In a VS Match, do we assume that a character can swim

[Nierre]

If Character B drops Character A into the ocean, but Character A has no showings or statements in canon of being able to swim, do we assume that they can swim or not?

 

[Bobsican]

Of course not.

 

[sanicspood]

Of course not.

I mean, is this confirmed or

 

[Bobsican]

As much as we don't assume a character can fly, otherwise we'd be entirely making up capabilities a character hasn't even shown.

 

[Thelastmlg]

Difference is that flying is a superpower, swimming is a ability even kids can do if they pratice a little.

 

[Quantu]

Bit of a difference between flying (a fictional ability) and swimming

 

[Bobsican]

Birds can fly.
Anyways, we don't assume characters have any skill they haven't shown even if they theoretically could, as much as we don't assume intelligence ratings, to say the least.

 

[LIFE_OF_KING]

As much as we don't assume a character can fly

 

[Wokistan]

I don't think we'd assume that they would know how to swim, but at a certain point of AP it doesn't really matter whether you can do it properly or not.

 

[AdNiBN002]

I mean, unless there's evidence beyond reasonable doubt that suggests they wouldn't be able to swim (aka, Altair in AC 1)
I don't see why they shouldn't be granted something so inherently fundamental.

 

[LIFE_OF_KING]

If the character showed basic motor condemnation characteristics, there is no real reason to assume that the character would not be able to do something that I at the age of 5 could do

 

[The_man_with_the_Midas_touch]

Uh, honestly, i'd assume most physically fit characters would be able to at least tread water or float without drowning if they were placed in a water setting, unless stated or shown otherwise.

I wouldn't automatically assume they possess all the skills inherent to swimming, ig. Like, There's a huge difference between not drowning and actually being a decent swimmer, ya know?

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

So any character that can't breathe under water or fly would lose against a character who can just flood the fighting.

 

[Lilixa]

btw what characters that has mindset to BFR their opponent to the ocean ?

 

[The_man_with_the_Midas_touch]

Badass ones.

im pretty sure one of the characters from the Seven Deadly Sin Manga has the ability to transport someone into a pocket dimension covered entirely by the ocean. It's a good strategy for Water Manip users.

 

[FinePoint]

Birds can fly.
Anyways, we don't assume characters have any skill they haven't shown even if they theoretically could, as much as we don't assume intelligence ratings, to say the least.

"Yeah, they seem to be a normal human but we've never seen him sit, so we can't assume he's able to! Never seen him go up stairs either, kind of sus to assume he'd be able to. Likewise, when's the last time you've seen him cry? Clearly this spell that makes people cry wouldn't work since he lacks the ability to cry."

A majority of normal humans can swim to some degree. We should assume humanoid people are capable of normal human things unless it is demonstrated otherwise.

 

[Bernkastelll]

i mean, pretty much everyone can use the dog way to swim even without knowing how to swim

 

[Moritzva]

Eh? Not everyone knows how to swim, but you can really take a guess at it based on the circumstances and character in question. More often than not, you'll find characters are likely going to be able to swim, but maybe the character was some medieval peasant thousands of miles inland with nothing more than ponds around them. Context, that's all.

 

[Bernkastelll]

As much as we don't assume a character can fly, otherwise we'd be entirely making up capabilities a character hasn't even shown.

this is literally the worst analogy that I ever saw in this site, and I already saw a lot of creepy ***** here lol

 

[FinePoint]

Eh? Not everyone knows how to swim, but you can really take a guess at it based on the circumstances and character in question. More often than not, you'll find characters are likely going to be able to swim, but maybe the character was some medieval peasant thousands of miles inland with nothing more than ponds around them. Context, that's all.

Not everyone knows how to walk either, so we're more-so looking at what's typical of that demographic.
Pure Google conjecture, but 80% of Americans say they can swim, and 56% demonstrated all skills to do it safely.
So to say, for example, an American man could at least doggy-paddle seems like a very safe assumption.

I think you make a good point, I can agree that it probably depends on context, I was just appalled at the notion we can't ever assume a human is capable of basic human things.

 

[Moritzva]

Not everyone knows how to walk either, so we're more-so looking at what's typical of that demographic.
Pure Google conjecture, but 80% of Americans say they can swim, and 56% demonstrated all skills to do it safely.
So to say, for example, an American man could at least doggy-paddle seems like a very safe assumption.

I think you make a good point, I can agree that it probably depends on context, I was just appalled at the notion we can't ever assume a human is capable of basic human things.

Yeah, of course. In the modern day and age, we can assume most people can swim unless said otherwise. A few thousand years ago, with less travel and communication, depends on when and where.

