"He doesn't start with it"; Starting Moves in Versus Debates

[Malomtek]

@Antvasima (tagging because I feel this is pretty important)

When one goes to in-character matchups in this forum, someone can expect to see a relatively lesser-known or lesser-used power of a character being brought forward as an example of why that character would be able to at least hold his own against another character, to which the most common responses are: "that's not what he starts with" and "it would be out of character for him to use that".

I see this as a pretty big problem, as the people who use these arguments never actually explain, probabilistically or otherwise, why a character wouldn't "start with that", or even what he would start with and why. Which is just as well, since unless a work is actually pretty formulaic, a character's "starting move" can be drastically different in every fight they get in from appearance to appearance. There's a reason we don't specify which attacks and techniques are "starting moves" in a characters profile, because there is generally no consistent standard of "starting move" for any given character.

The same way, no explanation is given as to why an ability used in a work's canon would somehow be "out of character" for a given character to use, or what would inherently be "in character" for him to use. Of course, intrinsically "in character" attacks don't really exist either, and they're frankly a made-up concept to begin with.

It gets even worse when the power being brought isn't something used as an example of what he would "start with", because then the "he doesn't start with that" rejoinder becomes increasingly revealed to be what it actually is most of the time: a way to dismiss an ability that has been used in-canon simply because it might cause their preferred character to lose.

Unless we start going to profiles and specifying unique and special "starting moves" out of the attacks and techniques sections, I say that "b-b-but he doesn't start a fight with that move" should be considered fallacious and a complete non-argument. I hope you people reading this can agree with me.

 

[Eganergo]

In conclusion: erase vs thread since no fight can be concluded?

Why is this even in the staff discussion lol.

 

[Cropfist]

It makes sense to say they don't start with it if they have been displayed fighting in-verse, and do not, in fact, use the supposed move among their first attacks.

 

[XSOULOFCINDERX]

It makes sense to say they don't start with it if they have been displayed fighting in-verse, and do not, in fact, use the supposed move among their first attacks.

This, though I could see a few exceptions depending on what you throw at some characters, but that's a huge difference to what is actually being proposed.

 

[Antvasima]

I am very clueless about versus threads, as I am not interested in them at all.

@DontTalkDT @Promestein @AKM sama

What do you think?

 

[Nitro90]

If a character can erase you with a thought.

But starts fights by punching you in the face most the time.

In a Vs match you go with the punch in the face.

 

[Eficiente]

>When one goes to in-character matchups in this forum

That would be most matches as "in character" is redundant to what a character would do.

>I see this as a pretty big problem, as the people who use these arguments never actually explain, probabilistically or otherwise, why a character wouldn't "start with that"

Saying that a character would start with x thing takes much more assumptions then to say that it wouldn't if the character wouldn't, in fact, start witth that x thing. Saying that a character would start with x thing is easy to claim, while saying that the character worldn't kinda implies more thought process to have gone into that, and can expect others to think to think about it too, but if it's wrong then it can be proven wrong and that's that.

>There's a reason we don't specify which attacks and techniques are "starting moves" in a characters profile, because there is generally no consistent standard of "starting move" for any given character.

We do when we can, we call it Standard Tactics.

>intrinsically "in character" attacks don't really exist either, and they're frankly a made-up concept to begin with

It exists as much as the characters themselves.

>because then the "he doesn't start with that" rejoinder becomes increasingly revealed to be what it actually is most of the time: a way to dismiss an ability that has been used in-canon simply because it might cause their preferred character to lose

This can go the other way.

>I say that "b-b-but he doesn't start a fight with that move" should be considered fallacious and a complete non-argument.

Sorry but no, "he doesn't start with x" is no different than saying "the character wouldn't do this", that's a thing that can be said.

Also why you portray someone saying "he doesn't start with x" as this end-all argument? If "x" is worthy enough to be mentioned then surely it's somewhat of a factor, how so just needs to be argued and evaluated based on evidence/knowledge of the series and common sense.

 

[DontTalkDT]

@Antvasima There's a reason we don't specify which attacks and techniques are "starting moves" in a characters profile, because there is generally no consistent standard of "starting move" for any given character.

I mean, we have a Standard Tactics section, which is made for the purpose of listing, amongst others, the starting moves.

The same way, no explanation is given as to why an ability used in a work's canon would somehow be "out of character" for a given character to use, or what would inherently be "in character" for him to use. Of course, intrinsically "in character" attacks don't really exist either, and they're frankly a made-up concept to begin with.

No? A technique that a character uses is in character. A technique that a character has, but decides to never use is not in character.

To name some random example: For Touma cutting his own hand off to fight by using the Inisible Thing / Dragons is not in character. He has never used this strategy, even in situations where he would most likely die, so he would likely never use that move in character and hence also not in vs-threads.

It gets even worse when the power being brought isn't something used as an example of what he would "start with", because then the "he doesn't start with that" rejoinder becomes increasingly revealed to be what it actually is most of the time: a way to dismiss an ability that has been used in-canon simply because it might cause their preferred character to lose.

Fighting style is a relevant part of a battle. We, by default, don't bloodlust characters for that very reason. Most characters don't start the battle with their strongest moves. Those that are smart enough to do so deserve to have a advantage over those that aren't. One can identify a range of moves that a character is prone to starts battle with, by looking what said character has started battles with in the series. There is no reason to assume that the character would start a battle with anything else, if that is something they never decided to do before. (Unless of course they have something like a skill that tells them the opponents abilities and can based on that decide what would be effective)

Unless we start going to profiles and specifying unique and special "starting moves" out of the attacks and techniques sections, I say that "b-b-but he doesn't start a fight with that move" should be considered fallacious and a complete non-argument. I hope you people reading this can agree with me.

Well, we have the Standard Tactics section, so we do specify starting moves and out of character moves, taking the in-character battle strategy into account isn't fallacious and it is a reasonable argument. So I can't agree with you.

 

[Antvasima]

I trust DontTalkDT's sense of judgement. Thank you for helping out.

 

[Ionliosite]

I agree with Cropfist, Eficiente and DT as well. It doesn't matter if character X can EE character Y with pointing his finger, if X starts by shooting fire from his mouth, that's what he does in character and is thus what we use.

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

Also agree with DontTalk.

 

[Bobsican]

Can this thread be closed? There doesn't seem to be anything left to do here.

 

[AKM sama]

Yes, DT covered pretty much all bases. Though I will agree it becomes quite subjective in cases where characters like Aang are involved. We assume they are in-character and willing to kill, when that is an impossible situation. Because they are never willing to kill when in-character, and if they are assumed to be willing to kill, that becomes out-of-character.

 

[Nitro90]

Yes, DT covered pretty much all bases. Though I will agree it becomes quite subjective in cases where characters like Aang are involved. We assume they are in-character and willing to kill, when that is an impossible situation. Because they are never willing to kill when in-character, and if they are assumed to be willing to kill, that becomes out-of-character.

This is my problem with bloodlusted well one of my problems with it.

 

[Antvasima]

So should we close this thread?

 

[AKM sama]

Yes, I will do so.