Discussion Main / NewRulesAsThePlotDemands

Of the description:"This is not about the differences between rules in a work and rules in a game it's based on (The former will often be inherited from the latter), but when the rules of a work don't make sense and violate their own internal logic. " In either case, the episode in question is "The Psychic Sidekicks!"

And it does. The page says that normally, Ghost-types are "generally portrayed as strong to Psychic-types". Since I didn't know the context, I thought it was someone used, say, Confusion on a Ghost-type and it was shown to hurt the Ghost a lot or something, rather than what it actually was (Psychic-types being good at warding off Ghost-types).

I'm still torn as to whether or not it is an example, though - reading the episode's description just seems to imply that Psychic-types are able to keep them away somehow (using Psychic powers to sense the ghosts? It's the anime, anything can happen), rather than actually offer an advantage over them. I haven't seen all of the episodes of the anime, so I don't know whether or not warding off Ghost-types would violate anime logic or not.

We could always go one further and get back the original, fun title...

The original was fun, but a little too out there for a good title. But "Screw The Rules, I Have Plot" was a perfect blend of clarity and humor. SPOON are a bunch of retards if they can't see that.

They are anyway. I think we've established that repeatedly throughout this wiki.

One more for "Screw The Rules, I Have Plot". Clearly the hatred for snowclones is misplaced if we're throwing out clear yet funny titles like that.

I for one was considerably less confused when it was "screw the rules, I have plot." This trope is about "Breaking established rules for narrative convenience (or from ignorance)." (taken from Laconic wiki). In other words, it's literally where the author says "Screw the (previously established, if fictional) rules, I will do this anyway because I have plot-based reasons to do so!" The new title doesn't get that across. "New Rules as the plot demands" implies the exact opposite - "Screw the fact that Action X is not established as being against the rules, I'm going to add a new rule forbidding it so as to retain plot tension!"

In short, either the title or the Laconic description is obviously inaccurate and needs to change.

No. The first title was horrible because it implied that it was somehow similar to other "Screw the Rules" tropes like Screw the Rules, I Have Money! or Screw the Rules, I Make Them!, which is wrong. It caused a lot of misuse, which has stopped after it was renamed.

If the title were misleading, it could have easily been changed to "Screw the Rules, The Plot Demands It" or something similar. It's possible for clarity and wit to coexist, you know.

And how exactly would changing it from "Screw the Rules, I Have Plot" to "Screw the Rules, The Plot Demands It" prevent it from being mistaken for another "Screw the Rules" trope?

Yes, it could have been given a witty name, but apparently none were proposed or won the most vote.

• 1 for going back to "Screw the Rules, I Have Plot". The humorous trope names are a large part of what draws people to this website; stop getting rid of them.

We are not going to restore a line of dialogue title. That is final administrative policy (No New Stock Phrases), so don't bother asking.

oh, and I realize the site is called tvtropes, but I think if we include tabletop RP Gs, then literature is not too big of a leap. Also, pratchett has been adapted for the screen, silver or otherwise.

This site started as TV since it sprang from a Buffy board if I understand correctly, but it has since expanded to all forms of media, and has a lot of literature.

Given the somewhat low quality of the image on the trope page, I think it's a scan/photo of a shirt (or hoodie). I wouldn't swear to it, though.

The CTFCG occurred during the Duelist Kingdom arc, at which point the rules had not been solidified to match up with the RL card game. Previous uses of the Catapult Turtle in the show had, IIRC, targeted monsters. So Yugi's use of it in the manner he did was rather unexpected and did not fit with the limited info viewers had been given as to the rules of Duel Monsters.

Except that there are rules about what Pokémon can and can't do, and these examples broke them. Swellow had been hit by Thunderbolt in other episodes, and the result was exactly what you'd think.

Not, the abilities of the pokemon are NOT defined by game rules or the like in-universe. They have natural abilities and weaknesses that are used by humans in fights, but they have said abilities in the wild, the humans not define they. The result of Swellow be hit by a lightning is not governed by game rules.

That's not strictly true. The anime has both the same element system and the same moves as the game. The humans don't define those rules, but they're still there. In other words, the "natural abilities and weaknesses" ARE the rules.

As to the specific examples: Notice both Rhydon's horn being a weak-point to electric attacks and someone's pokemon using electricity as armour both show up ONCE and are never used again after the episodes in question.

This trope is to inconcistency between game rules, not to any breaking of Magic A Is Magic A when the things broken are NOT supposed to be controled by game rules in-universe. Yes, they are based in out-of-universe game rules, but in-universe they are so close to game rules when the Elemental Rock-Paper-Scissors in Naruto or the Nen System in Hunter X Hunter.

Um... There is, in-universe, a game.... Pokemon Battling. It has rules. It shouldn't be disqualified from this trope just because the rules were, in-universe, put there by Nature and figured out by humans later. THEYRE STILL THE RULES.

And what the hell are you on about with that last sentence?

As noted, this is defined by the nature, not by games rules. The rules of pokemon battling not include none of the abilities of the pokemons- to effects of comparation, said game looks like to have one number of rules not greater than more martial arts championships in animes(considering that the fighters are encased in pokeballs). By the way, about the last sentence, the Nen System is, like the pokemon element system, used in championships and the like, and was researched,not defined by rules of said games, but at same time is more artificial than the pokemon element system-(more techniques were designed by humans, only the basics are really "natural") . If someone did something that contradicts the already established rules of the Nen System in some moment, you will put Hunter X Hunter here?