 

[Bernkastelll]

Yeah, of course. In the modern day and age, we can assume most people can swim unless said otherwise. A few thousand years ago, with less travel and communication, depends on when and where.

well, i highly doubt that a healthy person (2 arms and 2 legs in this context) can't do doggy-paddle swim or something nowdays lol

 

[FinePoint]

well, i highly doubt that a healthy person (2 arms and 2 legs in this context) can't do doggy-paddle swim or something nowdays lol

A healthy person can self-teach this method with a little practice, but we're imagining a scenario where they're completely isolated from water (such as a desert planet or just extremely far inland and away from lakes and pools).

In this case, this battle would be their first time swimming ever and I do think they'd drown.

 

[Bernkastelll]

A healthy person can self-teach this method with a little practice, but we're imagining a scenario where they're completely isolated from water (such as a desert planet or just extremely far inland and away from lakes and pools).

In this case, this battle would be their first time swimming ever and I do think they'd drown.

in that case, then yes

 

[The_Axiom_of_Virgo]

Also the default assumption is the characters in question are human or humanoid until stated otherwise since there's plenty of profiles on the Wiki for lifeforms or otherwise that can't swim since it's literally impossible/unfeasible for them.

 

[Jibz]

Just use occams razor. If a character is a humanoid and physically fit, its logical that they'd be able to not drown.

 

[FinePoint]

Just use occams razor. If a character is a humanoid and physically fit, its logical that they'd be able to not drown.

Occam's razor implies using the least assumptions. In this case your description does not fit as being physically fit is not necessarily related to swimming ability, and so it requires the assumption that their workout routine includes swimming.

 

[Jibz]

Occam's razor implies using the least assumptions, in which your description does not fit as being physically fit is not directly related to swimming ability, so it requires the assumption that their workout routine includes swimming.

The most simple answer, that requires the least assumptions is often correct. A person who is physically fit would logically be able to swim. It is both more logical and requires a less fanciful assumption then a fit person being unable to do a basic physical activity

 

[Bobsican]

We need something more than the mere potential to claim someone can swim, or else it's assumptive to say the least, and we default to the negative, so we'd just go with the Character A the OP proposes just drowning.

 

[FinePoint]

The most simple answer, that requires the least assumptions is often correct. A person who is physically fit would logically be able to swim. It is both more logical and requires a less fanciful assumption then a fit person being unable to do a basic physical activity

It is an assumption that a physically fit person out of context can swim. You do not need to do any swimming to be physically fit.

 

[Jibz]

You can use that notion with everything.

"Has this character been shown to be able to walk up vertical stairs"
"If not we default to the negative, and assume they can't"

 

[Nullflowerblush]

People can keep themselves afloat to a degree, but not everyone can swim.

 

[Bobsican]

False equivalence, that's far more trivial and inherent by the mere capability of walking (unless they're implied to lack development in this area), while swimming requires more specific practice and so on, which we can't just assume happened.
What's next? Assume that every character can read because it's "trivial"?

 

[Bernkastelll]

False equivalence

As much as we don't assume a character can fly, otherwise we'd be entirely making up capabilities a character hasn't even shown.

 

[Bobsican]

Okay, maybe that part was a bad example, but the point still stands, it'd be inappropiate to give inherently experience/skills to a character it hasn't shown to begin with.

 

[Jibz]

False equivalence, that's far more trivial and inherent by the mere capability of walking (unless they're implied to lack development in this area), while swimming requires more specific practice and so on, which we can't just assume happened.
What's next? Assume that every character can read because it's "trivial"?

By swimming here im merely referring to the ability to stay buoyant. An effect which most humans naturally adhere to. That's on me for wording it that way, but i hardly doubt a character would drown, when literally staying buoyant is their goal.

 

[FinePoint]

You can use that notion with everything.

"Has this character been shown to be able to walk up vertical stairs"
"If not we default to the negative, and assume they can't"

As seen above, I'm already for making certain assumptions. I'm not the one who brought up Occam's razor, a trend which isn't even an absolute rule and often used incorrectly.

I just disagree that being physically fit is the requirement for that assumption. Most people who swim are not the image of "physically fit", and plenty of physically fit people in landlocked areas don't swim. It's far more dependent on the area they're in.

 

[Jibz]

I've reiterated, recorrected and properly rephrased my notion, so im not going to bother to respond to that

 

[FinePoint]

By swimming here im merely referring to the ability to stay buoyant. An effect which most humans naturally adhere to. That's on me for wording it that way, but i hardly doubt a character would drown, when literally staying buoyant is their goal.

The idea that somebody who cannot swim can easily float is exactly the reason so many unprepared people die in the water.
It's simply not true.

 

[Jibz]

Humans are naturally buoyant. Its basic physics. The pressure from down below when higher then the pressure pushing down naturally pushes people upwards. Rather simple stuff. There are factors that offset this of course, such as weight, upper and lower body strength, cardio, density, respiration rate etc. Of course there are more extenuating circumstances such as the density and volume of the water, and of course the pressure pushing both upwards and downwards upon the person, but for the most part a relatively fit person should have no issue staying buoyant (as long as they don't flail around and waste energy).

So, yeah it is true.