, Secret wishes also, presentation also, personality also, philosophy also. A character can be completely defined by which tropes they embody and which tropes they reject. And nobody has been able to present a characteristic that cannot be summarized using tropes, ergo, building a character through tropes could result in a character exactly as fleshed out as building one through any other method, and deriding other people's methods if they produce good results is pretty unpleasant.

For example, Star Wars is generally considered to be a good work, it has definitely stood the test of time particularly when compared to other works during the same time period. Try to talk to a random person on the street about The Black Hole, since Star Wars was built entirely with tropes, and has lasting power we must assume that approach has merit. It's also one of the most profitable franchises of all time, so again there is no arguing that approach doesn't produce works with merit.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

If you can make a good story by writing characters and plots as trope collections, how come plug-and-play blockbuster movies are so terrible? :smallamused:

[AMFV]

If you can make a good story by writing characters and plots as trope collections, how come plug-and-play blockbuster movies are so terrible? :smallamused:

Are they? How do you define terrible? Plug-and-play blockbuster movies are exactly what they are intended to be. I would call that a success. Furthermore I've already presented several famous works that are stated to be collections of tropes by their authors, I would include other such works, but they aren't stated to be that, so I chose to avoid them.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Citations desperately required. I know for a fact that Star Wars' relationship with the Hero's Journey tropes is not straightforward, and falls more under "taking inspiration from".

Except the Inheritance Cycle. Anyone who cites the Inheritance Cycle and dismisses Greek Tragedy in support of write-by-trope should probably rethink their argument. :smalltongue:

[AMFV]

Citations desperately required.

Except the Inheritance Cycle. Anyone who cites the Inheritance Cycle and dismisses Greek Tragedy in support of write-by-trope should probably rethink their argument. :smalltongue:

If you watch Joseph Campbells film on the Hero's Journey George Lucas is interviewed, if you read the authors forward to the Belgeriad it covers that as well. The Inheritance Cycle may not be good fiction in your mind, but it is successful, so as far as that's concerned it is good fiction. How else are you to define good fiction, there is no objective definition of that as far as I'm aware. It's not intended to be the kind of high literature which you are judging it by. That's like comparing Blockbuster movies to Citizen Kane, they aren't intended to be Citizen Kane, and they are typically intended to be consumed differently, so they are completely different works.

Edit: The point is that you can't judge something with a different goal against something with a different goal. You can only say if they did what they intended to.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Fiction that sells a lot of copies does not equal good fiction. But hey, Twilight's popular too. And so was Greek Tragedy. And Shakespeare.

Man, I'm so glad Shakespeare had Joseph Campbell and TVTropes to give him his plots and characters. :smallbiggrin:

[Amphetryon]

I'm not trying to argue that characters can't have tropes attached to them. I'm just trying to say that characters should not be built only upon a list of tropes and that there is more to a character than the tropes that apply to them. The character should come first. What specific tropes the character is an example of should come later when analysing the finished product. That's how I prefer to build things anyway.

Personally, I utilise tropes indirectly. I've read enough of TvTropes to start listing tropes left and right, but I don't read the site much when creating characters. If I want to do some research on other similar characters, I usually look them up there for inspiration. But I create my characters without using individual tropes. Once the character is finished I might amuse myself by seeing what tropes the character is an example of, but during creation the tropes stay out of my mind. Instead, I try to apply the things I have read (both on TvTropes and off it) on a general and broad basis without naming any tropes. The tropes still happen in the end, because as people have been saying there's a trope for pretty much everything, but I don't let the tropes themselves guide the process of creating a character.

Tropes are tools. They can be used well and can be used badly. They shouldn't not be used, but likewise you shouldn't only use them. Leave some room for independent thinking. Relying only upon tropes eventually creates a reliance on them, and it might end you up in a situation where you can't think outside of tropes. TvTropes is a useful tool and a good resource for finding and comparing characters, tropes and situations between similar ones, but you should rely more on absorbing the knowledge on the site and using it on your own instead of consulting the site every time you want an idea on characterisation.

