I have probably seen people using this trope 'correctly' but I cannot state definitely have I have. So yeah, it needs to be made more broad.
I never said that the "old" description became invalid, actually; the evolved definition encompasses it, and several other forms of "dangerous and forbidden technique".
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.I wish people would quit using a descriptive noun to describe a thing.
I agree that we probably need a Transplant. The X+1 seems like a subtrope, how many of those do we actually have?
Fight smart, not fair.While we are at it can we add an "and" in there?
Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!Why? It's grammatically correct as is.
They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?Agreed.
If a chicken crosses the road and nobody else is around to see it, does the road move beneath the chicken instead?For the record, it also seems like Dangerous Forbidden Technique could serve as a Super-Trope to Deadly Upgrade.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Wouldn't it be the other way around?
No, actually. A Dangerous Forbidden Technique is A technique that is dangerous (physically, mentally, what have you) for a character to use, and thus the character uses it only in extreme emergencies.
Deadly Upgrade is a Dangerous Forbidden Technique unique to a shapeshifter's/ Super Mode user's moveset.
Yeah, pretty much.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Reading the article description, it seems fine to me. The X + 1 isn't there, which doesn't keep it that specific. I think it's good as it is right now.
I'm pretty sure the concept of Law having limits was a translation error. -WanderlustwarriorIt seems fine now ... the X+1 part was taken out a few weeks ago.
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.Still doesn't match the evolved usage of "technique/style that either puts the user at a high risk of death/being crippled, or has one or more deterimental side-effects on one's health that accumulate with repetitive usage, the exact limit/extent of which may vary between users", which is the core of what the OP was about.
And there's also the matter of Deadly Upgrade appearing to be a Sub-Trope.
edited 15th Jul '11 8:15:06 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
The trope's article currently describes it by the formula of "If a character is only allowed to use an attack X times, a combat situation will arise where he has to use it at least X+1 times", which is extremely narrowly-defined in comparison to the trope name, and actually is inaccurate insofar as to how people are using the trope on this site (more or less "technique/style that either puts the user at a high risk of death/being crippled, or has one or more deterimental side-effects on one's health that accumulate with repetitive usage, the exact limit/extent of which may vary between users"). After talking this over with a couple of other tropers, we've concluded that the current description most probably either was originally intended more as an example than a strict definition, or is the result of an ultimately misguided attempt to "clarify" the trope's meaning.
That said, I propose expanding the trope's definition to reflect the evolution of the trope's definition.
edited 21st Jun '11 3:30:14 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.