Can you quit with the "Plot armor" argument already?

[Eerie]

Look, people. Plot is something the Author creates. It is not connected to the character, unless specified (in which case it is not Plot Armor, but innate ability).

So even if some canon "Batman" always wins again impossible odds, when you open a thread of ""Batman" vs. Whateverman", quess what, there is NO AUTHOR there. Or, rather, each post has its own. There is no such thing as a Plot Armor in this case. Particularly, nothing prevents Squirrel Girl from being shot dead in the head with a nuclear bullet by a Space Marine.

Stop it. Plot Armor is not an ability. It is a fluctuation. If you win a lottery thousand times in a row, it doesn`t mean you have higher chances to win it even once more.



Don`t get the wrong idea. I never read any Marvel comics, but from reading wikipedia I actually like Squirrel girl more than most other superheroes from there. It`s probably a good joke to let her win far stronger opponents.

But making a LAW OF NATURE out of her JUST BECAUSE OF THAT JOKE is stupid.

In an "academic" comparison thread she by all accounts should lose to an average Space Marine who ever survived a swarm of Tyranids.

Unless she gets to control Tyranid Sabertooth Squirrels, in which case all bids are off. :smallamused:

[Selrahc]

Particularly, nothing prevents Squirrel Girl from being shot dead in the head with a nuclear bullet by a Space Marine.

Except for the fact that "plot armour" is an innate ability of the character? Bad example.

Honestly, I can see your point a lot of the time. We aren't writing a story about these characters, we are trying to compare their capabilities as objectively as possible(Or at least thats my view). For that reason plot armour isn't an issue in the vast majority of cases. But it almost always gets brought up.

That said, while it often gets brought up, I don't think its gets used as the foundation of an entire argument that much. And it really doesn't get on my nerves all that much either.

I do see the need for some metafictional interpretation. Looking at something and accounting for stuff like errors in filmmaking, or storytelling rather than taking things entirely literally for example("That technobable in Star Trek doesn't make sense! Therefore I Shall claim that in this versus thread they all explode from illogic"). But I think plot armour takes things too far.

[North]

Yeah, I do agree with the jist of what your saying. But Squirrel Girls power is plot armor. She beats mary sues down.

[Rutee]

Particularly, nothing prevents Squirrel Girl from being shot dead in the head with a nuclear bullet by a Space Marine.
Why do I have a nasty feeling on the intention of this thread?

Edit: Confirmed somewhat by the SM vs. FPS Mains thread.


Stop it. Plot Armor is not an ability. It is a fluctuation. If you win a lottery thousand times in a row, it doesn`t mean you have higher chances to win it even once more.

Strangely, I think Plot Armor arguments go too far in the other direction: People keep denying a character's ability based on 'plot armor'. Also, you don't pay attention to fiction, do you? You'd be right in the real world, but this is the segment of characters who can set things up to look like accidents, or the group of people for whom obscene luck can be an in character ability.

[Mx.Silver]

Why do I have a nasty feeling on the intention of this thread?

Well, he could just be picking the (currently) most common competitor couldn't he? It is possible isn't it? Please tell me it's possible.

[Rutee]

Well, he could just be picking the (currently) most common competitor couldn't he? It is possible isn't it? Please tell me it's possible.

As Possible and likely are different things, yes.

[Emperor Tippy]

Particularly, nothing prevents Squirrel Girl from being shot dead in the head with a nuclear bullet by a Space Marine.

While I agree with you on this in many cases, Squirrel Girl isn't one of them. Plot Armor is an actual ability of her's.

[chiasaur11]

While I agree with you on this in many cases, Squirrel Girl isn't one of them. Plot Armor is an actual ability of her's.

Plus, the marine would lose to the squirrels alone. She's got tactical skills that many neglect when considering her in a fight. Insta win abilities don't prevent her from crushing her foes under different circumstances.

[LordVader]

Agreed with this. The solution, IMO, is to use named characters only. For example, not
"Batman v Space Marine"
but rather
"Batman v Marneus Calgar"

In 1, "plot armor" can possibly be used as an argument because well, it's the Goddamn Batman versus some mook. In 2, however, it's two notorious characters up against each other and as such, both have "plot armor" (it's Batman, and Calgar has had all his limbs blown off and survived) so it does not apply.

Simply put: Do not put a "Universe X v Universe X" thread up unless both sides under consideration are mooks, or named characters.

[DomaDoma]

No, no, Vader, that's precisely what the OP is saying. All you're working with is the powers and inclinations of Batman and (though I haven't played WH40k) ditto for a Space Marine. The number of lucky misses Batman has had with death do not enter the equation, unless they involve his powers.

[LordVader]

I know, but since people do it anyways, the best solution is to not get mooks involved unless they're fighting mooks. I understand fully what the OP is saying.

[Rutee]

How does one of us rate a lucky miss over a deliberate one?

I think the problem with the plot armor argument is that people make it too flippantly. "Oh, he's not strong, he just has plot armor". How does one even define plot armor? For instance, would Rushuna Tendou's dodging/countershooting of bullets count as plot armor? IIRC, it's clearly shown to be, but characters don't mention it out loud. Would Bat Man dodging a bullet be plot armor?

[Infinity_Biscuit]

For instance, would Rushuna Tendou's dodging/countershooting of bullets count as plot armor?
If she can consistently shoot down incoming bullets deliberately, she has demonstrated prescience and reaction time on the level of a Jedi. Keywords are "consistently" and "deliberately".

Dodging bullets doesn't work the same way, though, since as the world's fastest sprinters move thirty to forty times slower than the world's slowest bullets, they'd have to be moving before the bullet was fired. But unlike countershooting bullets, there's an alternate, more plausible explanation of "they missed", or just "good luck". Those don't work for the countershooting, because that is so incredibly unlikely.

I think people need to agree what they're arguing beforehand, though. Are you arguing as if the competitors are literary constructs, or as if they are "real" combatants who are merely described by the literature? I tend to argue the latter, and I'm pretty sure many here argue the former. It completely changes what arguments work and how to interpret evidence.

[chiasaur11]

If she can consistently shoot down incoming bullets deliberately, she has demonstrated prescience and reaction time on the level of a Jedi. Keywords are "consistently" and "deliberately".

Dodging bullets doesn't work the same way, though, since as the world's fastest sprinters move thirty to forty times slower than the world's slowest bullets, they'd have to be moving before the bullet was fired. But unlike countershooting bullets, there's an alternate, more plausible explanation of "they missed", or just "good luck". Those don't work for the countershooting, because that is so incredibly unlikely.

I think people need to agree what they're arguing beforehand, though. Are you arguing as if the competitors are literary constructs, or as if they are "real" combatants who are merely described by the literature? I tend to argue the latter, and I'm pretty sure many here argue the former. It completely changes what arguments work and how to interpret evidence.

Or they can guess where the other guy would shoot.

If they dodge once or twice a season, it probably is luck.
If it's multiple times an episode, easily, it's skill.