As for the question, Tengu put it well:

My point is it is generally impossible, in most cases, to look at a finished Character, sans notes from the creator, and determine whether trope followed concept, or concept followed trope. From what I can tell, you're labeling the former process a 'good' thing, and the latter process a 'bad' thing, when both processes lead to the same place in the majority of cases I can think of.

[AMFV]

Fiction that sells a lot of copies does not equal good fiction. But hey, Twilight's popular too. And so was Greek Tragedy. And Shakespeare.

Man, I'm so glad Shakespeare had Joseph Campbell and TVTropes to give him his plots and characters. :smallbiggrin:

Shakespeare totally ripped off tropes from other fiction, literally all the time, that was kind of his big thing was to rip something off, rewrite it with more clever dialog.

So what does equal good fiction in your opinion?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Actually, Shakespeare was a good example of what I'm talking about--you look to the tropes for inspiration, and then you instill them with a powerful sense of character and therefore drama. (Which is what I've been saying this whole time, naturally. :smallsmile: )

It was a lot more than "rewriting with clever dialogue", and to say that misses the point. His plays are driven by ambitions, by desires, by lust for the flesh and for power and for money, by honor and duty and fear. He takes a delicate setting, lays some strong archetypes in it, then fleshes the characters into personalities with powerful drives. Then he spends some time explaining it all so that he can ignite it in Act 2 or 3, roughly speaking.

Sure, you could overlook that in favor of proving that he was just a trope-copier, but I think it's inadvisable. If you tried to then do the same, you'd wind up with a knockoff.

A good bit of fiction (and it doesn't have to be highbrow, mind you--I've never said that) is one that shows us humanity; that's ultimately why writing-by-tropes fails, because it's a superficial approach. If you want to write something good, you have to dig past that surface and write something with real teeth and soul. The best stories are the ones which accomplish that. It's why the summer blockbusters of five years back have mostly faded into obscurity, and why the crop of sequels and derivative stories of recent years will be forgotten fairly quickly. It's ephemeral, engaging for the time that you're in the theater, forgettable soon after. (No, really. Green Lantern hits all the checklist boxes for an origin story, but it sure isn't around in anyone's media consciousness.)

I've mainly picked classic, memorable literature because it's so good at doing that. That's the reason it sticks around--because in a different culture, a different historical context, it manages to stay relevant, because it's human at its core.

[AMFV]

Actually, Shakespeare was a good example of what I'm talking about--you look to the tropes for inspiration, and then you instill them with a powerful sense of character and therefore drama. (Which is what I've been saying this whole time, naturally. :smallsmile: )

It was a lot more than "rewriting with clever dialogue", and to say that misses the point. His plays are driven by ambitions, by desires, by lust for the flesh and for power and for money, by honor and duty and fear. He takes a delicate setting, lays some strong archetypes in it, then fleshes the characters into personalities with powerful drives. Then he spends some time explaining it all so that he can ignite it in Act 2 or 3, roughly speaking.

Sure, you could overlook that in favor of proving that he was just a trope-copier, but I think it's inadvisable. If you tried to then do the same, you'd wind up with a knockoff.

A good bit of fiction (and it doesn't have to be highbrow, mind you--I've never said that) is one that shows us humanity; that's ultimately why writing-by-tropes fails, because it's a superficial approach. If you want to write something good, you have to dig past that surface and write something with real teeth and soul. The best stories are the ones which accomplish that. It's why the summer blockbusters of five years back have mostly faded into obscurity, and why the crop of sequels and derivative stories of recent years will be forgotten fairly quickly. It's ephemeral, engaging for the time that you're in the theater, forgettable soon after. (No, really. Green Lantern hits all the checklist boxes for an origin story, but it sure isn't around in anyone's media consciousness.)

