I think that the absolute worst trait of nerds is the desire to question authorial intent by way of mechanics.
It's the dumbest complaint you can possibly have with a story. Like "does this character's decision make sense based on their motivations, personality, and emotional state"; that's important. But "does the outcome of this plot event make sense based on previously defined rules for fake made-up magic and technology" is aggressively unimportant.
It's fairly important for just basic writing. If you just do whatever the fuck you feel like at any particular moment people are going to get bored of your story. For tension, there needs to be the illusion that it's a actual world as opposed to the whims of the author.
there are definite exceptions to the last sentence, the unbearable lightness of being, for example
0
Options
YoshisummonsYou have to let the dead vote, otherwise you'd just kill people you disagree with!Registered Userregular
I think magic works best when it's arcane and... not really unknown but, eldritch. Not really able to be explained. (Hence the RPG comment.)
Like, there should be an element of unpredictability to it. It shouldn't be automated or expected or reliable... it should be something which has untold costs and unexpected repercussions.
I don't think treating magic as a science is inherently a bad idea. A good author doesn't need something to safeguard against them misusing magic as a tool, but providing a sense of logic behind magic can be flavourful and add to the world they're creating. It all depends on the story and the atmosphere the author's going for.
That said, I love the way GRRM handled magic in ASoIaF - at least in the earlier books. In the world he created, most people don't believe in magic, and even those that do don't understand it, so that when we see magic happen in that universe it's like holy shit, that just happened, I wonder what other legends are real? It leaves the reader questioning the world of the story and creates a sense of endless possibility. Turning around and explaining the mechanics behind the phenomenon destroys the allure.
internal logic is fine-- it's more like trading in magic points for a spell is too gamified.
I agree with/like exploring that notion that magic is perceived to be not real until it is... but then cosmic horror is basically my life's work, so
Giving a story or series a game-like magic system is pretty lame, yeah.
If you like fantasy though, the Malazan: Book of the Fallen series was based on characters from the author's GURPS campaign, and it's amazing. He didn't include any of the game shit when he wrote it. The first book is a slog but the second is amazing, and the momentum carries.
I am a big fan of psychological horror and confusing the line between dreams and reality. That's the butter on my toast. Sometimes the key to that or cosmic horror, as Lovecraft realized, is in what you choose to omit.
Did you know that Malazan was based on a DnD campaign? So was the Riftwar cycle.
Erickson's background is anthropology, he designed the world from the bottom up, the system they used for their campaign was GURPS. It wasn't a DnD campaign.
Like, to clarify, I'm not saying you need to spell the rules out to the reader, but think of some laws and limits of the magic to prevent it from just being a bad plot device.
if you establish that in your GLORIOUS ANIME UNIVRSE there is a rule that your magic uses equivalent exchange and always takes something of equivalent value and then spin a story around what this means
then the mechanic is important
and you, as a reader, would feel fkin cheated if wizards starting walking around doing ridiculous shit with no exchange because it would be just as stupid as any other violation of the internal rules of the story
that does not mean you need to qualify how many joules of energy it takes to cast a fireball
I will soften my position and say I generally agree with what you're saying scheck:
Basically, the rules of "equivalent exchange" matter because they're a part of the meaning of the story.
You could easily break those rules and have a character who is getting something for nothing, but it has to have meaning in the story; why, from a message perspective, does this character get to do what others do not? If it's something that challenges the fundamental philosophy being presented, that's an important component of the message. But if the character breaks the rule without meaning behind it, then it means the rule never had meaning to the story in the first place, and the rule should never have existed.
Only define rules for your universe that have importance to the meaning of the story (though, they may be relatively indirect).
Have magic with mechanics and consistency if it doesn't interfere with making a good story.
Just because x-wings and y-wings are depicted as being more durable than tie fighters doesn't mean when you want to show how much of a badass pilot vader is you destroy the tension and pacing by accurately depicting his ship shooting a hail of lasers to take town one x-wing.
Don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
0
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
Have magic with mechanics and consistency if it doesn't interfere with making a good story.
Just because x-wings and y-wings are depicted as being more durable than tie fighters doesn't mean when you want to show how much of a badass pilot vader is you destroy the tension and pacing by accurately depicting his ship shooting a hail of lasers to take town one x-wing.
Like, to clarify, I'm not saying you need to spell the rules out to the reader, but think of some laws and limits of the magic to prevent it from just being a bad plot device.
It depends. Good writing always subverts expectations.
welp. I'm at the point in writing a fantasy story when I have to figure out how magic works
oh god this is the dorkiest thing I've ever had to do. I don't want to do it
...maybe I don't have to. there's got to be a way
Why do you need to figure out how magic works?
