Very much so. Up can be down and down can be up in this new fantasy world. Bend the world into the strange and wonderful. However, once you begin backtracking on your own creation, then there had better be a very good reason for doing so- a Deeper Rule, if you will. But simply breaking the internal logic, and saying 'It's just about space wizards. It's not real" that I have a problem with as it demonstrates a very low view of what fantasy stories can be.
Magic A is Magic A trope. Consistency within the work is the most important part of the writing process. You're readers are willing to suspend their disbelief, but only if the work is consistent with itself.
I would argue that "fantasy" (or rather speculative fiction as a whole) as a literaly category itself is tightly connected to the "realism" and that is what makes it different from the fable/fairy-tale. The whole point of fantasy is to write about things that you know are impossible, but like they were possible and explore how that affects things. In fairy-tale, impossible things are generally only really connected to the stories themselves and are not affecting anything except of things plot-related. The witch can echant the princess and the whole real to fall asleep for 100 years, but questions like: how this affected the neighbor realms, how the people outside thought about it, how the realm interacted with everything after waking up - fairy tales rarely answer these questions, as it isn't relevant to the story. Since it is not relevant, the outside world could basically barely exist and whole realm could fall asleep and wake up after 100 years like nothing happened. The realism is not present. If there isn't a realism at all, it isn't a fantasy story. It's a parable or a fairy-tale (iff done good), or at worst dream-like nonsense without any coherence (if not done good). This is also why I think the difference between "fantasy" and "magical realism" comes into place. "Magical realism", as far as I know, is the reverse of the fantasy. It's not applying realism to impossible, it's taking regular realism (describing world as close as possible) and putting impossible stuff on top of that (the realism is generally not applying to the impossible there, at least as far as I know)
There were a number of times in the movie that really felt like a real game of D&D, and the introduction of the portal staff was one of them. DM: *is making the explanation for how to safely get across the bridge* Simon: "I start to cross the bridge." DM: "I haven't finished explaining yet." Simon: "It's a bridge, did you write a novel explaining how it works? I start across." DM: Umm, okay, since you didn't listen to the full explanation, make an intelligence roll." Simon: "7." DM: "Hoboy. The bridge collapses into the river of lava below. Thankfully, you are still on the portion of the bridge that was over solid stone, so you don't fall in as well." Party: "Well crap, now how are we getting across." DM: "Ummm, hmmm. Can I see your sheets?" *rummages through.* Ah! Simon, you recognize Holga's walking stick as a portal staff. *proceeds to give rules that will solve this particular problem and not much more.* Much later, during the wagon heist. DM: *grumbles about why he gave them such an item, but is actually impressed with their ingenuity.*
Yeah, this feeling was also my favourite part. DM: Okay, you now temporarily defeated the undead assassins. *DM rolls on the homebrew encounter table. The d20 rattles in the tray, and the party watches as the DM's eyes widen with a sharp intake of breath.* DM: And then the adult red dragon bursts out of his cave. It's clear that it ate more than it's fair share of unfortunate souls as it resembles a sausage more than the depictions you've seen before, but it does not lessen the dread you feel when you look at it. With a single chomp, it devours two of the undead assassins before they have time to react. What do you do? Party: RUN!!!!
The Hither-Thither Staff seems like something that the DM made up on the spot, because Simon's player had moved his mini onto the bridge, triggering the trap.
@@wittyjoker4631 Could be ... could be that the center piece of the dungeon, the bridge, that when it was destroyed he decided that the Marlamin's walking staff was actually a magic item, asking Simon to make an Arcana or History check to identify it.
@@leonielson7138 except the staff was set up in a two part deal prior to its use. If the dm was just pulling something to save the campaign or spare the parry a half session the environment would be more likely to be used. Ie a magical glyph noticed during a search that opens a fixed portal or the like.
@@wittyjoker4631 Or maybe the players brought up that stick in improv (Holga is the one mentioning it to Marlamin, so DM didn't come up with it), and later DM realized this stick would be a good item to retcon into something useful
@@JaneXemylixa possible sure, but the necklace being an earlier example of this very thing is too much of a hey ima do this thing later. Plus when you look at the dms notes (the script) it's clearly marked well before the session started.
I think magic abilities depend on whether the protagonist has them or not. The protagonist shouldn't get to pull a new ability out of the hat to get them out of trouble, but it's OK if the villain can. That's why the likes of Luke Skywalker or Harry Potter have reasonably well understood powers. It reminds me of one of Pixar's rules for storytelling: "Coincidences to Get Characters into Trouble are Great, Coincidences to Get Them Out of it Are Cheating" Replace "coincidence" with "new magic power" and it remains as true.
The audience knows the power the protagonist has, and every time the protagonist does not use a power that would solve the problem the audience groans. The villain has a new power that gives them the upper hand or ensures an easy escape, that's fine, nothing wrong there.
I think it's just so much easier to accept that the guy we saw once and fucked off to who knows where for a good long while (The antagonist) would be different, while the one we've been looking at the whole time somehow growing wings in a day would be harder to believe.
this said, when done well, the protagonist can do it without it feeling like too much of a cop-out. Notably with Yusaku Fujiki in Yu-Gi-Oh Vrains. A little context for those that don't know. Yu-Gi-Oh (also referred to as Duel Monsters in the anime) is a Trading Card Game in which you can use Monsters, Spells and Traps to win the game. Winning can be done in one of 2 ways. the first being to take your opponent down to 0 life points, or the other being having the opponent run out of cards to draw in their deck. Your main source of dealing damage is Monster cards, these typically have a level between 1 and 12 and follow the following rules. monsters who's levels are between 1 and 4 can be normal summoned naturally. monsters who's levels are between 5 and 6 must be tribute summoned by sending 1 monster to the grave, and monsters who are level 7 or higher require 2 tributes. spells can be activated immediately for various effects, while trap cards require you place them face-down on the field and wait until the start of your opponent's turn before they become active. now that we have the context out of the way. it's time to explain the ability. once per duel, if Yusaku has less than 1000 Life points remaining (out of the anime's 4000, or the TCG's 8000) he is able to reach into the data storm to pull out a brand new monster card that can save him. stuff to note is that the main antagonist of the first season of vrains, also has this ability. furthermore, it can only be used once in a given duel, and it requires that Yusaku can actually play it, and if he can, he has to play it well. Tl//Dr: in this example it works as a soft deus ex-machina. it requires very strict rules on activation, and is entirely up to the user to make it work well. furthermore, it should only be able to be used in a situation where you're at a disadvantage. Yusaku's ability works here because we're given rules on how it works, and it's completely up to the user to make the most of the ability
@@AmberMetallicScorpion this would only break the rule the first time it is done and even then only if it hadnt been mentioned until it was needed. The specific problem is a character using an ability they presumably didnt have or conveniently never mentioned until it is used to pull their ass out of the fire, especially if it would have been relevant earlier and they just didnt use it (generally because the author had not decided they had the ability yet)
When it comes to the staff of hither-thither I don't mind the reveal, because the staff isn't introduced to solve a problem. The problem is created to introduce the staff.
Regarding the teleportation stick: Holga just having it for no reason after swiping it from the home of her ex is a reference to real DnD style games where players will just loot anything and everything that isn't fixed in place and just carry a lot of trash in their inventory on the off-chance of it becoming useful. So this is actually more of an easter egg for DnD fans than a badly set up mechanic. Edit: Also, her not knowing it was useful until Simon points it out is a reference to the identify spell.
