Changing the Standard Battle Assumptions

[DontTalkDT]

As for "how far will a character go", any VS thread can decide that. It can be a friendly sparring match, it can be one character approaching the other, uninterested character with an intention to throw hands, it can be a serious fight with the world at stake or just a fight to the death, it's something we already allow so if you disagree with it you'll basically have to go through every profile's "Others" section and removing those that use that kind of specification, can't have double standards going on.

You can make those specifications, nothing against that. I was never against making matches with whichever assumptions people want, which is why I wrote very explicitly into the SBA that they are only the defaults.
But you can't put "any VS thread decides that" in the SBA.

The point of the SBA is to clarify the scenario that is assumed if nothing else is stated. That's literally the entire point of it. I made the SBA because people never wrote which exact assumptions the matches takes place in into the thread. Its purpose is to alleviate ambiguity and keep us from asking "ok, but do we assume this and that" in every thread where the thread maker doesn't specify.
Not putting a clear rule as for how far a character is willing to go into the SBA is just not an option. It needs to be part of the SBA.
So unless someone comes up with a good clarification that tells me such things, doing the change isn't really an acceptable option. Come up with a proper alternative and we can talk about that, but we can't remove it without replacement.

The default wincon should be whatever the characters would be willing to do in such situation.
Take for example Ryu from Street Fighter, in a normal bout he aims to beat the opponent to surrender/submission, but he is willing to push himself to KO or physical incapacitation in certain difficult battles or when facing characters who aim to severely harm him, and in certain occasions, such as facing extremely evil characters he can straight up go for the kill (see M. Bison).

The default assumption should be that the characters are willing to put up a fight and win, then they behave as they would naturally do in that situation, for example most of the times Superman doesn't kill even when pushed to the limit and tries to find a way to circumvent such need.
In this way we can analyze the characters thoroughly, altering them only if we specifically want to do so.

What is "in that situation"? What situation? We are not having any motivation for these characters to fight each other in any capacity, so which situation are we in?

Take Valkyrie Cain for example. She will usually not kill people. She would even avoid it in a war. At the same time, she will absolutely kill people if it's really important, such as saving the world or preventing a war. Is the fight important enough for her to kill or not?

Other example: Fran. Fran doesn't kill in tournaments or sparring. She even spares evil guys at times. On the other hand, she mercilessly slaughters people who attack her for no reason. Does she kill or is the match of a more friendly nature?

What about a theoretical boxer that participates in illegal underground matches with a no-killing rule. He doesn't kill, however, he never encountered stakes like Fran or Valkyrie have. Do we assume there is less at stake for him in the fight than for Valkyrie or Fran, since he never encountered such a situation?

What about characters who don't fight and are not interested in doing so either? We have those as well. How motivated are they?

If you want to make a change, make a proposal for a formulation of the character's state of mind that clarifies these cases and other hypothetical unambiguously. Once you do, we can begin talking about it.

And our battles are already No Holds Barred matches, we are not going to disqualify character who use dirty tactics or anything else, I don't know why this argument was brought up.

That was in relation to the question of "why do we not count knock out as win-con before 1 hour passed".

Yeah so write a setup that makes it so they won't do that, or just say they're serious about fighting, you don't need to completely brainwash them to make a fight doable.

If you have a suggestion for a setup that makes it so that a fight happens between any two characters present it and we can talk about it. Arguably by saying they are "serious about fighting" you're already "brainwashing" them. And how serious about fighting are they?

If it doesn't work for many characters it's unsuited for the SBA. But if you can write a setup that works for everyone and is unambiguous, we can talk about changing SBA.

---

Until now most arguments I have seen are primarily about people wanting to setup their fights differently, which they are allowed. I want to see concrete suggestions for a text to put on the page and why it is better as the standard assumption that is supposed to enable fights between anyone.

 

[Armorchompy]

Take Valkyrie Cain <snip> How motivated are they?

I'm not sure how you consider "It's unknown how this character will behave in a fight without further specification" worse than "We are literally changing the character to fit what we like and then pretending they're 'in-character' anyway".

If you have a suggestion for a setup that makes it so that a fight happens between any two characters present it and we can talk about it. Arguably by saying they are "serious about fighting" you're already "brainwashing" them. And how serious about fighting are they?

