Follow TV Tropes
I'm pretty sure the rest of us have already agreed to leave TRPS out of this discussion, for one thing. And Mutual Disadvantage isn't even what we're talking about.
All we're saying is that there's zero need for this trope to apply only to little RPS cycles, when the core of the trope is that there are fixed elemental advantages and disadvantages as a rule of the game, with it sometimes manifesting as a RPS cycle, but it can also be far more complicated and messy than that
Basically, you're worried too much about the idea of a cycle, but why would a cycle format be necessary to begin with?
Fair enough—it could be mentioned as a sub-trope, then. (It's essentially the degenerate case of "Rock-Paper-Scissors", it seems to me, in which the number of options is two, leaving them to simply point to each other.)
I don't think that anything suggested thus far has included rapidly-changing metas—just static hierarchies that may or may not be simple cycles.
Well, there are various sizes of simple circular hierarchy (i.e. without the internal connections); there are the "unicursal star" hierarchies (as in "Rock-Paper-Scissors-Spock-Lizard"; and there are "miscellaneous" hierarchies, in which the form is something else: two or more connected cycles, non-cyclic hierarchies, mixtures of the two, etc.
You know two tropes can apply to the same thing together, right? The opposite pairs-style will have both Elemental Rock–Paper–Scissors and Mutual Disadvantage applied to it.
You're worrying about things that haven't happened yet. I read this trope page pretty often and I've almost never read anything about game builds and metas.
Edited by TrueShadow1 on Oct 1st 2019 at 10:00:44 PM
@WarJay77 On my part, I wasn't sure whether erps had to be cyclical because it's named after rock-paper-scissor, which does have a cyclical aspect. I think there's only variant that doesn't follow a cycle; it's the one with fire that beats all, but can only be played once and water that beats only fire. But the other two variants I know are rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock and the one with 101 items. Because the game of rps almost always form into a cycle, I though that to apply to this trope as well as trps.
Is soft-splitting this trope crowner-worthy? I'm not sure whether to support it myself. I'm thinking that should this trope be non-cyclical, I could add an analysis article on how an element effectiveness system can be arranged.
Edited by Kindle4Light on Oct 4th 2019 at 11:30:46 PM
That is, I suppose, a disadvantage of using a work as a trope-namer: it's not necessarily clear which aspects of the work define the trope.
(This is an issue seen in genres, too, I feel: just look at the question of what defines a "roguelike".)
While I won't gainsay an analysis article, I do think that the main trope description could perhaps use some reference to the variety of manifestations that the trope can have. That might help both to clarify the trope, and to forestall future uncertainty as to what's included under it.
Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Oct 4th 2019 at 8:33:38 PM
I'm still for my suggestion to replace the "eastern-western system" into "common forms the trope can take"
Based on a(n admittedly) quick look, I very much agree; I don't see much point in distinguishing two specific sets of elements in the body of the description.
I'm with , especially when I see more examples arranging western classical elements into a cycle rather than into polar opposites.
Personally, I think a list of common forms the trope can take would work better on an Analysis page (there currently isn't one for this trope). The current description is kind of long.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 5th 2019 at 9:04:06 AM
Whats there currently about Taoism and such should be honestly moved to a religion section and such.
Descriptions of a triangle and longer circles and how its a balancing mechanic honestly should go in its place.
A common weakness for X element would best be in Elemental Strengths And Weaknesses super trope or Logical Elemental Weakness because those do not have to be a cycle.
That makes sense, I think; the description is somewhat long, I fear.
I pretty much agree, I believe.
So, where do we stand with this?
Should be looking to Sandbox a new description?
I think so.
We can consult the description thread first, but before that, do we need a crowner to decide whether the description needs to be fixed?
In the meantime, I my own sandbox to try transfer some parts of the description into the analysis page.
I don't know—this is a part of the process that I'm rather unfamiliar with, so I don't know what the done thing is here.
That said, I'm tempted to have a shot at sandboxing a new description anyway. It won't be immediately, I daresay, but perhaps later today.
All right, here's a draft—what do you think? https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Sandbox/ElementalRockPaperScissors
Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Oct 9th 2019 at 5:09:47 PM
I don't quite understand this sentence: "The hierarchy of elements can vary under the influence of a Field Power Effect." I mean, maybe it means an element can become dominant depending on the battlefield, but does it apply to enough examples?
