Ambiguous Name: Elemental Rock Paper Scissors

Well I feel ignored....

And such a trope might as well just start from fresh because none of the current examples are written in that way and there a hundreds if not thousands more that need to be added, like basically the entire RPG index.

Edited by Memers on Sep 13th 2019 at 6:51:12 AM

I wasn't interpreting it to include cases with no structure at all—just no requirement for cycles, specifically. So cases in which there are chains or mutual (dis)advantages would count, but cases in which a character just has a set of arbitrary weaknesses wouldn't.

I'm inclined to wonder whether the wording didn't have an effect: as written, it could easily have been read to mean pretty much what I was saying—leave the trope as written, but with no requirement for cycles, specifically—but with the addition of no longer calling it "Rock-Paper-Scissors".

I know that I put in a vote for it on that understanding; if I'd taken it to mean "no structure of any sort required" then I would likely have down-voted it.

Created a new crowner here:https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/crowner.php/AlternativeTitles/ElementalRockPaperScissors?open=all#j4rfckq0 and requested linking it.

Would it not perhaps be better to gather names first, then create a crowner? That way names that are added earlier have less advantage over those added later.

Hmm... I'm not a huge fan of those suggested thus far, but don't yet have a suggestion. I intend to think on it, however!

(In part this may depend on just what we've actually settled on: are we actually saying that we're removing all requirement for any structure, or just the requirement for cycles? (The latter having been my impression.))

[edit]
Actually, one suggestion, presuming that we're just removing the cycle requirement and not all structure: "Elemental Advantage Chain"

I'm not hugely happy with it, but even if it's not good enough itself, perhaps it'll spark further inspiration.

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Sep 13th 2019 at 5:11:51 PM

"Chain" implies a linear arrangement in which each link is connected to no more than two other links.

Hmm, fair. Perhaps "Connections", or something similar?

[edit] No, that's a little vague. I'd want something that conveys that idea of "X is better than Y"...

[edit 2] What about "Elemental Advantage/Effectiveness Hierarchies"? (This may imply a lack of cycles, but the description could perhaps note that cycles are common.)

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Sep 13th 2019 at 5:40:33 PM

I don't have any suggestions either, but do any of the games that use elemental effectiveness/advantages have official vocabulary for this mechanic?

Whoa, hold on a minute, guys. The first crowner's options were essentially "rename vs. rename", framed as whether it requires a cycle (which we never actually defined) or not. I'd like to at least see a single-issue crowner on renaming so this doesn't run into the same problems that the Hot Gypsy Woman TRS did. We can discuss names while that one's running.

The OP specifically includes a rename (among other things) in Path A.

I'm inclined to agree that a rename is indicated: while perhaps not explicit in the crowner, the options listed there do seem to me to amount to:

• Rename
• Don't rename; add a note to the description, and
• Don't rename; restrict the scope of the trope.

...Of which one option was not actually proposed and was thrown on later as an afterthought.

Does that matter overmuch? It was added fairly quickly, as I recall, and wasn't far behind at that point, so I don't think that it suffered much for the late addition.

And even so, it was one of the "don't rename" options, leaving the two originals as roughly "rename" vs. "don't rename, but restrict", if I'm not much mistaken.

[edit] That said, between this objection and Memers', I wouldn't object to having the crowner be re-done with rewritten options, if that's deemed called-for.

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Sep 13th 2019 at 10:43:36 AM

Well I think we all agree that we have a missing super trope about Elemental Weaknesses And Resistances (honestly its the best name I can think of at the moment) right?

Then without going with super specific plans that many people disagree with 1 or more parts of... the options would be

• Rename this trope
• Redefine to be a circle but more than just 3. But at least more than 2.

Right?

I very much disagree with those renames, you are redefining the trope with the names NOT in the way that was outlined. There are two Trope Launch Pads that would cover some of those names already.

AND that would be broadening the trope to the point where it would be better starting from scratch because hundreds if not thousands of examples of the broadened definition are NOT here.

