Short treatise on Fantasy
- Thread starter Virginia Wilde
- Start date
InvaderSquoosh
First Post
Virginia Wilde said:
I see now. That's true: In D&D, the constraint on magic, and pretty much everything else, is game balance. If I understand you correctly, we can say that imagination itself might be unbounded, but once we dream up a fantasy world, it is pretty much defined by the rules we impose on it.
Bendris Noulg
First Post
Motto of the In-Depth Gamer: The Rules Define the World.InvaderSquoosh said:
If I may add my opinion.
These "rules" in magic go beyond just how they break the "laws" of physics. There are also considerations of how an author/production designer conjures (pun inteneded) the look and feel of these items to a reader or audience.
Gregory Keye's "harmonizing" alchemy of his "Age of Unreason" with it's switches and use of mathamtics has a different flavor than Robin Hobb's Liveships made of dragon eggs and memories.
Not only does these "rules" suspend the sense of disbelief, they also set the tone of the piece of fiction. This is more apparent when a work has two competing forms of "magic"-- the most cliché example of which is the science paradigm vs. medieval/euro centric magic paradigm. In good Speculative Fiction, magics rule define form, or perhaps the other way around depending on the author.
These "rules" in magic go beyond just how they break the "laws" of physics. There are also considerations of how an author/production designer conjures (pun inteneded) the look and feel of these items to a reader or audience.
Gregory Keye's "harmonizing" alchemy of his "Age of Unreason" with it's switches and use of mathamtics has a different flavor than Robin Hobb's Liveships made of dragon eggs and memories.
Not only does these "rules" suspend the sense of disbelief, they also set the tone of the piece of fiction. This is more apparent when a work has two competing forms of "magic"-- the most cliché example of which is the science paradigm vs. medieval/euro centric magic paradigm. In good Speculative Fiction, magics rule define form, or perhaps the other way around depending on the author.
Kwalish Kid
Explorer
This is all very wrong.
Certainly, in commercial writing, one finds that fantasy and science fiction correspiond roughly to these definitions. But what purpose do these definitions serve? If they are to limit the scope of fantasy role-playing or science-fiction role-playing, then they are a disservice to the community at large.
Sure, you can throw in new terms for genres that go outside of these definitions, but why limit the creativity and expressiveness of a game by demanding some accounting according to these definitions?
It is the nature of RPGs and the way they are published and sold that places emphasis on their rules. However, to make a rewarding gaming experience, these rules must be harnessed (or abandoned) for the good of the gaming experience, not for their own sake.
It would be better if people spent time investigating how to make their game more rewarding, and not how to make their rules more balanced/realistic/[whatever adjective is popular this week].
Certainly, in commercial writing, one finds that fantasy and science fiction correspiond roughly to these definitions. But what purpose do these definitions serve? If they are to limit the scope of fantasy role-playing or science-fiction role-playing, then they are a disservice to the community at large.
Sure, you can throw in new terms for genres that go outside of these definitions, but why limit the creativity and expressiveness of a game by demanding some accounting according to these definitions?
It is the nature of RPGs and the way they are published and sold that places emphasis on their rules. However, to make a rewarding gaming experience, these rules must be harnessed (or abandoned) for the good of the gaming experience, not for their own sake.
It would be better if people spent time investigating how to make their game more rewarding, and not how to make their rules more balanced/realistic/[whatever adjective is popular this week].
Hm.
My first thought on thispiece is a bit context-dependant - claims of authority must be supported. "Mr. Author" spends quite a bit of time using personal authority to get us to bother to read the piece, and as support for his position - "I have been up and down these boards. I have seen something you're doing wrong. I would know, because I am an author of speculative fiction. So listen to me." The first three paragraphs are loaded with this.
This is a fine and strong position if and only if "Mr. Author" is a well known, respected, and professional author of speculative fiction. If I've never heard of Mr. Author, it immediately forces me to question every point from then on. Even worse, f I've heard of Mr. Author, and I think he's a hack writer, it suggests to me that this writing will be no better than the rest, and I'll discard it out of hand. So, Mr. Author should eliminate most of the first three paragraphs unless he's got a lot of faith in his own reputation.
Unfortunately, next I must bring into question a major premise of the piece - that using magic to change the rules of the world against what is currently known will lose your audience. This is presented as if it were a rule of writing, and woe betide you if you violate it....