But this nature is obviously supposed to be identical to the games' Elemental Rock-Paper-Scissors, as the characters mention it regularly. Mistakes, like the one with Rock type in the first season don't change that(again assuming this wasn't a dub error). Now, adapting the turn based combat from the games into real time combat in the anime means that there will be things in the anime that you can't do in the games, but that isn't the problem. The problem is that the anime sometimes ignores the rule that it established just because the plot demands it. In other words, Pikachu's electric attacks damaging Blaine's Rhydon because Pikachu attacked the horn or Brock's Geodude and Onix because Pikachu was supercharged is fine. Plusle and Minun's electric attacks damaging Dawn's Mamoswine for no apparent reason is not. And it's not just immunities, though those stick out the most. How many times were Pokemon in good shape, sometimes never taking a single hit before, defeated by attack they're supposed to resist, or even doubly resist? How many times Pokemon shurged off multiple super effective attacks(though that is probably more of a Worf Barrage)? That said, those aren't really rules, maybe we need another trope(or maybe a new one) to describe it?

If the anime breaks one rule that it already established this counts as Plot Hole pure and simple. If one pokemon which Ground-type was already mentioned in the anime is hurt by electricity, as the immunity to electricity of the Ground-type already was mentioned in the anime, this really counts as one Plot Hole. If, however this is not the case ( As with one large chunk of the secondary types in the pokemons in each generation) then this is not one case of Plot Hole, but can be one of Adaptation Decay.

Mag Bas, as far as I'm aware, neither Hunter X Hunter or Naruto were orginally Gameboy games, so those aren't fair examples at all. Pokemon is, more or less, the anime of the games, with an Elemental Rock Papers Scissors system they don't always get right.

And that system (among othor things) the rules what everyone not you is trying to refer to. It doesn't matter whether the rules were made up by humans or exist as "natural abilities". Just because Ash doesn't keep his Pikachu on the current Nintendo handheld or in his card deck shouldn't disqualify Pokemon from this trope.

If Pikachu electrocutes a Ground-type, it's not a difference between anime and game, it's an error, deliberate or otherwise. Charmeleon evolving again into Charizard in two episodes is a difference, because Pokemon evolving at a certain level got abandoned quite quickly (indeed, XP levels got mentioned all of once and were never heard from again).

"This is not about the tie-in game in relation to the In Universe game. The game within the fiction is subjected to its own set of rules, and not correlating perfectly with its Real Life counterpart is not this trope. "

I yet remembers that existed one discussion in the old archived discussion page(when the page yet was The Catapult Flying Turtle Gambit) where they questioned the inclusion of Pokemon here. One argument used, if i remembers well, was something as this "is the same thing than complain that in the movie of one First-Person Shooter the characters die with one shot if in the game they survive lots of shots before of die"

Yes, this disqualifies. Exists one lot of examples in The Anime of the Game. This is so close to one "error" or "rule breaking" as if any one of said examples "broke" the "rules" of their respective games.

You keep throwing that paragraph in our faces, but what you seem to mean is "Mag Bas don't care how much the anime inherited fom the game, Mag Bas doesn't want the example here." It's not your descision alone what belong here and what doesn't.

The Pokemon Anime does have it's own rules, no-ones arguing that, but a LOT of those rules - the Elemental Rock-Paper-Scissors system, the available moves - are inherited from the game. They have to be, so it's recognisable from the game.

Can you even recognise what's supposed to be the same? Because as far as I can tell, you seem to think "it's the anime, so it's different".... which shows a spectacular ignorance for the example in question.

The problem is that in the anime they are NOT rules of one GAME. The description of the trope turns clear that the fact of be based in the rules of one real life game is meaningless( the real life game is only mentioned in the description of the trope to say that this trope is not about the inconsistency between the real life game and the in universe game or to compare this with Gretzky Has the Ball ) - and considering as the "rules" are treated in-universe as being so close to game rules as the "rules" in Hunter X Hunter, this not belongs here.

Of COURSE it's a game, you prat. When it stops being a game, that's when you get the no-powers brawl (and badly mangled moral) from the first movie.

If it's not a game, what is it?

This are natural powers and abilities used in one game-but that not need of the rules of said game to exist neither are said rules that say as they work. Guess! You guess that the powers of wild pokemon(that definitively are not playing this game created by humans) are different of the Trainer's pokemon in the anime?

Looking the trope over, it has evolved slightly to not just include Gaming Anime-type inconsistencies but also when it's pretty obvious certain rules (laws, weaknesses, strengths, technology, magic and other basic world-building practices) are being made up to facilitate the plot. If "the Horn" has never been hinted at in previous encounters with the same Pokemon as being a weak point, then it probably fits.

Of course, as it has been said Pokemon battles would be dependant on the training given to the animals like you would for any sport activity. It's not unreasonable to think that a Pokemon could be trained to minimize a weakness, or that they might be unusually weak to a particular attack due to the lack of training. Wasn't that part of the basis behind the first Pikachu vs. Raichu battle? Raichu evolved too quickly to learn some attacks that Pikachu knew.