@@Pas5afist It is also a good example of both Chekov's Gun since we can see the staff is odd looking when Olga goes to meet her Ex and also a clever meta joke about a player fucking up the puzzle and the DM just giving them a way of bypass the now impossible situation out of wanting them to move on with the game, and lastly Simon DOESN'T notice the limits of the staff, he knows the staff works similarly to the Dimension Door spell but with the twist it opena up a portal and the range is 500 yards instead of 500 feet.
I don't think it was so much identify spell as just Simon actually being proficient in arcana skill and succeeding in the check to recognize the staff, whereas the barbarian obviously isn't proficient in it.
The magic in Honor Among Thieves being so good is indicative of why the movie as a whole is so good: the people making it *_knew_* about DnD and made an actual effort to translate it accurately to screen. The reason the magic is laid out so well is because it's almost 1:1 with the games mechanics, and the whole movie feels like that. There's a few things that I as a player could nit pick (owlbear) but honestly I think it's a perfect DnD movie. They understood the assignment and they nailed it.
I would also say about the Harry Potter movies, where with magic you can do unlimited spells (no mana here) and although there is a limited number of spells, new ones appear in each successive part of the series. The strength of a wizard sometimes depends on experience, and sometimes on the fact that someone was born with a plot armor. The more such inconsistencies, the more the authors seem to treat us like naive toddlers who can be given any crap btw. great material and cool channel, I give a sub.
Er no the spells exist prior they are just staggered into the seven years of hogwarts tuition and you have to have the ingredients or at least summon the ingredients from the local shop (which would break the statute of secrecy so big no no same with apparating right in front of the shop.) to make the cake because you cannot make a damn thing out of nothing, I would assume if you tried to unmake something in its totality you the caster would be summarily unmade or preferably just die there are limits on the magic in jk Rowling's Harry Potter series however since they aren't plot relevant we never see the bounds of magic.
Rowlings Worldbuilding, despite how iconic and beloved it is, is the weak point of the series. The 3 pillars of storytelling are characters, story and world. And as long as two out of those 3 pillars hold, the story holds. The world is full of holes, inconsistencies and flat out contradictions. Even when you just consider the books alone. The Characters are, with a few rather one dimensional exceptions (mostly bad guys), amazing, well written and well rounded. The Story is pretty much the heroes journey, or several of them within one overarching heroes journey. A tried and tested formula for literal centuries. That, coupled with a mystery to solve in each book, makes a very solid Story foundation.
The wizarding world is eccentric and quirky, and spells are oddly specific and complicated. My headcanon is that the magic and culture around it have developed around the idea of abusing as many loopholes and technicalities as possible to get the greatest effect from the least amount of sacrifice. Old magic is very primal and dangerous, and even a hint of it scares the pants off of modern wizards. They don't even understand it anymore, even if it's technically the foundation of modern magic. In many ways it's an allegory for British civics and the acknowledgement of violence in human life.
@@PsychicAlchemy That's a great head cannon, and I can get behind that. I have a lot of headcannons about the wizarding world. Many of them to make sense of things that don't make any sense to me at face value. If all my headcannons were to be considered canon, the whole lore is a lot darker, and a lot more morally grey on all fronts, and the extinction of wizardkind is a looming threat that the defeat of Voldemort neither prevents nor delays. And Harry not only remains unaware, he'd flat out deny it if he'd heard about it, dismissing it as a lie even despite evidence.
Here's the deal with the portal gun. It represents a way for a Dungeon Master to fix a problem that the players create, and overtuning it while not thinking about possible implications later on. It's a gag that Dungeon masters will understand.
Yeah, uhm... if I was the GM, I would have been cackling and watching you die. And then the players would have been scrambling to find SOME SORT of ass pull. But! In my defence: If you figure out how to do it, I will let you get away with it. If your problem finding skills are "find boss, full attack boss", you'll die. But that means that you'll actually feel like your party won, even though you're 4 guys sharing a single hp. If you don't feel like you're in danger, you don't feel like you win.
@@HrHaakon I will always reward creative use of established skills. The same way as I would give the player the opportunity to do the impossible. The chance is minuscule, but if they pull it off, it will be a thing of legends. Like in the short film The Gamers, when the thief of the party wants to get drinks, but has no money. So he steals the purse of another patron. Then steals his dagger. And then attempt to steal the mans pants. The one he is wearing. The GM questions the purpose, and the tief replies he doesn't want the pants, he just want to know if he is able to steal them. So the GM raises the difficulty. The chance to succeed is tiny, but if he does, it would be an awesome display of his skills.
I would point out that in LotR, JRR never really give us any clear understanding of what magic can do. We have magic objects like swords that can do specific tasks but what exactly Gandalf can and can't do? I have no idea?
Yes, but looking at a lot of the powerhouse magical beings in Lord of the Rings (at least post-Hobbit), it seems more authority based. That is, they are beings that are powerful by their very nature. And then they can oppose each other by words and actions (Saruman, your staff is broken or Finrod's battle songs against Sauron). It's a contest of wills/ innate power. It's not like Gandalf cast a 'break item' spell. However, Gandalf never really acts as a protagonist, I would say. The hobbits are navigating a world of powerful and mysterious beings (even book Strider/ Aragorn is already a lofty powerful character). And the Hobbits either do not have access to the magic that would solve problems or we know about the abilities they do have and their limitations (Elf cloaks, the Ring itself, with the major limitation that it will corrupt you, even if it is to make you the Grand Poobah of Gardeners... the Ring was really reaching with Sam, haha.)
@@Pas5afist Essentially, yes, we see them face off from time to time, but the best we can understand is that it's somehow a test of power and will. After that, JRR really doesn't explain and that's obviously good enough. At the same time, that sort of power doesn't decide the outcome of the story either. The Temptation of Samwise scene from the animated Return of the King will be with me always.
The thing about LotR magic is that the story doesnt lean super hard on it. Most of the conflict, motivation and resolutions are character based and pretty grounded on medieval reality. We only know that the ring is a really powerful, highly dangerous artifact, which is not really exploited for deux ex-machina benefits (Frodo even suffers for using it). In contrast, take Endgame for example, the whole plot is based on a newly discovered magic called time travel which undoes almost all consequences of the over-arching narrative and barely makes any sence, yet you have to lean heavily on it since otherwise the plot woulndt happen. Same with No way home for that matter.
@@Pas5afistI believe the "magic" is basically just asserting a concept against another, the actual magic (sorcery) seems to be separate since Sauron's army has like 10k Black Numenorean sorcerers with it.
That is because LotR uses a soft magic system. A hard magic system is one where all the rules and limitations are explained, so the reader knows what to expect and what is and isn't possible. In a soft magic system the rules and limitations are not explained. From our perspective (the readers), magic could be the solution to any problem, but we can't be sure because we don't know if it needs certain condittions to use or the scale it can be cast on. It is up to the writer to not abuse it (occasional magic does cool stuff, but not deus ex machina level).
3:31 Well, if there is lava at the bottom of the gap, the air above it is probably going to be hotter - and so less dense - than the air the horses are used to fly in, so I could believe that they wouldn't be able to generate enough lift to carry themselves, their riders AND their riders' gear over that gap. And that's without mentioning the toxic fumes emanating from the lava.
if that would be the reason i would say it would not be well set up and/or not true. If you say the air is too less dense for the horses to fly, it would be reasonable enough to expect the charackters to mention the thin air or atleast breath more heavily. Not to mention that, real natur-wise birds use the streams of hotter air to fly up more easily.