However, there are a large number of successful, time-weathering stories that stand as examples to the contrary. Magic is frequently used to specifically break the rules, and to good effect. Fairy tales are loaded with magical deus ex machina, but they still hold up. Even the more recent Lord of the Rings has a number of magical breaking of known rules - that dead people stay dead is a major one - apparently Gandalf hadn't read the rulebook
Better to present this not as a rule, but as a suggestion - don't break the rules, unless it's for a really good reason. Break the rules if and only if it makes the story better. Think carefully before you break the rules.
My first thought on thispiece is a bit context-dependant - claims of authority must be supported. "Mr. Author" spends quite a bit of time using personal authority to get us to bother to read the piece, and as support for his position - "I have been up and down these boards. I have seen something you're doing wrong. I would know, because I am an author of speculative fiction. So listen to me." The first three paragraphs are loaded with this.
This is a fine and strong position if and only if "Mr. Author" is a well known, respected, and professional author of speculative fiction. If I've never heard of Mr. Author, it immediately forces me to question every point from then on. Even worse, f I've heard of Mr. Author, and I think he's a hack writer, it suggests to me that this writing will be no better than the rest, and I'll discard it out of hand. So, Mr. Author should eliminate most of the first three paragraphs unless he's got a lot of faith in his own reputation.
Unfortunately, next I must bring into question a major premise of the piece - that using magic to change the rules of the world against what is currently known will lose your audience. This is presented as if it were a rule of writing, and woe betide you if you violate it....
However, there are a large number of successful, time-weathering stories that stand as examples to the contrary. Magic is frequently used to specifically break the rules, and to good effect. Fairy tales are loaded with magical deus ex machina, but they still hold up. Even the more recent Lord of the Rings has a number of magical breaking of known rules - that dead people stay dead is a major one - apparently Gandalf hadn't read the rulebook
Better to present this not as a rule, but as a suggestion - don't break the rules, unless it's for a really good reason. Break the rules if and only if it makes the story better. Think carefully before you break the rules.
Umbran said:Hm.
However, there are a large number of successful, time-weathering stories that stand as examples to the contrary. Magic is frequently used to specifically break the rules, and to good effect. Fairy tales are loaded with magical deus ex machina, but they still hold up. Even the more recent Lord of the Rings has a number of magical breaking of known rules - that dead people stay dead is a major one - apparently Gandalf hadn't read the rulebook
Whatever Mr. Author's creditials are, I think it is safe to assume that he is refering to contemporary SF (as in speculative ficiton) lit, as defined in the last century or two. Greek plays and fairy tales are indeed timeless classics that a lot of authors borrow from, but there are certain conventions that aren't in vogue, such as deus ex machina. For a contemporary author to use them outright is considered lazy. Since the true use of deus ex is to wrap up the end of the story when the author had painted himself in a corner and had no way out.
And in some cases, some people have confusion between what is deus ex machina and other techniques such as foreshadowing and planting. Both of these are most evident in your TV movies. When the scientist make a big deal about loving to chew gum, and you just KNOW that will be important later, that's foreshadowing. When the camera sits on a can of plant killer that character leaves behind before needing it later in the film, that's a plant.
And Tolkein is not completely guilty of deus ex. "Look East on the fifth day ..." the reader knows Galdalf will do something. While Galdalf's magic is not spelled out, it is foreshadowed and we get hints of what he can do. If he can play with smoke, he can certainly play with fire.
Tolkein's biggest fault for using deus ex, is not in his "spells" but his summoning of the eagles, they are the true and literal "God in the Machine" that get Galdalf and friends out of situtations that Tolkien had no idea what to do next and in overall effect it is a minor use since the true end abuse is having Gollum make Frodo's decision for him.
As for Galdalf "dying" and waking up, he got promoted and replaced Saurman. The implication is that all of the "Whites" in Tolkien's world also go through the same process to get promoted, which makes Sauraman's corruption even more bitter since he must have been a great force for good at some time to be reincarnated.
Umbran said:
Oddly enough, that's just what Mr. Author was saying. His "writing rule" is that if you construct guidlelines to your fictional magic, you can break the "rules of physics" and keep the reader's suspension of disbelief more intact.
NoOneofConsequence
First Post
Wayside said:
Point of history - the deus ex machina is not Greek in origin and Greek tragedians did not use it. It dates from European drama in a period between the Renaissance and the Modern era.
NoOneofConsequence
First Post
Is the purpose of this thread to discuss the distinction(s) between sf (speculative fiction), science fiction and fantasy? If so then my personal position is that science fiction and fantasy are in essence the same things in as much as the texts present stories which demand lesser or greater degrees of "willing suspension of disbelief" on the part of the reader. The stories assume that the reader will still enjoy the story, even though it would fail a test of historicity.