I've mainly picked classic, memorable literature because it's so good at doing that. That's the reason it sticks around--because in a different culture, a different historical context, it manages to stay relevant, because it's human at its core.


I like Green Lantern, it's actually one of my favorite Superhero films, because it really captured the spirit of the comics, at least to my thinking. Although it wasn't really a good film as far as the audience goes, I liked it. So that's good enough for me.

The problem is that you are ruling that things are bad, based on what is very clearly subjective criterion, which works survive the test of time could be completely random, as is shown by what happened in Alexandria, so that's not a good way to judge what's good or not, sales is according to you not, neither is intent. So what do you think makes a work good?

Because "it acts on my humanity" is something that is undefinable, and varies from person to person, since our humanity is different, different works have differing affects on it. We aren't the same and neither are our works.

We should judge a work of fiction or a roleplaying character based on the system and its intent. A blockbuster movie is made with a certain kind of intent, and it is enjoyed that way. I love summer blockbusters, even if they don't reinvent my humanity, I enjoy watching them, and that's good enough for me. Requiring all works to be more than they are intending to be is a poor way to judge works of fiction to my mind.

We cannot judge a character made for a murder-hobo game on the same criterion as one made for a deep intrigue game. It just doesn't work, they are designed differently and for different purposes.

Furthermore Star Wars has stood the test of time over all of it's Sci Fi contemporaries, try to find a "Black Hole" MMO, much less two of them, try to find a Battlestar Galatica convention that had the attendance of a Star Wars convention. Reference Buck Rogers to a young person and see if they pick up on it. It clearly has outlasted it's contemporaries so by your definition it is good, and it is a collection of tropes, so I submit that a collection of tropes isn't necessarily bad as you seem to suggest.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Star Wars is actually a pretty sterling example of taking tropes and then breathing life into them. Look at Han, Luke, and Leia, the main protagonists. They have a life of their own, and that's on no small part of the actors who played them. Or Darth Vader, the redeemed villain who created a trope in his own right. Even Yoda has life beyond the tropey Old Guru. They're not collections of tropes.

I have yet to see a good explanation by anyone of why tropes are supposed to work, other than "literary witchcraft". :smallbiggrin:

That's about all I have to say on the topic, though. I really should stop; I've been monopolizing the thread with my discussion for a while.

[AMFV]

Star Wars is actually a pretty sterling example of taking tropes and then breathing life into them. Look at Han, Luke, and Leia, the main protagonists. They have a life of their own, and that's on no small part of the actors who played them. Or Darth Vader, the redeemed villain who created a trope in his own right. Even Yoda has life beyond the tropey Old Guru. They're not collections of tropes.

I have yet to see a good explanation by anyone of why tropes are supposed to work, other than "literary witchcraft". :smallbiggrin:

They work because they provoke an emotional reaction you can connect and identify with them. There's a reason they're present in most stories, because they work, because people recognize them. Saying that something is like a collection of tropes is like saying that a human being is a collection of atoms, they're a building block, and just using them doesn't make a work good or bad, the author does.

[Amphetryon]

Star Wars is actually a pretty sterling example of taking tropes and then breathing life into them. Look at Han, Luke, and Leia, the main protagonists. They have a life of their own, and that's on no small part of the actors who played them. Or Darth Vader, the redeemed villain who created a trope in his own right. Even Yoda has life beyond the tropey Old Guru. They're not collections of tropes.

What aspect of these Characters, specifically, does not fit into a trope codification (including subversions of tropes)?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

What aspect of these Characters, specifically, does not fit into a trope codification (including subversions of tropes)?
So, if the question is "What aspect of these characters does not relate to a trope?", that's a trick question that presumes an answer already. An aspect of a character will always relate to a trope because it either supports, subverts, or averts it. In simpler terms: it proves the trope right (supports), contradicts the trope (subverts), or doesn't touch on the trope (averts). There are literally no other options.

