Bonus Boss nuances

I disagree: the point of a supertrope is to cover all of the sub-tropes, and possibly to catch any uncovered examples.

If there are no examples that aren't covered by one or more subtropes, then that's fine!

Except that this isn't a case of "and the rest"—this is a case of a distinct distinguishing feature: that the optionality comes from the fact that the boss may not be encountered at all.

Examples like the Fighting Fantasy one that I gave above would fall under "Optional Boss", but not "Bonus Boss".

I know. I'm treating it not as disambiguation, but as an umbrella trope under which all the sub-tropes fall.

Okay, fair—I read "everything" to mean, well, all examples of "Optional Boss", I believe.

(I don't recall mention of "everything that doesn't fall under one of the sub-tropes", hence my confusion on this point. My apologies if I missed such a mention!

The rest very much stands, however.)

Okay, fair. However, to my mind that then leaves a huge class of Optional Bosses—those that are optional specifically because they needn't be met—without a specific trope.

I suppose when it comes to route bosses, there are two things we need to address:

• Should we include mandatory route bosses in the description? Or should we exclude them and just stick with optional route bosses based on player choice and actions?
• Should the routes themselves be linear campaigns or more open branching pathways in a grander setting to justify the route bosses?

Edited by DivineFlame100 on Dec 5th 2020 at 8:41:43 AM

For the second bullet point, I've seen examples of both and I'm willing to count both of them. For the first, we'll need a consensus.

For the second point, I'm inclined to agree with Lermis: I see no reason to limit the trope in this respect.

In a similar vein, in the first point above I'm inclined to include mandatory route bosses.

In short, I would say that all that's important in determining whether a boss is a "Route Boss" is whether it's specific to a given route.

It doesn't matter whether the route is linear or branching, or whether it's long or short. It doesn't matter whether the boss is required on that route or not. As long as it's specific to that route (or at least isn't present in all routes), then it counts, I would say.

Thus some Route Bosses might also be Skippable Bosses, while others might not be. Some might be optional in other ways, or not be.

It's even, I think, theoretically possible for a Route Boss to be a Bonus Boss (by my definition of that trope, that is): if the boss is one that the player may or may not find—and is thus a Bonus Boss—and if that boss is also only available to find at all on one or more specific routes, then I'd argue that it's both a Route Boss and a Bonus Boss.

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Dec 5th 2020 at 11:57:10 AM

I don't think Route Bosses being mandatory on that route should preclude them from being examples.

From Super-Trope:

You have still not adequately explained how this is distinct. "The boss may not be encountered at all" describes all of them.^note Yes, except Skippable Boss, I know.

The Fighting Fantasy example you gave could easily fall under Skippable Boss. Yes, you have to fight one of them, but individually they are skippable. You will only ever fight one, which one is up to you.

I'm gonna be perfectly honest, I am thoroughly baffled as to how you think Superbosses — a concept that is universally recognized and has been for decades (even Wikipedia has an entry about them) — aren't "distinct enough" from Optional Boss, but "you might not encounter the boss" is totally distinct from "this boss is optional".

I sincerely cannot wrap my head around that logic.

Edited by Primis on Dec 5th 2020 at 6:45:15 AM

"You don't have to fight that boss" is Skippable Boss. I'm pretty sure that conversation got repetitive last page.

So, we're arguing over definitions. Let's use an example.

In Persona, there's a boss called the Teddy Bear. If you make it to the Abandoned Mansion and encounter the little girl, the boss may or may not appear. Not appearing means you are en-route to the good ending. But if it does, you have to fight it, and it means you're going for the bad ending.

In the "good" route, there's no boss fight there at all. And which route you're taking depends on choices made since the beginning of the game.

So, what would you guys define this boss as?

Or, let's bring another example. Fighting a boss that locks you to an ending. As in, if you fight this guy you are stuck in a specific route with no way out. I'm pretty sure Shin Megami Tensei III: Nocturne has a few bosses like that.

Those, in my opinion, count as Route Bosses as well, don't they?

