Is this an example?

Here's the simple way to think about it:

If the psychic powers are created through technology, implants, machines worn, special devices, etc. then it's magitek by default.

If it's attributed as a natural ability, no it is not.

Magitek is essentially when magic is turned into some form of technology or combined with it. Explaining magic with science does not do that. Only applying the magic to actual technology counts hence the name: magitek (magic-technology combined)

In one story, a hero apologizes for his lateness by claiming he was looking for a parking meter with remaining time. Does it count as a subversion of Rock Star Parking or is it just a straight case of The Scrooge?

The examples cited have the psychic powers as a natural ability for some people that gets further enhanced, or otherwise utilized for a variety of applications, through the use of specially designed technology that channels the psychic powers/energy through them.

edited 6th Dec '14 7:47:55 PM by MarqFJA

I looked at the trope again and I was slightly wrong. Your case (psychic powers used to run machinery) is precisely aligned with the intent of Magitek. It doesn't matter whether it is Sufficiently Analyzed.

edited 6th Dec '14 7:57:20 PM by Fighteer

So direct interaction between technology and Psychic Powers, be it the tech itself running on the powers to give certain effects (Gundam's Psycommu tech) or the powers being purposefully augmented by the tech (XCOM's Psi Armor), counts for the trope?

Seems like it. At least, we don't have a separate trope for Psychic Tek, which means it's appropriate to lump them together.

Ok, so I really need some help here: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VideoGame/NintendoNightmare

I'm not too sure as to which examples count as well.. examples. Like, which tomato trope works better and do all those idiot ball examples count? I want to make sure this is all correct.

Well, I can definitely say with confidence that Tomato in the Mirror is not what you're looking for, unless the twist involves the player character never knowing they were an AI until the very end.

Any feedback on Bizarre and Improbable Ballistics as asked here?

The player character did not know. Well, I suppose Mario knew at some point but during any of the time you played as him. He found out later on.

edited 7th Dec '14 4:28:51 AM by PowerfulKyurem

If we're using "bizarre and improbable" in the sense of "not what standard logic and probability would lead one to expect", then sure, it's entirely possible for it to be Truth in Television.

It's Tomato in the Mirror if (a) the character is fighting against, or is highly prejudiced against, a certain kind or class of thing; (b) the character later discovers that they are a member of that kind or class.

edited 7th Dec '14 7:50:27 AM by Fighteer

Well, no prejudice was never mentioned and I don't see that applying. In that case, what does fit, cause neither seems to anymore?

edited 7th Dec '14 2:36:33 PM by PowerfulKyurem

In The Simpsons Guy, Cleveland and Carl are paired together during a scene of Counterpart Comparison. When Cleveland asks Carl if he knows why the two of them are paired to each other, Carl answers that's because they're the funniest characters? Does it count as Discriminate And Switch? If so, is it necessary to specify the reason they might suffer discrimination?

When a character does want anchovies on his pizza and the place doesn't have any, is it an inversion of Hold The Unsolicited Ingredient?

Soul Series character Ivy Valentine, while indeed a British noblewoman, most probably does not qualify as an example of English Rose (except as a subversion, at best), but do her more conservative◊ alternate◊ outfits◊ and some official artwork depicting◊ her more "ordinary life" side◊ qualify as an example of invoking the imagery of the trope?

I think so.

I would say definitely not for the first three. The English Rose is a lady. Fishnets or men's style clothes aren't lady-like. Maybe the last one fits the imagery but that doesn't make it an Invoked Trope.

I think we (myself included) tend to confuse "invoke" with "evoke". If she evokes the imagery associated with a trope, but definitely doesn't actually fit it, then maybe it's a kind of Subversion?

I hope this is the correct place to put this...

I'm (slowly) working on filling out the page for The Powder Mage Trilogy(1), and I want clarification on a specific example. Would like to know whether a specific character falls into Little Miss Badass , Action Girl , or Dark Action Girl . The character (Ka-Poel) is a young woman who is quite possibly the most powerful mage in the series. Due to her size and slight frame, she is initially mistaken as being 14 or 15, but is revealed to be 19 later on(2). She is a mute who specializes in a mix of blood magic and what seems like elements of Hollywood Voodoo , and does get into the mix of the action very often as a direct combatant. I was leaning towards Little Miss Badass , but the description there says that if a character doesn't have charisma (and I don't think Ka-Poel would be described as charismatic, despite any cleverness or attractiveness she possesses), she might fall into either Action Girl or Dark Action Girl. (I should mention that she doesn't seem to fall into Dark Magical Girl as the characterization doesn't seem to fit, but might depending on how much information about her gets revealed in the third book? It's a bit hard to tell as she's not a viewpoint character nor is she able to vocalize her opinions and emotions). I don't think she falls into Dark Action Girl due again to the characterization...