Edited by Memers on Sep 13th 2019 at 3:36:26 AM

I agree, proceeding with the alternate names crowner right now is just leading to trouble down the line.

Case in point, anyone arguing for "no rename" (yourself included) would downvote every option to attempt to avoid consensus being reached.

That just leads to more confusion, like what happened on Hot Gypsy Woman.

Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 13th 2019 at 7:37:41 AM

HGW has been cited before as how not to do a crowner. And we're repeating the same situation here; "do we rename" should always be the first question asked.

And I'd argue that it seems like a good idea to come up with some names before creating a crowner to select them. That way we're likely to have fewer latecomers, disadvantaged in the voting by their late addition.

Can we request that a mod remove a crowner, or is that not the procedure here? (As I mentioned before, I don't participate in these things often. ^^; )

I don't know whether everyone does, but I do for one, at least. ^_^

Well, I was fine with both the name and the definition (with the suggestion of adding a clarifying note)—but I'm happy enough with the options being reduced to those two.

That's what I was saying. We're skipping ahead.

Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 13th 2019 at 7:57:47 AM

The initial options in the crowner were "rename but don't redefine" or "redefine (to a sub-trope of the existing trope) but don't rename." Notice anything missing there?

The crowner was launched very quickly, before any meaningful discussion could take place. Do you understand why I'm a bit hesitant with going forward as it is now?

^ But I don't even know what to define this trope as, only accounting for whether it supposed to be cyclical or not. Thinking back, though, I should have listed the steps within the crowner when I thought people would read the first post for more details.

Can anyone link me to the trs for HGW? I'm in the dark of how bad it got.

Here y'go.

Basically, there was a lot of confusion caused by people immediately making a crowner full of new names before anyone could even agree a rename was needed. Most of the thread was spent arguing whether or not one was necessary, and arguing over what would be a good name to change it to, all while a crowner was running and being constantly updated, making it useless.

It seemed to me that we're still in confusion as to what the trope actually is about. I think the trope as it is is perfectly fine. It encompasses all instances where elements has an "X element beats Y element" situation, whether the style be an exact 3 element RPS, a cycle with >3 elements, pairs of opposites, or even a complicated mess like the Pokemon type chart. We can all agree with this, right?

That's not what anyone is saying at all. The links I and OP posted were links for the supposed missing supertrope. Which, in hindsight, was too hasty for me. Should have waited until the discussion finishes.

More like it's because OP gave two pretty specific solutions. While discussing, people agreed with Path A (no cycle needed), but disagreed with the proposed actions (rename, rewrite, transfer examples).

Edited by TrueShadow1 on Sep 14th 2019 at 1:28:33 AM

yet the names in the alt crowner are our ideas for the supertrope, the person who made it clearly thought that is what we were doing.

I think that there has been some disagreement with this—although I stand to be corrected. However, for myself I am very much in agreement.

All right, a call for action:
Can we agree that the thread isn't ready for the current crowner, that further, if we do decide to pick a new name, that we then settle on workshopping names before creating a crowner, and thus that we will holler for the current crowner to be removed?

[edit] What I'm proposing that we do is this:

• Holler for the removal of the crowner
• For the sake of clarity, check that we're all on the same page with regards to the question of what does and does not fall under the trope.
• Create a new crowner for the specific question of whether or not to rename (and nothing more)
• If that crowner votes for rename:
  • Workshop new names
  • Once we have a solid list, create a crowner to pick from them
• If the crowner votes for no rename:
  • Debate whether the description of the trope should be altered at all to clarify what it covers.
• Act on the results of that final crowner, whichever it is.

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Sep 14th 2019 at 4:32:32 PM

Ok, I've holler you post, asking whether it's too early to make a rename to begin with.

This only apply one of the options (Elemental Weaknesses And Strengths), given that's the name proposed by TrueShadow1 upon creating a new tlp. But then again, we may be thinking differently on what is this trope as well as the missing supertrope.

Edited by Kindle4Light on Sep 15th 2019 at 12:56:36 AM