NoPlansNoPrototypeNoBackup, but not for bad things.

There was an entry in Trope Finder a little whole ago, that asked if there was a trope examining the tragic aspects of losing a one-of-a-kind, irreplacable accident. No Plans, No Prototype, No Backup seemed to work, initially, but the description says the trope doesn't apply when the creator is a sympathetic character. Nevertheless, many of the examples, especially in real life, describe disappointing times when one-off inventions where the creators lost their work, or died, or otherwise.

Would this be a situation where a new trope is appropriate, or should the current one be expanded to allow different circumstances? I personally don't see a very compelling reason to limit it as-is to only doomsday weapons.

The inapplicability of the trope to sympathetic characters seems less like an inherent property of it and more like an example of usage: usually, if the goodguys invent a super weapon, they will have plans (which become a MacGuffin for the badguys to steal), or there will be a Psycho Prototype, or they'll have a backup, any of which mean the trope doesn't apply.

If the sympathetic Mad Scientist follows the principles of the trope, then it should apply regardless of his status as a goodguy or a badguy. So I'd take a very close look at the examples for misuse.

As for Real Life, I'd look at any examples with extreme skepticism.

edited 7th Jun '16 8:43:57 AM by Fighteer

I find that the meaning of the trope is about technology that's basically a one-time use, so you can have it in a plot but don't have to worry about in the future.

The thing about the exception to sympathetic characters is that it specifies that in those cases the scientist will keep notes. But what if she doesn't? That doesn't actually fit the exception as written. That to me indicates the trope is written after a specific example, rather than about what the trope is really about.

I suggest a clarification of the description to make it clear that it's not explicitly about villainous devices.

The heroic version is Reed Richards Is Useless. The version where it only works once is It Only Works Once.

The villain version of Reed Richards Is Useless is Cut Lex Luthor a Check. They're about an individual who in theory could apply their abilities to more practical projects, but never do. They're not about any kind of machines that will never be replaced once they inevitable break.

It Only Works Once doesn't in any way stop the character from trying again, they just never do. No Plans, No Prototype, No Backup is where they cannot, because there's nothing to replace it with.

None of those are the same trope.

Okay, I see your point. The reason it almost always applies to villains and not to heroes, is most stories are not tragedies. The hero wins, but the villain got away. So what is preventing a boring repetitive sequel? If the villains won and the heroes got away, NPNPNB would be useful to prevent the heroes from trying the same thing again.

Also, probably, villains act, heroes react. Since the villain is always the one who created the new device of conflict, the villain's device is always the one that gets blown up.

Mainly, the narrative purpose of the trope is to explain why the villain won't simply rebuild his Death Machine 5000 next episode.

Sometimes, however, the plot revolves around the heroes building some kind of superweapon or revolutionary device that solves all the world's problems. In this case, NPNPNB usually applies in some form to preserve Status Quo Is God and ensure that Reed Richards Is Useless; otherwise, why don't they use the Badguy Eliminator Ex Machina or the Colossal Cancer Curer from that point on?

edited 8th Jun '16 7:19:48 AM by Fighteer

It's fine if it happens much more often with villains. That doesn't exclude it happening with heroes.

Not all tropes are positive, negative or have an heroic/villainous equivalent. No Plans, No Prototype, No Backup is a neutral trope, it's likely the whole "Only applies to villains" was a caveat added to the description but is not really a part of the definition. The trope at its core is about It Only Works Once as applied to technology that should be capable of replication. That is it. Similarly, Reed Richards Is Useless is that fictional technology advances won't change the fictional world because it would be too far removed from the real world. There are loads of interesting discussions to have on the implications surrounding those tropes, but the definitions are usually a lot simpler.

As the one who asked the question, my thanks for the advice. Having gotten back around to it, I added the example I was thinking of after all.