Er. Rambling a bit? Basically, I would like to know how much stock to put into the line about a Little Miss Badass having charisma, even if the rest of the trope seems to fit Ka-Poel? Considering the move for Action Girl to become a supertrope, I hesitate to put an example there when a subtrope seems to fit better... Sorry about my wordiness here.

(1) Quick question on this: Was using an internal "Wiki Word" link correct form here?

(2) Am I being too cautious with spoilers here? Not completely certain what is considered good form for spoilers on this wiki. I tend to err on the side of caution with 'em in general, though.

EDIT: Fix'd link to the trilogy, fixed my post-scripts. Not used to asterisks being a formatting thing - I use them for notes that don't flow in the sentence in most forums. Gotta adjust to the syntax here. EDIT 2: More syntax errors. Rarg.

edited 11th Dec '14 5:21:31 AM by Slither09

• If she does commonly get into physical combat, that's likely enough to shift her from being a Magical Girl to a Dark Action Girl or Action Girl, though she could also be both.

• The example is rather lengthy, I would try to streamline it. Or rather, split it up into the various tropes described.

• The spoilers are very unhelpful as-is, because it's easy to guess what is hidden behind them (not the actual age, but it's plain that she's not 14 or 15 from the way it's written). Is it really a spoiler that she's 19 instead of 14 or 15? Just because you don't know something at first and then you know it later on doesn't necessarily make it a spoiler. Personally, I don't think anything is worth spoiler-tagging unless there's a Reveal of some sort, or it's related to a Reveal of some sort. If it's just a fact that happens to be exposed later on (or if it's a secret to the characters, but not that big of a deal to viewers), then I wouldn't spoiler it at all. But if you believe it should be spoilered, I would revise it so that it effectively conceals the spoiler.

• If two books are published and the third is not, then speculation about the third book is not relevant; it doesn't yet matter what's revealed in the future. And if she is an Action Girl now and becomes a Dark Magical Girl later, then both tropes are appropriate: Just say that she is an Action Girl, and when she changes into a DMG, change it to "She's an Action Girl for the first two books, and becomes a DMG in the third book." (With MUCH better context than I just provided, of course.)

• Your WikiWords look good to me.

• Good call on the use of a subtrope if Action Girl is a Super-Trope.

• From what I can see, Dark Action Girl is nearly always a villain, and even when she's not, she's still a first-class bitch who doesn't take shit from anybody. It's not just a visual theme or the fact that she uses verboten powers like "blood magic" and voodoo. Your call on whether she fits here.

• Little Miss Badass seems to just be a deceptively capable (maybe she's a Manipulative Bastard, or The Chessmaster, or maybe she's just an Action Girl in disguise) cute little girl, but the description goes in about a hundred different directions, so it looks very flexible. A character who fits the trope is probably absurdly cute and probably Moe. Again, your call.

• And as you noted, the Dark Magical Girl is not the magical counterpart to the Dark Action Girl; she's emotionally dark, unstable and probably evokes powerful depression or insecurity. It doesn't sound like your character fits, but again again again, your call.

EDITED because my first bullet was wrong-ong-ong.

edited 11th Dec '14 8:38:40 AM by SolipSchism

Thanks for the tips. Will respond to bullets with bullets.

• Noted. I'll be honest, I'm having a hard time figuring out if Magical Girl and Dark Magical Girl have any application outside of the actual Magical Girl genre. What exactly would be the trope for "Girl who uses magic but isn't a part of a magical girl genre work"?
• Wasn't intending this to be the example - If I went with Little Miss Badass I would have something along the lines of a somewhat edited "Little Miss Badass: Ka-Poel. In addition to likely being the most powerful mage in the series, she commonly jumps up on enemies' shoulders and stabs foot-long needles into their spine." There's a lot more examples, but I think that's sufficient enough to explain why she'd qualify for being a Little Miss Badass without being exceptionally wordy. And I think it's better than other instances I've seen, where it's just "Little Miss Badass: Arya Stark"...or so I feel?
• Noted. And I actually would call it a reveal though, as it changes how one of the main Point of View characters views her. Basically, it has story implications for another character and the relationship between the two, as it opens up an eventual romance, and is why the Battle Couple trope eventually comes into play. So I think I'd shift to spoilering the whole sentence, but I'm sensitive to spoilers in general. (EDIT 2: Oh, I also did just remember that there is an in-world reason people assume she's younger. People of her tribe are married off by age 14 excepting very rare cases).
• Cool.
• Awesome, glad I figured that out at least :D (I read the TRS for Action Girl in hopes of clarification).
• Yeah, that's the vibe I get from Dark Action Girl as well. I don't think she fits the mold here, but both her and the other half of the Battle Couple likely fall into some form of AntiHero, which may have been part of my confusion.
• Hrm. Yeah, trope seems a bit bendy. Gunna think on it. She isn't described as "absurdly cute and/or moe", just as small and slight enough of frame for people to assume an early teenager when in her normally bulky clothes. (EDIT: "You're, what, barely 15?" is a line said to her.) Don't want to put an example into a Super-Trope without good cause, but I feel it might fit better.
• Elements of her character fit, but I don't think it's in the spirit of the trope, for the same reason I don't feel Magical Girl fits.