[Rutee]

Dodging bullets doesn't work the same way, though, since as the world's fastest sprinters move thirty to forty times slower than the world's slowest bullets, they'd have to be moving before the bullet was fired. But unlike countershooting bullets, there's an alternate, more plausible explanation of "they missed", or just "good luck". Those don't work for the countershooting, because that is so incredibly unlikely.
See, this is realism that has no place in about 90% of versus threads. It's realism that is directly counter to story accounts. "Humans can't dodge bullets" "Well /he kind of did/." You can say "They dodge the aim of the bullet" as a basic concept, but we're talking about a character who consistently dodge concentrated fire. She also shoots bullets out of the sky. At the point you can do that, you can reasonably say "The character can literally dodge the bullet". It's not even about sprinting. It's about getting out of the way. Hell, have you played video games? Sure, projectiles move far slower in a video game compared to real life, but the concept is the same; PErceive and move out of the way of the attack, rather then outrun it.

[turkishproverb]

How does one of us rate a lucky miss over a deliberate one?

I think the problem with the plot armor argument is that people make it too flippantly. "Oh, he's not strong, he just has plot armor". How does one even define plot armor? For instance, would Rushuna Tendou's dodging/countershooting of bullets count as plot armor? IIRC, it's clearly shown to be, but characters don't mention it out loud. Would Bat Man dodging a bullet be plot armor?

Looks up Plot Armor in dictionary.

Definition
1: Kira Yamato.

[Rutee]

Looks up Plot Armor in dictionary.

Definition
1: Kira Yamato.

Jesus Yamato doesn't count. Nobody likes him.

[Eerie]

Yeah, I do agree with the jist of what your saying. But Squirrel Girls power is plot armor. She beats mary sues down.

Can`t be. Plot Armor is not a power. Plot armor is a plot, in which the character gets lucky.

Maybe Squirell girl is a bad example. But unless her invincibility is part of the world, and not just plot, then it is a Plot armor and can`t be counted as innate in a discussion.

[factotum]

The problem is that a lot of the abilities of the people you're talking about are taken from contexts in which they do or don't have plot armour. For example, in Star Trek vs. Star Wars debates people will often point out things like "Well, the Empire can't be all that strong if they can be defeated by a few people wandering around on a freighter" or "Storm Troopers must be crap because Leia can kill them with a single shot, but they can barely hit her!". This is ignoring the very real point that the people on the freighter have multi-reinforced plot armour while the Empire, who are the BAD GUYS, by definition don't.

It's therefore extremely difficult to separate the actual capabilities of the people under discussion from their plot armour...

[bosssmiley]

Only one body of men can convey my contempt for the sheer nerdraging silliness of this thread:

The ANGRY Marines!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/buggernaut/Motivation_to_be_ANGRY.jpg
......../
This thread

[sikyon]

Look, people. Plot is something the Author creates. It is not connected to the character, unless specified (in which case it is not Plot Armor, but innate ability).

So even if some canon "Batman" always wins again impossible odds, when you open a thread of ""Batman" vs. Whateverman", quess what, there is NO AUTHOR there. Or, rather, each post has its own. There is no such thing as a Plot Armor in this case. Particularly, nothing prevents Squirrel Girl from being shot dead in the head with a nuclear bullet by a Space Marine.

Stop it. Plot Armor is not an ability. It is a fluctuation. If you win a lottery thousand times in a row, it doesn`t mean you have higher chances to win it even once more.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'm sorry but that was hilarious.

You are trying to argue about fictional characters using real-world science. That is impossible. They are incompatible systems. If you wanted to argue about real world politcs would you argue about them using a fictional universe as the setting? "Isreal and middle east suddenly get along because they ally against dr doom". No, of course not. You can't argue about real world situations in a ficticious setting, and you can't argue about ficticious events in a real world setting.

You HAVE to argue about ficticious events in a ficticious setting, where plot armor is very much an integral part of that setting.

So yes, there is always plot armor as plot armor is integral to fictional heroes and in a ficticious setting it always applies.



Stop it. Plot Armor is not an ability. It is a fluctuation. If you win a lottery thousand times in a row, it doesn`t mean you have higher chances to win it even once more.

Yes, actually, you do have a higher chance to win it once more. Statsitical history shows a massive deviation from the norm in your favour, and it is millions of times more likely that you have something helping you win it instead of you just being lucky. Betting that you will not win it again is, in fact, the longshot.

[Foeofthelance]

Looks up Plot Armor in dictionary.

Definition
1: Kira Yamato.

Actually, much as I liked the series, I agree with that. IF you go through it, Kira wasn't just plot armoured; he was plot tanked. First they give him one of the most advanced weapons platforms ever built. Then they replace it with an even better one; and they cap it off with revealing he was created to be the utmost perfection of every genetic specimen that humanity had to offer. Everything in the plot was designed to make Kira more powerful in comparison to anyone else in the series. It was the equivalent of pitting a fully armed and armored knight, veteran of a dozen campaigns and hundreds of battles, on a fully grown and trained warhorse...and then pitting him against a field of squires in training using training weapons and wearing leather armor.

Squirrel Girl on the other hand, has the same abilities because that's what she was created to do; nothing the in Marvel universe can be more powerful than her in a direct confrontation. (Pheonix could probably win by resetting everything; Squirrel girl would then probably pull a Galactus and come back as some galactic terror.) So putting her against anything is an automatic failure for what ever she faces.

[WalkingTarget]

Question on Squirrel Girl as I haven't actually read any of the comics she's appeared in:

In her various interactions with characters that might, theoretically, be able to make a ruling on the matter (Watcher for quasi-omniscience or Deadpool for genre awareness), was the otherwise meta-plot power of "winning when totally outclassed" mentioned specifically? That's the only justification I can think of for claiming plot armor as a specific power.

Other than that, her plot armor is simply so strong because the only reason the character exists is to defeat out-of-her-league villains. She's just a running gag that all of the Marvel writers play along with because it's fun. I haven't noticed (or even really noted if either of them have been involved in vs. discussions), but do Deadpool or She-Hulk get bonuses for being genre savvy (could they read the appropriate book/comic to learn what the vital weakness of their opponent is, for example)? Meta-abilities are tough to take into account sometimes.

[Eerie]

You HAVE to argue about ficticious events in a ficticious setting, where plot armor is very much an integral part of that setting.

Sure. But in a thread of "Squirrel girl vs. Cthulhu", or whatever, it is ME who create the setting. And not the original author of Squirrel girl or Cthulhu or whoever.

Therefore, I`m free choose to apply or not to apply the Plot Armor, without actually altering the characters I compare. Because Plot Armor is not innate to the characters. Otherwise it wouldn`t be called Plot armor.


Yes, actually, you do have a higher chance to win it once more. Statsitical history shows a massive deviation from the norm in your favour, and it is millions of times more likely that you have something helping you win it instead of you just being lucky. Betting that you will not win it again is, in fact, the longshot.

That proves you don`t know anything about statistics. I`m talking about a random lottery. Where it is possible (woth low probability) to win million times in a row and you will still have the same chance to win every next try.

I`m just trying to explain Plot Armor by assuming that authors are describing characters that get very lucky. Which I have no problem with, but not in VS. threads.

