Should not be subjective New Crowner 2/20/2012: Villain Decay

I don't think we want to be making new variants of all the different ways a character can be The Scrappy. The ones we already have are problematic enough as it is.

Rhymes with "Protracted."

I'm sorry but what's with this in story only nonsense going around? That limits tropes in ways that is only noticed by audience and isn't paid attention to in story because every writer is different.

I don't think we want to be making new variants of all the different ways a character can be The Scrappy. The ones we already have are problematic enough as it is.

I'm not talking about villains that are scrappies. I'm talking about villains that go from being powerful, to having power as an Informed Attribute, but never being able to accomplish anything.

We want the audience reaction gone because tropes are not audience reactions! Tropes Are Tools, somehow people seem to miss that.

Tropes convey things to the audience, how the audience reacts is outside of the writer's control. He can try his best but he can only control how he uses tropes, not how people react to them.

edited 15th Feb '12 5:09:36 PM by Cider

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack

If you're trying to get rid of every audience reaction trope on the site, then you're going to be busy.

Go ahead and get started

edited 15th Feb '12 5:39:09 PM by abk0100

<mod hat ON>

Crowner locked.

<mod hat OFF>

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

You know, I wouldn't clear the site of all audience reactions, just most of them. That doesn't change that they are not tropes. This repairshop discussion was about making villain decay into a an object page, that crowner is long over. To make it an objective page, the audience reaction junk needs to be removed from the description.

But please, straw man some more.

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack

You told me.

"We want the audience reaction gone because tropes are not audience reactions!"

Responding to that as if you had said "audience reactions are not trope" is not making a straw man.

About what to do with Villain Decay, making Villain Decay objective would require the description and the entire example section to be changed.

If we're going to do that, we need to decide on exactly what the new definition should be. I'm good with using "Villain starts out threatening, but the characters start to view him as harmless after a while" as the definition, but then we're going to need to put the rest of the examples on a trope about a villain's on-screen presence decaying.

It might even make more sense to leave Villain Decay as it is, and create a new trope specifically for in-universe examples.

Well I took it that way when I was tasked with eliminating all the audience reactions...but it is tempting.

Anyway yes, much needs to change and Lowered Monster Difficulty, which has always been objective, is a good example to look too. The characters can keep stating the villain is dangerous, but then we have Informed Ability for that. If he's easier to defeat, he's decaying. If his plots are not as damaging or heinous, he's decaying. But then, simply not being taken seriously by his peers could be decay all its own even if he remains just as evil/dangerous. You know, fear and intimidation have qualities all their own. That's three bullet points to monster difficulty's four(and much simplier than the current double digits about preventing it).

For one, I think we should remove the "How two prevent villain decay" thing even if we keep "the audience will wonder". Tropes Are Not Bad. And we already have So You Want To and Playing with a Trope.

Anyone else got ideas?

edited 15th Feb '12 7:54:41 PM by Cider

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack

Audience Reactions are fine, but Villain Decay would really fit better if modified to be an objective trope, as many works intentionally lower the villain's threat level either for laughs, drama, or to introduce another villain.

For example, Bowser does certainly decay intentionally in the Mario RPGs, since it is both Played for Laughs in the Paper Mario series and is used to make him the protagonist of Bowsers Inside Story. The main series, yes, even Super Mario Sunshine, have him as a legitimate threat, even if he seems less intimidating to the audience.

Right now, the trope is used to whine about how villains were once scary and awesome, but aren't anymore.

edited 16th Feb '12 11:44:17 AM by WaxingName

Please help out our The History Of Video Games page.

I suppose Villain Decay can occur both in-universe, and to-audience-only (as seen in examples above). Therefore, we can just as well leave it a single trope (renamed, probably - I have, in good faith, believed it is about bashing, not that I have used it, and I'd read it before using it), just noting with examples that those examples are in- (or out-) universe. Maybe two different folders? As for the Borg, to avoid looking for new example, it would be out-universe decay, as it is not really challenging for the characters; yet the Bowser in Paper Mario would be in-universe. That said, in- examples are as well out- examples (with, maybe, very rare exceptions), but out- examples aren't in-. Just noting, to avoid double examples in both folders.