I'm not sure how "a character is motivated to do something" is akin to "we are completely rewriting aspects of their personality so that they fall in our system more neatly, despite the fact that this sometimes makes it literally impossible to know how a character might act"

If it doesn't work for many characters it's unsuited for the SBA. But if you can write a setup that works for everyone and is unambiguous, we can talk about changing SBA.

It's not really that hard, just remove the two bits about willing to kill and never giving up, and say they're going to initially try to win to the best of their abilities while keeping their morals completely intact. Is it perfect? No, nothing of this sort is ever going to be perfect. Is it better than making up an OC and pretending they're the canonical version of the character, and sometimes needing to blindly assume what the character might need to do due to their personality now being intrinsically paradoxical? Yeah, like a lot.

In the rare cases a character doesn't neatly fit the new SBA that can always just be brought up in the thread and OP, maybe with the help of the debaters, can work out a better setup, which is well worth the removal of the fact that 99% of matches in this site are currently using OC, Death Battle-ified versions of the combatants and basically needing to make up their personality on the spot, since we have quite literally never seen them kill, so we don't know how they do that, to what extents they go and so on.

 

[Jibz]

Take Valkyrie Cain for example. She will usually not kill people. She would even avoid it in a war. At the same time, she will absolutely kill people if it's really important, such as saving the world or preventing a war. Is the fight important enough for her to kill or not?

And even then, she literally refused to kill 1 person who would lead to the death of all mortals basically merely because she dislikes killing. DT raises a good point it's extremely hard to tell what a character's "breaking point" and what isnt. Especially for morally ambiguous or characters who switch up all the time (Morty).

The way you guys make the changes sound are EXTREMELY vague. If a character has 0 motivation to fight, we'll give them motivation. How much? How much is fair, and how much would be unfair?

It's not really that hard, just remove the two bits about willing to kill and never giving up, and say they're going to initially try to win to the best of their abilities while keeping their morals completely intact. Is it perfect? No, nothing of this sort is ever going to be perfect. Is it better than making up an OC and pretending they're the canonical version of the character, and sometimes needing to blindly assume what the character might need to do due to their personality now being intrinsically paradoxical? Yeah, like a lot.

So we change the personalities of those who dont fit inside the neat little box we've made? Surely there's a better solution if we brainstorm. Stuff like this takes time, there's no reason for us to be hasty. We should iron out all kinks possible.

In the rare cases a character doesn't neatly fit the new SBA that can always just be brought up in the thread and OP, maybe with the help of the debaters, can work out a better setup, which is well worth the removal of the fact that 99% of matches in this site are currently using OC, Death Battle-ified versions of the combatants and basically needing to make up their personality on the spot, since we have quite literally never seen them kill, so we don't know how they do that, to what extents they go and so on.

This feels like it can be susceptible to bias, and the issue of how much of a change can be administered to a character seems like a prevalent one, but it begs the question. What about character's who are relatively unknown / dont have enough supporters such as Dark Tower, Manifold etc?

 

[Antvasima]

Why are we doing that though?

What is the point of making them lethal battles, can you explain that to me? Because DT, this is all fun and games right? Any reason we restrict ourselves like this and not just change it? 10 second knockout can be a win, and if OP disagrees he can just make it something different.

Actually what is the issue here in the first place, OP can always change the victory conditions right?

I strongly agree with this. My apologies DontTalk, I usually agree with you, but I was never at all comfortable with the aspect of our community that requires otherwise friendly characters to fight to the death with each other.

I much prefer if we at least give our members the option to not make everything automatically grimdark, especially given the social-Darwinian, corrupt, tyrannical, and largely moral nihilistic civilisation that we seem to live in. It seems much better to just let our members have some harmless fun to relax without having to think about murder and butchery.

 

[Armorchompy]

So we change the personalities of those who dont fit inside the neat little box we've made?

???? That's the other side, not us.

This feels like it can be susceptible to bias, and the issue of how much of a change can be administered to a character seems like a prevalent one, but it begs the question. What about character's who are relatively unknown / dont have enough supporters such as Dark Tower, Manifold etc?

Making characters willing to kill is always an option, if nothing better arises. Plus Roland is usually pretty willing to kill

 

[Jibz]

???? That's the other side, not us.

No i'm saying if the characters don't fight we just change their personality which is kinda ironic

Making characters willing to kill is always an option, if nothing better arises.