I think we can use the trope image, but the caption needs to be changed to call it the simplest example. Is it okay that I go edit the sandbox?
Current description is mostly fine, to be frank. I would only change the eastern-western system section. Like this.
Honestly, the "Field Power Effect" thing comes pretty much from the original description. But my understanding is that, indeed, a "Field Power Effect" could theoretically alter the exact connections between elements. Whether that is common enough to be worth mentioning, I don't know!
Go ahead. ^_^
Hmm... I don't mind that version, if it's generally preferred. And I did forget to list the forms that the trope can take, as I now recall had been previously discussed!
May I make some edits to the "common forms" section, please?
There are some points on which I'm inclined to critique that version:
Where does "energy for attacks or defense" come in? At its most fundamental, is this trope not simply a matter of "attack A defeats attack/defence B", with no energy requirements or the like?
This line seems contradictory to me—after all, Elemental Tiers do refer to elements, so if Elemental Tiers are in play, then elements are amongst the factors that are important to consider.
 In fact, looking at the article for "Elemental Tiers", if I'm reading it correctly then I might argue that it's a form of "Elemental Rock-Paper-Scissors", and thus perhaps a sub-trope. [/edit]
And finally, I feel that the listing of common strengths and weaknesses makes the description somewhat long, and doesn't seem all that useful.
Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Oct 10th 2019 at 5:03:39 PM
Elemental Tiers is usually unrelated to this. Thats just a tier of power levels of elements and they usually do not have a weakness or strengths system let alone a cycle of it. Fire is just simply stronger than Ice and such.
Scissors Cuts Rock is uhh 'eh?' Technically you can kill things that only take half damage or something sure but I dont think that really counts here.
A section for it would be for the Elemental Strengths And Weaknesses supertrope sure, also probably a trope about manipulating strengths and weaknesses (such as Persona's Elemental Break and Wall abilities which temporally make something weaker or stronger to whatever element the spell is of.)
Edited by Memers on Oct 10th 2019 at 8:36:40 AM
The fact that a given element is more powerful than those below it implies that it "beats" them—thus forming the non-cyclic form of this trope, it seems to me. Fire beats Ice because it's a "more powerful" element; Ice beats Wind because it's more powerful; and so on.
Regarding "Scissors Cuts Rock", perhaps it would make more sense still in the "Tactical Rock-Paper-Scissors" article, with just a quick note there that everything that applies to that trope applies to this.
Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Oct 10th 2019 at 5:50:42 PM
There is no circle. Fire is more powerful than any thing below it period, its just a more powerful spell, things more powerful than fire are more powerful than anything below them.
ultimate awesome magic = 300 power, Fire = 100 power, ice = 50 power, lightning = 10 power. Thats that trope.
This trope everything is on a roughly equal power level but with a cycle of weaknesses. Fire is weak to Water BUT then Water is weak to Grass BUT Grass is weak to Fire.
There is no tiers, the only thing is when there is an element that breaks the rules of the other elements, which is 'Non-Elemental' and one element that wins vs all the other cycles Infinity +1 Element which is more Rock Paper Scissors Dynamite in which Dynamite beats the other 3. (different concepts but a lot of overlap admittingly.)
If anything it is a contrast to the supertrope, but thats it.
Edited by Memers on Oct 10th 2019 at 9:22:27 AM
But it's been agreed I believe that a cycle isn't necessary for this trope. Thus a linear chain—as in the case of "Elemental Tiers"—seems to me to fit.
Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Oct 10th 2019 at 7:10:36 PM
In what way was that agreed? The whole point of this trope is the cycle. If there is no cycle its not this trope, That would just be the super trope about general Elemental Strengths And Weaknesses in which is starkly different than Elemental Tiers.
The debate was on how long that cycle could be.
Edited by Memers on Oct 10th 2019 at 10:54:55 AM
Er, if you go back and read, you may find you were the only person advocating for an actual cycle.
The biggest part of this trope is that there is a structure for their magic system where you can be countered and you can counter them. Without that its just the Trope Launch Paded super trope of the general elemental strengths and weaknesses system. Said Strengths and Weaknesses system is a stark difference from Elemental Tiers, its basically an entirely contrasting way of doing elements.
Edited by Memers on Oct 10th 2019 at 11:07:25 AM
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?