Anon10/18/25, 15:47No.283114014
The "first character to explain their strategy loses" problem.For a tense battle, audiences need the outcome of the fight to be unclear and unexpected in order for there to be stakes. Yet at the same time they usually need some degree of grounding and explanation to the players' strategies, mindsets and techniques to better understand those stakes and get invested. A climactic fight being resolved by some never-before explained factor is often disappointing.This generally results in writers, intentionally or otherwise, often defaulting to the infamous "first to explain loses" approach. The value of characters shifts towards "how much can they still surprise the audience?" when determining which stick around and which get sidelined. You see this most often in tournaments and death games, where the people who stick around are usually the ones that have the least revealed about them, or have powersets that lend themselves to this.However, due to how common this approach is, audiences become quickly savvy to the old "death by flashback". So there's now incentive for writers to subvert expectations and keep tensions high by knocking out characters whose arcs haven't been completed yet. In tournament arcs especially, the skill of a writer lies in how good they are at balancing these various contradictory but necessary aspects of how much to reveal, how much to conceal and how much to subvert.--Am I doing this right?
