Non-Standard Match Additions

[Agnaa]

I just noticed that D'Arby has two extremely non-standard matches on his profile. One involving playing Blackjack and one involving playing Poker.

I feel like these matches are so far from actual physical altercations that they shouldn't be included on profiles. I feel like notable victories/losses should be about death matches, not arbitrary games played between two characters.

If this were to spread, I think it'd be really weird for smart but haxless tier 10s to get "notable wins" against high-tier characters based purely on them being better at something like Chess or Jenga.

I make this thread to see what other people think, and I'd propose removing these matches from profiles if the community agrees with me.

 

[Axxtentacle]

I mean, it makes sense to me

 

[Sir_Ovens]

I think non-fighting matches are fine to add. We have tons of characters that are more strategists than actual fighters.

 

[DarkGrath]

Looking at the profile and the matches, I'm in a bit of an odd spot regarding whether they should be removed.

On one hand, the notable victories/losses section should mainly be for physical altercations (so, death or incap battles), so this feels a bit out of reach.

On the other hand, it's an explicit point about D'Arby's character on the profile that he plays matches like Poker and Blackjack as a way of fighting opponents, as he can steal the souls of people who lose to him in such games.

It's far enough from a physical altercation that it seems questionable, but given how it's technically a life-or-death situation for D'Arby and his opponent, I don't think it's too far fetched to keep it on the profiles.

 

[Agnaa]

@DarkGrath Ah, I may have been a bit overzealous. To tell the truth I noticed it on L's profile first, and only picked D'arby because he had two of these matches, without me reading through his profile. I can see it being okay to add D'arby matches like that, as long as they consider the broader death match, with the exact board game played simply being a stipulation of the thread.

Maybe a better example would be this match of Jenga added to Yugi Moto and John Kramer's profiles. As far as I can tell, part of Yugi's abilities is to create board games like this, but the effects of them seem to rarely be lethal, and the match was discussed purely on who would win the jenga match, rather than who would be alive/dead at the end of it.

A less important example, but one of the type I'm more worried about, is this chess match with 0 replies between MCU Thanos and Sherlock Holmes. Neither of them have a game related ability, and I'd find it kinda silly to give Thanos a notable loss for something like that.

 

[Tllmbrg]

A less important example, but one of the type I'm more worried about, is this chess match with 0 replies between MCU Thanos and Sherlock Holmes. Neither of them have a game related ability, and I'd find it kinda silly to give Thanos a notable loss for something like that.

Then we should limit this sort of matches to people who actually have feats in that area from which you can actually argue coherently

 

[Agnaa]

Actually, re-reading D'Arby's profile, it seems like he can't really force the other combatant to be incapacitated and stuck in a game. It doesn't seem very applicable if someone is just teleported in to beat the shit out of him, so idk if those should stay either. Games play with him have consequences, but he seemingly can't force people into games.

@Tllmbrg Even people with feats in that area that can be coherently argued can still lead to pretty absurd results of low-tiers having notable wins against extremely high-tiered characters for arbitrary-chosen games with little relevance to combat ability. I feel like even MCU Thanos would have potential coherent arguments about his Chess capabilities.

 

[DarkGrath]

I'm personally not too stressed one way or the other whether it's appropriate for the profiles or not. I feel there are some examples that are obviously really pushing it (like the aforementioned Sherlock Holmes vs Thanos) one that shouldn't be included on profiles. But it's a bit vague in the case of someone like D'Arby, where the usually non-lethal, simple game has a potentially lethal outcome and playing the game as a battle is an aspect of their character. I'm personally fine with keeping it, but if there's enough of a reason or consensus for those matches to be removed, I wouldn't contest that outcome.

 

[Tllmbrg]

@Tllmbrg Even people with feats in that area that can be coherently argued can still lead to pretty absurd results of low-tiers having notable wins against extremely high-tiered characters for arbitrary-chosen games with little relevance to combat ability. I feel like even MCU Thanos would have potential coherent arguments about his Chess capabilities.

Okay and?
I fail to see the problem here, the match is in regards to their intelligence so no shit some low tier pleb can beat a high tier dude in that area
Like what's the actual problem in that, just specify on the page that the match is not a death a match but a "X match"

 

[Ogbunabali]

Don't see the problem here. Matches like these are much more fun and this gives opportunity for intelligence type characters to actually have vsmatches.