Thanks for the feedback. :)

EDITS due to typos, clarifications, rewordings, etc. EDIT 3: Is there something wrong with the time signature for the "edited on" lines in posts? Seems to be two hrs earlier than what they should be, even after double-checking to make certain I have my time zone set correctly. Apparently I edited this post two hrs before I posted it... As did you yours. Bug due to the TV Tropes 2.0 work going on?

EDIT 4: And now I see the trope of Extraordinarily Empowered Girl... Would Action Girl be implied by this, and could someone be both a Little Miss Badass and Extraordinarily Empowered Girl?

edited 11th Dec '14 10:49:34 AM by Slither09

• I very rarely dip into the Magical Girl genre, so I'm hardly the best person to make judgment calls about the trope, especially without firsthand experience of the character/work. But you might also try Magical Girl Warrior. Hopefully someone else will comment on this point, though.
• You're very correct about writing "Trope: Alice and Bob." That type of write-up is useless. I like your hypothetical write-up (it definitely sounds like she fits), but I would add in a note about to her appearance. Little Miss Badass has two parts. You've described a Badass, but you also need to include the "Little Miss" part, presumably her deceptively young appearance (and moreover, I'd emphasize that she seems childish or girlish as a result, not just stating that she looks 14 or 15).
• Spoilers are up to you since you have better knowledge of the work in question, just make sure to never spoiler an entire example write-up. (I think it's technically "strongly discouraged" to spoiler out the entire write-up while leaving the torpe name visible, but personally I will never do it.) An entire sentence shouldn't be a problem, though, if it's not the whole write-up.
• —
• —
• —
• I might have exaggerated with "absurdly", but she should be disarmingly cute, or apparently-vulnerable, or something along those lines. If people frequently think she's 14 and thus conclude that she must be weak and easily defeated due to her youth and slight frame, but then she kicks their asses, that's pretty much a Little Miss Badass.
• —

Included the empty bullets to make it easier to tell what I was responding to. In retrospect I probably should have used a numbered list, but, eh.

Timestamp thing could be a bug, yeah. I haven't noticed anything. Are you extra-double-sure the time zone is set correctly? Do you see any other timestamps (such as the time for th epost itself, edit times on pages, etc.) that are wrong?

And fu-fu-fu-finally, I imagine she could be both an Action Girl and an Extraordinarily Empowered Girl. They can overlap, as I understand it; the distinction being that an Action Girl is a type of character, while an EEG is a device specifically meant to show a powerful woman. An Action Girl might get kidnapped and become a Damsel in Distress for an episode, but an EEG is more likely to kick her attempted-kidnapper's ass and then go fight his boss just on principle.

Another way to put it: An Action Girl is a girl who doesn't just sit around in her tower all day, weaving baskets and occasionally being tied to railroad tracks or kidnapped; she's a hero who gets in on the action and gets physical. She exists more or less to prove that female characters can hold their own as well as males... or because men like to watch scantily-clad women do actiony-things.

An EEG is a female character meant to illustrate that not only can girls hold their own, they can also kick ass, do anything a man can do and probably better because they have to fight for it, and generally just be very powerful female characters. They're more on the "making a point" side of things.

Hello. I was asking for help determining what trope could be used to replace the tomato tropes in Nintendo Nightmare since neither fit, does anyone know?

Not being familiar with the game, my previous experience editing that page doesn't tell me enough about the situation, and it doesn't look like there's a description of it in this thread, just links to the article. Can you summarize exactly what Mario's Reveal actually is?

Essentially what it says in the tomato in the mirror one. I brought the old one back until it was determined which one is correct.

I think we'll need more context. For instance, the bit about Bill Gates and Nintendo.

But let me see if I have it right: For the majority of the game, the events seem to tell you that you're in a Nintendo-esque setting plagued by a virus created by Bill Gates and/or Nintendo. Then Mario shows up at the end and reveals that the game developer... and here I'm lost. The game developer developed the game?

Well, it's not breaking the 4th wall, and the developer guy portrays himself as a guy who works for nintendo. Then you find out he doesn't even work for nintendo and well I'm sure you get the rest. See the difference?

edited 11th Dec '14 5:14:59 PM by PowerfulKyurem