[Eerie]

Squirrel Girl on the other hand, has the same abilities because that's what she was created to do; nothing the in Marvel universe can be more powerful than her in a direct confrontation. (Pheonix could probably win by resetting everything; Squirrel girl would then probably pull a Galactus and come back as some galactic terror.) So putting her against anything is an automatic failure for what ever she faces.

Is this actually a part of Marvel universe, or the authors simply don`t write plots where Squirrel girl loses?

[Sucrose]

Question on Squirrel Girl as I haven't actually read any of the comics she's appeared in:

In her various interactions with characters that might, theoretically, be able to make a ruling on the matter (Watcher for quasi-omniscience or Deadpool for genre awareness), was the otherwise meta-plot power of "winning when totally outclassed" mentioned specifically?



Is this actually a part of Marvel universe, or the authors simply don`t write plots where Squirrel girl loses?

Well, for all the good that a lunatic's testimony does, Deadpool acknowledges Squirrel Girl as some sort of galactic-level threat.

[sikyon]

Sure. But in a thread of "Squirrel girl vs. Cthulhu", or whatever, it is ME who create the setting. And not the original author of Squirrel girl or Cthulhu or whoever.

Therefore, I`m free choose to apply or not to apply the Plot Armor, without actually altering the characters I compare. Because Plot Armor is not innate to the characters. Otherwise it wouldn`t be called Plot armor.


All fictional characters are directed by plot. Without plot, there is no fiction. Trying to separate the two is indeed altering the characters. Learn2fiction.



That proves you don`t know anything about statistics. I`m talking about a random lottery. Where it is possible (woth low probability) to win million times in a row and you will still have the same chance to win every next try.


This proves you don't know anything about statistical analysis. In reality, where real people win lotteries? Winning the lottery a thousand times over demands that the lottery is not random. In fact, setting up a lottery and probability suggests that the first winner has something weighted in their favor. Additional trial runs where the first winner does not win gives more data and gives more weight to the idea that the lottery is random. You are failing to consider all variables, just like you are failing to consider that plot is a directed variable, perhaps the ultimate variable, of any fictional character.




I`m just trying to explain Plot Armor by assuming that authors are describing characters that get very lucky. Which I have no problem with, but not in VS. threads.

Fictional characters don't get lucky. In the first incident analyzed from a real-world physics perspective, yes, that seems to be the case. However, as they keep "getting lucky" statistical analysis suggests that they are infact not lucky but there is some other unknown factor influencing their "luck".



Allow me to explain statistics to you:

Suppose in this situation you were an alien who did not know about seasons on earth.

Did you know that as ice cream sales go up, rates of drowning go up?

No, that does not mean that ice cream causes drowning. The alien could determine this from understanding human biology.

While he wouldn't understand the relation, it would still be logical for him to expect drowning rates to go up with any increased ice cream sale report.

-----

You do not, infact, need a causal link to predict something. All you need is a correlative link. It can be less accurate than a causal link, and won't tell you why it has happened, but it is still very predictive.



In short, if a character keeps getting lucky (plot armor) it suggests that they are infact not constantly getting lucky, but they have some unkown external factor helping them. What "plot armor" really means is "unkown consistent assisting factor".

[Eerie]

All fictional characters are directed by plot. Without plot, there is no fiction. Trying to separate the two is indeed altering the characters.

In this case, no VS. thread should be possible. But they exist. Learn2forum.


Learn2fiction.

Well, don`t know about you, but I actually have a short story published in an actual paper book. It`s certaintly not much, but still... :smallwink:


This proves you don't know anything about statistical analysis. In reality, where real people win lotteries? Winning the lottery a thousand times over demands that the lottery is not random.

So now you are talking about reality, while beforehand you accused me of using reality in connection to fiction.


In fact, setting up a lottery and probability suggests that the first winner has something weighted in their favor. Additional trial runs where the first winner does not win gives more data and gives more weight to the idea that the lottery is random. You are failing to consider all variables, just like you are failing to consider that plot is a directed variable, perhaps the ultimate variable, of any fictional character.

Now you are trying to apply science to fiction. ROFLCOPTER.



Fictional characters don't get lucky.

Of course they do, all the time. If you win against heavy odd, you get lucky. That`s a definition of luck.


In the first incident analyzed from a real-world physics perspective, yes, that seems to be the case. However, as they keep "getting lucky" statistical analysis suggests that they are infact not lucky but there is some other unknown factor influencing their "luck".

Yes. You know, AUTHOR.


In short, if a character keeps getting lucky (plot armor) it suggests that they are infact not constantly getting lucky, but they have some unkown external factor helping them. What "plot armor" really means is "unkown consistent assisting factor".

No. What "plot armor" means is that in this plot the character will win. The "unkown consistent assisting factor" is known. In the REAL world.

[sikyon]

In this case, no VS. thread should be possible. But they exist. Learn2forum.


Each one is fundamentally flawed because their systems are flawed. A real arguement would be like "what would happen in a crossover".


So now you are talking about reality, while beforehand you accused me of using reality in connection to fiction.

I'm showing you why you're wrong by doing the same thing.


Now you are trying to apply science to fiction. ROFLCOPTER.

Indeed, VS threads are a lark.


Of course they do, all the time. If you win against heavy odd, you get lucky. That`s a definition of luck.

Or the odds were much lower than you thought because they had something helping them.


Yes. You know, AUTHOR.

Oh I thought we were trying to take authors out of this.


No. What "plot armor" means is that in this plot the character will win. The "unkown consistent assisting factor" is known. In the REAL world.

Everything the author writes about a character is part of that character. To say arbitrarily that "oh no, this victory wasn't due to his hidden skills, the author just wrote it that way" is subjective, arbitrary and not the basis for a logically consistent comparison system.

This is why VS threads are fundamentally flawed. The underlying logic of trying to separate characters from their settings is flawed.

[Eerie]

Sikyon, let me try to explain my point.

Every VS. thread is a work of fanfiction. They ARE crossovers, albeit poorly performed.

So, in those threads the characters are separated from their original authors, while preserving the characters as much as possible.

And now we get to the term "Plot Armor', which is simply a way to say that despite the fact that the characters face overwhelming odds, author choses to keep them winning\alive. The only way to explain this somehow without additional information is to assume the characters just get lucky. Let`s take Star Wars for example. Why Imperial stormtroopers always seems to miss? Is there some hidden jedi force that makes them miss? No, it is George Lucas who makes them miss.

Yes, later the author can retcon it by giving the characters some hidden powers. But that would turn the Plot Armor into a real armor.

That`s why I`m saying that in a VS. threads Plot Armor should not be applied.

[WalkingTarget]

To give an example: take the narrator in The War of the Worlds. While he doesn't act in a completely idiotic way his ability to survive the Martian invasion can pretty much just be chalked up to luck (numerous near-misses with heat rays, almost got stepped on by a tripod, was in a house that a cylinder crashed into, finally gives up just as the Martians succumb to terrestrial diseases, etc.) Taking him out of this story and then assuming that he'd automatically make it through any other fictional invasion you care to dump him in because he made it through this one is, in my opinion, ludicrous. The focal character in almost all survival stories seems to have "plot armor" because the fact that they survive is the only reason they're the focal character in the first place. TWotW could just as easily have followed any of the thousands of other people in England who died, but they'd be shorter stories that wouldn't get any sort of resolution. Gordon Freeman is a counter-example to this character in that his ability to make it through the invasions is largely due to his own skills and initiative which is something more easily brought to bear in a vs. discussion but to give him preferential treatment solely on his protagonist status is just as out of place as doing so for the unnamed narrator in Wells' novel.