Never considered how similar it is to actual dnd for a party to just have this random loot which suddenly helps them out and then overuse it as much as humanly possible afterwards. Really thematic
To be fair, every fantasy adventurer would do that. If you have that powerful artifact, you would try to make use of it. And since the typical adventurer goes into more than one dungeon, they will find more than one artifact. For how the portal staff wasn't mentioned before that moment. It wasn't important. Until that point nobody needed a portal staff, so nobody tried to use it. It was early enough established that the walking stick exists, as a mundane item.
One of the reasons Hunter x Hunter has one of my favorite magic systems in anime is because it's as if it made Sanderson's laws into an actual part of its system (Hatsu crafting, Restrictions & Vows, and Memory overload, respectively).
I like hxh but the biggest problem with nen is that every villains power needs like, 10 minutes to explain, no matter how minor the villain because powers get complicated really fast.
8:30 I will very slightly disagree here; we weren't given verbal warning it was magic, but the stick was designed with enough "this is a wizard's magic stick" visual tropes that I think most people familiar with stories containing wizards knew it was going to be in some way magic.
11:07 reminds me of Goblin Slayer where the eponymous hero is using a portal scroll to kill an ogre. The other end was at the bottom of a lake and the pressurized water cut through the body of the ogre.
It's all about stakes. And stakes are all about cause and effect, and cause and effect relies heavily on consistency. If things are inconsistent then the ability of the audience to predict the effects of something happening is hindered, and if they can't be sure that this supposed-to-be-suspenseful thing is actually all that bad then, of course, it will be less tense because of it. For example if you show an antagonist using some spell and it injures someone but they're okay, maybe it's a bit of a nasty cut but you know, just bandage it and keep it from being infected and it'll be fine, but then later on they make this grand threatening speech about how they're going to use that spell then despite clearly trying to be a suspenseful scene it will fail. And if it then straight up kills a hundred people, it'll be just a sudden shock rather than the tension-filled buildup that was intended because the audience didn't expect that that would be the effect. And of course, this can happen the other way around where an initial showing is incredibly powerful and then the audience feels tension or fear for that thing happening again but the characters do not and further uses show it to be far less potent. Or to simplify, if magic can do anything with no limits then there's no stakes because anything bad that might happen can just be magicked away. There's no tension or suspense or sorrow for someone dying heroically if you know that they can just use magic to return to life, if magic can do ANYTHING then nothing matters. Which is why rules and limitations matter.
Usually if someone has their power go up drastically it's because they have some powerup, preferably something they are shown obtaining that visually shows that they have increased power. For instance in the mlp episode magic duel after losing a duel trixie obtains the alicorn amulet that makes her eyes and magic glow red and gives her a massive increase in power enabling her to use magic she couldn't previously use, when later on in the episode she is tricked and removes the amulet her magic and eyes revert to normal and she loses the increased power making her spell fail.
Then, let's have the main character have the power to essentially magic things away, but their solutions are too simplistic and naive that they fuck things up more. The mess they made would be too complicated to untangle that they can't magic it away as easily.
Consistency is also why creative use of established skills is more interesting that coming up with new ones. The audience knows what is and what isn't possible. So they have expectations. By creatively applying the known magic, without breaking the rules, the hero is established as smart. The audience will think "wow, why haven't I thought of that"
@@HappyBeezerStudios Or if they did think of it, then the audience feels smart for having thought of it too. It's literally a win-win, there's _zero_ downside.
I think, in addition to creating a better story, the limitations on the magic (and the consistency with which they are kept) also reflects one thing that’s really fun about playing D&D. My favorite part of playing D&D is using the resources available to the party to solve problems creatively. I love playing spellcasters bc I love those moments of “huh, I wonder… hey this might actually work!” Like once, my group was up against this big golem that dealt massive damage and was really hard to hit. I took a guess that it would have a low wisdom, so I used Bestow Curse to make it roll a wisdom save or forfeit its turn, every round. The other players were able to chip away at it while it couldn’t do anything. That game is still one of my all-time favorites, and it only happened because I had to be strategic about what spell to cast and how to use it.
I watched it with my young nephew a day or two after we played a game of dnd, we both loved it, it was hilarious, fantastical, and allowed the whole party and even some other characters to shine brightly even the villains.
@@Shenaldrac in pathfinder, you can wild shape into an owlbear, assuming the interpretation of at 8th level wild shape acting like beast shape 3. Otherwise beast shape 3 includes magical beasts so you can turn into one.
You also can't wildshape that often, and Time Stop doesn't exactly work as shown in the film but since the druid also doesn't cast any spells and the Time Stop as presented is still used well and is consistent and understandable in how it works both of these are entirely fine by me. The film is internally consistent, which is what matters the most
@@houndofculann1793 It's also in keeping with how the various novels use magic in that the characters aren't bound to the same rigid ruleset that PCs are and can advance their arts in more powerful, varied and dynamic ways.
Great video! Its also worth noting that the portals are created by a magic stick, rather than some heretofore undisclosed mega-powerful talent lurking within our not-so-competent sorceror guy. Yet (IIRC), he does get to demonstrate competence, and thus maintiain his character's credibility in the use of magic, by identifying the portal stick, and knowing how to operate it. He is educated, he just doesn't have mature abilities.
I love Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell! Great example of what you discuss in this vid (hence the video clips from that show I'm sure!). The magicians have somewhat defined and limited abilities that never just solve all the problems in the show. The antagonist however, the fairy, has undefined and very powerful abilities.
About D&D @8:34, this is where I was taken out of the movie. The Paladin MUST have his fight scene against immortal enemies he knows he cannot defeat, only to then run away (which he should have done first as he was going to anyway). The execution of said fight and revelation is pointless. Also the movie's Meat-dissolving cubes..... that don't actually dissolve meat*
"It's fantasy" is a perfect excuse for people who only know how to tear something apart, because they don't really care about how something works. They only want to critique without the responsibility of putting it back together.
The same rules apply for limits to technology, or indeed any major unexplained reveals or reversals, for the believability of any story. Imagine a hard hitting story focusing on the life of Bob Cratchit and his family. Hard working for a horrible boss watching your youngest child slowly die, and then boom, the horrible boss has a massive personality change and is a great guy and your family flourishes. Without knowing about Scrooge's experiences, that would come out of nowhere. Scrooge's story would have to be included, not 'left for another time' for the story to make any sense whatsoever. For the specific example I could totally see a story from Bob Cratchit's pov being quite good without explaining Scrooge's night, but only because the plot of A Christmas Carol is so well known (even to those that never read it or watched an adaptation). So for that specific case you could argue the deus ex machina was adequately explained 180 years ago, but hopefully everyone reading this can extrapolate the principles out.
A simplified term for 'Willing suspension of Disbelief' is Verisimilitude: the appearance or semblance of truth; genuineness; authenticity: (e.g.) The play lacked verisimilitude. >.>
A very valid take. There aren't nearly enough resources for healthy criticism of magic, magic systems, fantasy, scifi and the mechanisms and philosophies within them. Thank you, dope topic choice, dope content. Thank you.
The tops of my knowledge about how horses work are that hay goes in one end, shit comes out of the other. Also, if I put money on one at the Grand National, it's chances of falling at Becher's Brook rise by about 300%.