I get that, but i think if we thought it over we could come over with a more competent change.

Plus Roland is usually pretty willing to kill

Wasn't really the point of me mentioning Dark Tower, but ig that is technically true

 

[SamanPatou]

Sorry if I haven't replied earlier, today's been hard for me.

On top of what others have said, I don't think we necessarily need to make characters willing to kill to figure out what happens. They want to battle their opponent and know they want to do such as well, then each of them acts as they would normally do in a battle, some change their behavior depending on who they are facing and how they behave, others have set standards, etc..., I think it would be feasible judging just by their own personality and characterization.

If characters aren't known for being fighters, nor have any supporters, you aren't going to magically know how they behave even if you make them willing to kill, you'd be push them towards a specific direction just because you lack info, and imho making them just being willing to fight to avoid being beaten would be enough, and more safe than assume they just become murderers.

Even the idea of not knowing what a character does when absolutely cornered shouldn't justify the "willing to kill" option, because the "in-character until there's no other option" already implies that they will surely go ooc at some point unless they manage to win before a certain point.
You don't even know when this is going to happen, and you may not even know what they would do if willing to kill when they usually aren't. Would they use a power or perform an action that's normally ooc? Would they change completely? This causes even more troubles when doing an analysis, because you also have to account that at some point the character could change their mindset entirely in unknown ways, and at that point anything could be, who knows.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I'm not sure how you consider "It's unknown how this character will behave in a fight without further specification" worse than "We are literally changing the character to fit what we like and then pretending they're 'in-character' anyway".

Again, "further specifications" aren't an option for the SBA. If you want fights that require further specifications you can always set them up, but for SBA that's unsuited, as the entire point of the SBA is to not require further specifications.

I'm not sure how "a character is motivated to do something" is akin to "we are completely rewriting aspects of their personality so that they fall in our system more neatly, despite the fact that this sometimes makes it literally impossible to know how a character might act"

Some characters might just never be really motivated to fight in-character, so that's your answer. Many characters would not fight in-character, so "brainwashing" them is the only way to make a fight happen. And fights do have to happen, if someone sets up the fight.

It's not really that hard, just remove the two bits about willing to kill and never giving up, and say they're going to initially try to win to the best of their abilities while keeping their morals completely intact. Is it perfect? No, nothing of this sort is ever going to be perfect. Is it better than making up an OC and pretending they're the canonical version of the character, and sometimes needing to blindly assume what the character might need to do due to their personality now being intrinsically paradoxical? Yeah, like a lot.

In the rare cases a character doesn't neatly fit the new SBA that can always just be brought up in the thread and OP, maybe with the help of the debaters, can work out a better setup, which is well worth the removal of the fact that 99% of matches in this site are currently using OC, Death Battle-ified versions of the combatants and basically needing to make up their personality on the spot, since we have quite literally never seen them kill, so we don't know how they do that, to what extents they go and so on.

Nah, that's not an option for the SBA. If you want to clarify how the fight goes in the thread you can already do that. You don't need to change the SBA for that.

The SBA's entire point is to require no further clarification so your proposal doesn't work.

I strongly agree with this. My apologies DontTalk, I usually agree with you, but I was never at all comfortable with the aspect of our community that requires otherwise friendly characters to fight to the death with each other.

I much prefer if we at least give our members the option to not make everything automatically grimdark, especially given the social-Darwinian, corrupt, tyrannical, and largely moral nihilistic civilisation that we seem to live in. It seems much better to just let our members have some harmless fun to relax without having to think about murder and butchery.

I believe you misunderstand what the Standard Battle Assumptions are. They aren't rules as for what a match has to be like. They are merely the assumptions that come into play if the person who made the match doesn't specify what he wants the match to be like.

If someone wants to make a match with no killing involved they can always do so, they just have to say it at the beginning of the thread. It's just not the default assumption, as expecting a character of absolute evil to adhere to rules of a fair sports match would be rather silly.

Sorry if I haven't replied earlier, today's been hard for me.

On top of what others have said, I don't think we necessarily need to make characters willing to kill to figure out what happens. They want to battle their opponent and know they want to do such as well, then each of them acts as they would normally do in a battle, some change their behavior depending on who they are facing and how they behave, others have set standards, etc..., I think it would be feasible judging just by their own personality and characterization.