Possible exceptions might be made for Squirrel Girl (depending on how you treat the character) and characters from settings where Narrative Causality or similar conventions might be in effect (Discworld).

[Eerie]

Possible exceptions might be made for Squirrel Girl (depending on how you treat the character) and characters from settings where Narrative Causality or similar conventions might be in effect (Discworld).

Even in settings where Narrative Causality is a law of nature, Plot Armor still can apply. Just on a higher level. Like someone winning despite the fact that Narrative Causality is against him. But I don`t know any examples of that.

[sikyon]

So, in those threads the characters are separated from their original authors, while preserving the characters as much as possible.


The separation process is inconsistent and therefore fails as a logical system (in logic, consistency is fundamental). The comparisons are therefore not meaningful.

I appreciate what you are trying to say but the fact is that trying to remove plot armor is not an exact science and therefore it's more accurate to try and include it. If you try to take it away, then really your system of comparison is no longer logical(consistent), and therefore meaningless.

[Eerie]

The separation process is inconsistent and therefore fails as a logical system (in logic, consistency is fundamental). The comparisons are therefore not meaningful.

I appreciate what you are trying to say but the fact is that trying to remove plot armor is not an exact science and therefore it's more accurate to try and include it. If you try to take it away, then really your system of comparison is no longer logical(consistent), and therefore meaningless.

I disagree. Plot Armor is less connected to the characters than almost anything else. The fact that characters get lucky doesn`t tell a thing about them. Anyone can get lucky. See WalkingTarget`s last post.

Also, if you try to include Plot Armor into a comparison, you will realize that most of those comparisons will result in a draw, because both sides can`t lose. Their other abilities won`t matter at all in this case.

[Rutee]

This is why VS threads are fundamentally flawed. The underlying logic of trying to separate characters from their settings is flawed.

I thought it was because they were huge NERD RAGE outlets...


To give an example: take the narrator in The War of the Worlds. While he doesn't act in a completely idiotic way his ability to survive the Martian invasion can pretty much just be chalked up to luck (numerous near-misses with heat rays, almost got stepped on by a tripod, was in a house that a cylinder crashed into, finally gives up just as the Martians succumb to terrestrial diseases, etc.) Taking him out of this story and then assuming that he'd automatically make it through any other fictional invasion you care to dump him in because he made it through this one is, in my opinion, ludicrous. The focal character in almost all survival stories seems to have "plot armor" because the fact that they survive is the only reason they're the focal character in the first place. TWotW could just as easily have followed any of the thousands of other people in England who died, but they'd be shorter stories that wouldn't get any sort of resolution. Gordon Freeman is a counter-example to this character in that his ability to make it through the invasions is largely due to his own skills and initiative which is something more easily brought to bear in a vs. discussion but to give him preferential treatment solely on his protagonist status is just as out of place as doing so for the unnamed narrator in Wells' novel.
I dunno. All things considered, Narrative causality is always a law of a setting, because the settings simply aren't real.It's meta, but it's also correct.

[Eerie]

All things considered, Narrative causality is always a law of a setting


Correction:

Narrative causality is almost always a law of a bad setting.

[chiasaur11]

Correction:

Narrative causality is almost always a law of a bad setting.

Discworld? Bad?

What kind of evil lunatic are you?

[Eerie]

Discworld? Bad?

What kind of evil lunatic are you?

Discworld is fantastic.

But it doesn`t actually have a narrative causality beyond what every good book have.

What it has is laws of nature that looks like a parody to the real-world regular, BAD narrative causality that most fiction suffers from.

[Rutee]

Correction:

Narrative causality is almost always a law of a bad setting.

You're aware that WH40k follows Narrative Causality, right?

Every work of fiction does. Period. Things only happen because the Author wants them to. That's the way fiction works. It's not real. Nothing can happen unless it is allowed to happen by the writer. Even if that writer wants things to be 100% realistic, it's only that way because the writer said so, in furtherance of their own goals.

[WalkingTarget]

I dunno. All things considered, Narrative causality is always a law of a setting, because the settings simply aren't real.It's meta, but it's also correct.


Correction:

Narrative causality is almost always a law of a bad setting.

My opinion: I'd say that it's not that "everything" works by Narrative Causality, it's more like things can be "story shaped". What this "shape" is changes between various media and audiences and things that don't fit the correct shape tend to be unpopular with the general public (<---generalization). I think that a distinction between aspects that are inherent to the setting as opposed to the medium is warranted.

This is why a lot of stories are formulaic, because if they weren't then people wouldn't pay for them. Part of that formula, in western (or at least the American portion that I'm most familiar with, sorry to generalize here) is that the protagonist survives (that, and it leaves the door open for sequels if whatever it is sells well). That's why the mortality rate of A Song of Ice and Fire is referenced so often when I hear/see it described to somebody unfamiliar with it; it screws with the audience's expectations.

Not that characters living through dire circumstances is always a bad thing. Almost any disaster/survival story (especially if told in the first person) is going to be from somebody who sees it through to the end. Gamers would be frustrated if the game ends in the character's death (as in an un-winnable boss fight due to being outgunned no matter what preparations you've made, not in the "heroic sacrifice" cinematic style death following some other victory). The War of the Worlds or "The Shadow Over Innsmouth" wouldn't be nearly as interesting if the Martians/townsfolk killed the narrator in the first attack. The opposite can be true as well: I think the way that some characters die in several Stephen King books I've read is detrimental to the narrative (Randall Flagg/Walter o'Dim in The Dark Tower, Nadine Cross in The Stand, etc). Sure, there are exceptions, but the fact that they are exceptions is part of the point.

[Eerie]

You're aware that WH40k follows Narrative Causality, right?

I never played WH40k or read any of WH40k-inspired fiction, and I`m not very interested in doing it, so I really have no idea if WH40k follows Narrative Causality. It is reasonable to assume it does, with all the cliches it incorporates and ridicules.

What was your point?


Every work of fiction does. Period. Things only happen because the Author wants them to. That's the way fiction works. It's not real. Nothing can happen unless it is allowed to happen by the writer. Even if that writer wants things to be 100% realistic, it's only that way because the writer said so, in furtherance of their own goals.

You know what law (in science) is? It is something that statistically repeats itself in different systems under the same conditions.

Thats what I`m talking about when I say "narrative causality". There is even a whole site, tvtropes, dedicated to it. If many authors describe the same stupid thing over and over, its a narrative causality.

[Infinity_Biscuit]

You are trying to argue about fictional characters using real-world science. That is impossible.
No it is not.

Seriously, I've seen it and done it dozens of times, so it cannot be impossible. It is up to the participants to decide if they are going to ignore rational analysis or not. If you do not want to do it, simply say it in advance, but to assume that no one can or will (and especially to laugh at them for it) is insulting to those who do.


