Misused (new crowner 12/2/13): Necessary Drawback

Master of None doesn't need to be underpowered in everything, just underpowered overall.

The big question in the crowner is at 11:5 in favour of a redefinition for multiple tropes.

edited 30th Sep '13 1:53:44 PM by crazysamaritan

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Think you mean "redefinition" there, boss.

Yes... I said that... 0.o o.0

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

But it will also be redundant. The examples for both split tropes would be mostly the same. I think it would be better to make two new tropes and write them to have a similar relationship to Mighty Glacier compared the relationship Mighty Glacier has with Glass Cannon and Stone Wall.

I don't think I'm entirely understanding what you're proposing. It seems to me that @crazysamaritan is saying:

Option 1: Redefine Mighty Glacier as trading weak speed for strong offense. Create a new trope that trades weak speed for strong defense. Move examples from Mighty Glacier to the new trope as necessary.

(Which I tend to agree with, but I'm open to discussion.)

And you're saying:

Option 2: Leave Mighty Glacier as is, which is to say, something that trades weak speed for strong offense AND/OR defense. Start two new subtropes, one for strong offense / weak speed, and another for strong defense / weak speed.

I don't see how Option 2 leaves us with LESS redundancy, considering that everything in both of the new subtropes would be duplicated in Mighty Glacier. Unless we:

Option 3: Define Mighty Glacier as something that trades weak speed for BOTH strong defense AND strong offense, instead of either/or (which is how it's being used now, even if the given definition technically says strong both offensively and defensively). Start two new subtropes, one for examples that trade weak speed for ONLY strong defense but NOT strong offense, and one for the opposite (weak speed, strong offense, non-strong defense).

Option 3 just seems overly convoluted to me, and also doesn't fit the scheme of each trope being made up of one strength and one weakness (with the third attribute, if addressed at all, able to be strong, weak, or anywhere in the middle).

Neither Option 2 nor Option 3 seem very good to me, which is what makes me wonder if I'm misunderstanding what you're saying somehow. Can you clarify?

Edit: For the record, the current crowner stands at 14:5, 11:5, 4:10 at the time of this post.

edited 1st Oct '13 11:24:38 AM by hbi2k

Fundamentally, it's really about buff-ness, weight class, and general physical prowess. It could manifest as offense or defense, but it's usually both.

Rhymes with "Protracted."

That particular usage puts me in mind of the generic Bruiser.

But a point that may be getting lost along the way at this moment is every one of the four tropes has self-identity issues. I cannot say misuse, because the definition has changed too many times to create and accommodate the misuse. Which is why the OP is about how the tropes have been misused in relation to each other rather than in wicks.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

It's not that the examples are using Mighty Glacier that way. Some of the other articles seem to agree with the third option for mighty glacier as well.

Glass Cannon

Stone Wall

So according to this at least the Mighty Glacier basically meets part way in both offense and defense, but has a disadvantage in speed for it, and less of the advantages that Glass Cannon and Stone Wall have.

Hence the (currently well-supported in the crowner) proposition to change the definitions. I think sentences like that are part of the problem and need to be changed.

So Stone Wall is supposed to be more resilient than Mighty Glacier... but what about when it isn't? What happens when there are two characters that fit every other criteria to be considered a Stone Wall and a Mighty Glacier respectively, and both are very strong defensively... but the Mighty Glacier is demonstrably stronger defensively than the Stone Wall? Does that mean it's not a Mighty Glacier any more? That's silly, it still moves very slowly and packs a powerful punch.

For these tropes to make sense, they need to be defined without requiring direct comparison to one another. They're defined the way they are as subtropes of Necessary Drawback. One strength in exchange for one weakness. A Stone Wall isn't a Stone Wall because it's defensively stronger than a Mighty Glacier, it's a Stone Wall because it makes up for its lack of offense with a strong defense. How it compares in defense with a character that sacrifices speed in order to gain more offense and/or defense (whether that concept is expressed as a single trope or two) is irrelevant.

Comparisons can be useful for clarification, just not for definition. But direct comparisons between two tropes with the same strength like that are just asking for trouble.

edited 1st Oct '13 3:49:12 PM by hbi2k

@ hbi2k: Let me clarify what I meant.