If characters aren't known for being fighters, nor have any supporters, you aren't going to magically know how they behave even if you make them willing to kill, you'd be push them towards a specific direction just because you lack info, and imho making them just being willing to fight to avoid being beaten would be enough, and more safe than assume they just become murderers.

Even the idea of not knowing what a character does when absolutely cornered shouldn't justify the "willing to kill" option, because the "in-character until there's no other option" already implies that they will surely go ooc at some point unless they manage to win before a certain point.
You don't even know when this is going to happen, and you may not even know what they would do if willing to kill when they usually aren't. Would they use a power or perform an action that's normally ooc? Would they change completely? This causes even more troubles when doing an analysis, because you also have to account that at some point the character could change their mindset entirely in unknown ways, and at that point anything could be, who knows.

The current assumptions really don't make it as hard as you think. That characters are forced to fight (can't give up) so they find themselves attacked. They will respond as when a random opponent attacked them. They will respond like they usually would, until they notice that that doesn't work. At that point they would get more serious and do what is necessary. I think that covers 99% of all cases.

But as said, give me an alternative proposal. As said, just removing the "willing to kill" and "can't give up" rule isn't an option, as many fights just won't happen. I, honestly, also don't want to see "they become friends" as outcome of a fight, as that is just avoiding an outcome. We are do want to reach conclusions.

If you can come up with a proposal that is clear and guarantees that matches actually happen and reach results, I might be more willing to butch. But as long as you cop out on presenting something concrete I'm firmly against it.

 

[SamanPatou]

The current assumptions really don't make it as hard as you think. That characters are forced to fight (can't give up) so they find themselves attacked. They will respond as when a random opponent attacked them. They will respond like they usually would, until they notice that that doesn't work. At that point they would get more serious and do what is necessary. I think that covers 99% of all cases.

That's the problem, you're putting a timer on their in-character behavior, because in some fights we are just assuming they drop their morals, personality and whatever just to abide our rules, and at that point many characters wouldn't be themselves anymore, and there's an equal if not major amount of unknown and unpredictable elements to consider.

But as said, give me an alternative proposal. As said, just removing the "willing to kill" and "can't give up" rule isn't an option, as many fights just won't happen. I, honestly, also don't want to see "they become friends" as outcome of a fight, as that is just avoiding an outcome. We are do want to reach conclusions.

If you can come up with a proposal that is clear and guarantees that matches actually happen and reach results, I might be more willing to butch. But as long as you cop out on presenting something concrete I'm firmly against it.

Them being willing to fight, win and not give up (which includes becoming friends) should be enough, isn't it? It's still an alteration, but much less impactful on their personality than turning them into killers at some point of the battle, and still allows for battles to happen. The rest is done by the characters themselves, the way they approach each other and react, which is something we already account.
Many characters with regen are limited by stamina, need time, can be KOd and such, while many many others are willing to kill to some extend and have ways to incap, I don't think this change would suddenly increase the number of stalemates.

 

[DontTalkDT]

That's the problem, you're putting a timer on their in-character behavior, because in some fights we are just assuming they drop their morals, personality and whatever just to abide our rules, and at that point many characters wouldn't be themselves anymore, and there's an equal if not major amount of unknown and unpredictable elements to consider.

The timer isn't as much of a timer, as it is preventing them from giving in. It doesn't happen after a certain time, but only after they tried everything else they can.

Them being willing to fight, win and not give up (which includes becoming friends) should be enough, isn't it? It's still an alteration, but much less impactful on their personality than turning them into killers at some point of the battle, and still allows for battles to happen. The rest is done by the characters themselves, the way they approach each other and react, which is something we already account.

That still leaves open the question of whether Valkyrie Cain and Fran kill or not. Such cases do require an answer. Most characters aren't a binary "kill everyone" or "kill nobody".

 

[SamanPatou]

That still leaves open the question of whether Valkyrie Cain and Fran kill or not. Such cases do require an answer. Most characters aren't a binary "kill everyone" or "kill nobody".

SBA already assume the battle being a random encounter, as it takes place in Central Park and the two have no previous knowledge other than knowing each other's aspect. Willing to kill or not, Fran already would already behave as if a rando was attacking her.

Same goes for Valkyrie, she already doesn't know if her opponent is a world threat or not, her standard mindset would be to not kill the opponent, and maybe do it if they show to ability and will to cause cataclysms or anything she deems to be a serious threat, idk the character.