You're aware that WH40k follows Narrative Causality, right?

Every work of fiction does. Period. Things only happen because the Author wants them to. That's the way fiction works. It's not real. Nothing can happen unless it is allowed to happen by the writer. Even if that writer wants things to be 100% realistic, it's only that way because the writer said so, in furtherance of their own goals.
You know very well that he meant it as "follows Narrative Causality in opposition to realism".

[Eerie]

Not that characters living through dire circumstances is always a bad thing. Almost any disaster/survival story (especially if told in the first person) is going to be from somebody who sees it through to the end.

I think thats kind of a "necessary evil". You can`t describe a coherent disaster/survival story with your main characters\narrators dying all the time

Although it is a great idea to try out. Protagonist die in the end of every chapter, and a new one takes the lead. Really cool. I may do it. :smallamused:



I think the way that some characters die in several Stephen King books I've read is detrimental to the narrative (Randall Flagg/Walter o'Dim in The Dark Tower, Nadine Cross in The Stand, etc). Sure, there are exceptions, but the fact that they are exceptions is part of the point.

Just admit it - Stephen King`s plots royally sucks arse. If not for the great descriptions, world and situations, I wouldn`t read him.

[Rutee]

My opinion: I'd say that it's not that "everything" works by Narrative Causality, it's more like things can be "story shaped". What this "shape" is changes between various media and audiences and things that don't fit the correct shape tend to be unpopular with the general public (<---generalization). I think that a distinction between aspects that are inherent to the setting as opposed to the medium is warranted.

I don't think we're on the same page. What do you mean by Narrative causality?


Seriously, I've seen it and done it dozens of times, so it cannot be impossible. It is up to the participants to decide if they are going to ignore rational analysis or not. If you do not want to do it, simply say it in advance, but to assume that no one can or will (and especially to laugh at them for it) is insulting to those who do.

Those arguments were flawed, because they inserted realism where none was intended. Physics when Physics are intended is one thing. Actual, hard physics when none was done, is another. It's the difference between applying physics to Star Trek and applying physics to Michael Crichton's work.


You know what law (in science) is? It is something that statistically repeats itself in different systems under the same conditions.

Thats what I`m talking about when I say "narrative causality". There is even a whole site, tvtropes, dedicated to it. If many authors describe the same stupid thing over and over, its a narrative causality.
That's.. not Narrative Causality. Narrative CAusality is effectively "It happened because it was good for the story for it to do so". All Settings, all works, all fiction does This.

FYI: TVTropes /likes/ tropes. They're not stupid just because they've been done. Coming up with something genuinely, truly new is impossible. That's why TVTropes exists. It catalogues the archetypes we know. Archetypes are not bad, on a conceptual level (Some specific archetypes are, but that's a matter of content, not a matter of 'All archetypes are bad')

[Eerie]

That's.. not Narrative Causality. Narrative CAusality is effectively "It happened because it was good for the story for it to do so". All Settings, all works, all fiction does This.

You are so wrong. All good stories are happening in a world that limits the plot in some ways. A story can`t exist alone, without a background.


FYI: TVTropes /likes/ tropes. They're not stupid just because they've been done.

Things like Imperial Stormtrooper Marksmanship Academy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ImperialStormtrooperMarksmanshipAcademy) are stupid if overdone. Which is exactly what Plot Armor is.

[Rutee]

You are so wrong. All good stories are happening in a world that limits the plot in some ways. A story can`t exist alone, without a background.
Are stories real?




Things like Imperial Stormtrooper Marksmanship Academy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ImperialStormtrooperMarksmanshipAcademy) are stupid if overdone. Which is exactly what Plot Armor is.

Let's assume I agree with you for a moment. Why does this make all tropes bad? It's like saying "Science fiction can be stupid if it's not done well. Therefore, all Science Fiction is bad"

[WalkingTarget]

Just admit it - Stephen King`s plots royally sucks arse. If not for the great descriptions, world and situations, I wouldn`t read him.

I think he has a problem writing endings in particular more than anything else.


I don't think we're on the same page. What do you mean by Narrative causality?

Specifically, I generally use it in reference (direct or otherwise) to the Discworld where things happen like they do "in stories" specifically because that's how they happen in stories. It's an inherent part of the setting (a crashed wagon/carriage will always explode and send one flaming wheel rolling away from the wreckage, pretty much the entire plot of Moving Pictures, etc). I know that the phrase "Narrative Causality" was included in the GURPS Discworld game to explain this feature of the setting. I don't know if it had been in general use before that.

At least since that game came out (if not before), the phrase gets used in the manner you mean and I agree that differing usage of that specific wording is causing problems in this thread. You're right that authors write things in a particular way to make it a better story, but that's usually entirely outside of the frame of reference of that story. Pratchett uses it not only while writing his novels (in the manner that all authors do), but it is also utilized as a plot device in and of itself and that distinction is what I was trying to address.

[Infinity_Biscuit]

Those arguments were flawed, because they inserted realism where none was intended. Physics when Physics are intended is one thing. Actual, hard physics when none was done, is another. It's the difference between applying physics to Star Trek and applying physics to Michael Crichton's work.
First, who cares what the creators intended? The creators of The Next Generation intended for Wesley Crusher to be a very likable charcter. Are any discussions that include dislike for Wesley flawed?

Second, what you do is look at the work itself and see if it's consistent enough for analysis. It doesn't have to be super tight (Star Trek is analysable) or true to only our known rules (...Star Trek again), but yes, some things are impossible to gather any meaningful analysis from because they're too inconsistent. Don't disparage the entire method because it is not perfect, though. Here (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Analysis.html) is a guide that compares literary and scientific analysis methods that I hope will shed more light on the latter method.

[Eerie]

Are stories real?

I could ask you to define what real is. But I won`t because that will be too cruel.

Of course stories are real - in your mind. What would be the point of stories if you can`t pretend that they are real (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief)?


Let's assume I agree with you for a moment. Why does this make all tropes bad? It's like saying "Science fiction can be stupid if it's not done well. Therefore, all Science Fiction is bad"

I didn`t say all tropes are bad. Narrative causality (which incorporates most of them) is bad. Reason is simple. While a person can get lucky in a real world, there is no such thing as a narrative causality here. A hero facing impossible shouldn`t automatically win (unless it is specified, like in Discworld). So narrative causality create inconsistent settings, thus breaking the WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief.

And although bad authors succumb to this, especially in the long series, there is no reason for us to use it too, here on this forum, in comparison threads.

[Rutee]

At least since that game came out (if not before), the phrase gets used in the manner you mean and I agree that differing usage of that specific wording is causing problems in this thread. You're right that authors write things in a particular way to make it a better story, but that's usually entirely outside of the frame of reference of that story. Pratchett uses it not only while writing his novels (in the manner that all authors do), but it is also utilized as a plot device in and of itself and that distinction is what I was trying to address.
Isn't it just as much a plot device if it's always used, even if it's not explicitly mentioned?


