I assume it applies to cases where all the character stories give good reasons for their showing up to fight evil, but only one of them actually does because that's the one the player selected. Like, say, in Golden Axe all three characters have strong reasons to fight Death Adder, but only the ones the player actually selects will bother to get off their asses and actually do it. Or that the agency in Contra only sends out two out of four soldiers.

In either case, the present description really not says why this is the case. It only mentions the trope description, not as this relates to Gameplay And Story Segregation-exist many examples where is possible believe that one of the characters either not exists story-wise(actually, the trope description mentions this possibility)or that you simply not found them(Many dungeon-crawling games). (By the way, in their Golden Axe example, they are fighting together or separated? )

Usually in the associated story they're a three man band (barbarian, amazon fire-mage, dwarf who kicks seventeen kinds of ass) and IIRC in the series storyline all of them fought Death Adder, but it's at most a two player game, so in practice at least one always sits out. Would apply to anything where that was the case or where there's clearly a lot of characters who ought to be doing something but are sitting out because the player didn't choose them; the storyline is taking a back seat in favour of the needs of the game.

I am not more complaining to the inclusion of the trope but i guess that the description needs a improvement; as is, is possible believe that they are totally non-related and logically possible of non be found(many adventurers, by example, can easily die offscreen) persons, not members of the same group or other person that by pure logic must had to be possible of be found in the history.

Sorry, posted here by mistake, please ignore the post.

Only because something is unrealistic, not means this contradicts the the plot. Look in Aliens Speaking English, Authority Equals Asskicking, Olympus Mons, Soft Water, Surprisingly Functional Toys, Justified Extra Lives, etc.

I think that trope's opening paragraph describes why it belongs here:

Well it's actually a different trope that deals with the sidequests going on when you are meant to be rushing to save the world, right? So actually the only conflict is that you are meant to be a great hero but you're doing a minor task. Well everybody has to do minor tasks at some point, great heroes did actually occasionally have to do stuff to get paid. It doesn't actually conflict with the narrative explanation of who you are and what your motivations are.

Yeah, but you're a great hero who already has an important mission and is taking time out to do something unimportant instead. It's rather like taking time to set the table when your house is on fire.

Actually, many characters in non-games have Chronic Hero Syndrome and many non-game stories have fillers or important episodes where the characters execute things totally non-related with his main mission. In other words, i agree with muninn and Some Sort Of Troper-the character do sidequests not contradicts the plot and Irrelevant Sidequest not belongs here.

Again, though, the trope itself describes why it belongs here:

As noted,already exists a specific trope to cases where the main quest is more urgent: Take Your Time. Said trope already is listed in the list, in a position totally separated of Irrelevant Sidequest.

Yes, but this doesn't mean that Irrelevant Sidequests don't fall under Gameplay And Story Segregation, just that they don't always fall under it. Same as some of the listings under Unfortunate Implications are ones that frequently have implications but don't always.

But by this paragraph, more cases where this is Gameplay And Story Segregation are cases of Take Your Time. Also, nothing impedes in more cases someone argue the character have Chronic Hero Syndrome(read all the examples in anime and manga, comic books, film, literature, live action tv...) in other words, characters stopping to do random good acts, with or without more pressing matters, is extremely commom in fiction. And the explanation in Take Your Time is "You can take as long as you want to finish your sidequests, and that world-destroying meteor will just hang in the sky till you're done." impliyng the motive this is here is because you have time to finish said sidequests not because you is sufficiently heroic/greedy to try finish them.

Well, if nobody more reply in three days, i will remove Irrelevant Sidequest and put examples more worthy as One Up. Irrelevant Sidequest is only the game counterpart to Filler and hardly contradicts the plot more than Filler, except by cases of Take Your Time.

Yes, you can think of excuses for the character to do these things, but the real reason is to provide more gameplay, and it can be jarring for someone who isn't prepared to come up with excuses. For example, regardless of the time element, it doesn't make a lot of sense in Final Fantasy X that two of the bodyguards to the World's Most Important Doormat are allowed to sod off and play extreme water polo whenever they feel like it. An extreme case would be Overlord, where the entire game consists of doing things you wouldn't think an Evil Overlord would bother with. But basically, there's three points to an Irrelevant Sidequest that make it a matter of gameplay seperate from story:

1. Why does the mailman have items which would be useful to a warrior?
2. Why is he prepared to exchange these for someone simply doing his job?
3. Why is there nobody but the Hero Champion of Glory and Justice he can get to do this, and why does he trust this job to the first weirdo with a sword to walk by?

It's ok when it's, say, some old friend giving you food for chopping wood with your Mighty Axe. It gets to Gameplay And Story Segregation when, say, you're getting a Bottle in Zelda, an item which potentially allows the owner to come back from the dead an unlimited number of times, for doing a mundane task for a total stranger. Similar case if the job requires technical skills you don't actually have (fixing machinery is a popular one); it's giving you something to do first, with the reason you're able to do it a very distant second.

Hmm.. I guess you is right. But in either case Irrelevant Sidequest needs a new explanation. The present explanation("In RP Gs, everyone seems to constantly ask you to do sidequests that have absolutely nothing to do with your main objective.") do not make clear why Irrelevant Sidequest belongs here. In either case, I am putting some other examples, such as Video Game Lives, ok?