In other words, it indicates nothing meaningful. That's like asking "What bit of 5 does not relate to 3?"

Otherwise, my answer is the following: "Han Solo, Mark Hamill, and Carrie Fisher". :smallbiggrin: Then Vader defies trope codification because the tropes which describe him (Most obviously something like I Am Your Father) weren't considered tropes at the time of Star Wars. Yoda's "grumpy master with wisecracking tendencies and strange youthful attitude" weren't tropes either. Not in '77. There's additional characteristics which aren't covered in the tropes.

Whether you count that as "subverting" the trope is up to you, but I personally think "Trope, but there's more!" is way too vague to be a useful definition of "subversion".

If I were to turn it back, I would use a typical test applied to scientific hypotheses: can it be falsified? If so, then how? So, how would you falsify the hypothesis of "All popular characters are tropes"? How would you test it, objectively? If there's no way to test it objectively, then there's no way to prove that tropes exist as a thing.

[Amphetryon]

So, if the question is "What aspect of these characters does not relate to a trope?", that's a trick question that presumes an answer already. An aspect of a character will always relate to a trope because it either supports, subverts, or averts it. In simpler terms: it proves the trope right (supports), contradicts the trope (subverts), or doesn't touch on the trope (averts). There are literally no other options.

In other words, it indicates nothing meaningful. That's like asking "What bit of 5 does not relate to 3?"

Otherwise, my answer is the following: "Han Solo, Mark Hamill, and Carrie Fisher". :smallbiggrin: Then Vader defies trope codification because the tropes which describe him (Most obviously something like I Am Your Father) weren't considered tropes at the time of Star Wars. Yoda's "grumpy master with wisecracking tendencies and strange youthful attitude" weren't tropes either. Not in '77. There's additional characteristics which aren't covered in the tropes.

Whether you count that as "subverting" the trope is up to you, but I personally think "Trope, but there's more!" is way too vague to be a useful definition of "subversion".

If I were to turn it back, I would use a typical test applied to scientific hypotheses: can it be falsified? If so, then how? So, how would you falsify the hypothesis of "All popular characters are tropes"? How would you test it, objectively? If there's no way to test it objectively, then there's no way to prove that tropes exist as a thing.
The question relates to the notion that "good" Characters are built without first considering tropes, which has been posited a couple of times in this thread - if not in those exact words.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Ah, gotcha. Well, I don't see any particular reason to believe that tropes are a necessary source of good character. Here's why.

We have two possibilities.

The first: Tropes are things which are the source of good characterization. Why? Because they are tropes, imbued (?) with the ability to make good characters. I'm not exactly clear on how this works, only that apparently because people really like characters when tropes are used...tropes must somehow grant quality to a character.

The second: Tropes are categories and labels, boxes that we group characters into. When a character is sufficiently distinct, we create a new trope to describe them. Tropes are then signifiers of well-tried combinations of character traits and motives (with a dash of plot context). You know a character will probably resonate well with the audience because they share a trope with other characters that resonated well.

Both make internal sense, but the first one is less consistent with reality as I know it. Plot arcs and motifs don't have a magical power to attract readers. The one thing that attracts a human audience is human characters; people like people. :smallsmile: And that's what makes me think that the second possibility is what's going on with characters. When you start with tropes, the one benefit that gives you is letting you know what type of character should be popular.

The thing is, it's not the only starting point you can take. After all, tropes had to come from somewhere. :smallsmile: So you can find all sorts of seeds for a character. Tropes are one seed, yes. But if you use tropes as your seed, you have to keep going. You have to make characters something that your audience can relate to. And they don't relate to tropes. Sure, you can analyze tropes and say "oh, isn't that neat?", but at the end of the day, there's no connection to the character, no attachment.

And sure, you can tell a story without that. But it won't last. At least, that's what I believe.

[GybeMark]

They're tools, and using tools isn't bad, unless you don't understand those tools.