Pinging @Promestein because she's also been involved in these types of matches before, I think she'd have some input here as well.

 

[Lollipop_The_King]

He has literally no way to fight, the hell else is he supposed to do?

 

[Axxtentacle]

Maybe we specify on the profile that it’s a “game battle” or something? Or only have “Game characters” fight other “game characters”?

 

[Sir_Ovens]

We have No Game No Life, Kakegurui, and Sherlock profiles.

The characters in these shows aren't combat oriented, and are largely on this wiki due to their near supernatural intelligence. It would not be fair to place them in "to the death" VS matches since they would job 9/10 times. Maybe we could create a set of rules for non-standard vs matches if the need arises, but I'm against banning the concept entirely.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Non-standard matches work fine until you get into the realm of having two traditional fighters do something like this.

"Naruto vs. Goku, but they're restricted to a game of chess and whoever wins chess wins the matchup."

Which might actually be a fair matchup since (I'm going to assume) neither of them are proficient chess players.

So obviously rules are necessary if you want to have it and add it to profiles, otherwise it can get insanely silly insanely fast.

 

[00potato]

I mean if it makes sense, it should be added.

pretty much what was agreed above.

 

[Promestein]

Non-standard versus matches are fine for characters who have the capability to participate in them. You wouldn't put D'Arby in a fist fight with Goku, so don't put Goku in a card game with D'Arby. Both are stomps.

I've defended non-standard matches before, but this one seems to be a particular issue with who's involved.

 

[Agnaa]

I mean I'm fine with non-standard matches occurring, my proposal was just to not have them on profiles. I'd be more fine if there were actual rules for them.

As-is I believe we don't allow matches that stray too far from SBA to be added to profiles, I feel like these sorts of matches would fall under that until actual rules are written.

 

[Promestein]

I'm fine with setting up rulings for them. One of them would have to disallow stomps.

 

[Ican'tthinkof1goodname]

Question: Would a character from a mystery or puzzle solving game such as Among Us or Piggy count as one of these game characters? Also we should probably create a category for these characters

 

[Lollipop_The_King]

No, the Impostor has clear ways to attack.

 

[Agnaa]

No, the Impostor has clear ways to attack.

Pretty sure he's referring to the crewmate.

 

[Ican'tthinkof1goodname]

I was referring to both

 

[Ican'tthinkof1goodname]

Note: For Piggy I was referring to uninfected characters who do things such as puzzles

 

[Agnaa]

Bump.

 

[Promestein]

Alright here's a draft.

• Non-standard versus threads between characters who do not always fight normally (such as certain sorts of games or gambles), or that otherwise are not focused around combat (such as some sort of long-term mindgame, à la L and Light), are perfectly acceptable, but with some caveats.
  • The characters involved must be genuinely capable of participating. For example, Daniel J. D'Arby versus Shigeru Akagi in a game of poker is acceptable; however, D'Arby versus any variety of Dragon Ball's Son Goku is not, as Goku cannot meaningfully fight back within the context of a gamble. It being a different sort of match does not mean stomps can't occur; these stomps merely hinge completely on skillsets.

Any other necessary caveats? I know this thread wasn't accounting for things like L vs Light, but I've seen and made threads like that before (IIRC like my Skitter vs Light thread, or whatever it was), and they should be grouped in here.

 

[Agnaa]

I can't quite tell from your draft whether D'Arby vs Goku isn't allowed because Goku doesn't have any mindgame-related feats, or because it's a stomp.

Would something like Goku vs Vegeta (or whatever two combat-oriented characters are close enough in intelligence to not stomp) in a game of checkers be allowed?

I'm also curious about how stuff like mind manip/perception manip, or stuff like flat out killing the other character would apply in matches like these. How much are they allowed to interfere with each other?

 

[Promestein]

It's a stomp because Goku has no mindgame-related feats. That's a good point though.

I'd say it depends. Here's an updated draft!