Given the support for a rename, I've created an alt titles crowner here witha few suggestions from the thread. Feel free to add further candidates.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Diminishing Villain Threat taking an early lead at 5-0.

Rhymes with "Protracted."

There's been a bunch of discussion about what we should actually do with this trope. Renaming it before we come to a conclusion doesn't seem right. The crowner doesn't even tell people what the definition of the trope is going to be.

1.Villain gets less dangerous. Either by being easier to thwart or simply being less ambitious or evil than earlier. 2. Objective instances only, this is not to whine about villains you like.

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack

What about when a villain gets objectively less-threatening (they keep losing time and time again, and never make any progress on achieving their goals) but the characters still treat them as just as threatening?

Edit: Can we maybe scrap the rename crowner and do a page action crowner first? Looking through the thread, there isn't really a consensus on whether this page is in-universe or an audience reaction, and picking one or the other would require the page to be totally reworked.

edited 22nd Feb '12 1:36:57 AM by abk0100

I agree, we should do a page action crowner.

Also, how do you measure how a villain objectively gets less threatening by any means other than how the protagonists treat him?

Please help out our The History Of Video Games page.

Scale is one way. First appearance, trying to conquer the universe; second appearance, trying to conquer New Jersey. You can also look at how easily he's defeated. If the protagonist goes through a full Hero's Journey before having a final epic struggle against the villain, and then in the sequel, the same villain is easily curb-stomped, that's probably an example.

Rhymes with "Protracted."

If the characters keep treating a less dangerous villain as a big threat then that's an Informed Ability, also an objective trope and the reason people advise to Show, Don't Tell.

But Tropes Are Not Bad, the characters may simply not have an accurate view of things, they are not omniscient, they aren't looking from the outside to get a better perspective.

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack

I have no idea what you're saying.

Just because the people on screen say someone is dangerous doesn't mean they are. That's an informed ability. Just because the characters don't treat a villain who they can handle more easily than before with any less seriousness doesn't mean the villain isn't easier for them to handle. They might not even realize it because you can see things better in third person.

You know, every race for a sprinter is a hard one because they always go all out. They won't really notice if they are beating a guy by a second, two seconds or half a second unless they constantly compare records. The audience will notice because they aren't looking straight ahead. In fiction land, their usually aren't instant replays or score cards so the heroes might notice actually know their villain getting less dangerous, they just know he's active and that's good enough.

The audience, not actually having to deal with a kidnapper/terrorist/whatever can comfortably point out that hijacking a Bus Full of Innocents is a major step down from the counties and cities so and so usually threatened. They keep track of how many sword strikes were blocked and dodged and how long the various fight scenes took. The character might not note much more than there is a fight and the sharp objects could kill him. This trope can be objective without a character reaction. If they insist someone is still a big threat when they aren't then its an Informed Ability. Using an informed ability doesn't make a show bad.

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack

The less ambitious villain seems the might be slumming it or something. An actual diminished threat would be the villain become less villainous, despirited, or simply outgunned. The Joker knocking over a liquor store doesn't make him less a villain any more than saving a puppy makes Superman less a hero... provided the Joker does it with the appropriate level of panache and psychopathy.

So give me some examples of the examples that we're going to get rid of.

I'm shocked this is still running. I guess I missed the "name is fine how it is crowner". I like lowered villain difficulty, villain threat decay and villain threat fall myself.

Keep the description, just remove the junk about viewers. Villain gets lets dangerous is a legitimate story telling pattern. It should not have been subjective, it no longer is, mission mostly accomplished. Remove the parts that allude to whining fans and we're done.

Ok, I tried to read the examples. I ... was not strong enough.