Can't it just... work?
Not really - to get suspension of disbelief, fantastical things need to be grounded in method and reality somehow. If Magic is just a thing that works with no limits, the protag can just magic the conflict away, end of story. Why can't he? Because of the way magic works, he can't just delete the antag from the universe. How does magic work then?
??? it's a question that needs an answer, even if the characters don't know it.
if you establish that in your GLORIOUS ANIME UNIVRSE there is a rule that your magic uses equivalent exchange and always takes something of equivalent value and then spin a story around what this means
then the mechanic is important
and you, as a reader, would feel fkin cheated if wizards starting walking around doing ridiculous shit with no exchange because it would be just as stupid as any other violation of the internal rules of the story
that does not mean you need to qualify how many joules of energy it takes to cast a fireball
I will soften my position and say I generally agree with what you're saying scheck:
Basically, the rules of "equivalent exchange" matter because they're a part of the meaning of the story.
You could easily break those rules and have a character who is getting something for nothing, but it has to have meaning in the story; why, from a message perspective, does this character get to do what others do not? If it's something that challenges the fundamental philosophy being presented, that's an important component of the message. But if the character breaks the rule without meaning behind it, then it means the rule never had meaning to the story in the first place, and the rule should never have existed.
Only define rules for your universe that have importance to the meaning of the story (though, they may be relatively indirect).
I quite like some of the magic in sanderson's books because he presents principles that interact and explores how these new rules of magic would affect a society and at appropriate tense moments the protagonist can put together something that makes sense, but i might not have thought of, but seems obvious once it's explained to me. That's a cool moment, oblique to the twist reveal in a twist movie, for me. So the rules might not have importance to the meaning of the story but per scheck's first post they exist to serve a purpose.
Another thing I liked about the Clanlord books (just a different name for The Book of Years):
(seriously big spoiler if you ever intend to read them)
Aldric's fosterfather is strongly implied to be a spacefarer from another planet, and magic might just be sufficiently advanced technology - one McGuffin in one of the books is a "magic" jewel that he wants returned to him.
0
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
I recognize that I may not be disagreeing with you there Winky, I just phrased it that way because I wasn't sure if I was or not.
Like, to clarify, I'm not saying you need to spell the rules out to the reader, but think of some laws and limits of the magic to prevent it from just being a bad plot device.
It depends. Good writing always subverts expectations.
Which is obviously why Voyager is considered the best Star Trek, right?
I think magic works best when it's arcane and... not really unknown but, eldritch. Not really able to be explained. (Hence the RPG comment.)
Like, there should be an element of unpredictability to it. It shouldn't be automated or expected or reliable... it should be something which has untold costs and unexpected repercussions.
I don't think treating magic as a science is inherently a bad idea. A good author doesn't need something to safeguard against them misusing magic as a tool, but providing a sense of logic behind magic can be flavourful and add to the world they're creating. It all depends on the story and the atmosphere the author's going for.
That said, I love the way GRRM handled magic in ASoIaF - at least in the earlier books. In the world he created, most people don't believe in magic, and even those that do don't understand it, so that when we see magic happen in that universe it's like holy shit, that just happened, I wonder what other legends are real? It leaves the reader questioning the world of the story and creates a sense of endless possibility. Turning around and explaining the mechanics behind the phenomenon destroys the allure.
internal logic is fine-- it's more like trading in magic points for a spell is too gamified.
I agree with/like exploring that notion that magic is perceived to be not real until it is... but then cosmic horror is basically my life's work, so
Giving a story or series a game-like magic system is pretty lame, yeah.
If you like fantasy though, the Malazan: Book of the Fallen series was based on characters from the author's GURPS campaign, and it's amazing. He didn't include any of the game shit when he wrote it. The first book is a slog but the second is amazing, and the momentum carries.
I am a big fan of psychological horror and confusing the line between dreams and reality. That's the butter on my toast. Sometimes the key to that or cosmic horror, as Lovecraft realized, is in what you choose to omit.
Did you know that Malazan was based on a DnD campaign? So was the Riftwar cycle.
Erickson's background is anthropology, he designed the world from the bottom up, the system they used for their campaign was GURPS. It wasn't a DnD campaign.
I think magic works best when it's arcane and... not really unknown but, eldritch. Not really able to be explained. (Hence the RPG comment.)
Like, there should be an element of unpredictability to it. It shouldn't be automated or expected or reliable... it should be something which has untold costs and unexpected repercussions.
I don't think treating magic as a science is inherently a bad idea. A good author doesn't need something to safeguard against them misusing magic as a tool, but providing a sense of logic behind magic can be flavourful and add to the world they're creating. It all depends on the story and the atmosphere the author's going for.
