I'd like to note that they're treated like pets, not actual teammates in the games. They aren't anything like your normal team members in a party, who all have their own reasons for joining. I.E. Shining Force.
You just capture and use them as you see fit. While the game insists that this is totally mutual, the gameplay never shows this to be the case for the basic games, bar gameplay mechanics like friendship evolutions(and yes, it does let you talk to people who say your pet totally likes you a lot. But that's not characterization). They have less characterization than normal teammates in video games, even those who are flat. Bar Pikachu in Yellow, the Legendaries most of the time, they have zero personality whatsoever. The only actual actions in-game some onscreen Pokemon do outside of battle is say a phrase and do nothing. Once in a while one might administer a status effect on you.
But yeah, they're just mindless pets in-game with very few exceptions. Calling them teammates means they actually fully interact with you, which they don't at all. This is not an issue in many spin-offs, but it is in the main games.
Shadow?
If the Pokémon in question is characterized enough that one can actually identify its tropes, then sure, it can be a Scrappy. But that would apply to the specific individual that is portrayed. It's nonsensical to call all Beedrills Scrappies.
edited 17th May '16 3:26:55 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Umm, it falls under, "Go home because you complain too much." It's not a trope, that's for sure.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"...Which has nothing to do whatsoever with the actual problems with the characters in the game proper.
The interaction needs to be actually within the regular gameplay. We don't see them interact within the story in any way, bar again, Pikachu in Yellow. He reacts directly to what you do. Not even the Pokemon that follow you in HG/SS have any real interaction whatsoever.
Amie is just pets saying "I like" or "I don't like". They're still not being legitimately characterized. You're petting them. It's not the same thing. It has zero effect on the actual game's story in any way. They're still not being treated as characters here. The games that do are still solely the spin-offs, like Mystery Dungeon where most of them(bar random enemies) are actual characters with dialogue or facial expressions that imply they're talking.
Simply put, Paper Mario, who is 100% silent, still has more characterization than your caught Pokemon in the Pokemon games proper. If they're not in a cutscene at all, they're not given characterization. Oh, and to clarify, no, they not looking as cool as you want is not a valid reason to be in this trope. That's just complaining. It's better fit for Broken Base instead, which I'm pretty sure became exampleless due to immense complaining, which I'm worried this trope will become if it's not handled more carefully.
Shadow?If we did require people to have substantive reasons for hating things, then I think like 95 percent of all complaining "trope" examples should be cut. Which I'm personally not against (frankly I wouldn't mind losing The Scrappy altogether), but, again, seems like it would just be opening up a huge mess. And of course that's using my own definition of "substantive reasons", which is another gigantic can of worms.
The tropes don't have to be cut. They are valid reactions by default.
But making more exampleless is fair. If the Scrappy were to become completely exampleless, the rather well-made description should be enough to get the idea.
Also, the trope page for it really needs updating, since it's pretty clear it can't it can't be about characterization if it can include ones who have zero characterization whatsoever. It was definitely created because of the hatred of how a character was portrayed first and foremost(Scrappy Doo is the trope namer and codifier for a reason).
Shadow?The purpose of our site is not to give people a platform to express their nebulous opinion of things in media; it's to draw neat little boxes around concepts related to media. If you can't draw a box around something, to the point where an outside observer could say, "Yep, that's an example," then it's Not A Trope and doesn't belong here.
edited 17th May '16 3:38:06 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"But The Scrappy isn't a trope, it's an audience reaction. (Same goes for other complaining pages).
edited 17th May '16 3:40:31 PM by nrjxll
It still needs definable criteria. Heck, we make Dethroning Moment Of Suck entries specify reasons. If you can't at least give a one-sentence description of why you think Mewtwo (e.g.) is a Scrappy, then the only thing it's an example of is, "Go home and do it again."
edited 17th May '16 3:43:27 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"That wasn't his point.
His point is that in order for it to have an example, it needs to be significant enough to do so. Jynx is a bit more notable due to the controversy of Blackface(but not a Scrappy example since she's not an individual character. Now, if only had racist stereotypes beyond the appearance, she would be. Character appearances can work for Unfortunate Implications, another audience reaction, but it has to also be cited). Someone not being the exact evolution you want isn't really significant, because it's just complaining for the sake of complaining. Anybody can make that view. I have too, even the Luvdisc example noted beforehand. But it's not really significant enough at all, because you can make that kind of example for any Pokemon with a remotely similar design. It becomes too generic and it's a better example of a "Missed Opportunity", but that also has specific tropes that require either a story arc being handled badly, or a character's characterization handled badly.
Shadow?My point is, though, that looking at a lot of examples of The Scrappy (or any complaining trope) makes me think that saying it was because the story or character was handled badly is being way too generous to the hatedom. Which is why I don't understand this emphasis on saying that a character must be hated for reasons related to them being a character.
