Remove ads

Cliches you can't stand

Hykal94 said:
If almost as if books can contain more information than TV and is more useful as sources for learning various important subjects in extreme depth. :V
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't think she means the trope as in "the book version is better and you're dumb for prefering the tv version", but more like "if in general you prefer reading books to watching tv, then you're smarter than those dumb people".
 
Hykal94 said:
I actually had a lecturer who did a documentary on local history. He basically told the class that he had to cut down all relevant info to 20% because it didn't fit the timeframe. Documentaries are good piquing interest but you still need books to get into the nitty gritty of stuff.

Documentaries that is actually shown on dedicated streaming platforms that has like 12 episodes and are basically recorded lectures are top tier stuff. Historical podcasts? Also great. But the stuff you see on TV? Not so much.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But books are like that too? The art of presenting information is in fact complicated and difficult. As a historian I can say that almost by definition, anything you present is going to chop down on the relevant info because there's often not space.
 
Fourthspartan56 said:
That's not a reason to glorify readers while demonizing TV watchers.

We're talking about recreation not learning.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We were? Like, when I think TV I think of shows and when I think of books I think important stuff. I just kinda file novels and comics into their own separate section.

And seriously, I can't remember the last time there was the cliche of TV dumb book good.

The Laurent said:
But books are like that too? The art of presenting information is in fact complicated and difficult. As a historian I can say that almost by definition, anything you present is going to chop down on the relevant info because there's often not space.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah sure but you can learn more about say, X historical figure from books than a 1 hour documentary.
 
Hykal94 said:
We were? Like, when I think TV I think of shows and when I think of books I think important stuff. I just kinda file novels and comics into their own separate section.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes.

Also, what about people who have a hard time reading or can't even read at all?
 
Astaroh-M said:
I don't think she means the trope as in "the book version is better and you're dumb for prefering the tv version", but more like "if in general you prefer reading books to watching tv, then you're smarter than those dumb people".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As a person who stopped watching tv almost a decade ago, and never did watch that much, and loves reading, i can absolutely confirm this to be utter bullshit. :V
 
I think one point books had in favour over TV was that you can read a book on the bus and during small breaks which is a bit harder with TV. Now you can of course watch that on the phone equally well. But for the longest time the smart kid read a book during break in school.

Books also have the advantage that if you are a good reader you can take in information faster than a fixed time TV-program. And school tests are based on reading comprehension and not listening comprehension most of the time (some language classes excepted) and in fiction what grade you have in school is apparently the only standard for being smart.
 
Axslashel said:
I think one point books had in favour over TV was that you can read a book on the bus and during small breaks which is a bit harder with TV. Now you can of course watch that on the phone equally well. But for the longest time the smart kid read a book during break in school.

Books also have the advantage that if you are a good reader you can take in information faster than a fixed time TV-program. And school tests are based on reading comprehension and not listening comprehension most of the time (some language classes excepted) and in fiction what grade you have in school is apparently the only standard for being smart.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I admit, speed is why I usually prefer reading the manga to watching the anime for most things. In the time it takes me to watch two episodes of an anime I can probably be on manga chapter 50 or 60.
 
Shonen training arcs where there is some great enemy, threat or task that needs to be prepared for and the division of labor goes:


Main character (almost always male): works their ass off to master some new technique or attain a new height of power.

The rival (if he is present): Ditto but usually gets some technique or power level that is cool but not quite as cool as what the main character got.

The less important main characters: Trains a bit or a lot but hardly achieve anything noteworthy.

The female lead/love interest: Doesn't train at all and if she used to be on roughly equal ground to the main character and the rival now falls hopelessly far behind and becomes irrelevant. Instead of training to become stronger so she can achieve her own goals or at least help others achieve theirs she instead spends the entire training arc providing emotional support at best, or just feeling really hard for the main character at worst.

Especially annoying when the training arc is done to prepare for a All Hands On Deck situation where the other protagonists are hopelessly out matched and will need all the help they can get to not die horribly, yet the author still can't be bothered to think up some kind of power up or new technique for the female lead (or doesn't want her to have nice things) and so just has her sit on the sidelines twiddling her thumbs.
 
Mook said:
Shonen training arcs where there is some great enemy, threat or task that needs to be prepared for and the division of labor goes:


Main character (almost always male): works their ass off to master some new technique or attain a new height of power.