Agreed. IMHO, the TV Tropes page for "Trope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Trope)" has probably the best guideline for using tropes: "In storytelling, a trope is just that — a conceptual figure of speech, a storytelling shorthand for a concept that the audience will recognize and understand instantly."

A trope (or a better word perhaps -- "convention") is a great way to establish something quickly for possible expansion later. In an RPG, the GM can say something like "The fog seems to swallow your torchlight on this cold, dark night, and the rain comes down in sheets. The howling of wolves in the distance reminds you of the loneliness of the muddy mountain path you're traveling." Conventions like "dark, cold, fog, night, howling wolves, isolated road" give cues to the players of how to react to situations, characters, environments, etc.

The dangers of tropes/conventions is their overuse can lead to boring/uninteresting gaming -- "Your 1st level party finds itself in a tavern". That's when subverting tropes can be fun ("Oh no! A group of 1st level adventurers at the next table is hired to clear the sewer of rats! Someone must have been slandering your party -- investigate!")

Where TVTropes in particular excels is the examples of tropes where it lists some situations in fiction that have played a trope in different ways -- the reader/GM can use the site for inspiration (I want my players to have a Big-Damn-Heros moment -- let's take a look at what pieces of fiction have done that, what worked, what didn't, and different ways I can work this into my story).

[AMFV]

Ah, gotcha. Well, I don't see any particular reason to believe that tropes are a necessary source of good character. Here's why.

We have two possibilities.

The first: Tropes are things which are the source of good characterization. Why? Because they are tropes, imbued (?) with the ability to make good characters. I'm not exactly clear on how this works, only that apparently because people really like characters when tropes are used...tropes must somehow grant quality to a character.

The second: Tropes are categories and labels, boxes that we group characters into. When a character is sufficiently distinct, we create a new trope to describe them. Tropes are then signifiers of well-tried combinations of character traits and motives (with a dash of plot context). You know a character will probably resonate well with the audience because they share a trope with other characters that resonated well.

Both make internal sense, but the first one is less consistent with reality as I know it. Plot arcs and motifs don't have a magical power to attract readers. The one thing that attracts a human audience is human characters; people like people. :smallsmile: And that's what makes me think that the second possibility is what's going on with characters. When you start with tropes, the one benefit that gives you is letting you know what type of character should be popular.

The thing is, it's not the only starting point you can take. After all, tropes had to come from somewhere. :smallsmile: So you can find all sorts of seeds for a character. Tropes are one seed, yes. But if you use tropes as your seed, you have to keep going. You have to make characters something that your audience can relate to. And they don't relate to tropes. Sure, you can analyze tropes and say "oh, isn't that neat?", but at the end of the day, there's no connection to the character, no attachment.

And sure, you can tell a story without that. But it won't last. At least, that's what I believe.

The problem is that your characters are still definable by tropes, in fact psychological tropes are extremely useful in making a believable human character particularly with a personality different from your own. So what you are referring to as "human" is really something that is in fact trope dependent.

[Amphetryon]

Ah, gotcha. Well, I don't see any particular reason to believe that tropes are a necessary source of good character. Here's why.

We have two possibilities.

The first: Tropes are things which are the source of good characterization. Why? Because they are tropes, imbued (?) with the ability to make good characters. I'm not exactly clear on how this works, only that apparently because people really like characters when tropes are used...tropes must somehow grant quality to a character.

The second: Tropes are categories and labels, boxes that we group characters into. When a character is sufficiently distinct, we create a new trope to describe them. Tropes are then signifiers of well-tried combinations of character traits and motives (with a dash of plot context). You know a character will probably resonate well with the audience because they share a trope with other characters that resonated well.

Both make internal sense, but the first one is less consistent with reality as I know it. Plot arcs and motifs don't have a magical power to attract readers. The one thing that attracts a human audience is human characters; people like people. :smallsmile: And that's what makes me think that the second possibility is what's going on with characters. When you start with tropes, the one benefit that gives you is letting you know what type of character should be popular.