Actually, they set up the hither dither staff pretty well. In the backstory flashback, Holga grabs a necklace for Kira. It turns out it's magical and allows the girl to turn invisible. Holga doesn't know that, she just thinks it will look good on Kira. Then when they are passing by her ex's, she says she just wants to grab some of her stuff. She notices the staff and points it out to Merrelman as a reminder of better times, but he offers it back to her since his new gal doesn't like to go for walks. Holga doesn't have a magic sense and she must have swiped this before adding Simon or anybody else who could identify it. She took the staff back because it represented her love which Merrelman didn't want anymore. I'm not sure when she explained she stole it from a wizard's tower, I thought it was at Merrelman's, but even if it wasn't until they were in the Underdark, they established the provenance of the stick well before the reveal.
I didn't have time to talk about the invisibility necklace, but I also thought they set up the end quite well. When they were leaving Kira behind, I suspected she would not and rescue them with her invisibility somehow. I was a bit off as I suspected she would join unbeknownst to the group whereas she was part of the offscreen plan (in keeping with heist traditions: the plan that is explained onscreen goes awry, the plan that is revealed as it is show works out). However, I don't think writers should shy away from their endings being guessed. Surprising, but inevitable in retrospect should be the goal. It's deeply satisfying for a viewer/ reader to speculate on how the problem might be solved based on the tools available to the protagonists and then be partially right. It's just good foreshadowing without telegraphing too much.
@@ninjawiz7932 Yeah, I would argue that the DESIGN of the "walking stick" is a clear indication it is magic, but because she knows nothing about magic, she doesn't know it's magic. Even though the design looks magical to US, it's not OBVIOUSLY magical in and of itself, like it isn't covered in glowing runes or it doesn't have like FLOATING bits and so on. It looks like a simply designed magic staff to us, but to her it's just a neat stick. The revelation it makes portals then becomes "Ok so THAT'S what it does" rather than "Oh wow, it's MAGIC?" Even if there was NO indication it was magical, much like the invisibility necklace the item itself doesn't tip the balance of power itself, it's how they USE it that matters. Now if the walking stick had turned out to be a wand of disintegration that'd be a WHOLE other problem, even if the first thing they use it for is to get rid of a boulder blocking their path. IT STILL DISINTEGRATES THINGS, that's a bit much to just have lying around.
Great video I liked all the little movie clips from other movies you put in. Acknowledgment to the costs of using the infinite improbability drive. 2:52 Hurricane hitting Florida, ok. Bright star peaking over the horizon of mostly fully lit earth, hmmm.
Great breakdown of how characters (and DnD players) will abuse any new mechanci they find, stretching it to it's utmost limits. Also, did that clip from the Hobbit at 12:10 really happen? Those movies were wild, man. What were they smoking when they made them?
It was a deleted scene. But the fact that it even got as far as that with it all fully animated... oof. The decision making really took a turn for the worse when creating The Hobbit. One of the most heartbreaking scenes is the forlorn Peter Jackson in the dragon's lair when they had sent everyone home after they ran out of script to shoot and didn't know what to film next. There is a good film buried in there that I suspect a number of fan edits have uncovered (Bilbo's decision to leave, Bilbo & Gollum, Bilbo and Smaug are all brilliantly done). However, there is so much drek to go through and the action became wildly cartoonish.
@@Pas5afist Oh thank goodness. I thought maybe my brain had suppressed more of it than I remembered. The series was bad enough as it was, but that scene seemed outrageous. But to your point, I'm not totally sure there was a good film underneath it all. The story was obviously solid, but thats because it was based on a halfway decent book we all know and love. I'm currently re-reading the Lord of the Rings and it amazes me how much the films changed or tweaked whilst keeping the spirit of the books intact. The Hobbit book obviously has a different tone, but the movies seem to have been completely confused about what it was all about. That said, I haven't rewatched any of it, and don't really plan on doing so, but my perception could change.
The reason why the magic has rules that make it feel real in this film is because it’s based off of a Tabletop RPG, where the magic has extensive rules. Dimension Door is a Spell in that game that lets you teleport 500 feet in a direction you can see for instance
I encounter a scientific problem. "Well, lets fix it with science." I encounter a computer problem. "Well, lets fix it with computers." I encounter a physical problem. "Well, lets get the strongest person in the group to deal with it."
Computer problem, yes pretty much sums it up. Computer Science is the science of solving problems with the help of computers, which you did not have without them.
Good video. I agree with much of what you said. The difference between being in the story verse suspension of disbelief made more sense then ever before and perfectly describes how I read books.
Rules also help us enter into the world ourselves. Having a better understanding of what's going on allows us to follow along, instead of just watching whatever happens. Rules allow the solution to a problem to be clever, because we understand how the solution works, and we even could've come up with it ourselves
See, I think they messed up with the portals in the wagon scene. It kept seeming like they were out or range, and I certainly didn't get how they were able to keep the portal functional inside for so long after the end of that scene. I definitely did not maintain my suspension of disbelief then. I also thought the heroes were inside the cube for too long.
Deathgates were in Wheel of Time well before Brandon completed it? I think the first time she showed up was during one of Rand's Dragon Reborn episodes. iirc they were gates that flashed open and closed and moved in a set direction like extremely gory lawnmowers. (in response to 11:11)
Oh, you might be right. The series is so long, I forget where each thing is introduced. I will say that when Sanderson takes over all the pieces that Robert Jordan had set up get dialed up. But that is only natural as at the point in which Sanderson took over was when the story was barrelling to towards the climax.
the problem with portal magic is you have to be really really carefull when you put in into your setting, you have to have restrictions, hard restrictions. portal magic can be way to powerfull and deadly
Even more if you take away the requirement of portals and just have flat out teleportation. When there is no limit, what stops the hero from simply putting the villain in a trap. Portaling/teleporting them to outer space, or at the bottom of the ocean.
2:35 - Exactly what happened to me on movies when I was seeing the Starkiller base of Ep7. No way on the rules of that Universe could it happen. Gravity still worked, Fluid Mechanicas still worked, Distances and trajectory still worked, no way a star could be "sucked' to be ejected on Ludicrous Speed to hit multiple targets on the other side of galaxy being seen on real time everywhere,
Starkiller Base only uses the star as a power source. What it does is collect dark energy, which is converted into phantom energy. This travels through hyperspace to its target, thus it's nearly instant. I'm kinda baffled that you think real world physics was totally unaltered in the Star Wars universe.
@@PlatinumAltaria "Phantom Energy" notbing. This was made up. The point of the video is the Magic/SciFi Universe has its internal rules, and Starkiller breaks even the basics physics. Even hyperspace has timing rules, ships doesnt go instantly to a place like Starkiller BS shot. Took time to Millenium Falcon reach Bespin, tlo Vader reach Scariff so goes on. Starkiller breaks the rules of gravity, and gravity works on SW. If the star is sucked, it would have a lot of consequences, like the ones on Star Trek Generations, where a star turning off was use to deflect gravitation. Starkiller base simply killed Star Wars.
@@jandogta2030 Good point you made. Star Trek Generations indeed showed what happens when a star is turn down, on a very believable way. I almost forgot that movie.
I personally like that D&D has major events that are caused by reckless use of magic, like dead magic zones or the death of the goddesses of magic and striping of magic from 90% of living population. Forgotten Realms can be a trash fire at times but the ancient history is great even if most have no idea of any of it.
In my writing I started with a soft system in which the magic was op but through subsequent drafts I refined it into a hard system set in stone. I even got a document that I occasionally look through to make sure I don't break my rules. If magic is the answer to ever solution then magic is the problem. When I write myself into a corner I don't just make up some magic mcguffin that will solve everything unless that mcguffin is explained and foreshadowed earlier (like 100 or so pages earlier or maybe an entire book) Really it depends how well the story is written and if it can adequately explain why it's magic is like that.
