Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion History YMMV / RWBY

Go To

[013] Wyldchyld Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Remember, the point of the trope is that the main character is intentionally bland to emphasise just how rich the rest of the cast and setting are. This entry isn\'t even trying to meet the actual trope right now. It just says Ruby\'s bland and other characters aren\'t, which is actually trope misuse.
to:
Remember, the point of the trope is that the main character is intentionally bland to emphasise just how rich the rest of the cast and setting are. This entry isn\\\'t even trying to meet the actual trope right now. It just says Ruby\\\'s bland and other characters aren\\\'t, which is actually trope misuse (the trope explicitly states that it shouldn\\\'t be used as TheProtagonist + FlatCharacter, and that\\\'s exactly what this entry is doing).
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I think the problem you\'ve both got is that you\'re debating a sentence when the entire entry is the problem. At the moment, the whole thing is just a wordy ZCE. It doesn\'t explain what makes Ruby \'vanilla\' to everyone else\'s \'other flavours\', it just says the situation exists, which is meaningless. What is it that makes her the basic character type, and how does it highlight the complexity of the characters around her?
to:
I think the problem you\\\'ve both got is that you\\\'re debating a sentence when the entire entry is the problem. At the moment, the whole thing is just a wordy ZCE. It doesn\\\'t explain what makes Ruby \\\'vanilla\\\' to everyone else\\\'s \\\'other flavours\\\' or how it emphasises the \\\'other flavours\\\', it just says the situation exists, which is meaningless. What is it that makes her the basic character type, and how does it highlight the complexity of the characters around her?
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Remember, the point of the trope is that the main character is intentionally bland to emphasise just how rich the rest of the cast and setting are. This entry isn\'t even trying to meet the actual trope right now. It just says Ruby\'s bland and other characters aren\'t, which is actually trope misuse. At the moment, the entry is just FlatCharacter, which is completely different to VanillaProtagonist.
to:
Remember, the point of the trope is that the main character is intentionally bland to emphasise just how rich the rest of the cast and setting are. This entry isn\\\'t even trying to meet the actual trope right now. It just says Ruby\\\'s bland and other characters aren\\\'t, which is actually trope misuse.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
I\'d suggest forgetting about that one sentence and rewriting the entire thing.
to:
I\\\'d suggest forgetting about that one sentence and rewriting the entire thing -- if Ruby applies, that is. I personally don\\\'t think she does fit the trope because she isn\\\'t used as a tool to highlight the complexity or richness of other characters. At the moment, the current entry is a FlatCharacter observation masquerading as a different trope.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Remember, the point of the trope is that the main character is intentionally bland to emphasise just how rich the rest of the cast and setting are. This entry isn\'t even trying to meet the actual trope right now. It just says Ruby\'s bland and other characters aren\'t, which is actually trope misuse. At the moment, the entry is just being FlatCharacter, which is a completely different trope.
to:
Remember, the point of the trope is that the main character is intentionally bland to emphasise just how rich the rest of the cast and setting are. This entry isn\\\'t even trying to meet the actual trope right now. It just says Ruby\\\'s bland and other characters aren\\\'t, which is actually trope misuse. At the moment, the entry is just FlatCharacter, which is completely different to VanillaProtagonist.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Remember, the point of the trope is that the main character is intentionally bland to emphasise just how rich the rest of the cast and setting are. This entry isn\'t even trying to meet the actual trope right now. It just says Ruby\'s bland and other characters aren\'t, which is actually trope misuse.
to:
Remember, the point of the trope is that the main character is intentionally bland to emphasise just how rich the rest of the cast and setting are. This entry isn\\\'t even trying to meet the actual trope right now. It just says Ruby\\\'s bland and other characters aren\\\'t, which is actually trope misuse. At the moment, the entry is just being FlatCharacter, which is a completely different trope.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I think the problem you\'ve both got is that you\'re debating a sentence when the entire entry is the problem. At the moment, the whole thing is just a wordy ZCE. It doesn\'t explain what makes Ruby \'vanilla\' to everyone else\'s \'other flavours\', it just says the situation exists, which is meaningless. What is it that makes her the basic character type, and how does highlight the complexity of the characters around her?
to:
I think the problem you\\\'ve both got is that you\\\'re debating a sentence when the entire entry is the problem. At the moment, the whole thing is just a wordy ZCE. It doesn\\\'t explain what makes Ruby \\\'vanilla\\\' to everyone else\\\'s \\\'other flavours\\\', it just says the situation exists, which is meaningless. What is it that makes her the basic character type, and how does it highlight the complexity of the characters around her?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I think the problem you\'ve both got is that you\'re debating a sentence when the entire entry is the problem. At the moment, the whole thing is just a wordy ZCE. It doesn\'t explain what makes Ruby \'vanilla\' to everyone else\'s \'other flavours\', it just says the situation exists. What is it that makes her the basic character type, and how does highlight the complexity of the characters around her?
to:
I think the problem you\\\'ve both got is that you\\\'re debating a sentence when the entire entry is the problem. At the moment, the whole thing is just a wordy ZCE. It doesn\\\'t explain what makes Ruby \\\'vanilla\\\' to everyone else\\\'s \\\'other flavours\\\', it just says the situation exists, which is meaningless. What is it that makes her the basic character type, and how does highlight the complexity of the characters around her?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I think the problem you\'ve both got is that you\'re debating a sentence when the entire entry is the problem. At the moment, the whole thing is just a wordy ZCE. It doesn\'t explain what makes Ruby \'vanilla\' to everyone else\'s \'other flavours\', it just says it exists. What is it that makes her the basic character type, and how does highlight the complexity of the characters around her?
to:
I think the problem you\\\'ve both got is that you\\\'re debating a sentence when the entire entry is the problem. At the moment, the whole thing is just a wordy ZCE. It doesn\\\'t explain what makes Ruby \\\'vanilla\\\' to everyone else\\\'s \\\'other flavours\\\', it just says the situation exists. What is it that makes her the basic character type, and how does highlight the complexity of the characters around her?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I think the problem you\'ve both got is that you\'re debating a sentence when the entire entry is the problem. At the moment, the whole thing is just a wordy ZCE. It doesn\'t explain what makes Ruby \'vanilla\' to everyone else\'s \'other flavours\', it just says it exists. What is it that makes her the basic character type compared to the more complex characters around her?
to:
I think the problem you\\\'ve both got is that you\\\'re debating a sentence when the entire entry is the problem. At the moment, the whole thing is just a wordy ZCE. It doesn\\\'t explain what makes Ruby \\\'vanilla\\\' to everyone else\\\'s \\\'other flavours\\\', it just says it exists. What is it that makes her the basic character type, and how does highlight the complexity of the characters around her?
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Remember, the point of the trope is that the main character is intentionally bland to emphasise just how rich the rest of the cast and setting are. This entry isn\'t even trying to meet the actual trope right now. It just says Ruby\'s bland and other characters aren\'t, and that\'s not the trope at all.
to:
Remember, the point of the trope is that the main character is intentionally bland to emphasise just how rich the rest of the cast and setting are. This entry isn\\\'t even trying to meet the actual trope right now. It just says Ruby\\\'s bland and other characters aren\\\'t, which is actually trope misuse.
Changed line(s) 2 from:
to:
Remember, the point of the trope is that the main character is intentionally bland to emphasise just how rich the rest of the cast and setting are. This entry isn\\\'t even trying to meet the actual trope right now. It just says Ruby\\\'s bland and other characters aren\\\'t, and that\\\'s not the trope at all.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I think the problem you\'ve both got is that you\'re debating a sentence when the entire entry is the problem. At the moment, the whole thing is just a wordy ZCE. It doesn\'t explain what makes Ruby \'vanilla\' to everyone else\'s \'other flavours\', it just states it exists. What is it that makes her the basic character type compared to the more complex characters around her?
to:
I think the problem you\\\'ve both got is that you\\\'re debating a sentence when the entire entry is the problem. At the moment, the whole thing is just a wordy ZCE. It doesn\\\'t explain what makes Ruby \\\'vanilla\\\' to everyone else\\\'s \\\'other flavours\\\', it just says it exists. What is it that makes her the basic character type compared to the more complex characters around her?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I think the problem you\'ve both got is that you\'re debating a sentence when the entire entry is the problem. At the moment, the whole thing is just a wordy ZCE. It doesn\'t explain what makes Ruby \'vanilla\' to everyone else\'s \'other flavours\'. What is it that makes her the basic character type compared to the more complex characters around her?
to:
I think the problem you\\\'ve both got is that you\\\'re debating a sentence when the entire entry is the problem. At the moment, the whole thing is just a wordy ZCE. It doesn\\\'t explain what makes Ruby \\\'vanilla\\\' to everyone else\\\'s \\\'other flavours\\\', it just states it exists. What is it that makes her the basic character type compared to the more complex characters around her?
Top