The Scrappy is a character with a Hatedom. That's the definition. Why it's hated is not relevant to the trope's definition, although it is necessary to establish sufficient context to have a valid example. What we are discussing is not the hate but the definition of "character".
edited 17th May '16 3:59:25 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Of course it's not tropeworthy if it's only you, but a large majority of a fanbase having the exact same vitriolic reaction to something is noteworthy, that's why The Scrappy audience reaction exists in the first place.
Pokemon species in the games are treated like one individual, and I personally do think the Pokedex entries plus the Pokemon Amie do give them some personality, even if every individual in the species seems to have the same personality. I don't see why they can't be Scrappies.
edited 17th May '16 4:39:20 PM by PhiSat
Oissu!
It works for some examples, but not all of them, unfortunately. And a Tier Induced Scrappy is still by definition a Scrappy.
That's a subtrope, and a better example for those who are Pokemon that suck in battle or are hated because of how they battle. That's not a characterization trope by any means. That's purely a gameplay trope. The Scrappy was entirely based upon the fact they hated how characters acted. It decayed into allowing any hatred of a character for any reason. That's an issue because it invites pure complaining, and doesn't allow for well-explained examples.
BTW, Jynx is a perfect example of Ethnic Scrappy. She has no significant characterization otherwise, and with other non-characters, fit better in other tropes that specify the problem with them.
Shadow?Fighteer, basically the issue some of us have with certain Pokemon species being listed is that many boil down to "the design is ugly", which seems really petty and not worth mentioning.
When you have over 700 characters, some designs are not going to be as good as others, while some Pokemon are going to suck in battle because Power Creep is a thing.
edited 17th May '16 5:04:13 PM by Karxrida
I don't think the comparison between pokemon species having subpages and treating them like characters holds up. Character subpages are, at the base of it, just extensions of the main trope page grouped for characters. "Character subpage" isn't a trope that has definitions for what constitutes a proper character. The Scrappy is a trope that requires a proper character.
Check out my fanfiction!I think the best way to solve this issue is going through the "Pokemon species" examples and sorting out where they should go.
- The Com Mons bullet and subullets: disliked due to being crutch characters, so they would all go under Tier Induced Scrappy.
- The Spiky-Eared Pichu and the Pikachu-Colored Pichu: Disliked for replacing a more powerful Olympus Mon in an event, and being unable to evole. Both would go under Tier Induced Scrappy.
- Gligar: Disliked for having a poor movepool. Goes under Tier Induced Scrappy. The bullet under the Gligar entry should be cut for its genericness.
- The baby Pokémon: Disliked for being inferior to their evolutions stat-wise and having annoying evolution requirements. The former is under Tier Induced Scrappy, the latter under Scrappy Mechanic.
- Jynx: Hated for resembling a racist caricature of Black people. Goes under Unfortunate Implications, should someone find an article critiquing it.
- Mr. Mime, Probopass and Lickitung: Hated for their appearances. Cut.
- Cresselia from the Pokémon Mystery Dungeon games: Hated for providing a frustrating Escort Mission, having a bad habit of injuring itself during this mission, and being of no help in a boss battle. Keep, since it sounds like a character, not a species.
- Chatot from the Pokémon Mystery Dungeon games: Hate for being a Jerkass, and his responsibility in the Perfect Apples incident. Keep, It's a character.
- Zubut Just a link to Goddamned Bats. Cut.
- Magikarp: Disliked for not being good in battle until it evolves. Goes under Tier Induced Scrappy.
- Feebas: Hated for being difficult to catch and harder to evolve. Goes under Scrappy Mechanic.
- Oshawott: Hated for its appearance. Cut.
- Geodude: Hated for being Goddamned Bats. Put them under Goddamned Bats then.
- Audino: Hated for being Goddamned Bats. Put them under Goddamned Bats then.
- Basculin: Hated for being Goddamned Bats. Put them under Goddamned Bats then.
- Meganium: Hated for its appearance. Cut.
- Emboar: Hated for being the third Fire/Fighting type starter in a row and its appearance.
- All Pokemon that resemble inanimate objects: Hated for their appearances. Cut.
- Luvdisc: Hated for its appearance and stats. Goes under Tier Induced Scrappy.
- Expy Pokemon: Hated for their appearances. Cut.
- Whitney's Miltank: Hated for being a difficult Pokemon to defeat in a Gym Battle. Since it's referring to a specific version of the species, I think this can stay.
- Chansey: Hated for being good competitively. Goes under Tier Induced Scrappy.
- Popplio: Hated for its appearance. Cut.
Miltank also has the ability "Scrappy", which could even be a literal reference to the trope in general. Gamefreak has no issues using memes, etc.
Anyway, that makes sense too.
I very much agree with the various cuts/movements. This is a good way to properly clean it up since it removes the generic complaining, and puts them in more appropriate tropes too.
Shadow?Could Spiky-Eared Pichu be considered a Replacement Scrappy? Since, after all, it did wind up being an event Pokemon in place of a Pokemon (Celebi) that fans were both expecting and highly anticipating.

How about design-related dissatisfaction? That's where a lot of Pokemon fall.
Oissu!