The timer isn't as much of a timer, as it is preventing them from giving in. It doesn't happen after a certain time, but only after they tried everything else they can.

How many characters are already not going to give in but they don't kill? Tale Luffy, Superman and others, they will give all they can but never resort to killing, they fight to their last breath but remain faithful to themselves.
Making them willing to win and not giving up, but without forcing them to become killers under certain circumstances, means they'll fight and keep going until they can't do anything, while remaining faithful to themselves.

 

[DontTalkDT]

SBA already assume the battle being a random encounter, as it takes place in Central Park and the two have no previous knowledge other than knowing each other's aspect. Willing to kill or not, Fran already would already behave as if a rando was attacking her.

Same goes for Valkyrie, she already doesn't know if her opponent is a world threat or not, her standard mindset would be to not kill the opponent, and maybe do it if they show to ability and will to cause cataclysms or anything she deems to be a serious threat, idk the character.

So you're suggesting "characters fight as seriously as if they assumed the opponent was trying to murder them"?

 

[Armorchompy]

How is "we're uncertain on how a character will act" better than "we are literally changing the character and we have no idea how this modified, OC version would act in certain ways" again?

You keep asking that we come up with something better than SBA while ignoring the very huge flaws that SBA has and that make it worse than even a generic fight scenario. I think this is a pretty uneven debating standpoint you've erected where you're asking for something nearly perfect, which isn't possible, while all that is needed is something barely decent to improve our current standards of literally making stuff up.

 

[SamanPatou]

So you're suggesting "characters fight as seriously as if they assumed the opponent was trying to murder them"?

No, they fight as if they were being assaulted by someone who wants to harm and at least incapacitate them, figuring out whether or not they're actually trying to kill them is something they have to figure out more for strategic purposes than anything.
At the same time, something pushes them to do the same, to defend themselves, attack and try to win without giving up. At that point what they will do depends on the specific character, some woul try to kill right away, some after a while or only against specific opponents, others never at all and such.

 

[DontTalkDT]

How is "we're uncertain on how a character will act" better than "we are literally changing the character and we have no idea how this modified, OC version would act in certain ways" again?

You keep asking that we come up with something better than SBA while ignoring the very huge flaws that SBA has and that make it worse than even a generic fight scenario. I think this is a pretty uneven debating standpoint you've erected where you're asking for something nearly perfect, which isn't possible, while all that is needed is something barely decent to improve our current standards of literally making stuff up.

I'm merely asking for something that fulfills the most important quality of the SBA that is "It should require no further clarifications", as that is the SBA's purpose.

If you feel the current SBA don't fulfill that I would be willing to add further clarifications upon that as well.

 

[DontTalkDT]

No, they fight as if they were being assaulted by someone who wants to harm and at least incapacitate them, figuring out whether or not they're actually trying to kill them is something they have to figure out more for strategic purposes than anything.
At the same time, something pushes them to do the same, to defend themselves, attack and try to win without giving up. At that point what they will do depends on the specific character, some woul try to kill right away, some after a while or only against specific opponents, others never at all and such.

Honestly, I think "opponent wants to incapacitate me" is too weak. That might be the case for a mock battle or a tournament match, too. "To harm" might work, but is still rather unspecific. Are we talking stabbed with a knife or given a slap on the ass? Remember that we are applying this before the fight starts, as the severity is relevant for the ever-important first move.

IMO it should at the very least have the level of severity of getting attacked by bandits or, better yet, opposing soldiers in an armed conflict. Holding back because you are not sure whether the opponent has a just cause for attacking should IMO not be part of the match. We do want to have the characters fight somewhat at full strength, after all. Be it in-character full strength, but still full strength. No reason to nerf all good characters that hard.

 

[Armorchompy]

If you feel the current SBA don't fulfill that I would be willing to add further clarifications upon that as well.

It's not that they need more clarifications, the issue is deeper-seated than that, in certain situations there literally can be no clarifications. If a character who never kills or kills only under extremely specific circumstances is now willing to kill, that is modifying their personality, and we now have absolutely no reference as to how they would act. Which is way worse than the setting of a fight making it unclear how a character would act, because the latter at least is the character and further specification or even a degree of speculation can lead us to a reasonable assumption of what they would do.