Proponents of science fiction are known to argue that their genre requires a lesser degree of "willing suspension of disbelief"(wsod) since the genre is based upon "known scientific laws", as opposed to free ranging concepts such as magic. However, as has already been pointed out in this thread, magic is fully capable of working within scientific laws. Moreover, many of the "scientific laws" which science fiction runs on are in fact completely hypothetical - such as navigable wormholes in spacetime - even to the point that they are not really distinguishable from theoretical magic.
So, the final issue is, does Asimov's observation - that any technology, sufficiently advanced, is essentially indistinguishable from magic - invalidate the distinction between science fiction and fantasy? *shrugs* I don't know.
I don't really care. Most science fiction movies abuse the conventions of the genre so badly that they qualify as fantasy outright (Star Wars is the most well known of these, but there are others and AKAIAC, Star Trek is another). I think the distinctions exist only as marketing tools and in the minds of fans of the respective genres. Roleplaying shows the plasticity and arbitrary nature of categories like these.
Far and away the best discussions on this subject were presented by Phil and Dixie in a very early issue of The Dragon. They are reproduced here for the benefit of the discussion.
In science fiction the level of personal power can be far greater:
In fantasy
Hero: Actually all I can do is repeatedly stick this sharp piece of metal into your body.
Evil shopkeeper: Ahh, crude but curiously effective!
In Science Fiction
SF hero 1: Did you really have to destroy the whole planet?
SF hero 2: It was easier than trying to find the one guy who sold me this lousy watch.
However in fantasy, there is often a greater sense of romance, saga and story:
In fantasy
Ornamental female: Gee, where'd you get that?
Wizard (holding aloft magic wand): I received it as a reward from the Demon prince Argon after I saved his bacon at the batle of Oom!
In science fiction
Ornamental female: Gee, where'd you get that?
Space Hero (holding aloft plasma blaster): Guns and Ammo, $29.95
Of course, there's one place where everyone can get along, the tavern:
Drunk space hero: They're mutants!
Drunk fantasy hero: Nah! They're trolls!
DSH: Mutants!
DFH: Trolls!
DSH: Mutant trolls?!
DFH: I'll buy that!
Proponents of science fiction are known to argue that their genre requires a lesser degree of "willing suspension of disbelief"(wsod) since the genre is based upon "known scientific laws", as opposed to free ranging concepts such as magic. However, as has already been pointed out in this thread, magic is fully capable of working within scientific laws. Moreover, many of the "scientific laws" which science fiction runs on are in fact completely hypothetical - such as navigable wormholes in spacetime - even to the point that they are not really distinguishable from theoretical magic.
So, the final issue is, does Asimov's observation - that any technology, sufficiently advanced, is essentially indistinguishable from magic - invalidate the distinction between science fiction and fantasy? *shrugs* I don't know.
I don't really care. Most science fiction movies abuse the conventions of the genre so badly that they qualify as fantasy outright (Star Wars is the most well known of these, but there are others and AKAIAC, Star Trek is another). I think the distinctions exist only as marketing tools and in the minds of fans of the respective genres. Roleplaying shows the plasticity and arbitrary nature of categories like these.
Far and away the best discussions on this subject were presented by Phil and Dixie in a very early issue of The Dragon. They are reproduced here for the benefit of the discussion.
In science fiction the level of personal power can be far greater:
In fantasy
Hero: Actually all I can do is repeatedly stick this sharp piece of metal into your body.
Evil shopkeeper: Ahh, crude but curiously effective!
In Science Fiction
SF hero 1: Did you really have to destroy the whole planet?
SF hero 2: It was easier than trying to find the one guy who sold me this lousy watch.
However in fantasy, there is often a greater sense of romance, saga and story:
In fantasy
Ornamental female: Gee, where'd you get that?
Wizard (holding aloft magic wand): I received it as a reward from the Demon prince Argon after I saved his bacon at the batle of Oom!
In science fiction
Ornamental female: Gee, where'd you get that?
Space Hero (holding aloft plasma blaster): Guns and Ammo, $29.95
Of course, there's one place where everyone can get along, the tavern:
Drunk space hero: They're mutants!
Drunk fantasy hero: Nah! They're trolls!
DSH: Mutants!
DFH: Trolls!
DSH: Mutant trolls?!
DFH: I'll buy that!
Similar Threads