The rival (if he is present): Ditto but usually gets some technique or power level that is cool but not quite as cool as what the main character got.

The less important main characters: Trains a bit or a lot but hardly achieve anything noteworthy.

The female lead/love interest: Doesn't train at all and if she used to be on roughly equal ground to the main character and the rival now falls hopelessly far behind and becomes irrelevant. Instead of training to become stronger so she can achieve her own goals or at least help others achieve theirs she instead spends the entire training arc providing emotional support at best, or just feeling really hard for the main character at worst.

Especially annoying when the training arc is done to prepare for a All Hands On Deck situation where the other protagonists are hopelessly out matched and will need all the help they can get to not die horribly, yet the author still can't be bothered to think up some kind of power up or new technique for the female lead (or doesn't want her to have nice things) and so just has her sit on the sidelines twiddling her thumbs.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
One disagreement: frequently the rival gets a generally cooler, but less directly powerful against the main villain power. Especially if the rival is a redeemed villain type.
 
Imagine caring about books or television and not absorbing all of your information through radio waves. You simpletons. You fools.
 
I feel that this:

Hykal94 said:
We were? Like, when I think TV I think of shows and when I think of books I think important stuff. I just kinda file novels and comics into their own separate section.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Being immediately followed by this:

And seriously, I can't remember the last time there was the cliche of TV dumb book good.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

May qualify for some degree of irony, or at least self-demonstration.
 
No, not really. Saying that written material is usually associated with academia and television is usually associated with entertainment shouldn't be some sort of "ironic" statement. That's not "TV dumb book good" unless you reach for it.
 
I think the distinction is rooted in effort, moreso than plot complexity or literary merit. TV shows have the 'pages' turn on their own and keep moving without audience input. Moreover TV shows take advantage of both your eyes and ears as information intakes, with the human brain being naturally geared to consume and digest information through said mediums. Human brains were most definitely not made to process complicated series of ink symbols, translating letters into words into sentences, then understanding and imagining the data presented through pure thought. When I'm bored or tired, it often feels like the text 'locks up' in front of me, my brain no longer willing to make the effort to do all that processing. You might have to expend effort to understand a TV's show plot, but if you don't expend effort on reading a book it just doesn't get read.
 
Last edited:
When RPGs have 'Intelligence' as a Stat. I get that RPGs usually have to quantify things for convenience's sake, and it's not so bad when they by 'Intelligence' they just mean 'your Magic stat', but the idea that something as complex as Intelligence can be ranked and numbered is one that's really off-putting to me (I feel the same way about IQ scores in real life, considering how often they're misinterpreted and abused).

I assumed listing intelligence as a stat was something confined to the olden days of RPGs, but nope, saw The Outer Worlds has it as a stat too. Though Dungeons & Dragons to be fair is at least more actually intelligent (heh) about the nature of intelligence, as it bothers to differentiate how much you know (Knowledge) from what you do with what you know (Wisdom).
 
Lapin Lune said:
When RPGs have 'Intelligence' as a Stat. I get that RPGs usually have to quantify things for convenience's sake, and it's not so bad when they by 'Intelligence' they just mean 'your Magic stat', but the idea that something as complex as Intelligence can be ranked and numbered is one that's really off-putting to me (I feel the same way about IQ scores in real life, considering how often they're misinterpreted and abused).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

How is that different from literally any other RPG stat? I even feel like you can sort-of-quantify intelligence better than, say, dexterity, which can mean a fuckload of different things.

And of course some sort of "intelligence" will be a stat. There's nothing archaic or extraordinary about it. In fact, it's kinda necessary if you have attributes at all, and if you want to have more character types than just the physical sort (tricksters, diplomats, strategists, etc).
 
Susano said:
How is that different from literally any other RPG stat? I even feel like you can sort-of-quantify intelligence better than, say, dexterity, which can mean a fuckload of different things.

And of course some sort of "intelligence" will be a stat. There's nothing archaic or extraordinary about it. In fact, it's kinda necessary if you have attributes at all, and if you want to have more character types than just the physical sort (tricksters, diplomats, strategists, etc).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I feel like it's very possible to divide these sorts of things up in a way that is a little more fun? I don't think it's quite as necessary as you say.
 
I think my underlying problem was how quantifying Intelligence nowadays uncomfortably reminds me of internet eugenicists who obsess over books like The Bell Curve. I'll admit in hindsight this may've been something of an extreme conclusion to leap to.

However, I do think it's completely possible to play a smart and non-physical character in a RPG without needing a strict Intelligence stat. 'Intelligence' could be spread over and meshed into multiple character skills, since there are many people in real life who know lots about one particular field but barely anything about another. Moreover, intelligence can be just as much determined by the choices the player makes (or rather has their character make), or could have had their make in their backstory and have either learned from or not.
 
Lapin Lune said:
However, I do think it's completely possible to play a smart and non-physical character in a RPG without needing a strict Intelligence stat. 'Intelligence' could be spread over and meshed into multiple character skills, since there are many people in real life who know lots about one particular field but barely anything about another. Moreover, intelligence can be just as much determined by the choices the player makes (or rather has their character make), or could have had their make in their backstory and have either learned from or not.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, that would then lead to a discussion about the necessity of having attributes at all. As is, I don't think Intelligence is any more abstracted than Strength or Dexterity. Though I do feel like DnD's way of doing it, rolling attribute plus skill is... well, the attribute quite literally just grafted onto the skill, so that does feel a bit superfluous. However, that is not the only you can use attributes.
 
Lapin Lune said:
I think my underlying problem was how quantifying Intelligence nowadays uncomfortably reminds me of internet eugenicists who obsess over books like The Bell Curve. I'll admit in hindsight this may've been something of an extreme conclusion to leap to.

However, I do think it's completely possible to play a smart and non-physical character in a RPG without needing a strict Intelligence stat. 'Intelligence' could be spread over and meshed into multiple character skills, since there are many people in real life who know lots about one particular field but barely anything about another. Moreover, intelligence can be just as much determined by the choices the player makes (or rather has their character make), or could have had their make in their backstory and have either learned from or not.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eh, that is true, and I am not normally one to shy away from pointing out problematic implications of works but once you start poking holes in some things you can't really stop. In this case yeah Intelligence as a skill is an abstraction but so is a characters total level. Knowing how deadly a epic red dragon is compared to a peasant is quite useful but given how much the game is focused on leveling up you could also see the whole process as quite elitist, with some people just literally being inherently better then others.
 
Trying to simulate every minor detail of life into an easily understandable game is difficult, much like how Constitution and Endurance or how Agility and Dexterity can be simplified to one or the other. A human being can be a good boxer or a good weightlifter but those are different strands of what Strenght is. I've got a three paragraph notepad somewhere complaining how SPECIAL works in Fallout somewhere on my laptop.

I'm sure there are more elegant ways to recognise different people's skills and attributes but if there is I'm not INT or WIS enough to design it.
 
The original point I was trying to make was more about how I don't like quantifying Intelligence because it's something supremacists do in real life, not just because it's inelegant. Granted, doing something in a game and doing something in real life can be completely different things, e.g. how shooting up people in a game is undeniably nowhere near the level of shooting up people in real life.

Also, I do believe there are statless RPGs out there (or at least RPGs that don't use Stats in the traditional way), I've heard FATE cited as an example.
 
I actually wonder whether you could hack a lot of traditional Stats-based games to instead just have lists of skills? Still probably somewhat generalized and abstracted, but more specific? I'm sure it's been done, but it's also 10 PM, so eh.
 
Lapin Lune said:
The original point I was trying to make was more about how I don't like quantifying Intelligence because it's something supremacists do in real life, not just because it's inelegant. Granted, doing something in a game and doing something in real life can be completely different things, e.g. how shooting up people in a game is undeniably nowhere near the level of shooting up people in real life.

Also, I do believe there are statless RPGs out there (or at least RPGs that don't use Stats in the traditional way), I've heard FATE cited as an example.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
weird thought. you can make the argument that the intelligence stat is ablest or problematic or whatever (which I definitely think you can) But in a way you can also say its inclusive as it lets people (like me for example) who never got formal secondary education and struggle with some dyslexia related issues to roleplay as some cool mastermind or powerful wizard without actually having to show my intellect in real life just like you don't have to be able to bench press a horse to play a barbarian or whatever. Or similarly a flat stat lets someone who struggles with social situations or perhaps even has a speech impairment to have fun pretending to be a super charismatic bard or politician.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top