Misused: I Let You Win get usage counts
Deadlock Clock: 31st Oct 2013 11:59:00 PM

Total posts: [18]
Though the reason is closer to it being used for two distinct tropes.

I admit to creating the trope in the olden days when there were fewer tropes around and trope names could be far more ambiguous. But in this case, there are two situations being described:
  • The intuitive one from the name, in which a character from any medium allows himself to be defeated by another character in order to further The Plan
  • The one in the description, a sister trope to The Battle Didn't Count and Heads I Win, Tails You Lose in which a video game boss results in a Game Over if you lose, but if you win, it's later revealed that they lost on purpose

This raises a few questions. Is the second one tropeworthy, does the first one already exist, should it, and should the two be separated?
What about the Stock Phrase sour grapes use?
3 SeptimusHeap9th Aug 2013 03:21:53 AM from Zurich, Switzerland , Relationship Status: Mu
A Wizard boy
This has 39 inbounds. Pretty low for 196 wicks.
4 StarSword10th Aug 2013 10:20:04 AM from somewhere in deep space , Relationship Status: In denial
SF-81A Black Knight
@OP: The second one seems an awful lot like Xanatos Gambit. Between that and the two others you mentioned I think it's covered.
I do not think the second one is a trope at all. What does it matter what a video game boss says after being defeated? I think the page should be defined as the first.
6 Grounder2nd Sep 2013 06:51:16 AM , Relationship Status: All is for my lord
Main Character of my heart
There's the possibility of a third trope here too.

It could be read as a lie a sore loser says to the winner.
So it's either truthful or a lie. Is that worth a hard split?
Could we just... not have Death anymore?
I think there are three tropes here. The one you're dismissing is where Fridge Logic dictates that if the game boss isn't lying, then they needed you to win, but you still got a game over if you lost. So whether the game boss needed you to win or lose depends on if you win or lose.
That doesn't sound like a trope to me. Just an observation.
Could we just... not have Death anymore?
Right. That's for questions.

Is there a Super Trope for things like that that happen in video games?
Could we just... not have Death anymore?
  1. you're using the term supertrope incorrectly. It would be a subtrope.
  2. Schrödinger's Gun applies for Railschroding examples where win or lose, that was the game boss's plan.

edited 2nd Sep '13 4:27:54 PM by crazysamaritan

No, a Super Trope that covers instances in video games where it will tell you whether you are correct or wrong regardless of the action taken. Don't assume someone is wrong unless it's blatantly obvious. I could have worded that better.
Could we just... not have Death anymore?
The trope applies to any "games where it will tell you whether you are correct or wrong regardless of the action taken", not just video games. The colloquial term is Railshroding.

What is obvious to me is not obvious to you. I expect people to correct me if they think I have made a mistake and not wait for it to be obvious. If I said they were "obviously wrong", that would be rude.
Simply saying "UR DOIN IT RONG" is almost as insulting without the "obviously". You could have said "Wouldn't it be a subtrope, not a supertrope?"
Cutting through the crap, I don't remember seeing the first usage and I think the second usage is already covered well enough by the "sister tropes".
Absent-minded professor and Neverwinter Nights DM
17 Willbyr28th Oct 2013 06:55:15 AM from North Little Rock, AR , Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
With Mod Hat On
Clock is set.
18 Willbyr1st Nov 2013 06:06:08 AM from North Little Rock, AR , Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
With Mod Hat On
Clock's up; locking for inactivity. No action is to be taken based on this thread.
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.

Total posts: 18