That said, I love the way GRRM handled magic in ASoIaF - at least in the earlier books. In the world he created, most people don't believe in magic, and even those that do don't understand it, so that when we see magic happen in that universe it's like holy shit, that just happened, I wonder what other legends are real? It leaves the reader questioning the world of the story and creates a sense of endless possibility. Turning around and explaining the mechanics behind the phenomenon destroys the allure.
internal logic is fine-- it's more like trading in magic points for a spell is too gamified.
I agree with/like exploring that notion that magic is perceived to be not real until it is... but then cosmic horror is basically my life's work, so
Giving a story or series a game-like magic system is pretty lame, yeah.
If you like fantasy though, the Malazan: Book of the Fallen series was based on characters from the author's GURPS campaign, and it's amazing. He didn't include any of the game shit when he wrote it. The first book is a slog but the second is amazing, and the momentum carries.
I am a big fan of psychological horror and confusing the line between dreams and reality. That's the butter on my toast. Sometimes the key to that or cosmic horror, as Lovecraft realized, is in what you choose to omit.
I can appreciate the existence of the Malazan books but they are Not For Me™
(I can't do those epics anymore, it just burns me out.)
nexus is pretty into them so I have a cursory understanding.
and yeah some of the stuff I'm talking about with what makes something "magic" is by omission (or just the nonexistence of that detail, that's why Derleth's Legacy is such a fucking shambles compared with Lovecraft's general lack of explanation.)
The Shadow of Mordor game is really fun, but gets repetitive .
Yeah. Sure, you get a bunch of new moves... but you're still doing what you did in the first fifteen minutes of the game for the whole game.
I finished off the last warchief for plot reasons by branding captains and promoting them to be his bodyguards, until I had 5 of them. Then I just attacked the warchief and had all five turn on him and stood around plinking at the ancillary badguys until they'd killed him.
Achievement!
+1
Options
simonwolfi can feel a differencetoday, a differenceRegistered Userregular
that reminds me, @Kana, I saw Kaguya-hime over the weekend
The art style is the strongest part of it, by far - it has enough recognisable qualities amidst the watercolour style to be identified as Ghibli, but the way it functions is very different. There's one section where Kaguya runs through the mansion in tears, and the animation becomes rough and scrawled to represent the rush in a way that the normal Ghibli style wouldn't do
Story-wise, it's the tale of Princess Kaguya, and there isn't much more to it than that. There's some extra details thrown in, some charm that doesn't exist in the story "as-written", but it's still one of those Japanese folk tales that doesn't quite have a resolution as much as it just ends.
Worth seeing, for sure, but aside from the quality of its animation, it won't be on my regular rotation
Like, to clarify, I'm not saying you need to spell the rules out to the reader, but think of some laws and limits of the magic to prevent it from just being a bad plot device.
It depends. Good writing always subverts expectations.
Which is obviously why Voyager is considered the best Star Trek, right?
if you establish that in your GLORIOUS ANIME UNIVRSE there is a rule that your magic uses equivalent exchange and always takes something of equivalent value and then spin a story around what this means
then the mechanic is important
and you, as a reader, would feel fkin cheated if wizards starting walking around doing ridiculous shit with no exchange because it would be just as stupid as any other violation of the internal rules of the story
that does not mean you need to qualify how many joules of energy it takes to cast a fireball
I will soften my position and say I generally agree with what you're saying scheck:
Basically, the rules of "equivalent exchange" matter because they're a part of the meaning of the story.
You could easily break those rules and have a character who is getting something for nothing, but it has to have meaning in the story; why, from a message perspective, does this character get to do what others do not? If it's something that challenges the fundamental philosophy being presented, that's an important component of the message. But if the character breaks the rule without meaning behind it, then it means the rule never had meaning to the story in the first place, and the rule should never have existed.
Only define rules for your universe that have importance to the meaning of the story (though, they may be relatively indirect).
I quite like some of the magic in sanderson's books because he presents principles that interact and explores how these new rules of magic would affect a society and at appropriate tense moments the protagonist can put together something that makes sense, but i might not have thought of, but seems obvious once it's explained to me. That's a cool moment, oblique to the twist reveal in a twist movie, for me. So the rules might not have importance to the meaning of the story but per scheck's first post they exist to serve a purpose.
