Are these Character Tropes?

I agree with 4tell0life4:

Context is more important than the tropes themselves.

As for Dramatic Irony, say in serialized storytelling something happens to a character in one work that is ironic on a meta level if one remembers what happened to them in the previous work. The works are different but from the same franchise (I'm talking about big movie franchises like MCU or Star Wars, or game franchises like Dragon Age or Mass Effect where Character Sheets are tied to a franchise as a whole rather than individual works and feature examples from all works where the character appears). To which page does the example go?

The overall franchise page? The second work's page? The character page? I'd say the latter.

Same if Dramatic Irony applies to the character and their arc, but is of little relevance to the work's plot, why is it better to list it on the Nth film page with a reference to the N-1th film page rather than directly on the character page — with a reference to both films/games?

Again, in case of franchises characters have overarching narratives somewhat independent of separate works' narratives, and character pages are not subpages of works' pages. I'd say in this case it is justified to put some narrative tropes directly related to character arcs on character pages.

PS On a practical level, I usually just check "Related" and if many people use a trope on character pages, I assume it is fine to do it. Otherwise the whole wiki is wrong, and we would need to rewrite a good chunk of it.

Currently out of 9100 links for Irony 2600 go to character sheets. Some of them must be potholes, but still. Anyone willing to move those examples to work pages? :)

Edited by Asherinka on Dec 8th 2018 at 4:05:07 PM

I'd also like to note how inconsistent it is when it comes to different types of media. Say we have a long narrative divided into episodes with Loads And Loads Of Characters:

• If it is a movie or a game series, there will be a franchise page (which is less used), film or game pages (for specific examples related to that film or game) and Character Sheets (for specific examples related to those characters across the entire franchise)
• If it is a TV series or anime series, there will be a series page (which is used a lot), recap pages for individual episodes (which are less used) and Character Sheets (for character-related examples); at that MCU movies and "Game of Thrones" are comparable in terms of overall running time
• If it is a comic series, there will be a franchise page, character pages outside the character namespace that also contain some so-called "narrative" tropes and work pages in the same namespace. Like this and this.

Does the entire discussion about "character" tropes apply in the third case? I think it should.

In all those cases character pages are very long and contain "narrative" tropes. Check any of these:

• Star Wars
• Marvel Cinematic Universe
• Game of Thrones
• Avatar: The Last Airbender
• Mass Effect
• Marvel Universe (open/close all folders)

Edited by Asherinka on Dec 8th 2018 at 4:48:30 PM

Don't think I'll have the time to do all that XD

I don't know, I guess I just feel like there should be some clear boundary on what tropes can and can't be used on character pages. Maybe rejecting examples based on their trope isn't the best idea, but there must be a line somewhere, or else almost every trope is fair game as long as it can be written to be about a character.

For example, Revealing Continuity Lapse is about internal continuity errors that reveal something about the setting or plot, however there are examples where the lapse involves a specific character- would that then make some examples worthy for a character page, even if the trope itself is about the plot and setting and not a character? What about other plot tropes- after all, plot is based on what characters do and what happens to them.

I don't mean there should be no rules. I just don't think they should be rigid.

I see the point in being more strict when Character Sheets are subpages of one-off works, because placing tropes on both of them means unnecessary duplication.

But in case of long series Character Sheets are de-facto used now for tropes related to character arcs. And I'd keep it that way, because otherwise if I want to read all tropes related to Tony Stark's or Jon Snow's arcs I'd have to open pages for each film or episode they are in and do full text search.

Also, choices define Dynamic Characters, and tropes like Heel–Face Turn or Face–Heel Turn speak volumes about them as characters. Saying that only constant traits should be listed on character sheets is effectively saying that all characters are Static. For this reason I believe all tropes from the Heel/Face Index can be safely listed on character pages.

PS I wouldn't list Revealing Continuity Lapse on a character sheet. Judging from Related, no one does it anyway.

Edited by Asherinka on Dec 8th 2018 at 11:28:05 PM

^ I agree with the Heel–Face Turn and Face–Heel Turn tropes. I don't see why those aren't used on character pages, but I think they should be...

Oh, they are used quite a lot. Heel–Face Turn alone is currently listed on 4500+ Character Sheets. Check here.

^ Oh. Then it must be something else I'm thinking of, where the trope is considered a plot trope and not a character trope to be on pages. That, or people had added it regardless.

No, you are not mistaken — this trope is considered a "plot" trope by some tropers who actively delete such entries. But just look at the Related page and you'll see what the unspoken consensus is.

Yeah, it does kind of blur the line a bit on what constitutes a plot trope and a character trope. Unlike other plot tropes, it's a plot trope about a character, so I kind of understand both points of the argument- and I guess it proves my trope over context argument a bit weak, huh? I don't know. Really as long as the trope is about a character I think it should go on a character page- so I'm still not convinced for Foreshadowing and Irony, but Heel–Face Turn and Face–Heel Turn I think are valid for character pages.

The real question is, where is the line drawn?

It depends on what purpose character sheets serve, and is it the same when they are subpages of individual works and subpages of franchises.

Edited by Asherinka on Dec 8th 2018 at 11:55:18 PM

There is also the question how persistent a trope must be to be regarded a character trope. A Thousand-Yard Stare may happen once during a Heroic BSoD but if it otherwise doesn't characterize the person, is it really a character trope or a plot trope?

Character sheets can (and often do) list events that pertain to the characters. Even one-off ones.

Should Death Tropes be listed to describe the way in which a character was killed? For example, putting Off with His Head! on the character sheet of someone who dies from being decapitated.