Soft magic works great as trouble, but also as window dressing. A floating mountain is probably mostly window dressing so it doesn't really need an explanation. Or trouble if the party needs to get to it. They probably won't have an opportunity to take advantage of its defensive ability by building a fortress atop it.
This I don’t know how explain it But it feels like you took some gibberish out of my brain and turned into something comprehensive I also don’t like the „it’s fantasy" but I’ve never really understood why as well as now
Years ago I found these wonderful interviews with George RR Martin that, for the life of me I cannot find anymore, where he talked about his use of magic in ASOIF. I’ll never forget what he said, because I took it to heart in my own writing. I’m paraphrasing, obviously, but he said something to the effect of “If you have too much magic in your story it begins to overwhelm the plot and it becomes nonsensical. If you have a wizard or a sorcereress who can simply whisper a word and destroy an army, then why would you even assemble an army?” Any magic has to be tempered with believability otherwise the plot of your story becomes superfluous trapping.
I'm surprised this all had to be said. I've seen similar sorts of problems in character building, i.e. half way through a tv series one of the characters suddenly has something in their backstory to solve a problem or create some tension for the plot, seemingly out of nowhere.
I totally agree. WHEN you are introduced to certain info makes a big difference. There needs to be a set-up and a pay-off. This has more to do with skills but the most blatant example I can think of are the sequences in some Bond movies where he gets a whole bunch of gadgets from Q. You know there will be moments where all those specific gadgets will very conveniently be useful. This is no less convenient than when a character just has a gadget that's very useful for that specific situation that you didn't know about but you don't feel cheated, instead, you get an "aha" as an audience member right before the moment happens. It's the same thing with a whodunnit where you don't introduce the actual murderer or the most vital clues near the end of story. You have to feel like you could have figured out the mystery yourself. It's all about set-up and pay-off. Even overpowered "win-button" abilities can work if they are extensions of well-established powers, and it works especially well if you can somehow bind it to character development. The final confrontation in Kung Fu Panda 2 is a good and blatant example of it.
This is all really useful tips for my own writing. I'm working on a Sci-fi novel right now, but the same principals can be as easily applied to technology as they are to magic.
"any sufficiently developed technology is indistinguishable from magic" And the same rules apply for both. The only difference is where it comes from. If you have a teleporter, it doesn't matter if it's magic or technology, the limits have to be there. If you have a lighter, it doesn't matter if's gas ignited by a spark from a piezoelectric crystal, or an angry ghost that breathes fire.
I don't care about anything about dungeons and dragons, i watched the movie because I like all the actors in the movie, and the trailer looked really fun, and the movie was awesome and really, really fun to watch.
There's few things more disappointing in a story than when a character gets a fantastic ability or gadget and then the possibilities behind it aren't sufficiently explored. Sanderson's 3rd rule is brilliant because it encourages the author to really think about that new ability they've introduced and what else it could be used for rather than treating it as yet another throw away plot convenience that gets tossed aside and forgotten afterwards.
If there's a major lack of limitation in this film's magic--from what I recall--it'd be the Druid's apparently limitless Wild Shape ability. Take that as you will, I thought it was fun to watch.
i think there's multiple ways to read that: 1) shifting into an owlbear is an indication it is neither 5es Wild Shape ability nor the Polymorph spell, since owlbears are monstrosities, not beasts. within 5e, it would have to be Shapechange if i'm not mistaken. Which is 9th level, but would allow multiple transitions at will. 2) it simply isn't 5e. the red wizard used like three 9th level spells in the final fight (true polymorph, time stop possibly multiple times, maybe meteor swarm), which is a bit much for a 5e wizard, but 3e certainly does feature multiple of those. if we assume 3e rules, the druid class has a lot more uses of Wild Shape, and the Shifter prestige class would add a lot more (note that the druid didn't cast a whole lot of spells in the movie) 3) the movie follows its own rules and the limitless shifting might be for rather harmless beast forms only; we didn't see the same amount of owlbear shifting but is it really a lack of limitation? it didn't feel like it not being limited in uses was problematic in any sense, and we only saw animal (plus owlbear) forms, so the limits can be assumed to be somewhere along those lines
11:02 - Immediately obvious way to use it in combat given LOS limitation - portal under enemy with the other end miles (or as far as possible) above the ground so enemy falls to his/her death (assuming enemy cannot fly - which in D&D is certainly not a given). Portal under very heavy object with other side over enemy, crushing enemy under said heavy object. As an avid D&D player I could go on all day... my DM hates our group for this very thing.
It's from the mini-series Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell. A very excellent adaptation of a very excellent fantasy novel. I cannot recommend both enough.
I wondered if you were going to mention him, but an excellent refutation of these general rules is Piers anthony. He intentionally writes internally inconsistent fantasy, regularly violating all sorts of these rules. But he manages nevertheless to create quite intriguing worlds. Although he is certainly an acquired taste. My second recommendation, and by far my strongest, would be Lawrence Watt-Evans, who takes internal consistency to a whole new level. If you've ever wished the characters would actually employ real human intelligence in delving into the implications of their world's magic, read these books immediately. Incidentally my favorite book of his, with a single spell, features exactly the same teleporting tapestry logic as in the D&D example.
Another worth checking out is the Inheritance cycle by Christopher Paolini. The magic system used by the characters in those stories, Gramarye, is well defined and consistent. You know more or less what the MC can do at any given point and when he does something new it makes sense in the context of his skills.
Another worth checking out is the Inheritance cycle by Christopher Paolini. The magic system used by the characters in those stories, Gramarye, is well defined and consistent. You know more or less what the MC can do at any given point and when he does something new it makes sense in the context of his skills.
I've noticed many ppl comparing the new D&D movie, & not really wrongly, to the MCU movies, but 1.) the new D&D movie is actually good lol & 2.) since I doubt it's getting a sequel there aren't going to be other filmmakers playing in this exact sandbox & will then retcon or contradict the rules of the magic/other rules introduced in this movie in a subsequent one, which is something I hate hate *hate* about the Disney era of Star Wars films/shows along with the MCU & DCEU movies. Cool video!
It's limits that make the almost unimaginable feel real, without them imagination descends into chaos. (I wish that was a quote, I guess it is now.) It made me thing of an anime that had a character able to transform at will and act like an OP superhero throughout the show but when they faced off against the final boss (as it where) the boss just goes "who did you think gave you the power to transform?", clicks their fingers and suddenly the protagonist is just a normal person again; collapsing the whole illusion that "just use magic to solve everything" is an option and the story became a lot more real. It's those moments when the happy fantasy hits grim reality that can make a story and the friction between the two always makes a story more interesting.
Thought you were going to tell us about the Law of Similarity and the Law of Contagion (more or less Rules for Magic) as opposed to "rules for writing a believable use and utility of magic in a narrative framework". But I like your presentation.
I'm especially displeased with all the people who say they love fantasy yet are dismissive of it in the same breath. They are nothing more than mindless consumers who are there for flashy effects and the occasional quip.
The helm of disjunction not being used in the final battle seems like a more glaring error. They have a helmet that can dispel magic and they're fighting a powerful wizard.
I mean I am okay with powerful magic solving stuff but I perfer when doing this comes at a massive cost. Like if there is a magic to solve the problem you risk having a different problem or losing something important to you in the process.