First, who cares what the creators intended? The creators of The Next Generation intended for Wesley Crusher to be a very likable charcter. Are any discussions that include dislike for Wesley flawed?
Apples and oranges. Wesley's likability as a character isn't a setting matter, but an audience reaction. A Versus Thread doesn't discuss audience reactions. ...Well yes it does, simplistically. People say what they like will win, as a general rule.


Second, what you do is look at the work itself and see if it's consistent enough for analysis. It doesn't have to be super tight (Star Trek is analysable) or true to only our known rules (...Star Trek again), but yes, some things are impossible to gather any meaningful analysis from because they're too inconsistent. Don't disparage the entire method because it is not perfect, though.
Application of physics is an auto-fail. Period. When designers Do Not Do The Research, their numbers are by default wrong. That doesn't mean you can't look at directly shown capabilities, but trying to derive their capabilities through physics isn't really possible, or else you get the arguments produced by the website you link below.


Here (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Analysis.html) is a guide that compares literary and scientific analysis methods that I hope will shed more light on the latter method.

As a star wars fan, SD.net is run by lunatic fanboys, seeking to validate their work in creating what amounts to feeding the largest, most flame filled versus thread in history (If I avoid bringing in a lot of real world examples anyway). Their work is suspect by definition.



Of course stories are real - in your mind. What would be the point of stories if you can`t pretend that they are real?

Then all stories are accurate portrayals of actual occurences?


I didn`t say all tropes are bad. Narrative causality (which incorporates most of them) is bad. Reason is simple. While a person can get lucky in a real world, there is no such thing as a narrative causality here.
If all you want is real life, why are you going to fiction?

[Infinity_Biscuit]

People say what they like will win, as a general rule.
That's what analysis is for, so people have something to go by besides gut instinct based on what they like.


Application of physics is an auto-fail. Period.
Do you realise how insulting you're being with stuff like this?


When designers Do Not Do The Research, their numbers are by default wrong. That doesn't mean you can't look at directly shown capabilities, but trying to derive their capabilities through physics isn't really possible, or else you get the arguments produced by the website you link below.
So the methodology is wrong because it produces results that you don't like? Not that are wrong, unreliable, or anything like that, but just results that you dislike?


As a star wars fan, SD.net is run by lunatic fanboys
Which is why people who post excessive praise for Star Wars or cheerleading for the vs debate are yelled at for not contributing meaningfully?


seeking to validate their work in creating what amounts to feeding the largest, most flame filled versus thread in history
Which is why only 3.5% of their forum is based on the Star Wars vs Star Trek debate?


Their work is suspect by definition.
Ad hominems should be beyond you. Please avoid attacks on those who put forward the arguments as opposed to the arguments themselves.

[Eerie]

If all you want is real life, why are you going to fiction?

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

Good fiction is a fiction you can believe in. Yes, you pretend it is a real life. You temporarily extend your definition of real life to cover the fiction as well.

However, you can`t possibly believe in a narrative causality without explaining it somehow. Narrative causality by itself is inherently inconsistent. It first shows you a setting that should behave according to some laws, and they break those laws again and again, without justifying it in any way.

And even when your explanation is luck, it is very hard to believe in really large statistical fluctiations. Because they are - DUH - improbable by definition.

And those fluctiations surely shouldn`t apply to comparison threads. They remove the purpose of trying to understand who of the characters is stronger in average.

[Rutee]

That's what analysis is for, so people have something to go by besides gut instinct based on what they like.
And it works so well, doesn't it?


Do you realise how insulting you're being with stuff like this?
To whom?


So the methodology is wrong because it produces results that you don't like? Not that are wrong, unreliable, or anything like that, but just results that you dislike?
You got me. I just dislike them. I couldn't possibly /because/ they're wrong, unreliable, etc, but I just dislike them.

Here's why the results are wrong: Because the process you are using to reach your 'reliable' results is directly counter to the one used by the creators. The creators may in fact derive their results consistently, but they will not do so through the use of physics. Equal Input + Different Methods = Different Output.



Ad hominems should be beyond you. Please avoid attacks on those who put forward the arguments as opposed to the arguments themselves.
Why? Every argument I've seen from them has been fundamentally flawed due to the above on different methods, etc. In a pure logical debate, yeah, I should examine those arguments anyway. In a realistic sense, I have limitted time. Burning it on what amounts to "Lizzie Borden could totally beat Anne Frank in a fistfight" is bad enough; You think I'm going to check sites that habitually don't apply good analytical process on top of that? Just to please the only two fans it has on this board? No, that's quite alright.


Why are you putting words in my mouth?

Good fiction is a fiction you can believe in. Yes, you pretend it is a real life. You temporarily extend your definition of real life to cover the fiction as well.

Aren't you conflating "What I like my fiction to be" with "What makes fiction good"?

[LBO]

Being sort of serious: No. Plot armour, above and beyond everything else, is the only measure of power. How can you supposed to measure a character or civilisation's "power" in objective terms? By looking at how they perform in their respective universes, by looking at the situations they're put in and the outcomes. What, above all, is what decides how those situations are resolved? PLOT. What happens is entirely up to the writer. Trying to come up with "objective power" is idiotic, because the only evidence you can cite is in-universe, and in-universe facts depend entirely on what makes a compelling story.


Now that that's over with: Enough baawwing about SRS BUSINES already, christ. Vs threads are for fun, and group mutual fanboy-baiting, not some reasoned scientific analysis where the conclusion means anything. In the end, nobody really gives a crap about whose fictional character can beat who; the joy is in the debate and how much lulz can be found in it. Especially when so many universes debated depend upon plot armour, narrative causality and Rule of Cool, trying to add physics is desperately futile and really quite annoying to us people trying to have fun. Especially when you're so up yourself about it.


Also, the tortoise wins.

[Infinity_Biscuit]

And it works so well, doesn't it?
It does! When people do agree to look at these things scientifically, it can end up with one side convincing the other when there's enough material and neither side is being stubborn. No, it's not perfect, but I find this superior to other methods, which cannot result in convincing due to debate because they are entirely subjective.


To whom?
To anyone who doesn't toss out the entire method because you personally dislike it. Didn't you find it annoying when Talya was making definitive, all-encompassing statements based on her personal preferences in the debates on how to run a campaign? At least she wasn't outright stating that the other methods were entirely wrong.


You got me. I just dislike them. I couldn't possibly /because/ they're wrong, unreliable, etc, but I just dislike them.
Well, you never actually gave a reason until now as to why it was wrong. Only that it was.


Here's why the results are wrong: Because the process you are using to reach your 'reliable' results is directly counter to the one used by the creators. The creators may in fact derive their results consistently, but they will not do so through the use of physics. Equal Input + Different Methods = Different Output.
EVERY SINGLE ANALYSIS of literature is at least somewhat counter to the way the author wrote it, because no one has the same though processes as the author. You cannot know why the author wrote what she wrote; not even if they state it (look at George Lucas's statements and how they've changed over the decades: which part is true?)! It is self-defeating to throw out any analysis that isn't exactly how the author intended. Besides, if you're trying to derive how the author intended things to be through the works, how is that any more innately correct than trying to derive how the fictional world works through the works?