My idea is to make a separation between Fragile Speedster, Mighty Glacier, and Lightning Bruiser as compared to Glass Cannon and Stone Wall. The first three would be defined primarily in regards to physical attributes (and in some ways are already defined as such), while the last two would be defined more broadly, such as including other factors like magic, non-physical superpowers, possibly vehicles, and arbitrary gaming stats that don't represent real life all too well. The two new tropes would be defined in this way, as compared to the physically defined Mighty Glacier.

edited 1st Oct '13 5:45:33 PM by shiro_okami

I don't see any reason to do any sort of physical/everything else split. What does it matter if Bob can punch through a wall because a) he's a Badass Normal, b) he has Super-Strength, or c) he uses Supernatural Martial Arts? For the purpose of this trope family (an overview of the character's attributes), it doesn't make a difference — all that matters is that he is strong. And that doesn't even get into other issues that will come up if we try to split things based on source of the attributes — does a Charles Atlas Superpower count as simply physical skill, or is it a special ability, for example?

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

All of those are physical. Punching down a wall is a physical action. Super strength is a physical superpower. This is as opposed to, say, throwing a fireball.

And is pretty much what I had in mind too.

edited 1st Oct '13 9:05:13 PM by troacctid

Rhymes with "Protracted."

Still, I don't see why the cause, rather than the effect, matters for the purposes of these tropes. What's the benefit of splitting between physical and everything else the way you're talking about?

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Yeah, that seems to make things a LOT more complicated for no real benefit that I can see. If nothing else, it introduces a lot of new edge cases. For example, Superboy intuitively fits the description of a Lightning Bruiser, but you're saying that in this new system Lightning Bruiser would describe physical attributes, and his powers are technically (depending on the canon) powered by "tactile telekinesis," not the physical force of his muscles. So he doesn't count as a Lightning Bruiser any more?

I would foresee a LOT of problems getting tropers to abide by such a distinction.

edited 2nd Oct '13 8:44:27 AM by hbi2k

I agree that the "Physical"/"Other" split here isn't appropriate at all.

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

Native has a point, though. Let's take, for example, someone who specializes in Defense, but is slow and can't attack much. On one hand, we have a guy in ridiculously heavy armour that cannon-fire can barely dent, but it's so heavy he can't really move, let alone attack effectively. Then we have a barrier wizard whose barriers can only protect himself but are almost impenetrable. He's never learned offensive magic, and he has a very weak body, so he has a lot of trouble moving as well. Why they have this specialization in defense is neither here nor there. The fact remains: they're slow, they can't attack, they're almost unkillable.

A better distinction, if one is even necessary, is how many people it can effect. Take the Glass Cannon. Does the cannon have the ability to put ridiculous hurt on one target at a time (for example, let's take a sniper, who uses a high-powered anti-materiel rifle that can kill almost anything, but is himself just a squishy human), or can he rape entire armies (stereotypical high-level Black Mage Squishy Wizard: army killing destructive spells but pathetic defenses and health)? How about the soon to be renamed Stone Wall: is he himself nearly invulnerable (The armour guy mentioned above), or is he and people of his choosing nearly invulnerable (An extremely powerful barrier mage who can protect others as well)?

Now, in most cases I can think of, the army-raper Glass Cannon is more likely to be a mage or something like that, but for a mundane example, take world war two era medium and heavy bombers: most (not all, of course) may as well have been made of plastic because the armour they could slap on to a plane isn't much, so they would go down like bricks in the face of AA fire or when attacked by fighters, but their payloads (especially those of the big bombers) were nothing to laugh at.

edited 2nd Oct '13 8:49:30 AM by Xavier1161

While the question of a character's suitability for fighting a single opponent versus multiple opponents is an interesting one and potentially tropeworthy in and of itself, I don't think it's directly related to the trope family under discussion.

For example, the Diablo series is one in which the player character is always a One-Man Army tasked with defeating absolute hordes of enemies. This is true whether he's a Glass Cannon Fragile Speedster like an archer or Squishy Wizard who mows down enemies by the dozens but must always be careful not to let them get within striking range of him, or a Mighty Glacier or Stone Wall barbarian or paladin who can wade right into the enemy swarm with impunity.

Likewise, a Stone Wall is a Stone Wall because HE HIMSELF is hard to kill. If he can also cast Status Buffs on his allies, it might make him a Support Party Member as well, but it doesn't affect his Stone Wall status one way or the other.