In this case I'm saying that anything that serves a purpose contributes to the meaning of the story, but I acknowledge that it doesn't have to be direct. Something may serve the purpose of being fun or otherwise drawing the audience in; I'd still consider this a part of the "message" in an indirect way, but I can see why others would not.
if you establish that in your GLORIOUS ANIME UNIVRSE there is a rule that your magic uses equivalent exchange and always takes something of equivalent value and then spin a story around what this means
then the mechanic is important
and you, as a reader, would feel fkin cheated if wizards starting walking around doing ridiculous shit with no exchange because it would be just as stupid as any other violation of the internal rules of the story
that does not mean you need to qualify how many joules of energy it takes to cast a fireball
I will soften my position and say I generally agree with what you're saying scheck:
Basically, the rules of "equivalent exchange" matter because they're a part of the meaning of the story.
You could easily break those rules and have a character who is getting something for nothing, but it has to have meaning in the story; why, from a message perspective, does this character get to do what others do not? If it's something that challenges the fundamental philosophy being presented, that's an important component of the message. But if the character breaks the rule without meaning behind it, then it means the rule never had meaning to the story in the first place, and the rule should never have existed.
Only define rules for your universe that have importance to the meaning of the story (though, they may be relatively indirect).
FMA did benefit from that theme in the magic. But not all fiction needs their magic to do that. Technology doesn't need to be a theme with how it works either and it can be just as complex as magic is.
I think magic works best when it's arcane and... not really unknown but, eldritch. Not really able to be explained. (Hence the RPG comment.)
Like, there should be an element of unpredictability to it. It shouldn't be automated or expected or reliable... it should be something which has untold costs and unexpected repercussions.
I don't think treating magic as a science is inherently a bad idea. A good author doesn't need something to safeguard against them misusing magic as a tool, but providing a sense of logic behind magic can be flavourful and add to the world they're creating. It all depends on the story and the atmosphere the author's going for.
That said, I love the way GRRM handled magic in ASoIaF - at least in the earlier books. In the world he created, most people don't believe in magic, and even those that do don't understand it, so that when we see magic happen in that universe it's like holy shit, that just happened, I wonder what other legends are real? It leaves the reader questioning the world of the story and creates a sense of endless possibility. Turning around and explaining the mechanics behind the phenomenon destroys the allure.
internal logic is fine-- it's more like trading in magic points for a spell is too gamified.
I agree with/like exploring that notion that magic is perceived to be not real until it is... but then cosmic horror is basically my life's work, so
Giving a story or series a game-like magic system is pretty lame, yeah.
If you like fantasy though, the Malazan: Book of the Fallen series was based on characters from the author's GURPS campaign, and it's amazing. He didn't include any of the game shit when he wrote it. The first book is a slog but the second is amazing, and the momentum carries.
I am a big fan of psychological horror and confusing the line between dreams and reality. That's the butter on my toast. Sometimes the key to that or cosmic horror, as Lovecraft realized, is in what you choose to omit.
Did you know that Malazan was based on a DnD campaign? So was the Riftwar cycle.
Erickson's background is anthropology, he designed the world from the bottom up, the system they used for their campaign was GURPS. It wasn't a DnD campaign.
I'm undone by GURPS. *shakes fist*
Those books are the only good things to come of GURPS.
Like, to clarify, I'm not saying you need to spell the rules out to the reader, but think of some laws and limits of the magic to prevent it from just being a bad plot device.
It depends. Good writing always subverts expectations.
I would say good writing always anticipates expectations
Good writing doesn't have to be inherently subversive, but it does usually need to understand audience reaction to itself
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
This is a prime example of wordlessly ignoring old mechanics in a confusing way!
1) Earth-benders can manipulate metal only by manipulating the earthen impurities in shoddy metals. This causes tension and drama.
2) Elite metal-benders struggle against enemies who ride around in purified-metal vehicles that cannot be manipulated; again, a clear mechanic causes drama.
3) Then some metal-benders directly manipulate pure metal.
-_-
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
Like, to clarify, I'm not saying you need to spell the rules out to the reader, but think of some laws and limits of the magic to prevent it from just being a bad plot device.
It depends. Good writing always subverts expectations.
Which is obviously why Voyager is considered the best Star Trek, right?
I am not a star trek
One of many issues with Voyager was the technobabble. Far too many events in the plot were someone spouting some tech-tech and then making something happen. There was no consistency with it, it was just whatever the writers wanted to happen.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Like, to clarify, I'm not saying you need to spell the rules out to the reader, but think of some laws and limits of the magic to prevent it from just being a bad plot device.
It depends. Good writing always subverts expectations.
Which is obviously why Voyager is considered the best Star Trek, right?
I am not a star trek
One of many issues with Voyager was the technobabble. Far too many events in the plot were someone spouting some tech-tech and then making something happen. There was no consistency with it, it was just whatever the writers wanted to happen.