Someone described the introduction of magical/extraordinary factors as if the writer having a currency of 100 points, and each introduction takes some points, if it's introduced early, it takes less points, if it's introduced in a low stakes situation it takes less points still, and if you run out of points, people's suspension of disbelief will be broken
To add on to how the staff was introduced, the problem was also introduced in a joke, which even further lowers the sense of stake that's happening. It sets the problem up as an excuse to introduce the solution.
7:25 I disagree. Kryptonite is probably the worst possible weakness you can write for a character. What makes Superman interesting is his humanity, that is his real "weakness". For all his strength and awesome abilities he ultimately is just some guy and there are countless things beyond his control. Superman stories that take advantage of that "weakness" and put Superman into situations, where he can't just punch the problem away, are usually some of the best. Flaws and weaknesses should an integral part of a character, something a character is build around, not just slapped on top as an afterthought or, worse, an excuse to deflect criticism towards said character.
I unintentionally figured out this rule while giving my world a reason to not adopt magic cars. In my world, there's a race with magic, and to really oversimplify, the magic works like this: Internal energy goes through SOMETHING and generates effect. Effect experiences fantastical inertia in world, DnD style magic occurs. The biggest factor leading to the rejection of the magic car is that magic is primarily used to keep the species alive (They eat a lot, like 9 full meals a day, and a lot of magical shenanigans are being used to essentially create the magical version of the modern logistical network, keeping cities afloat and food prices low.) and powering a car with only magic is just too wasteful. So they use bulls the size of elephants and cast magics on them to make them haul even more stuff quickly through a continent the size of North America, carrying a ridiculous amount of food. Of course, there are other ramifications beyond the basics, for example culture wise eating while doing other things is pretty much a given, water is pretty much for irrigation only because the sheer amount of food they eat is enough to supply their body with all of the water they'll need, this leads to a different strategy regarding city placements (Large roads substituting water sources), there is a seaborne city whose sole job is to generate clouds to supply the rest of the continent with rain whenever needed, etc. All in all, lots of worldbuilding to be done, and it's a work in progress.
you used avatars mountains for we dont need to know when we do know avatars mountains float because they are filled with unobtainiam which has magnetic properties its magneticly held up
I think Superheroes also fit the bill. If you want an interconnected universe (or even multiverse) of villains, heroes, and passive observers, the rules need to be very consistent and the different parts need to make sense as a whole. If you split them up into different parts that coexist without affecting each other all that much, you can have differing rules and not all parts need to fit each other all that well. The MCU up to Endgame is a good example of keeping consistency and fitting the parts to make up the whole. There were problems, but they were relatively minor and the real reason for a movie being bad was that it was bad on its own. The Modern MCU (as in after Endgame) shows clearly a lack of consistency and a swath of incongruence. They are having many different parts, each having their own rules, which are starting to suffer, but the real hang-up is that these different parts are extremely inconsistent compared to each other, and they don't even try to make sense of how they fit into the world. However, within all this, there is a simple rule to be found: Less is more. Try to pin down the basics to a few points, especially in regards to how they fit together. If you can't do that, try to trim down the magic system to something that can be explained that way. Depth beats breadth by miles, and having the basics narrowed down is the most important part of that
It switches quickly. If it's the spiral stairs, then MirrorMask (screenplay by Neil Gaiman)- kinda a trippy movie, but I love it. If it's the rotund robot, then it's Return to Oz which I like for its strangeness.
I think part of the reason the portal staff introduction works is how unserious the scene is. The bridge has not been foreshadowed, and we expect them to pass it without too much trouble. If they spent half an hour trying to cross this bridge, the pacing would feel off. The paladin starts describing the rules and they are absurd. The sorcerer triggers the trap, and it is played as a joke. The solution to the problem doesn't need to be serious. We want it to be quick too, so we accept that they introduce a new type of magic.
It's like Sudoku, right? Anybody could solve it if you could just put any number anywhere. But because there are rules, constraints, limitations, it becomes an interesting puzzle. Even watching other people solve one is fun. This is why heroes in stories coming up with clever solutions is so thrilling.
Consistency is the key to belief. Always thought this. However, there may be a bias. I, and probably you, are logical thinkers. So for us inconsistency breaks belief more than other things.
I really liked D&D: Honor Among Thieves and it does NOT deserve the damning criticism of "you might [like it] too if you like guardians of the galaxy marvel-style humor." You take that back.
Thankfully, the movie has an old-school approach of "ingenuity over abilty" to solve many problems the party faces. Otherwise the movie would have lots of 30 to 40 minutes stretches where they stand around and debate which specialised move or sub-sub class feat is best to use in this specific situation.
The staff also works due to the fact it was Olga that is the one who is given it and it’s established she knows nothing of magic so ofc when Simon sees it he’s like oh it’s allows teleportation. It has an ignorant character obtain for the more wise character to realize.
Doric's shape shifting power, while much more simple than the portal staff also followed Sanderson's rules pretty well. 1. Her ability is easy for the audience to understand and predict. 2. While there a few limitations on her powers, (She only have the physical traits of her current form; people know about shapeshifter and can look for tells an animal is shape shifter if they are suspicious; Sofina can sense her.) they were used very well to generate tension. 3. Doric used the same shape shifting power in several different ways to solve several different problems.
I'd argue that it's not quite appropriate to think of magic as needing to obey the rules of that world. iI's not like sci-fi where it's literally about respecting the rules a world of that kind would operate under. Rather, what let's magic work for the reader is more about honoring the way your story relates magic to human level elements like emotions, duty, sacrifice etc etc.. For instance, in a sci-fi story you can send in the intern with the master passcodes to make the giant ship serve your bidding but in a (non-comedy) fantasy novel epic spells can't be done offhandedly by idiots who get lucky (they might find an ancient artifact but that has it's own narrative rules). Even if that's how they'd probably work if you really dug into the details. This restriction isn't more or less binding than the internal coherence of sci-fi but it is different. For instance, think about the last ride of those ghost dudes in return of the king. In terms of pure world consistency that doesn't really fly. In a sci-fi novel that would be the equivalent of modulating a tachyon beam using your warp core to magically escape the trap in a story which never mentioned tachyons. But in a fantasy setting it works because it reflects who the character is and seems to flow from their nature. It would have been ridiculous had Boromir gotten to use that kind of trick even though in terms of pure consistency he could just as easily have had an ancestor owed a favor by ghosts.
For me "realistic fantasy" doesn't mean how close it adheres to the "real world" but how close it sticks to its own internal logic and rules
Very much so. Up can be down and down can be up in this new fantasy world. Bend the world into the strange and wonderful. However, once you begin backtracking on your own creation, then there had better be a very good reason for doing so- a Deeper Rule, if you will. But simply breaking the internal logic, and saying 'It's just about space wizards. It's not real" that I have a problem with as it demonstrates a very low view of what fantasy stories can be.
Magic A is Magic A trope. Consistency within the work is the most important part of the writing process. You're readers are willing to suspend their disbelief, but only if the work is consistent with itself.
Magic A is Magic A
I would argue that "fantasy" (or rather speculative fiction as a whole) as a literaly category itself is tightly connected to the "realism" and that is what makes it different from the fable/fairy-tale.
The whole point of fantasy is to write about things that you know are impossible, but like they were possible and explore how that affects things. In fairy-tale, impossible things are generally only really connected to the stories themselves and are not affecting anything except of things plot-related. The witch can echant the princess and the whole real to fall asleep for 100 years, but questions like: how this affected the neighbor realms, how the people outside thought about it, how the realm interacted with everything after waking up - fairy tales rarely answer these questions, as it isn't relevant to the story. Since it is not relevant, the outside world could basically barely exist and whole realm could fall asleep and wake up after 100 years like nothing happened. The realism is not present.