Look, you're examining these as "Character as written by Author". I'm examining this as "Character as read in Book/seen in Movie". Why are you incapable of admitting that the latter can be done? I understand your method (I think); I just dislike it because it's so subjective. But I still understand that it works.


Why? Every argument I've seen from them has been fundamentally flawed due to the above on different methods, etc.
If the problem you have with them is that you dislike their method of analysis, why are you holding that against them in a comparison of their method of analysis with others? Different thing entirely, and it may shed light on the issue.


Vs threads are for fun, and group mutual fanboy-baiting, not some reasoned scientific analysis where the conclusion means anything.
Only if people agree to ignore the latter.


Especially when so many universes debated depend upon plot armour, narrative causality and Rule of Cool, trying to add physics is desperately futile and really quite annoying to us people trying to have fun.
And so many universes rely upon immersion and suspension of disbelief, so trying to tear down anything that isn't the narrative itself is really quite annoying to us people trying to have fun.

[Rutee]

Being sort of serious: No. Plot armour, above and beyond everything else, is the only measure of power. How can you supposed to measure a character or civilisation's "power" in objective terms? By looking at how they perform in their respective universes, by looking at the situations they're put in and the outcomes. What, above all, is what decides how those situations are resolved? PLOT. What happens is entirely up to the writer. Trying to come up with "objective power" is idiotic, because the only evidence you can cite is in-universe, and in-universe facts depend entirely on what makes a compelling story.
Thank you. That's a much better way of phrasing what I meant.

[LBO]

Only if people agree to ignore the latter.
Since invoking science consistently turns sometimes-entertaining threads into boring crap from people who think they know everything about physics, and since people still argue the toss over the numbers it means, I can't imagine the circumstances where anyone wouldn't want to ignore it. Not spoiling the fun is an unwritten, tacit agreement, like not using smilies on 4chan or not punching random people on the street. The kind that a few people completely fail to get, to the irritation of everyone else.


And so many universes rely upon immersion and suspension of disbelief, so trying to tear down anything that isn't the narrative itself is really quite annoying to us people trying to have fun.
My sincere apologies to both of you, but I'm sure you'll be able to find somewhere on the internet populated by people who prefer pretentious, dreary wannabe-scientist circlejerks to the lulz. Meanwhile, I direct you to this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81524) as absolutely everything a vs thread should be.

[Infinity_Biscuit]

My sincere apologies to both of you.
If you're going to be trite like that, I will bring up that I have no idea how you can enjoy fiction if you view everything as "it's just what the author wants". How can there be any tension if it's not even pretending to be a facsimile of reality, but simply the whims of an author? How can you care for the characters if you just see them as devices to tell a plot? How can you get anything more than a detached view of the literary devices if you aren't going to even pretend that it's "happening"?

[LBO]

baaaaaaawwwwwww

Hi, if you want to be taken seriously, try addressing my argument regarding plot armour instead of conveniently skirting around it. (I don't want you to, because using "rules of debate" and acting as though any of this matters, or as if anyone cares about your stupid rules is the exact same pretentious SRS BUSINESS nonsense that destroys vs threads. I'm just pointing out the rather poor position you've put yourself in, from your kind of stuffy, objective standpoint.)

Also? You totally missed the point. The "power" of some device or weapon or character in a story (you know, power, that thing you were trying to apply SCIENCE!! to) has nothing, nothing to do with the narrative or maintaining suspension of disbelief. Do you have to know the exact power output of a weapon to know the person who got shot in the face with it is dead? Does not knowing make the scene any less dramatic? Only where the plot hinges around it, where you need to be over nine thousand to split the Death Star in half and save the kitties. Otherwise, it's irrelevant. The power is controlled by the plot, not vice versa.

You're the one who seems to have missed the entire point of storytelling. You demand perfect, explicit consistency? Having to judge and justify everything with your stupid little values? That's not a story. That's a simulation.

[Infinity_Biscuit]

Hi, if you want to be taken seriously, try addressing my argument regarding plot armour instead of conveniently skirting around it. (I don't want you to, because using "rules of debate" and acting as though any of this matters, or as if anyone cares about your stupid rules is the exact same pretentious SRS BUSINESS nonsense that destroys vs threads. I'm just pointing out the rather poor position you've put yourself in, from your kind of stuffy, objective standpoint.)
What the hell? All I was doing was responding to your snide remark. If you want to see my arguments against your position, I already responded to them in Rutee's post; she and I both agree you both are saying the same thing.


Also? You totally missed the point. The "power" of some device or weapon or character in a story has nothing, nothing to do with enjoying a narrative or maintaining suspension of disbelief.
No, but it has everything to do with versus debates.


Do you have to know the exact power output of a weapon to know the person who got shot in the face with it is dead? Does not knowing make the scene any less dramatic?
No, but knowing that being shot in the face is a cause of death (treating it as a "real" world) is necessary, whereas knowing that the death being dramatically appropriate is the ONLY cause of death (treating it as purely a literary construct) removes all the drama from the scene.

[Rutee]

And so many universes rely upon immersion and suspension of disbelief, so trying to tear down anything that isn't the narrative itself is really quite annoying to us people trying to have fun.
First off, immersion nor suspension of disbelief is not automatically broken by narrative causality. I daresay that this is the case for most people, give how well such properties do.

But, more relevantly, if what you want immersion and the conservation of your suspension of disbelief, do you really want to discuss a versus thread? How do these threads not behave like a bull in the china shop of your tastes?

[Infinity_Biscuit]

First off, immersion nor suspension of disbelief is not automatically broken by narrative causality. I daresay that this is the case for most people, give how well such properties do.
I'm not saying that works that use narrative causality necessarily damage immersion or SoD (although they can, at least for me, if it's blatant and not done well). I meant that thinking of the parts of the story as narrative devices is less conducive to them than thinking of the parts as people and events existing in a world with its own rules (again, maybe only for me).


But, more relevantly, if what you want immersion and the conservation of your suspension of disbelief, do you really want to discuss a versus thread? How do these threads not behave like a bull in the china shop of your tastes?
Since versus threads can involve Fictional Construct A vs Real World Thing B (or even just Real Thing A vs Real Thing B), and since I already try to see the contents of fiction as "real" things, and thus analysable, I don't see why they wouldn't be compatible.

[Rutee]

I'm not saying that works that use narrative causality necessarily damage immersion or SoD (although they can, at least for me, if it's blatant and not done well). I meant that thinking of the parts of the story as narrative devices is less conducive to them than thinking of the parts as people and events existing in a world with its own rules (again, maybe only for me).
The former is generally more accurate then the latter. If you feel accuracy is less conducive to these debates.. well, it's not a big deal anyway.


Since versus threads can involve Fictional Construct A vs Real World Thing B (or even just Real Thing A vs Real Thing B), and since I already try to see the contents of fiction as "real" things, and thus analysable, I don't see why they wouldn't be compatible.

Narrative causality damages immersion, but mangling the literary and logical coherence of these settings to contrive a versus thread does not? You have an interesting viewpoint.

[Infinity_Biscuit]

The former is generally more accurate then the latter. If you feel accuracy is less conducive to these debates.. well, it's not a big deal anyway.
Analysing it as a narrative work controlled by the author may be more accurate, but it's less meaningful when dealing with anything outside of the author's writings, such as versus debates. You have to guess what the author would intend through the work, which adds another layer as well as subjectivity.


