Our rules regarding composite profiles (Staff only)

[Dragonmasterxyz]

I thought Pokemon already separated "species" and "specific members" already. If not, i think they should.

As for the moveset arguement, I am more neutral overall. I do agree that a Pokemon with claws, fangs or can fly naturally shouldn't lose said abilities and that forgetting those moves is a game mechanic. Regarding them getting all moves at once in a battle is something I could go either way for. Although, I believe naturally learned moves could stay. TMs and TRs should be something separate though.

 

[Overlord775]

@Dargoo

They get moves by leveling up, which literally any Pokémon could do.

Or trought breading, which is genetic ancestry

Thay are as natural as you can get

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

I read something about TMs becoming a seperate key for pokemon, is that still on the table?

 

[Antvasima]

I would appreciate if we could stop this derailment and focus on the important topic of how our rules should be reworded instead.

 

[Antvasima]

Should we delete the derailing posts in order to focus our efforts better?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I've already proposed a reword for the rule, which didn't seem very controversial in of itself.

 

[Overlord775]

TMs and TRs should be something separate though.

We don't list them in their profiles tho

 

[Antvasima]

Here is a reminder of the suggestions that we were talking about earlier:

"Do not create composite profiles, as they contain highly inflated statistics and do not represent a reasonable canonical version of the character at any given point in time.

"Profiles for entire species may be acceptable, if it can be shown that the species in question would potentially be capable of having any and all of it's potential characteristics at once. However, these profiles should not include exceedingly extraordinary or underwhelming feats and abilities from notable individuals of a species, and the viability of these profiles are determined on a case-by-case basis."

 

[Sera_EX]

You missed my point Dargoo. The exceptional nature of Pokémon comes from the fact that it's an RPG. Ashen One being a single character is irrelevant. The fact that we assume they'd have all potential power ups in Dark Souls 3 is what's important. The Ashen One profile is representative of the possibilities of the Dark Souls 3 protagonist, not just any one player's playthrough. That's what I'm specifically addressing.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

The Ashen One profile is representative of the possibilities of the Dark Souls 3 protagonist, not just any one player's playthrough. That's what I'm specifically addressing.

I was commenting how the profile being representative of all the possibilities of the Dark Souls 3 protagonist is not reflected in VS matches, in regards to equipment, given how, again, it's impossible for them to be using all their spells and equipment at the same exact time.

I'm fine with cataloguing what a character ca do in the case of RPGs. I take issue when they can do everything they possibly can do, effectively becoming a made-up character, the moment they enter a VS.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

We don't list them in their profiles tho

We should.

 

[Antvasima]

I would greatly appreciate if we could discuss the wording of the rules themselves please.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Agnaa and you seem to agree with the alternate wording, although yes, I'd like to hear other opinions on what I proposed.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[Agnaa]

I do have input on the specific pokemon species profile discussion from earlier, but I've left my response on Dargoo's wall to not clutter up the thread.

And yes, I do agree with Dargoo's rewording.

 

[Antvasima]

@All staff members

The second quote in my post above contains a slightly cleaned up version of Dargoo's suggestion.

So is this acceptable, or are the last two columns inappropriate?

"Do not create composite profiles, as they contain highly inflated statistics and do not represent a reasonable canonical version of the character at any given point in time.

• Profiles for entire species may be acceptable, if it can be shown that the species in question would potentially be capable of having any and all of it's potential characteristics at once. However, these profiles should not include exceedingly extraordinary or underwhelming feats and abilities from notable individuals of a species, and the viability of these profiles are determined on a case-by-case basis.
• In the event that a character has no linear canon, but rather treats all of the related works as being canon without much context as to the order of events, a profile detailing all of their feats at once may also be acceptable.
• While some verses may have a lot of stories written by a lot of different authors over a wide span of time, as long as these are all considered canon to each other, their feats can be used together without being considered a composite."

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Looks good

 

[GrathOfLux]

It looks good to me.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. It is best to wait for more input though.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

I see nothing wrong with it.

 

[Elizhaa]

The texts look fine.

 

[The_Causality]

I'am fine but doesn't the third rule is necessary? i mean, it's obvious that if multiple stories with the same protagonist are canon, he should not be treated as composite.

About the first rule i guess it mainly talk about case like pokemon, just like if a shiny evee have a special move, all the species should not gain this ability in the profile, if yes i completly agree.

 

[Jasonsith]

Ditto

Ditto

This is a generic problem for RPG characters where players can choose the occupation, armor and even skills for characters.

Potentially applicable to Link (Composite), Cloud Strife (Final Fantasy), anyone else.

Does the "Pokemon principle" apply as well? Like Pokemon is an RPG by itself.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

I was commenting how the profile being representative of all the possibilities of the Dark Souls 3 protagonist is not reflected in VS matches, in regards to equipment, given how, again, it's impossible for them to be using all their spells and equipment at the same exact time.

I'm fine with cataloguing what a character ca do in the case of RPGs. I take issue when they can do everything they possibly can do, effectively becoming a made-up character, the moment they enter a VS.

There was already a dicsussion about this, in the standard and optional equipment me thinks. If a character has multiple possible abilities and/or equipment that can't be all obtained, the one that makes the vsbattle has to specify what they have.

 

[Joaco0902]

I have a question.

"In the event that a character has no linear canon, but rather treats all of the related works as being canon without much context as to the order of events, a profile detailing all of their feats at once may also be acceptable."

The Looney Tunes fall into this category, right?

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

It does not treat everything as canon. It treats everything as a one-off joke.

 

[GoCommitDi]

They've actually referenced older shorts multiple times, heck, theres even a spinoff based on the Duck Dodgers short from 1953

 

[Antvasima]

I still need more staff support for our latest suggestion of the new rules to be applied. Can somebody please remind Dargoo Faust, Promestein, and some other administrators to comment here?

 

[Joaco0902]

I will.

 

[Joaco0902]

Done.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the help.

 

[Joaco0902]

No problem!

 

[Promestein]

You don't need to ask us all again to review every subtle variation. It's fine.

 

[Sera_EX]

Well, you know Ant is usually very tired and has sort of a short-term memory loss deal going on. But yeah I agree, it looks fine.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, not short term memory loss exactly. I am just juggling so many tasks that I have a hard time keeping track of the finer details.

Anyway, Agnaa also gave my post a thumbs up earlier, so now I am just waiting for Dargoo, who I think objected earlier.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

I'm pretty sure Sera was exagerating for impact with that. But yeah, you already do far more than expected on you, so minor stuff like this is no biggie.

 

[Joaco0902]

You don't need to ask us all again to review every subtle variation. It's fine.

Sorry for that....

 

[Antvasima]

@Joaco

Don't worry. It was directed towards me.

 

[GrathOfLux]

Is there enough staff input to make the changes? As Prom said, the only changes since the last time staff have given input is very minor, so we can likely assume there is still support for it from people who gave input recently.

 

[Antvasima]

There is technically likely enough support, but given that Dargoo Faust had objections previously, it might be best to ask him to comment here again first.