 

[Armorchompy]

We do want to have the characters fight somewhat at full strength, after all. Be it in-character full strength, but still full strength. No reason to nerf all good characters that hard.

Why so? If a character canonically holds back at the start of most fights, why should that not be reflected here?

 

[SamanPatou]

Honestly, I think "opponent wants to incapacitate me" is too weak. That might be the case for a mock battle or a tournament match, too. "To harm" might work, but is still rather unspecific. Are we talking stabbed with a knife or given a slap on the ass? Remember that we are applying this before the fight starts, as the severity is relevant for the ever-important first move.

IMO it should at the very least have the level of severity of getting attacked by bandits or, better yet, opposing soldiers in an armed conflict. Holding back because you are not sure whether the opponent has a just cause for attacking should IMO not be part of the match. We do want to have the characters fight somewhat at full strength, after all. Be it in-character full strength, but still full strength. No reason to nerf all good characters that hard.

With incapacitation I was thinking more about at least knocking them out, but I agree that it's weak and unclear.
Involving bandits and soldiers as examples already imply they think they are going to be killed, while it should resemble more a drunken rando who wants to beat the shit out of you for no reason and you got to defend yourself.

Full strength isn't a factor, them holding back if they do is already included in the current rules, which makes it so they are in-character at the very beginning.

Something around the idea of "Severely harm" or "represent tangible danger" should work, characters don't know if the opponent is a murderer, but they surely know they want to beat them up and they feel compelled to reply.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Why so? If a character canonically holds back at the start of most fights, why should that not be reflected here?

This isn't just holding back at most fights, though. This is, in fact, less stakes than many characters have in their usual fights. Many characters don't exactly regularly fight random people that attack them for no assumed reason.

In fact, I have a good example as for how that proposal undershoots motivation. Let me introduce you: Tanya von Degurechaff. On a scale of good and evil she definitely leans towards evil. She is a soldier and does what is necessary to win. Be that killing of opposing soldiers or burning down entire cities with the civilians still in them. When ordered to she would have 0 qualms about shooting women and children.
Tanya is a sociopath. She has no real morals at all, but only acts rationally.

Yet despite all of that, she might not just shoot the attacker in the scenario that was proposed. Why? Because shooting random civilians without being ordered could land her in military court. If she can, Tanya would likely want to avoid that, as it would at best be an annoying waste of time and, at worst, leave a stain in her file. So she instead might try to just K.O. them... until she notices they are some level of threat, then she would immediately shoot them for self-preservation.
I think when even a person with no morals whatsoever that mercilessly kills her opponents might not go for the lethal shot... the battle doesn't have motivation to reflect the serious fights we are trying to have nor does it represent the character's usual fights well.


So yeah, my proposal would be "attacked by a carrier soldier"-level of seriousness. I.e. as serious as if the attacker attacked entirely out of free will and does not count as a civilian or something else that is worth protecting and would have serious consequences to be killed beyond morals.

With incapacitation I was thinking more about at least knocking them out, but I agree that it's weak and unclear.
Involving bandits and soldiers as examples already imply they think they are going to be killed, while it should resemble more a drunken rando who wants to beat the shit out of you for no reason and you got to defend yourself.

Full strength isn't a factor, them holding back if they do is already included in the current rules, which makes it so they are in-character at the very beginning.

Something around the idea of "Severely harm" or "represent tangible danger" should work, characters don't know if the opponent is a murderer, but they surely know they want to beat them up and they feel compelled to reply.

Eh, see what I wrote above. "Drunk barfight" undercuts it for many many characters to even perform at their average level of seriousness, even if they don't have morals. (I mean, someone drunk arguably doesn't even make the informed decision to fight...)

 

[DontTalkDT]

Personally, I would at least want to following criteria in regards to seriousness of the perceived attack:

1. The attacker can be assumed to not have been forced into battle. They have decided from free will to fight and are not excused by a just cause, difficult times or otherwise exonerating circumstances.
2. The attacker is assumed to not be in a situation where they are protected by social norms or consequences, such as being a civilian protected by law. The only thing that should influence the character's decision for the seriousness of their attacks should be their own morals.
3. The attacker should not just be an attacker, but an enemy. It should be assumed that the opponent will attempt to (though not necessarily to be able to) cause serious harm. It should never be assumed that losing won't have dire consequences.