If there isn't a realism at all, it isn't a fantasy story. It's a parable or a fairy-tale (iff done good), or at worst dream-like nonsense without any coherence (if not done good).
This is also why I think the difference between "fantasy" and "magical realism" comes into place. "Magical realism", as far as I know, is the reverse of the fantasy. It's not applying realism to impossible, it's taking regular realism (describing world as close as possible) and putting impossible stuff on top of that (the realism is generally not applying to the impossible there, at least as far as I know)
This is correct.
There were a number of times in the movie that really felt like a real game of D&D, and the introduction of the portal staff was one of them.
DM: *is making the explanation for how to safely get across the bridge*
Simon: "I start to cross the bridge."
DM: "I haven't finished explaining yet."
Simon: "It's a bridge, did you write a novel explaining how it works? I start across."
DM: Umm, okay, since you didn't listen to the full explanation, make an intelligence roll."
Simon: "7."
DM: "Hoboy. The bridge collapses into the river of lava below. Thankfully, you are still on the portion of the bridge that was over solid stone, so you don't fall in as well."
Party: "Well crap, now how are we getting across."
DM: "Ummm, hmmm. Can I see your sheets?" *rummages through.* Ah! Simon, you recognize Holga's walking stick as a portal staff. *proceeds to give rules that will solve this particular problem and not much more.*
Much later, during the wagon heist.
DM: *grumbles about why he gave them such an item, but is actually impressed with their ingenuity.*
as a DM when they came up with the portal heist plan, i just sat there jaw on the floor and then whispered "why aren't my players this smart?" lol
@@Iggybart05 cuz they dont have a bard that onlybplans plans, instead of seducing themberchaud
Yeah, this feeling was also my favourite part.
DM: Okay, you now temporarily defeated the undead assassins.
*DM rolls on the homebrew encounter table. The d20 rattles in the tray, and the party watches as the DM's eyes widen with a sharp intake of breath.*
DM: And then the adult red dragon bursts out of his cave. It's clear that it ate more than it's fair share of unfortunate souls as it resembles a sausage more than the depictions you've seen before, but it does not lessen the dread you feel when you look at it. With a single chomp, it devours two of the undead assassins before they have time to react. What do you do?
Party: RUN!!!!
@@saddlerrye6725 bro the chubby dragon was amazing.
@@justr1809 It was the perfect mix of cute, funny, and terrifying
The Hither-Thither Staff seems like something that the DM made up on the spot, because Simon's player had moved his mini onto the bridge, triggering the trap.
Except he already had it showing the dm had planned this.
@@wittyjoker4631 Could be ... could be that the center piece of the dungeon, the bridge, that when it was destroyed he decided that the Marlamin's walking staff was actually a magic item, asking Simon to make an Arcana or History check to identify it.
@@leonielson7138 except the staff was set up in a two part deal prior to its use. If the dm was just pulling something to save the campaign or spare the parry a half session the environment would be more likely to be used. Ie a magical glyph noticed during a search that opens a fixed portal or the like.
@@wittyjoker4631 Or maybe the players brought up that stick in improv (Holga is the one mentioning it to Marlamin, so DM didn't come up with it), and later DM realized this stick would be a good item to retcon into something useful
@@JaneXemylixa possible sure, but the necklace being an earlier example of this very thing is too much of a hey ima do this thing later. Plus when you look at the dms notes (the script) it's clearly marked well before the session started.
I think magic abilities depend on whether the protagonist has them or not. The protagonist shouldn't get to pull a new ability out of the hat to get them out of trouble, but it's OK if the villain can. That's why the likes of Luke Skywalker or Harry Potter have reasonably well understood powers. It reminds me of one of Pixar's rules for storytelling:
"Coincidences to Get Characters into Trouble are Great, Coincidences to Get Them Out of it Are Cheating"
Replace "coincidence" with "new magic power" and it remains as true.
The audience knows the power the protagonist has, and every time the protagonist does not use a power that would solve the problem the audience groans.
The villain has a new power that gives them the upper hand or ensures an easy escape, that's fine, nothing wrong there.
I think it's just so much easier to accept that the guy we saw once and fucked off to who knows where for a good long while (The antagonist) would be different, while the one we've been looking at the whole time somehow growing wings in a day would be harder to believe.
Part of this is whether the new power is coming from the "world" of the story or an estabilished well defined character
this said, when done well, the protagonist can do it without it feeling like too much of a cop-out. Notably with Yusaku Fujiki in Yu-Gi-Oh Vrains.
A little context for those that don't know. Yu-Gi-Oh (also referred to as Duel Monsters in the anime) is a Trading Card Game in which you can use Monsters, Spells and Traps to win the game. Winning can be done in one of 2 ways. the first being to take your opponent down to 0 life points, or the other being having the opponent run out of cards to draw in their deck. Your main source of dealing damage is Monster cards, these typically have a level between 1 and 12 and follow the following rules. monsters who's levels are between 1 and 4 can be normal summoned naturally. monsters who's levels are between 5 and 6 must be tribute summoned by sending 1 monster to the grave, and monsters who are level 7 or higher require 2 tributes. spells can be activated immediately for various effects, while trap cards require you place them face-down on the field and wait until the start of your opponent's turn before they become active.
now that we have the context out of the way. it's time to explain the ability. once per duel, if Yusaku has less than 1000 Life points remaining (out of the anime's 4000, or the TCG's 8000) he is able to reach into the data storm to pull out a brand new monster card that can save him. stuff to note is that the main antagonist of the first season of vrains, also has this ability. furthermore, it can only be used once in a given duel, and it requires that Yusaku can actually play it, and if he can, he has to play it well.
Tl//Dr: in this example it works as a soft deus ex-machina. it requires very strict rules on activation, and is entirely up to the user to make it work well. furthermore, it should only be able to be used in a situation where you're at a disadvantage. Yusaku's ability works here because we're given rules on how it works, and it's completely up to the user to make the most of the ability
@@AmberMetallicScorpion this would only break the rule the first time it is done and even then only if it hadnt been mentioned until it was needed. The specific problem is a character using an ability they presumably didnt have or conveniently never mentioned until it is used to pull their ass out of the fire, especially if it would have been relevant earlier and they just didnt use it (generally because the author had not decided they had the ability yet)
"There's no obvious way to use portals in combat"
The portal games would disagree.
Give Simon time. He's got to figure out how to knock the cameras off the wall first.
Or (minor spoilers) the final season of Star Trek Picard.
@@acsoosub Can we not talk about modern Star Trek? Pretty please?
Guardians of the Galaxy (feat. Iron Man, Spider-Man, & Dr. Strange) vs Thanos, and Blink vs the Sentinels in X-Men are also great examples.
Guild Wars 2: "Let us show you how PvP in our game looks like!"
When it comes to the staff of hither-thither I don't mind the reveal, because the staff isn't introduced to solve a problem. The problem is created to introduce the staff.
Regarding the teleportation stick: Holga just having it for no reason after swiping it from the home of her ex is a reference to real DnD style games where players will just loot anything and everything that isn't fixed in place and just carry a lot of trash in their inventory on the off-chance of it becoming useful. So this is actually more of an easter egg for DnD fans than a badly set up mechanic.
Edit: Also, her not knowing it was useful until Simon points it out is a reference to the identify spell.