I'll make it clear. Skippable Boss is a boss that you WILL encounter no matter WHAT you do. Whether you actually fight it or not depends on your choices, but you WILL meet it. It is distinct enough and has more than enough examples to be its own trope, and it's in fact the only "Optional Boss" trope for which we haven't argued over its current use and definition. It's a perfectly good trope and I don't see any reason to change it.

Edited by Lermis on Dec 5th 2020 at 3:09:12 PM

I changed the wording...

I mean, if you're forced to fight it if it shows up, it doesn't really sound like the boss is the thing that's locking you into the ending here. I'd call it a Route Boss.

I agree with this definition, but I did think of one variation that I think still counts: games that don't have Story Branching, but there are still ways to avoid a boss fight without directly encountering the boss.

Like, say, the main path you're walking down will definitely lead to it, but there's a hidden path off to the side that leads you around the boss. It's easier, but longer and hidden.

Can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but I'm certain they exist. I would still consider these Skippable Bosses. Thoughts?

Edited by Primis on Dec 5th 2020 at 6:58:54 AM

I did not say the Persona 1 boss locks in the ending, I said that it's an indication you're heading there. The "locked in an ending because you fought that boss" is another thing. I mentioned Persona 1 as an example in which there is no fight at a specific point in one route, but there is a fight at the same point in a different route.

As for Skippable without story branching, such examples do exist. I know this game in which there's a fight to go down between a party member and a guy who really hates him, and you have to choose whether you'll help or not. If you help, boss fight. If you don't, you avoid the boss fight and the party member gets a powerup later on.

Edited by Lermis on Dec 6th 2020 at 1:43:35 PM

[edited to include some additional responses to other posts, added at the top, and to separate those from the "Bonus Boss" discussion.]

I would call that a Route Boss, I believe.

Hmm... That's an interesting example. Here, if I have it correctly, the boss isn't a result of the route; the route is a result of the boss.

It sounds to me like this one might be either a Skippable Boss or a Bonus Boss. (Depending on the specifics: Are they always encountered? How do you not fight them?)

Honestly, I'd argue the bit about it being required—again, what otherwise would we do with a boss that might not be encountered, but that if encountered can be talked down?

However, it's not a major point of contention for me, and I don't mind leaving it as-is if consensus so desires.

And otherwise, I do agree, indeed.

Hmmm... I'd be tempted to call it a Bonus Boss, save that the means of avoiding the fight is hidden, while the boss is usually fought.