I could conceivably see some kind of "Spread vs. Focus" trope being worth introducing, but I think that's a matter for YKTTW, not this thread.

edited 2nd Oct '13 10:55:26 AM by hbi2k

True. I was just pointing out that the source of one's powers is, largely, irrelevant. What I meant by bringing up that "Spread vs. Focus" (Nice name for that, by the way) was to show how in terms of actual applicability, the question of Arcane or Mundane really isn't that important, and to kind of say that there are other things that actually have a noticeable effect and make a difference. "Spread vs. Focus" was just one example I came up with for that.

Sure. It's the same reason why we don't split Glass Cannon into Short Range Glass Cannon and Long Range Glass Cannon. The former is a Glass Cannon that's also a Close-Range Combatant and the latter is a Glass Cannon that's also a Long-Range Fighter.

@ hbi2k: It wouldn't matter where his powers come from, only that they have and effect on what he can physically do. I guess the reason why I have this idea is because I always viewed Fragile Speedster, Mighty Glacier, and Lightning Bruiser in terms of mostly physical abilities, and that the descriptions of all of these tropes were rewritten in terms of (physical) strength and endurance and separated from the gaming tropes as per the last TRS thread on this subject.

If it's decided that these tropes should not be purely about physical attributes, their descriptions should be rewritten.

edited 2nd Oct '13 3:08:32 PM by shiro_okami

I guess I'm still not following you. If Superboy's telekinesis counts because it's "what he can physically do," why doesn't a wizard's wand count, if by waving it he can harm an enemy, blast open a door, move a large weight, or any of the other things that one with great strength could do?

It just seems like an arbitrary distinction and I'm not sure where the dividing line is.

The descriptions for all four tropes will need re-writing if the redefinition vote passes. Adjusting the descriptions away from numbers and a tendency to describe physical activity is well within the range of the definition re-write.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

I'm not really following you either, because I don't know how Superboy's powers work exactly. Does he move things completely with his mind, or does he actually have to physically lift things like Superman and his telekinesis just aids that? Does he have just telekinesis, Super-Strength, or telekinetically-powered Super-Strength? I'm kind of confused myself of how a telekinetic could be described as a Lightning Bruiser.

EDIT: Actually, I don't even know why you're bringing him up, because he's not even listed as an example on the trope page.

At any rate, magic would not count because it doesn't abide by the laws of physics and there is no direct (physical) relationship between the different attributes where specialization in one must come at the expense of another, such as the case with the laws of physics where increase in mass means an increase in inertia and thus requires more force and energy to move quickly. When I say "physical attributes" I'm referring not only to the capability of the physical body but also the laws of physics as well. The classic Mighty Glacier would be a weightlifter, Sumo wrestler, bulky heavyweight boxer, heavily armed and armored soldier, or someone with Super-Strength and Super-Toughness but normal speed and reflexes; the classic Fragile Speedster would be a lean Olympic runner, agile soccer player or lightweight boxer, lightly armed and armored soldier, or someone with Super-Speed and Super-Reflexes but normal toughness; and the Lightning Bruiser would be someone who has the attributes of both.

It is not an arbitrary distinction.

edited 2nd Oct '13 8:23:47 PM by shiro_okami

It's just the dictionary definition of physical. Bodily. Somatic. Involving bodily activity. Relating to the body as opposed to the mind or voice or whatever. It's not anything radical.

Rhymes with "Protracted."

He's a Lightning Bruiser because he can 1.) move fast, 2.) hit hard, and 3.) take a beating. The confusion you're feeling (and you're not the only one; Superboy's powers are notoriously convoluted and silly when you think about them too hard) is exactly what I think we should avoid by not making this weird physical / non-physical distinction. If we make that distinction, these questions about how exactly his powers work are the kind we'd have to ask about every example. By avoiding that distinction, we don't have to worry about such things because it doesn't matter HOW he does what he does, just that he CAN.

Your distinction falls apart the harder you examine it. Take the Flash. By your definition, his Super-Speed but near-normal toughness (at least compared to a Lightning Bruiser like Superman) would make him a Fragile Speedster. Except that the most cursory thought reveals that his speed does NOT come from the muscles of his legs, and in fact the comics do a lot of weird mystical hand-waving surrounding a semi-sentient "something" called the Speed Force, which for all intents and purposes is functionally magic.

If the freaking FLASH, the archetypal Fragile Speedster, doesn't fit your definition of the trope after introducing this new distinction, then the distinction and definition that relies on it are fundamentally flawed.

Edit:

For the record, current crowner stands at 14:5, 12:5, 4:10 at the time of this posting.

edited 3rd Oct '13 8:33:20 AM by hbi2k