The thing is, it's not the only starting point you can take. After all, tropes had to come from somewhere. :smallsmile: So you can find all sorts of seeds for a character. Tropes are one seed, yes. But if you use tropes as your seed, you have to keep going. You have to make characters something that your audience can relate to. And they don't relate to tropes. Sure, you can analyze tropes and say "oh, isn't that neat?", but at the end of the day, there's no connection to the character, no attachment.

And sure, you can tell a story without that. But it won't last. At least, that's what I believe.
Categories and labels are things. I do not grok the distinction you're trying to make here.

[Segev]

One year, for a one-shot kick-off-the-semester giant RP session, two friends of mine and I ran a game for the university gaming club. We had 3 tables with 3 wildly different settings but suspiciously similar plot lines. The players built their characters using the Risus system.

Risus is a dirt-simple system where you have 10 dice to divide between 3-7 "attributes." These attributes can be anything from "swordsman" to "leads a corporation" to "chef." Just pick whatever seems relevant.

The way we ran this one, the players hit "random" on tvtropes.org 10 times, and had to choose at least 4 tropes around which to build characters. We allowed a "re-roll" if the trope turned up something that literally couldn't apply to a character (mostly "place" tropes, like "Adventure Academy").

It was chaotic and hillariously fun.

[Angel Bob]

One year, for a one-shot kick-off-the-semester giant RP session, two friends of mine and I ran a game for the university gaming club. We had 3 tables with 3 wildly different settings but suspiciously similar plot lines. The players built their characters using the Risus system.

Risus is a dirt-simple system where you have 10 dice to divide between 3-7 "attributes." These attributes can be anything from "swordsman" to "leads a corporation" to "chef." Just pick whatever seems relevant.

The way we ran this one, the players hit "random" on tvtropes.org 10 times, and had to choose at least 4 tropes around which to build characters. We allowed a "re-roll" if the trope turned up something that literally couldn't apply to a character (mostly "place" tropes, like "Adventure Academy").

It was chaotic and hillariously fun.

Whoa, that sounds magnificent. I need to try this.

[The Oni]

The problem with "Tropes are too clinical" is that people didn't make tropes. Tropes are. A trope is like a color; the moment we were able to perceive it, it existed.

The difference is that a character made of tropes looks like a house made of styles - thrown together haphazardly. Yes, it may be solidly built but it doesn't look like there's an overarching concept. Like an architect at the drawing board, you have to play with it and see what contributes to the design and what doesn't.

[AMFV]

The problem with "Tropes are too clinical" is that people didn't make tropes. Tropes are. A trope is like a color; the moment we were able to perceive it, it existed.

The difference is that a character made of tropes looks like a house made of styles - thrown together haphazardly. Yes, it may be solidly built but it doesn't look like there's an overarching concept. Like an architect at the drawing board, you have to play with it and see what contributes to the design and what doesn't.

The problem is that the overarching concept is also a trope, overarching concepts are tropes in almost all sense, or aversions of them. Once you have an overarching concept you can build something entirely with tropes that fit it or deliberately don't. There's not reason to say that you couldn't use solely tropes to design a character well with overarching theme. Although it does take some thought, but all character design does, and in my experience, those who utilize tropes actually seem more internally consistent than those that are designed haphazardly. It'd be like trying to do a painting without actually seeing what color you were painting, yes that could produce good results, but it's not likely to.

[The Oni]

Well, no, that's not what I mean. Yes, you can solely use tropes to create a good character, but that's only because everything and I do mean everything that has been used more than once is a trope. It's like saying I built this car entirely out of materials - well of course you did; everything is materials.

[AMFV]

Well, no, that's not what I mean. Yes, you can solely use tropes to create a good character, but that's only because everything and I do mean everything that has been used more than once is a trope. It's like saying I built this car entirely out of materials - well of course you did; everything is materials.

Fair enough, if that was your intention I agree.