Yeah, I don't see where the discounting something because it's just one fight thing is coming from. I'm not finding where having this happen repetitively is required in the page definition.
It says that if the trope happens a lot it tends to be bad for the character's reputation, but that seems more like a foot note after the trope is explained. That actual trope definition is just:
Everything after that just seems to be analysis.
edited 28th Sep '11 10:28:06 AM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
The bolded note at the bottom says so. But I'm pretty sure it shouldn't.
Lost in Space
Reopening this. I don't get the sense that it was finished.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
No, it wasn't. I think that we really need to get rid of that note and chop down the description and a lot of our issues will be fixed. I don't see why we need to have the trope happen multiple times especially when we have no trope for it just happening once.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Because when it happens only once, there is a high risk for the trope to be summed up to "the bad guy win a battle". If we are going to accept single fight, I support a renaming to make clear those points at least :
_it's not a character trope, only a combat trope
_ it is a fight that establish the strength of someone by doing something amazing against somebody else. if the threatening level doesn't go up after the event, it isn't this trope.
_from a doylist point, the main reason of this fight must be to establish the strength of someone.
edited 28th Sep '11 1:42:16 PM by VioletOrange
Don't think it's villain-specific, anyway. The bad guy can be Worf to establish the power level of the new Sixth Ranger, for example.
Rhymes with "Protracted."
I like that for a laconic.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Yeah, that strikes me as a good laconic too.
That would be an expansion, though, as it is villain-specific now - a bad guy could be "worfed", but only in a villain-vs-villain situation such as Make Room For The New Villain, or whatever that trope is called. It seems like a sensible expansion, but we should be clear that it would be an expansion, not a clarification.
New laconic: "a fight in which a powerful person is defeated to establish the threat of his opponent."
Do not make The Worf Effect a character trope if you want to expand it to single fight example. With multiple fight, it is a character trope because it is basically "the same character is defeated multiple times to establish the force of antagonist". With single fight, it becomes "a fight in which somebody powerful is defeated to show that his opponent is strong", thus it is a fight trope and not a character trope.
If something were added to the laconic about how the powerful person gets to seem less powerful the more often this is done, would it still be brief enough?
For single fight, it's a secondary effect of this trope, not always true, and generally unwanted by the writer. While this must be mentioned in the main description, I don't think it is a good idea to mention it in the laconic.
So it's a plot trope, not a character trope, then. Problem solved?
Rhymes with "Protracted."
Yep. Which makes more sense for anything called an effect.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Yes, thanks.
I rewrite the description of the sandbox
(the trope doesn't required the toughest guys in the group and I suppress the villain requirement).
edited 30th Sep '11 2:07:47 AM by VioletOrange
House Lewis: Sanity is Relative
Much better! This really is the necessary solution.
Worf is a character. The Worf Effect is what befalls the character.
Many of the examples will need to be rewritten to accomodate this, but that hopefully shouldn't be too hard.
My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.
Do you think that Establishing Threat Fight would work as a new name/redirect ?
I don't think a rename is necessary. Broadening the definition is a better solution to the misuse.
Rhymes with "Protracted."
House Lewis: Sanity is Relative
As a redirect, that's a good one. A rename...while there is misuse, the trope's definition and classification as a character trope are probably bigger factors. Though I don't specifically oppose a rename due to the potential for the name's good use to have come specifically from the trope namer's fandom. That's hard to prove either way, so I'm neutral on that. Put it this way - in the Scottish courts, if this name were on trial for a bad name, I'd be calling Not Proven.
edited 30th Sep '11 1:50:10 PM by CaissasDeathAngel
My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.
Well, it's true that the modification are already big, with a great expansion of the description. It is probably wise to wait if the trope still attract misuse before renaming. So, despite my earlier renaming suggestion, I will be in the camp of the "wait and see" for renaming.
Concerning description, I suggest that if it isn't contradicted in a week, somebody just swap the sandbox and the actual description. After that, he puts here a message to signal the change, we wait one week to let a little time for additional suggestions and we close if that thread if there isn't any. Good plan ?
Description swapped. How's it look?
Rhymes with "Protracted."
Good. If no one complain, this thread shall be closed Saturday.
The point of the trope is having a strong character lose to prove that the new character is stronger. I really don't see why this has to happen repeatedly to the same character for it to count.
Rhymes with "Protracted."