What about game mechanic tropes on character sheets for video game characters, when said game mechanic is strongly associated with or exclusive to a certain character? For example, if only a few characters do bonus damage when attacking from behind, putting Back Stab on their sheets, or One-Hit Kill on the only character who can use the instant death spell.

Re game-mechanic tropes. They are de-facto placed on Character Sheets now. Check these three pages:

• Final Fantasy XIV - The Warrior of Light
• Warcraft: Player Characters
• Mass Effect - Commander Shepard

I'd say the first two consist of game mechanics. If we want to forbid it, it would require a massive cleanup.

Same goes for armor and weapons for movie characters, see these two pages:

• MCU: Iron Man
• MCU: Thor

Edited by Asherinka on Dec 9th 2018 at 6:50:41 PM

I see the difficulty about Franchise-wide tropes. I'm not particularly a fan of the way this works now- I'm usually only interested in reading tropes about the work that I've actually read/want to read, and I find tropes along the lines of "X is different in the adaptation" an annoying distraction. This is not specific to character sheets though, this is a feature of many main pages where multiple adaptations share the same main page, and is sort of a separate issue. The ideal for me would be either to only list these sorts of tropes on a main Francise page if applicable, or to spin off a new page type analogous to the Trivia section for adaptation tropes.

I simply disagree that stuff the character does should be on character sheets, though there are definitely ambiguities like Heel–Face Turn. I think that ideally the tropes on the main page should give you the sum of the narrative (plot and themes) of the story- in general what it's like. Things like game mechanics or things that happen in fights are important for the plot and general feel of the story, so they should be on the main page. And if they are also on characters pages, that's duplication, which is not supposed to happen.

The other issue is that most character actions involve more than one person- characters don't exist in a vacuum. For Off with His Head!, should that go on the page of the character who does the beheading, or the one who gets beheaded? Both? Well then that's more duplication and character sheet bloat.

Character sheet bloat is a problem, and duplication of plot tropes is a big contributor to it. There are many characters sheets that are huge, often with little connection between character pages and the main page. I do see the argument for this with franchises, but given how a lot of characters in heavily-adapted works change Depending on the Writer, perhaps there's a case to be made for separating out different versions and/or moving some info to the franchise page. I think a cleanup wouldn't be a bad idea, if we had a consensus about what to do.

I just fixed God of War Series – Kratos' page.

Edited by VulgarBee on Dec 9th 2018 at 11:54:33 AM

I'm with you. If we listed everything a character does on character pages, what's left for the main page?

Events that pertain to the wider plot in general, or describing the world/lore, or (in some cases) tropes that pertain to multiple characters at once (i.e enough to be called "a widespread case" where some comparisons could be made).

Then there are "Recap pages" which may hold specific tropes in specific parts of the story, i.e only an episode or an arc...

For me it makes more sense to have event tropes on the main page. Something like Heel–Face Turn is a plot trope the way I see it, and should be listed with other plot tropes. I don't think it makes sense to argue that it doesn't affect the plot. While it's a defining moment for the character, it's not the event itself that defines the character, but the result of it. Now, this goes for single events, since if you have something that happens frequently, you have something that by itself defines the character.

As an example, I'd make a difference between Heel–Face Turn and Heel–Face Revolving Door. The former happens to a character as a single moment. It may be due to character growth, or as a response to another event, like a betrayal, but the trope is still about a change, not a defining feature. The latter, on the other hand, does define the character by a tendency to not stay on any side of the fence for long. This is a defining feature.

As an added bonus, treating them as plot tropes also gets rid of some spoilers, since their mere presence on a character page spoils what happens, while you can much easier obscure the spoiler on the main page without blanking the entire example and trope name.

^ You make some good points there. And I'm with you for the most part; while I still think the Heel–Face Turn tropes sort of blur the line, other "event tropes" don't need to be on pages because they describe what happens as part of the plot, they don't describe the characters in a meaningful way. What purpose does letting someone know "X pulled a Thousand-Yard Stare once" serve besides just telling them what happens to the character during the plot? It's meaningless on a character page, it tells you nothing about the character other than that they did a thing, once. It'd be like putting a setting trope down because it's where a character lives or they went there once. It's irrelevant to talking about the character themselves.

Re: but the trope is still about a change, not a defining feature. The latter, on the other hand, does define the character by a tendency to not stay on any side of the fence for long. This is a defining feature.

I strongly disagree. That one change defines the character. Because as I've said before, choices define a Dynamic Character. Tropes about Character Development are "character" tropes. If you assume that a character "consists" only of tendencies, you are assuming they are a Static Character.

I also am a fan of series (movie universes, tv series (HBO), game series), and I'm mostly interested in characters with works themselves being the secondary focus. Because game installments, movies and episodes come and go, but characters stay. And if I want to read about the arc of a character that has been in 8 movies (and in some of them - only for 10 minutes), not about those 8 movies, why can't I read that in one page?

Character Sheets are not "bloated", they just show that some works are farther to the right on the Sliding Scale of Plot Versus Characters than the others, and tropers who edit them recognize that. I honestly don't understand what's wrong with that, it's like battling the very idea that character arcs can be equally or more important than the overall plot and can be spread over multiple works. The key idea behind many ongoing franchises' and series' success.

Edited by Asherinka on Dec 10th 2018 at 10:21:51 PM

I don't assume a static character. You mistake "this is a defining feature" for "this is the only kind of defining feature". Tropes for characters who're continually changing are character tropes, but a change at a single moment is just moving from one static position to another. That makes the change an event, not a character trope.

Events that are notable to the specific character, enough to be listed on the character sheet instead of the main work page. That's simply how it works.

"That's simply how it works" is a crap reason for anything. It's accepting something as how it is without considering why.