Narrative causality damages immersion, but mangling the literary and logical coherence of these settings to contrive a versus thread does not? You have an interesting viewpoint.
That's because the narrative causality is either part of the work or how one views the work, depending on which you meant, but versus debates tend not to be canon. Analysing a match-up between the armies of Bowser and Sauron as scientifically as possible doesn't affect how I view either the Mario or Lord of the Rings series at all.

[Eerie]

LBO and Rutee, if you want lulz, go to 4chan`s \b\ and stay there. :smallwink:

[LBO]

Er, no. This forum provides ample lulz when people like you aren't going off on painfully serious rants - it's almost as unfunny as stupid forced memes. If you want somewhere people treat vs threads as SRS BUSINESS, I suggest you leave.

[Eerie]

Er, no. This forum provides ample lulz when people like you aren't going off on painfully serious rants - it's almost as unfunny as stupid forced memes. If you want somewhere people treat vs threads as SRS BUSINESS, I suggest you leave.


Look, your posts just firmly establish your position as a punk. I enjoy serious discussions, even on things like VS. thread. It is way funnier then the mindless \b\ lulz, and you can actually learn something new.

I suggest you either stop writing in this thread or, you know, try to address the points I make.

[Bryn]

LBO and Rutee, if you want lulz, go to 4chan's \b\ and stay there. :smallwink:

Wait, what? There are lulz to be had in modern /b/? News to me :smalltongue:

[Eerie]

Wait, what? There are lulz to be had in modern /b/? News to me :smalltongue:

There is an ocean of difference between lols and lulz. The former imply fun. The latter do not.

[LBO]

...Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Dammit, why doesn't this forum have a sage function...

[Bryn]

There is an ocean of difference between lols and lulz. The former imply fun. The latter do not.

:smallamused: I am quite aware of what lulz are, thanks. That was just a cheap shot at /b/, which isn't as lulzy as it used to be.

Apart from that, it's unfair to say that other people can't have fun the way they want to. The sort of lulz we can partake in on GiantITP do nothing to hurt people. If you dislike the humour of Anonymous, just ignore it. We won't be offended.

[Eerie]

...Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Dammit, why doesn't this forum have a sage function...

It does. But only sages can use it. :smallwink:

[Eerie]

The sort of lulz we can partake in on GiantITP do nothing to hurt people.

I don`t know, LBO here looks really hurt by the idea that some people would want to enjoy a serious discussion.

[Artemician]

Look, your posts just firmly establish your position as a punk. I enjoy serious discussions, even on things like VS. thread. It is way funnier then the mindless \b\ lulz, and you can actually learn something new.

I suggest you either stop writing in this thread or, you know, try to address the points I make.

Well, I do enjoy the occasional versus thread as well, but IMHO, treating them as serious business is a path doomed to defeat. You're primarily there to enjoy yourself, not for any higher purpose (I mean come on, you're debating in a *versus thread*). If someone is sending the discussion in a way you don't like, well...


I don`t know, LBO here looks really hurt by the idea that some people would want to enjoy a serious discussion.

There's an Ignore User function for a reason. Making good use of it is the best way to ensure a harmonious forum lifestyle.

[Rutee]

Analysing it as a narrative work controlled by the author may be more accurate, but it's less meaningful when dealing with anything outside of the author's writings, such as versus debates. You have to guess what the author would intend through the work, which adds another layer as well as subjectivity.
You're overthinking the difficulty of literary analysis in a general sense. Also, treating these things as objective facts is generally so far off the mark as to be useless itself.



That's because the narrative causality is either part of the work or how one views the work, depending on which you meant, but versus debates tend not to be canon. Analysing a match-up between the armies of Bowser and Sauron as scientifically as possible doesn't affect how I view either the Mario or Lord of the Rings series at all.

Not being canon doesn't make it less stupid.


LBO and Rutee, if you want lulz, go to 4chan`s \b\ and stay there. Let's remember what we're talking about here. A Versus thread is, first off, a mangling of the original settings, and second, a place for, in general, fanboys to go "My favorite will win". If you think these are serious, or more importantly, that they should be taken seriously, *you* are the one who needs to go to 4chan and Nerd Rage at something.

[Dervag]

I participate in versus threads entirely for fun, but the way I have fun with them is by doing a serious analysis.

Where does all this leave me?

[Rutee]

I participate in versus threads entirely for fun, but the way I have fun with them is by doing a serious analysis.

Where does all this leave me?

Not being srs bsns about it? I mean, you didn't make the thread that says "Oh Em Eff Gee these can only be taken seriously, and that furthermore, narrative causality sucks"

[Wish]

what is plot armour ?

Just the two words in this forum mean a storyline centered around a character ability or armour hindrance. Or could be to retrieve an ancient piece of armour as an artifact. Is this correct interpretation?

Thanks a head for any clarifications on this....

[LBO]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotArmor

[Jack Squat]

what is plot armour ?

Just the two words in this forum mean a storyline centered around a character ability or armour hindrance. Or could be to retrieve an ancient piece of armour as an artifact. Is this correct interpretation?

Thanks a head for any clarifications on this....

Plot armor is when a character is stronger than he should be/survives situations he shouldn't just for the sake of the plot.

Edit: Just read the above link...it explains much better than my sentence.

[Eerie]

I participate in versus threads entirely for fun, but the way I have fun with them is by doing a serious analysis.

Where does all this leave me?

In the same group as me. :smallsmile:

[Dervag]

In the same group as me. :smallsmile:I don't condemn people for starting joke vs. threads, but I don't enjoy them myself either (not usually). I would be deeply offended were a person such as LBO to start insulting me based on the fact that I have a serious approach to Versus comparisons. Personally, I believe that a Versus thread is most entertaining when there are enough facts and logic available for us to come to an objective conclusion of some kind.

I do not know if I am in the same group you are, and am willing to take your word for it on a provisional basis.
_______________________________


what is plot armour ?

Just the two words in this forum mean a storyline centered around a character ability or armour hindrance. Or could be to retrieve an ancient piece of armour as an artifact. Is this correct interpretation?

Thanks a head for any clarifications on this....Plot armor is defined as the amount of luck or "deus ex machina" protection characters are granted by the authors in order to allow them to survive death, injury, or failure as a consequence of their actions.

Notable examples of plot armor include-

-Allowing the hero to run through a barrage of automatic weapons fire without being injured.
-Allowing the hero to be poisoned or knocked unconscious by a blow to the head, without suffering lingering physical effects that would incapacitate them for long periods (such as a weakened constitution or low-level brain damage).
-Allowing the hero to survive an explosion in close proximity, especially the explosion of a large metal object, without being riddled with shrapnel.

There are, of course, a nigh-infinite number of variations on the theme.

The reason for the name "plot armor" is that the hero's survives their experience unharmed not because of any explicit and logical protection such as body armor, and not because of sensible precautions appropriate to the level of threat, but because the author wishes them to survive. In other words, they are literally being protected from harm by the plot, and not by any particular actions of their own.