• Non-standard versus threads between characters who do not always fight normally (such as certain sorts of games or gambles), or that otherwise are not focused around combat (such as some sort of long-term mindgame, à la L and Light), are perfectly acceptable, but with some caveats.
  • The characters involved must be genuinely capable of participating. For example, Daniel J. D'Arby versus Shigeru Akagi in a game of poker is acceptable; however, D'Arby versus any variety of Dragon Ball's Son Goku is not, as Goku cannot meaningfully fight back within the context of a gamble. It being a different sort of match does not mean stomps can't occur; these stomps merely hinge completely on skillsets. The characters involved need to have relevant feats for the match in question.
  • For game-based matches, what is allowed between competitors is dictated by the rules of the game and any conditions that may be specified within the thread. For example, it would not be acceptable for one character to suddenly kill the other mid-game, but if victory itself results in death or incapacitation (such as with the aforementioned D'Arby), it would be acceptable. Hax should also generally be avoided, unless both characters have a way to either deal with it or work it into the strategy of the game. If it invalidates said strategy, there's no point.

 

[Agnaa]

Well, I don't have any substantive objections to this draft, only my opinion that such matches shouldn't be added which seems to have been outvoted. If that's how they're incorporated into the site, I don't notice any issues with it.

 

[Promestein]

Any other opinions?

 

[Axxtentacle]

I personally don't think they should be added specifically if it's something like D'arby vs Goku.

 

[Promestein]

Yes, we've been through that this entire thread, everyone agreed.

 

[Agnaa]

Actually a little clarification, does "relevant feats" means "played board games/gambled" or does it also include broader non-combat-exclusive intelligence feats? i.e. predicting the future via raw intelligence.

EDIT: The no hax rule is actually kinda tripping me up. Can you just not interfere with the opponent's mental state/perception? Or is hax like supernatural reading of the opponent, or good luck giving you good hands in card games also nulled? Can you indirectly interfere with the opponent's mental state via social influencing?

 

[Ogbunabali]

Actually a little clarification, does "relevant feats" means "played board games/gambled" or does it also include broader non-combat-exclusive intelligence feats? i.e. predicting the future via raw intelligence.

I don't think it has to be board games specifically, like Toa from One Outs plays baseball only but you could make some really interesting poker matches with him.

EDIT: The no hax rule is actually kinda tripping me up. Can you just not interfere with the opponent's mental state/perception? Or is hax like supernatural reading of the opponent, or good luck giving you good hands in card games also nulled? Can you indirectly interfere with the opponent's mental state via social influencing?

Personally, as long as it doesn't make it a stomp it should be fine. If you have supernatural luck to the point where every single poker hand you get is a royal flush or something insane like that, and would make you win with the opponent having no options to counter it, it's obviously not going to be allowed. But if it's like Yugi's heart of the cards bs, it should still be allowed as he has even lost in verse multiple times even with his insane luck.

And Social Influencing is pretty much a must in these types of matches, so yeah it most definitely should be allowed as it is not even supernatural to begin with.

 

[Agnaa]

I feel like "no stomps" should be a rule regardless, Prome's wording made it sound like hax would be nulled if it made the match a stomp. I guess I'm more asking if that's how it is and how far it stretches.

 

[Armorchompy]

Out of curiosity, would "relevant feats" allow matches with "smart" characters that don't have anything quite like this? Something like putting Thanos or Kars against D'Arby, giving them knowledge about the game beforehand of course.

Also would this allow me to make two characters with experience in videogames have a street fighter match

 

[Promestein]

Out of curiosity, would "relevant feats" allow matches with "smart" characters that don't have anything quite like this? Something like putting Thanos or Kars against D'Arby, giving them knowledge about the game beforehand of course.

Also would this allow me to make two characters with experience in videogames have a street fighter match

I'd say yes.

I feel like "no stomps" should be a rule regardless, Prome's wording made it sound like hax would be nulled if it made the match a stomp. I guess I'm more asking if that's how it is and how far it stretches.

That is the thought. I can add specifications as to potential examples. Washizu is a character for matches like these and he has absurd luck (but it's not insta-win good). Yugi is fine. Social influencing that is actually social influencing is fine, that's just mindgames. Supernatural reading is fine. Depending on the characters in question and the strength in hax, perception or mind manip may or may not be permissible.

 

[Armorchompy]

I think stomps can also mean putting The Flash against Batman in a chess match- while the former isn't stupid, he's mentally outmatched by a lot. At least, I think, DC comics are weird