Posts
there are definite exceptions to the last sentence, the unbearable lightness of being, for example
Erickson's background is anthropology, he designed the world from the bottom up, the system they used for their campaign was GURPS. It wasn't a DnD campaign.
I will soften my position and say I generally agree with what you're saying scheck:
Basically, the rules of "equivalent exchange" matter because they're a part of the meaning of the story.
You could easily break those rules and have a character who is getting something for nothing, but it has to have meaning in the story; why, from a message perspective, does this character get to do what others do not? If it's something that challenges the fundamental philosophy being presented, that's an important component of the message. But if the character breaks the rule without meaning behind it, then it means the rule never had meaning to the story in the first place, and the rule should never have existed.
Only define rules for your universe that have importance to the meaning of the story (though, they may be relatively indirect).
Don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
a rule followed by good authors and bad cops
It depends. Good writing always subverts expectations.
Not really - to get suspension of disbelief, fantastical things need to be grounded in method and reality somehow. If Magic is just a thing that works with no limits, the protag can just magic the conflict away, end of story. Why can't he? Because of the way magic works, he can't just delete the antag from the universe. How does magic work then?
??? it's a question that needs an answer, even if the characters don't know it.
is my penis?
I quite like some of the magic in sanderson's books because he presents principles that interact and explores how these new rules of magic would affect a society and at appropriate tense moments the protagonist can put together something that makes sense, but i might not have thought of, but seems obvious once it's explained to me. That's a cool moment, oblique to the twist reveal in a twist movie, for me. So the rules might not have importance to the meaning of the story but per scheck's first post they exist to serve a purpose.
(seriously big spoiler if you ever intend to read them)
Avatar.
I'm undone by GURPS. *shakes fist*
I can appreciate the existence of the Malazan books but they are Not For Me™
(I can't do those epics anymore, it just burns me out.)
nexus is pretty into them so I have a cursory understanding.
and yeah some of the stuff I'm talking about with what makes something "magic" is by omission (or just the nonexistence of that detail, that's why Derleth's Legacy is such a fucking shambles compared with Lovecraft's general lack of explanation.)
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
I finished off the last warchief for plot reasons by branding captains and promoting them to be his bodyguards, until I had 5 of them. Then I just attacked the warchief and had all five turn on him and stood around plinking at the ancillary badguys until they'd killed him.
Achievement!
The art style is the strongest part of it, by far - it has enough recognisable qualities amidst the watercolour style to be identified as Ghibli, but the way it functions is very different. There's one section where Kaguya runs through the mansion in tears, and the animation becomes rough and scrawled to represent the rush in a way that the normal Ghibli style wouldn't do
Story-wise, it's the tale of Princess Kaguya, and there isn't much more to it than that. There's some extra details thrown in, some charm that doesn't exist in the story "as-written", but it's still one of those Japanese folk tales that doesn't quite have a resolution as much as it just ends.
Worth seeing, for sure, but aside from the quality of its animation, it won't be on my regular rotation
You had better be talking about THE LAST AIRBENDER
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
I am not a star trek
In this case I'm saying that anything that serves a purpose contributes to the meaning of the story, but I acknowledge that it doesn't have to be direct. Something may serve the purpose of being fun or otherwise drawing the audience in; I'd still consider this a part of the "message" in an indirect way, but I can see why others would not.
Uh, derp.
Ain't no other Avatar worth talkin' about.
Well, besides Korra.
FMA did benefit from that theme in the magic. But not all fiction needs their magic to do that. Technology doesn't need to be a theme with how it works either and it can be just as complex as magic is.
Those books are the only good things to come of GURPS.
Stupid GURPS.
I would say good writing always anticipates expectations
Good writing doesn't have to be inherently subversive, but it does usually need to understand audience reaction to itself
@skippydumptruck
it has been a quality season (wait is that from this season)
This is a prime example of wordlessly ignoring old mechanics in a confusing way!
1) Earth-benders can manipulate metal only by manipulating the earthen impurities in shoddy metals. This causes tension and drama.
2) Elite metal-benders struggle against enemies who ride around in purified-metal vehicles that cannot be manipulated; again, a clear mechanic causes drama.
3) Then some metal-benders directly manipulate pure metal.
-_-
john wick was so interesting
and it's a definite hallmark for action movie films.
I was about to get real mean about your tall blue catpeople fetish is all
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
Yes.
best movie of 2014
The week-end is over and I did not do the things i meant to do...
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
cool story
I agree. I find it really enjoyable when it gets a bit more detailed like in Avatar or the Mistborn series.
Did you know there's a Cabin in the Woods wiki detailing all the monsters?
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter