Follow TV Tropes
Since most of the other special pages have a symbol, for example, Suger Wiki has a cupcake. I thinking a wool ball would make a good symbol for Playing With.
I chose the wool ball because cats are known to PLAY WITH wool balls.
We already have a symbol for Playing With, but it needs to be reinstalled.
Can someone tell me the difference between "Played For Laughs" and "Parodied?" Is it that Played For Laughs doesn't actually mock the trope or what?
My understanding is that "played for laughs" is played straight for the most part, but with a few humorous parts added. "Parodied" is when the trope is used in a completely silly way. At times they may not be different.
Can we try to make it such that any fan reaction trope is dealt with a Show Within a Show?
Can anyone explain the difference between Invoked Trope and Discussed Trope?
^Invoked Trope is by action, Discussed Trope by words.
Invoked means a character forces a trope to happen. Alice invokes Kaleidoscope Hair if she dyes her hair three colors in a week. Discussed means a character notices a trope happening. Bob discusses Kaleidoscope Hair if he tells Charlie that Alice's hair color changes a lot. Discussing and invoking can overlap.
What's the deal with listing Gender Flips as Inversions? Is that accepted or not? It seems like they aren't really inversions unless the gender is a crucial part of the trope (i.e., not just that it's Always Female). Personally, if one's justified at all, I try to list a proper inversion first and then add a sub-bullet with "Gender Flip: XXXX".
For example, for Thanks for the Mammary, is an inversion Alice grabbing Bob's crotch, or Alice tripping Bob up so he grabs her chest?
If they're counting gender flips as an Inverted Trope, they're wrong: It is a Gender-Inverted Trope, and is to be listed on the Playing With Wiki as "Gender Inverted" (not "Gender Flip").
And in response to the second question, those are a Gender-Inverted Trope and an Invoked Trope, respectively. The Inverted Trope would be Alice inviting him to do so, but Bob managing to miss. I have the preexisting Playing With entry to thank.
How do you create new Playing With pages?
Will it be plagiarism if someone edit the playing with and copy the sentence in "Laconic" as "Basic trope"?
How do you plagiarise a wiki? Especially on that same wiki?
As long as the Laconic entry is a simple statement of the trope (not all of them are, though they should be) it's a good place to get the "basic trope" description from.
There were some Character Alignment pages...except they only had basic trope entries. On the cut list peolple tried to argue one couldn't play with them... well, it's tricky because it depends on how you see the page- as just a way people pigeon hole characters according to Dn D game rules or as something that is actually a trope transmitted through works, with expectations, conventions and patterns. I lean towards the former so yeah, you can't really play with them because you don't subvert Lawful Evil, you subvert Knight Templar or Amoral Attorney and then one of us doesn't put you in this classification anymore.
Since we have so many entries now, should each alphabet become collapsable folder?
That seems reasonable.
It would be good if this page was automatically indexing, like Laconic Wiki.
Wait. How does indexing work when index tags are mixed with folder tags? Do folder tags have to be placed within index tags, or vice-versa, or does it matter?
Is there a specific process that governs the addition of tropes to the Playing With Wiki list?
There are templates to be used to create a new page, or you can just copy the code from an existing page. You probably shouldn't begin a new Playing With page unless you can fill in at least 3 or 4 of the variations. If you don't have an answer for one of the variations, just enter ?????, and Wiki Magic will do the rest. That's about it, just tailor it like the existing pages and you'll be fine.
And creat Playing With page first, then add it to list after the page is done.
I created one for . It's from the perspective of someone who didn't read the Playing With a Trope rules.
I added a level of metahumor. I'll change it back immediately
You should make the page a Self-Demonstrating Article. "Generic examples, not from actual shows, Deconstructed does not mean Darker and Edgier and Reconstructed does not mean Lighter and Softer." That's pretty much the point. If you can make the page completely miss it...
IronLion made a point in the old discussion from Playing With A Trope that "Deconstruction" and "Reconstruction" aren't really general tropes - many tropes have never been deconstructed, and Reconstruction is primarily the straight use of the trope after it has been deconstructed.
The question, of course, is what to do with this.
Simple. Don't list how it would happen until there is evidence that it has happened. If there's a Deconstruction, the reconstruction will probably follow hard on its heels, so just list neither deconstructions no reconstructions for anything that has never been deconstructed.
It's the same principle as including a "pairing" line on a Fan Fic recommendation if and only if there is a pairing.
We're not siting examples of tropes being played with in these ways. We're just saying how they could be. If they haven't been, that's irrelevent.
The reconstruction exmples seem to be a response to the deconstruction examples. I don't see any problem with keeping it that way.
Other than "that's not what reconstruction is"? A lot of them act like a work can be both a deconstruction and a reconstruction, that like double-subversion, you make the appearance of deconstruction and then subvert it (example). A reconstruction is a new work which recognizes the unrealistic elements in the original that the deconstruction highlighted and plays the trope straight in a way which is not vulnerable to that criticism (example).
^ Agreed. Something has to be done, but I'm not sure how or if it is feasible.
Can we agree that "Playing With Yourself" does not belong here? Inappropriateness aside, it is a redirect to A Date with Rosie Palms, which is a trope page. This is an index for playing with a trope pages, and trope pages don't belong here, no matter how cleverly the namespace is used. I'm not asking for the deletion of the page. I'm just asking it to stay off this index.
I'm the guy that originally put it up. As it happens, when I first made the page, I didn't put it on the index. Then I figured, if it's not on the index, how are people going to see it? What good is a joke if nobody sees it?
Depends on how good the joke is.
Well, I thought it was sorta clever, but then I'm probably a bit biased.
Should we include a Darker and Edgier aspect? So many of the so-called deconstructions just seem like pointlessly darkening the trope without attaching the realistic consequences to the trope a deconstruction would entail.
My instinct would be to zap all of them as Not Deconstructions and Not Reconstructions.
If we do that, we could then add in a Darker and Edgier and Lighter and Softer version of each one as appropriate (perhaps as optional categories).
That would be Played for Drama.
Community Showcase More