FACTPILE IS BACK!!!
CLICK HERE TO SEE FOR YOURSELF
Take a Tour of the Admin's Mancave

Canon Rules

Know what's what in the worlds of the pile ranging from the Mainland, the Topia, and everything in between.

Moderator: Forum Moderators

Re: Canon Rules

Postby EnigmaJ » Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:54 pm

"Because it explains what we see more in-dept. If a character destroys a building with a bubble attack, it might not seem very power or impressive. If we get a canon explanation say from a source book that states the inside of the bubble was the temperature of the suns surface, because of this we know that characters with high lvls of durability might still fall to this attack. Warp from Mass effect is a good example, as well it has never torn anything apart yet its description says it shreds at the molecular lvl."


Be careful with how you reference source books, since-
1.) Information in source books/novels can give more in depth info on an ability/event and it can be used to suggest some aspect of a game as game mechanics, but it can't necessarily override feats.
2.) The source book may be lower canon than the other media source to begin with.

To go in more detail-

Can information in writing supplement and give us a more in-depth look into the information we see visually? Yes. Is it superior? Nope. Can it override it? Not necessarily, but with the way your "canon rules" are written, it not only allows for that, but it demands it.

Sometimes, novels are written that follow the course of movie or a game nearly exactly as it occured in the original media ( for example, Halo: The Floods or the Star Wars Novelizations ). These books give us a more in depth look into what the characters are thinking/feeling, because this is something the movies/games couldn't necessarily do as well. Again, does this make information in novels superior? Not necessarily, since different sources have their advantages and disadvantages. The movies and games allow us to see, visually, the exact appearance of different characters and objects, as well as their precise range of motion and we get to see the effects that occurr during any event in its exact detail. This is all information books may tend to leave out. Does this mean you should place "Feats" above the "Text" in the hierarchy? Absolultely not.

This is why both "Feats" and "Text" ( visual information vs the same information in writing ) should be placed on the exact same level. Both have different ways of giving us the sae information, both have their advantages and disadvantages, and neither deserve to be placed a "higher level" than the other. As its currently written, it forces us to go with the "text" when the "visuals" contradict it and there's no reason for that.

To give another example, Naruto Databooks, tell us information that blatantly contradicts what we see in the manga. It tells us Haku can move at lightspeed, when relativity tells us the needles he threw would impact the ground with more energy than a nuclear bomb, a Rasengan variant can carve out a mountain, while the effects we see in the manga are notably lower, and that Amaterasu burns with the heat of the sun's surface, while its effects doesn't even seem to suggest it does damage through convection/conduction of heat in the first place. Visuals contradicting text. But your rules force us to go with the text. Which do we use? Your rules force us to use the info in the source book. Another example. Star Wars Movies vs ICS. ICS tells that blaster bolts are lightspeed. In the movies, we clearly see that not only are said bolts not lightspeed, but individuals have reacted to them on occasion. You're rules force us to use the information in the source book, and this blatantly goes against the already established Star Wars Canon policy.

In short. "Visuals" and "Text" should be on the same level of hierarchy.

"Warp from Mass effect is a good example, as well it has never torn anything apart yet its description says it shreds at the molecular lvl."


Game mechanics takes care of this. The description of the attack in-game or in another source suggests that what we see the attack actually do in-game may be game mechanics.

Again, no need to place "text" on a higher level than visuals.

"I totally agree, but the current incarnation rule(the way i read it) somewhat kills that notion. The current team for a comic might not perceive superman or Thor as strong as the last team, or they may envision him much more powerful. Thats why i feel only feats from the current can really apply to comic characters. But if a feat is repeated a good number of times its fair game."


Current incarnation means that the character has the powers and abilities and is in the same physical shape he/she was the last time we saw him/her. All series have contradictions at some point, and as far as I saw it, the current incarnation rule was not created as a way to deal with said contradictions.

The latest "feat" or "limitation" a character show does not necessarily accurately represent the "current incarnation" of the character. As I've said before, it could merely be a contradiction ( due PIS ), which is why I suggest we use the most consistent. Last time I checked, Factpile rules banned the use of PIS, and we would need multiple showings of said "new limitation" before we can be sure that it was not PIS.

"actually this concern is covered, look at Hearsay exposition"


I'm not talking about "hearsay". I'm talking about the cases where the narrator confidently tells us something is the case, but said narrator is either 1st Person or 3rd Person limited. In these cases, said "exposition" is the equivalent of a character statement. No where in that hierarchy, do you make that distinction.

" It doesnt make novel description any higher then other mediums(unless they are the same francise)."


If both the novel and movie/game are at the same level of canonicity, then yes it does, since you placed "narration" and "exposition" above "feats" and "visuals" on the hierarchy.

"The situation you described happens regularly on FP in debates related to books that have movie tie ins, And in these debates the novel always trump's the movie
because of the book being the original media."


Novels aren't always the original media, and the way its currently written doesn't take that into account.

"The point you brought up here is completely valid, but the scenario will likely never happen.
Character B is shown shooting a gun then the narrator comes on and tells us he's flipping waffles.....
i just dont see that happening. "


But its hypothetically possible, even if it doesn't occur at such an extreme, meaning such a scenario needs to be taken into account. Your current current heirarchy would force us to surmise that the character was flipping waffles.

"They really should be the same thing, they were only separated because of my train of thought."


Then one shouldn't be placed higher than the next, less that unnecessarily forces us to choose one over the other in future scenarios.

"Now the pokedex is special, the pokedex is fallible because its written based on the observation of characters(researchers) in the Pokemon universe. The pokedex is what the scientist etc in the pokemon world have compiled on each species.

This flavor text you speak of in metroid can you give me an example, obviously info like a data pad or something where a character has written there observation or findings could be fallible, but item descriptions like the speed booster arent."


Special cases, or not, said cases are not only hypothetically possible, but they exist. As "text-based explanations" are currently higher than feats on the heirarchy, we'd have to go with it, even if its known to be fallible. You need to make that distinction.

"that thread is very true, however which is why i only propose using it as a final option, powerscaling pokemon is bad because they have feats which makes the powerscaling wrong. If there is nothing to invalidate it it should be usuable."


I agree, but that needs to be specified.

I'll probably write my own version of said hierarchy at a later time, specifcally specifying what I feel needs to be specified, and see how it compares with yours.
EnigmaJ
Check My Brain
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:53 pm

Re: FactpileTopia • Post a reply

Postby Siggymansz » Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:12 pm

Mencounc wrote:
....I just use the IP Owners Canon Policy, if they don't got one, I treat everything as equal unless invalidated by a majority(however I do place the Original Media above everything else)

...


whats wrong with that Policy?
Spoiler
Image
User avatar
Siggymansz
Primarch
 
Posts: 5627
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:25 am
Location: In ure Headz

Previous

Return to News, Rules, & Updates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest