How to measure of character shields

[Uncluttered]

I was inspired to write this after I took my wife to see "The Social Network".

Here's a spoiler, if you haven't seen it. Spoiler

Zuckerberg creates a website called "Facemash". The website is used to rank the attractiveness of Harvard women. It uses the Elo rating system to compare two headshots, randomly selected.

I think if character shields could be measured, some discussions could take on a new and interesting direction.
(Notice I didn't say ended)

A place to start might be to look at how chess players are ranked

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

As it stands, I think story modifiers have to be factored in.
Other story factors I can think of, using Episode IV for example (top of the head).

1. The combined party: Luke didn't blow up the Deathstar alone, he needed Han, and all the other rebels.
2. Equipment modifiers: Han with Falcon, Luke with "The Force"
3. Fate: In Lucas's vision, the Deathstar HAD to be destroyed. It's the main story arc of episode IV. He could have written a hundred ways for Luke to destroy it.
4. Karma: Linked with fate, possibly interchangable: If the DS hadn't blown up Alderaan.....
5. Canon:G-Canon, EU-Canon.
6. Physics Model: The combined firepower of this fully armed and operational stardestroyer.net

I'm interested in seeing what you guys think.

I think this could be an interesting writing aid. At least it's 5 minutes amusement.

[SeaTrooper]

I think if character shields could be measured, some discussions could take on a new and interesting direction.
(Notice I didn't say ended)

As it stands, I think story modifiers have to be factored in.
Other story factors I can think of, using Episode IV for example (top of the head).

1. The combined party: Luke didn't blow up the Deathstar alone, he needed Han, and all the other rebels.

Please don't forget about poor Porkins. The Rebel pilots suffered pretty heavy casualties up to the point Luke got his shot in, until there really wasn't much left in their quiver to try again. While the fleet's of the day were likely used to fighting what we would consider very long engagements, all of the efforts expended up until that point may have had an effect.

2. Equipment modifiers: Han with Falcon, Luke with "The Force"

Did Luke have time to modify his X-wing? We've seen Anakin start work on any starfighter, freighter, racing pod, etc., almost as soon as he gets his hands on it. Yes, Luke had R2, but do you know if he'd done any work on modifying/improving his fighter?

3. Fate: In Lucas's vision, the Deathstar HAD to be destroyed. It's the main story arc of episode IV. He could have written a hundred ways for Luke to destroy it.

Hull 721 fanfic by Eleventh Century Remnant (the best I've seen to date) makes note of this point. If the Alliance hadn't destroyed the DS, then the Imp Navy would certainly have taken a shot at it. And the best and most efficient way of wrecking such a monster battle-station has to be from the inside.

4. Karma: Linked with fate, possibly interchangable: If the DS hadn't blown up Alderaan.....
5. Canon:G-Canon, EU-Canon.
6. Physics Model: The combined firepower of this fully armed and operational stardestroyer.net

I'm interested in seeing what you guys think.

I think this could be an interesting writing aid. At least it's 5 minutes amusement.

All good points, and of considerable value to anyone writing fanfic. Tks

[Cykeisme]

By "equipment modifier", I don't think he meant "modification of equipment"; he meant that the presence of equipment (vehicles, weapons, etc) augmented the capabilities of the protagonists.
There are further distinctions before a piece of equipment qualifies, however. While certainly Luke could not have destroyed the Death Star without a starfighter, the X-Wing does not "count" because it is the same standard fighter that the other non-heroic Rebel pilots flew. However, the Falcon is a heroic "character" in its own right; it is an extension of Han and Chewbacca, by being the product of their skills at hot-rodding spaceships.


However, I disagree with the idea of attempting to perform quantitative analysis on character shields, as they are a literary mechanic.
Firstly, it would require ignoring suspension of disbelief, as in-universe everyone sees that character as very capable or very lucky rather than being protected by authorial fiat (unless there was a universe that was aware that it's being written by an author).
Secondly, even if we disregard suspension of disbelief, it requires us to quantitatively analyse a subjective matter. While the methodology you outline does look like a good start, it's still.. subjective. The fact that different sci-fi universes have different paradigms in terms of tactics and technology makes it even more difficult to compare one character against another, even without further complicating it with mystical terms such as the Force.

Unfortunately that's probably the reason why the thread hasn't had much response despite the obvious thought and care you put into the original post..

[Uncluttered]

By "equipment modifier", I don't think he meant "modification of equipment"; he meant that the presence of equipment (vehicles, weapons, etc) augmented the capabilities of the protagonists.

Yes. This is what I mean.

There are further distinctions before a piece of equipment qualifies, however. While certainly Luke could not have destroyed the Death Star without a starfighter, the X-Wing does not "count" because it is the same standard fighter that the other non-heroic Rebel pilots flew.

I disagree with you here. Though it may just be semantics.
I think the overall level of "Mightyness" Luke has with X-Wing, is greater than Luke sans X-Wing.
For purposes of discussion. I hereby declare the unity of "Mightyness" to be the "Pen"

However, the Falcon is a heroic "character" in its own right; it is an extension of Han and Chewbacca, by being the product of their skills at hot-rodding spaceships.

Good angle. I never thought of the Falcon as a character in this context.
If units of mightiness (Pens) could apply to equipment, I think the Falcon might have some.

Here is a thought experiment. Would the Falcon be just as mighty, if it were crewed by Abe Vigoda, Sean Hannity, and your middleschool principle?

I would say, No. The Falcon is a tool. A mightiness amplifier. It makes Han Solo, Lando, and Chewbacca more mighty.

However, I disagree with the idea of attempting to perform quantitative analysis on character shields, as they are a literary mechanic.

I'm glad you disagree civily. I see nothing wrong with the attempt though. Perhaps "Character Shield" is a bad choice of words, as I cannot find a authorative definition to it.
Suggestions on this are welcome.

Firstly, it would require ignoring suspension of disbelief, as in-universe everyone sees that character as very capable or very lucky rather than being protected by authorial fiat (unless there was a universe that was aware that it's being written by an author).

I think SD.Net has made great strides to actually quantify authorial fiat. Though no plot devices have actually been quantified with "Pens" or something similar; there are many discussions in which writers Canon is used to contradict, and reconcile other canon.
It may require ignoring suspension of disbeleif. (Good point btw,) And because of this, we may have problems with closed vs open systems because of the different universes.

Secondly, even if we disregard suspension of disbelief, it requires us to quantitatively analyse a subjective matter. While the methodology you outline does look like a good start, it's still.. subjective.

Like you say, It's a start.

The fact that different sci-fi universes have different paradigms in terms of tactics and technology makes it even more difficult to compare one character against another, even without further complicating it with mystical terms such as the Force.

We DO have a few baselines however.
1. Physics are usually the same
2. Baseline humans usually have the same biology
3. The Earth is usually the same mass.

Unfortunately that's probably the reason why the thread hasn't had much response despite the obvious thought and care you put into the original post..

THANKS! (I wish I didn't typo the title though.)