 

[Duedate8898]

I feel like this is overcomplicating it to a weird extreme? Like I already feel like the assumption is that for some reason or another, these two characters have gauged one another as a threat, hence the reason they're fighting in the first place. Past that, it's whatever the characters would normally do in a fight. As simple as that.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I feel like this is overcomplicating it to a weird extreme? Like I already feel like the assumption is that for some reason or another, these two characters have gauged one another as a threat, hence the reason they're fighting in the first place. Past that, it's whatever the characters would normally do in a fight. As simple as that.

"gauged as a threat" is incredibly unspecific as for how serious they are. And as I explained on examples above, character can normally fight vastly different depending on how serious the fight is supposed to be.
Valkyrie will normally kill if the fight is so serious that a war or world ending event would happen if she lost. She will not normally do so otherwise. Both are things she would normally do in the fight, just under different circumstances.
Same way Fran will normally kill someone that wishes to murder her for no reason (or a bad reason). Then again, she will normally also spare people if they attack her for a good reason or sometimes if she isn't sure and the opponent is sufficiently weak.
Tanya will normally shoot any attacker, unless she isn't sure if that would have negative consequences for her (such as an attack from random civilian). Then she might normally not do so.

Not every character is Batman and only has a single response to getting attacked. Most characters are contextual and as such we have to provide context to make things somewhat clear.
If the characters just behave the same way every time, then they will also behave like that when we get specific, so what is the problem with being specific here?

 

[Duedate8898]

In that case, we should just make it a requirement for people to add context to why characters are fighting. It's not that hard, simply give justification as to why the characters are battling and boom, we can have them fight in character without having to modify their characters just to suit the battle. It's not a big ask, a lot of fights already do so, and it isn't too hard to do. It can be that simple instead of setting up a criteria list and all that.

 

[Bobsican]

In that case, we should just make it a requirement for people to add context to why characters are fighting. It's not that hard, simply give justification as to why the characters are battling and boom, we can have them fight in character without having to modify their characters just to suit the battle. It's not a big ask, a lot of fights already do so, and it isn't too hard to do. It can be that simple instead of setting up a criteria list and all that.

Then we run into the issue of matches where characters "become friends" are addable to pages, at the very least it'd be a good idea to also place a versus thread rule to avoid the indexing of matches that aren't really displaying the capabilities of the participants fighting each other on that regard.

 

[XSOULOFCINDERX]

Then we run into the issue of matches where characters "become friends" are addable to pages, at the very least it'd be a good idea to also place a versus thread rule to avoid the indexing of matches that aren't really displaying the capabilities of the participants fighting each other on that regard.

What's wrong with them forging a bond Mid-Battle? That shit happens so often in fiction that it would be weird not to take it into account for a possible ending scenario.

 

[Bobsican]

Thing is that isn't a win condition and effectively neither character "wins" for these purposes, thus rendering them invalid out of not displaying their capabilities against each other.
On that matter, it seems weird that the standards on win conditions, and verse equalization for that matter, are on SBA instead of the Versus Thread Rules, as that implies one could ignore that and put as a win condition, say, "whoever counts to 10 first" (which appears quite inappropiate to bloat pages with), and the OP could also elect to entirely ignore verse equalization and considerably hinder several verse-specific powers, which is a big no out of effectively restricting abilities indirectly.

 

[DontTalkDT]

In that case, we should just make it a requirement for people to add context to why characters are fighting. It's not that hard, simply give justification as to why the characters are battling and boom, we can have them fight in character without having to modify their characters just to suit the battle. It's not a big ask, a lot of fights already do so, and it isn't too hard to do. It can be that simple instead of setting up a criteria list and all that.

How often do I need to repeat that that is not an option for SBA?

The SBA is created because people do not add details to fights. In an ideal world we wouldn't need an SBA because people would just specify where the fight takes place, what knowledge the characters have, what time of day it is, how prep time is handled etc.
However, people never did that, which is why I made the page years ago so that threads don't need constant reminders to state what assumptions should be used.
If you ask to clarify you undermine the reason we have the SBA. Its entire point is that those assumptions go if the thread creator decided not to specify anything... as is sadly virtually always the case.