... So yeah, I'd go with Skippable Boss on this one, I think.

~~~

I don't think that what you posted there argues against what I'm proposing.

Let me put it this way:

• Either my definition of "Bonus Boss" includes a feature that distinguishes it from any other given Optional Boss, or it doesn't.
  • If it does, then the argument about super-tropes is irrelevant.
  • If it doesn't, then the problem isn't our approaches to super-tropes, it's that we disagree on the distinguishing feature.

I'm not saying that every example must fit one or another sub-trope. Indeed, see that I gave that Fighting Fantasy example as one that doesn't! (I did see that you classify it as a Skippable Boss, but I was giving it as a "loose" example, which indicates that I don't think that every example must fit into a sub-trope.)

Furthermore, look at the sentence directly after the one that you bolded:

That's what we have here, I hold: The sub-tropes take up all of the examples, meaning that there are no "loose" examples that fit into the super-trope, but not into one or more sub-tropes.

I mean, the exception of Skippable Boss is a pretty big argument for it being distinct: it's a type of optional boss that is optional when it is encountered.

Or Route Bosses, in which the bosses don't exist at all on some routes, and thus there's no question of encountering them or not.

So I disagree that "the player may not encounter the boss" describes all Optional Bosses. It doesn't describe Route Bosses, or Skippable Bosses.

Eh, I disagree with you on that: to my mind it's a different sort of optionality. However, that's a matter for example-inclusion arguments.

And as pointed out, it really doesn't matter if there aren't "loose" examples, because it's okay for a super-trope's examples to all be covered by its sub-tropes, as long as the sub-tropes are valid.

And that, really, is what we're arguing about: not whether a super-trope should have at least some "loose" examples, but whether the definition that I gave for "Bonus Boss" is a distinct enough pattern to be a trope.

The thing is, I've been thinking much the same about your dismissal of Bonus Bosses! XD;

And sure, if Super Bosses are recognised so, then fair enough. As I said previously, I won't scream if consensus is against me on that.

[edit]Actually, thinking about it further, I do now agree that Super Bosses are distinct enough to be a valid sub-trope.[/edit]

But I'm slightly baffled at the idea that a boss being out there, only maybe encountered, and only providing a bonus to the player (whether XP, or items, or just fun), is not distinct from, well, all other ways in which a boss might be optional!

Let me try to put it this way:

I would argue that there's more than one way in which a boss can be optional.

It can be optional by virtue of having some means for the player to make it a non-combat encounter. It can be optional by virtue of only existing at all (or only being a boss-encounter) on certain routes. And it can be optional by virtue of being present somewhere in the world, but not in a way that requires that the player encounter it.

These, to my mind, are three very different ways in which a boss may be optional, and thus call for three different sub-tropes.

Further, since no one of those approaches covers all of the others, no one of them is a candidate for being part of the super-trope.

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Dec 6th 2020 at 5:44:37 PM

Can I ask something completely irrelevant? How do you do the quote thing? With the grey line on the side?

Edited by Lermis on Dec 6th 2020 at 6:29:03 PM

[[quoteblock]]text[[/quoteblock]]

will become...

Edited by Serac on Dec 6th 2020 at 10:42:41 AM

Alright, say we do leave Bonus Boss to cover "bosses that only might be encountered on any route".

Would these or would these not be the same thing as my aforementioned idea of Secret Boss (with the definition of "any boss that must be discovered by the player on their own, without any prompting from the game")? Because I fully endorse the idea of this being its own subtrope.

If we agree that these are the same thing, then I still think we should rename Bonus Boss to Secret Boss, for clarity's sake.

My bad, I conflated the two in my head.

Edited by Primis on Dec 6th 2020 at 10:39:30 AM

Hmm... My definition is slightly more broad—I would be inclined to allow cases in which the game says that they're there, but doesn't require that the player engage with them—but otherwise it's pretty much the same, I think.

Basically, I'd drop the clause "without any prompting from the game".

I have no great argument with that! It probably is a better name—"bonus" could mean a few things, after all.

(Although now I'm amused at the idea of a boss that's given to the player as a reward. :P)

Alright, we can make the "without prompting" part optional then, so that both types are covered.

Sounds good to me! ^_^

By the way, as to the name, what do you think about "Side-Boss"? I'm thinking that it might be a little less ambiguous than "Bonus Boss", and a little less specific than "Secret Boss".

(Although typing it out now, I do worry that it's still a little too unclear.)

"Side-Boss" reminds me of Mini-Boss, so I'm not real big on that one.

edit: ignore this

Edited by NoUsername on Dec 7th 2020 at 7:52:58 AM

Optional Boss is going to be the supertrope.

edit: ignore this too, i just jumped right in here without thinking

Edited by NoUsername on Dec 7th 2020 at 7:56:18 AM

Fair! I'm content to stick with "Secret Boss", then. ^_^

[edit] Now I just need to come up with some pattern of bosses that are themed around salads, breadsticks, and the like--then I can make use of the name! :P

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Dec 8th 2020 at 7:53:28 PM

Sorry, for not appearing, I've been pretty busy. I'll catch up with the discussion when I can, OK?

Bump. Any more progress on this?

Sorry, I never finished the wick check. But I don't even know if there's enough misuse on display so far to get the thread opened.

Hmm... I see. If that's the case, then there may be nothing wrong with Bonus Boss after all. At the very least, we can create a TLP draft for Route Boss to cover the nuances from specific bosses that are only fought in a particular route.

Just to check: Do the tropes already have the relationships (i.e. super- and sub- trope layout) that we discussed earlier? And do we want to swap the default name of Bonus Boss from that to "Secret Boss"? (I think with "Bonus Boss" becoming the redirect.)

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Dec 20th 2020 at 11:08:27 AM