And honestly, I feel like I'm not asking too much here. People wanted that characters who have a "no killing rule" don't kill in matches as then they are more in character, so we made a draft to adjust the rules to accommodate that. Now I'm asking that characters which do regularly kill in battle are equally accommodated by giving them just enough context to actually kill as they usually do right away, instead of having to figure out context mid-battle like it would rarely happen to them. That just seems like basic fairness and much in line with the "let characters fight like they usually do"-sentiment that was proposed.

On that matter, it seems weird that the standards on win conditions, and verse equalization for that matter, are on SBA instead of the Versus Thread Rules, as that implies one could ignore that and put as a win condition, say, "whoever counts to 10 first" (which appears quite inappropiate to bloat pages with), and the OP could also elect to entirely ignore verse equalization and considerably hinder several verse-specific powers, which is a big no out of effectively restricting abilities indirectly.

You can technically change the win cons however you want. That is allowed. In principle, there is no reason to restrict variety.
However, we only list 'notable' matches, so if you modify them in a way that makes them non-notable (such as restricting characters too much or being very unbalanced) it could of course not be added regardless.

What's wrong with them forging a bond Mid-Battle? That shit happens so often in fiction that it would be weird not to take it into account for a possible ending scenario.

We are trying to figure out who is stronger. Literally nobody makes a Naruto vs Luffy fight to get "they become friends" as a result. Such matches would just be made for trolling or by accident. And in the latter case the assumptions would then be modified so that it doesn't happen, so we might as well exclude that possibility right away.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that DontTalk seems to make sense in his last post.

Does somebody have any suggestion for a workable compromise solution here?

 

[SamanPatou]

Eh, see what I wrote above. "Drunk barfight" undercuts it for many many characters to even perform at their average level of seriousness, even if they don't have morals. (I mean, someone drunk arguably doesn't even make the informed decision to fight...)

I meant something more like being attacked by a stranger with no apparent reason, which forces you defend yourself.


I agree that we can't force everyone to set up a context for the fight, but I stand my ground with the fact that "willing to kill" can simply be replaced by something about the idea of "willing to fight and not give up with the assumption that the opponent wants to at least cause them severe harm".

This would preserve the characters' personality and behavior, while pushing them to fight seriously. How they behave is then up to their personal morals and attitude towards the opponent they happen to face from time to time.

 

[Armorchompy]

"Wants to cause severe harm" is better than "knows they will cause severe harm", since that just isn't the case in some matches. Stomp matches, typically, but that should still be taken into account.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I meant something more like being attacked by a stranger with no apparent reason, which forces you defend yourself.


I agree that we can't force everyone to set up a context for the fight, but I stand my ground with the fact that "willing to kill" can simply be replaced by something about the idea of "willing to fight and not give up with the assumption that the opponent wants to at least cause them severe harm".

This would preserve the characters' personality and behavior, while pushing them to fight seriously. How they behave is then up to their personal morals and attitude towards the opponent they happen to face from time to time.

Yeah, but see what I wrote regarding Tanya. If even someone that literally has no morals whatsoever would not kill immediately, then you haven't given them clear enough of a case IMO.

So yeah, my compromise would be the following:

In character, but will attempt to win the battle. Characters will not give up of their own accord. That means a character that is uninterested or sees no chance of winning won't simply leave and characters wouldn't simply become friends with each other. This doesn't prevent a character being made to give up, because the other character manipulates them via things like, for example, mind control, fear inducement, psychological tricks or superhuman charisma.
Each character will view their opponents as enemies, who they have to assume wish to cause them severe harm such that losing could have any range of dire consequences. The characters will assume their opponents have not been forced into battle. They are assumed to have decided from free will to fight and are not excused by a just cause, difficult times or otherwise exonerating circumstances. Furthermore, the situation is assumed one where the opponents are not protected by social norms or consequences, such as being a civilian protected by law.

 

[Antvasima]

Hmm. What do the rest of you think about the suggested compromise solution? Does the text need to be adjusted?

 

[Elizhaa]

It seems fine.

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

That's definitely better.

 

[SamanPatou]

Sorry I haven't replied earlier, I have no issues with this and it's a great improvement.

I might be wrong, and in that case everyone's free to correct me, but I think this new description meets the purpose of this thread.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the evaluations

@Abstractions @Duedate8898 @TheRustyOne @Armorchompy @Confluctor

Are you fine with the compromise solution as well?

 

[TheRustyOne]

Yeah, the above seems much better to me as well.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the reply.

 

[Duedate8898]

Eh, sure fine with me.