Yes, very much Loot Goblins, much like the Critical Role group.
@@Pas5afist It is also a good example of both Chekov's Gun since we can see the staff is odd looking when Olga goes to meet her Ex and also a clever meta joke about a player fucking up the puzzle and the DM just giving them a way of bypass the now impossible situation out of wanting them to move on with the game, and lastly Simon DOESN'T notice the limits of the staff, he knows the staff works similarly to the Dimension Door spell but with the twist it opena up a portal and the range is 500 yards instead of 500 feet.
@@AyameAkito It functions more like the Arcane Gate spell.
I don't think it was so much identify spell as just Simon actually being proficient in arcana skill and succeeding in the check to recognize the staff, whereas the barbarian obviously isn't proficient in it.
Real gamers always take a crowbar, so they can loot even what is nailed down. Leave no loot behind!
The magic in Honor Among Thieves being so good is indicative of why the movie as a whole is so good: the people making it *_knew_* about DnD and made an actual effort to translate it accurately to screen. The reason the magic is laid out so well is because it's almost 1:1 with the games mechanics, and the whole movie feels like that. There's a few things that I as a player could nit pick (owlbear) but honestly I think it's a perfect DnD movie. They understood the assignment and they nailed it.
I would also say about the Harry Potter movies, where with magic you can do unlimited spells (no mana here) and although there is a limited number of spells, new ones appear in each successive part of the series. The strength of a wizard sometimes depends on experience, and sometimes on the fact that someone was born with a plot armor. The more such inconsistencies, the more the authors seem to treat us like naive toddlers who can be given any crap
btw. great material and cool channel, I give a sub.
Thank you. Glad to have you aboard!
Er no the spells exist prior they are just staggered into the seven years of hogwarts tuition and you have to have the ingredients or at least summon the ingredients from the local shop (which would break the statute of secrecy so big no no same with apparating right in front of the shop.) to make the cake because you cannot make a damn thing out of nothing, I would assume if you tried to unmake something in its totality you the caster would be summarily unmade or preferably just die there are limits on the magic in jk Rowling's Harry Potter series however since they aren't plot relevant we never see the bounds of magic.
Rowlings Worldbuilding, despite how iconic and beloved it is, is the weak point of the series. The 3 pillars of storytelling are characters, story and world. And as long as two out of those 3 pillars hold, the story holds.
The world is full of holes, inconsistencies and flat out contradictions. Even when you just consider the books alone.
The Characters are, with a few rather one dimensional exceptions (mostly bad guys), amazing, well written and well rounded.
The Story is pretty much the heroes journey, or several of them within one overarching heroes journey. A tried and tested formula for literal centuries. That, coupled with a mystery to solve in each book, makes a very solid Story foundation.
The wizarding world is eccentric and quirky, and spells are oddly specific and complicated. My headcanon is that the magic and culture around it have developed around the idea of abusing as many loopholes and technicalities as possible to get the greatest effect from the least amount of sacrifice.
Old magic is very primal and dangerous, and even a hint of it scares the pants off of modern wizards. They don't even understand it anymore, even if it's technically the foundation of modern magic. In many ways it's an allegory for British civics and the acknowledgement of violence in human life.
@@PsychicAlchemy That's a great head cannon, and I can get behind that. I have a lot of headcannons about the wizarding world. Many of them to make sense of things that don't make any sense to me at face value.
If all my headcannons were to be considered canon, the whole lore is a lot darker, and a lot more morally grey on all fronts, and the extinction of wizardkind is a looming threat that the defeat of Voldemort neither prevents nor delays. And Harry not only remains unaware, he'd flat out deny it if he'd heard about it, dismissing it as a lie even despite evidence.
Here's the deal with the portal gun. It represents a way for a Dungeon Master to fix a problem that the players create, and overtuning it while not thinking about possible implications later on. It's a gag that Dungeon masters will understand.
Yeah, uhm... if I was the GM, I would have been cackling and watching you die.
And then the players would have been scrambling to find SOME SORT of ass pull. But! In my defence: If you figure out how to do it, I will let you get away with it.
If your problem finding skills are "find boss, full attack boss", you'll die. But that means that you'll actually feel like your party won, even though you're 4 guys sharing a single hp. If you don't feel like you're in danger, you don't feel like you win.
@@HrHaakon I will always reward creative use of established skills. The same way as I would give the player the opportunity to do the impossible. The chance is minuscule, but if they pull it off, it will be a thing of legends.
Like in the short film The Gamers, when the thief of the party wants to get drinks, but has no money.
So he steals the purse of another patron.
Then steals his dagger.
And then attempt to steal the mans pants. The one he is wearing.
The GM questions the purpose, and the tief replies he doesn't want the pants, he just want to know if he is able to steal them.
So the GM raises the difficulty. The chance to succeed is tiny, but if he does, it would be an awesome display of his skills.
I would point out that in LotR, JRR never really give us any clear understanding of what magic can do. We have magic objects like swords that can do specific tasks but what exactly Gandalf can and can't do? I have no idea?
Yes, but looking at a lot of the powerhouse magical beings in Lord of the Rings (at least post-Hobbit), it seems more authority based. That is, they are beings that are powerful by their very nature. And then they can oppose each other by words and actions (Saruman, your staff is broken or Finrod's battle songs against Sauron). It's a contest of wills/ innate power. It's not like Gandalf cast a 'break item' spell. However, Gandalf never really acts as a protagonist, I would say. The hobbits are navigating a world of powerful and mysterious beings (even book Strider/ Aragorn is already a lofty powerful character). And the Hobbits either do not have access to the magic that would solve problems or we know about the abilities they do have and their limitations (Elf cloaks, the Ring itself, with the major limitation that it will corrupt you, even if it is to make you the Grand Poobah of Gardeners... the Ring was really reaching with Sam, haha.)
@@Pas5afist Essentially, yes, we see them face off from time to time, but the best we can understand is that it's somehow a test of power and will. After that, JRR really doesn't explain and that's obviously good enough. At the same time, that sort of power doesn't decide the outcome of the story either. The Temptation of Samwise scene from the animated Return of the King will be with me always.
The thing about LotR magic is that the story doesnt lean super hard on it. Most of the conflict, motivation and resolutions are character based and pretty grounded on medieval reality. We only know that the ring is a really powerful, highly dangerous artifact, which is not really exploited for deux ex-machina benefits (Frodo even suffers for using it). In contrast, take Endgame for example, the whole plot is based on a newly discovered magic called time travel which undoes almost all consequences of the over-arching narrative and barely makes any sence, yet you have to lean heavily on it since otherwise the plot woulndt happen. Same with No way home for that matter.
@@Pas5afistI believe the "magic" is basically just asserting a concept against another, the actual magic (sorcery) seems to be separate since Sauron's army has like 10k Black Numenorean sorcerers with it.
That is because LotR uses a soft magic system.
A hard magic system is one where all the rules and limitations are explained, so the reader knows what to expect and what is and isn't possible.
In a soft magic system the rules and limitations are not explained. From our perspective (the readers), magic could be the solution to any problem, but we can't be sure because we don't know if it needs certain condittions to use or the scale it can be cast on. It is up to the writer to not abuse it (occasional magic does cool stuff, but not deus ex machina level).
3:31 Well, if there is lava at the bottom of the gap, the air above it is probably going to be hotter - and so less dense - than the air the horses are used to fly in, so I could believe that they wouldn't be able to generate enough lift to carry themselves, their riders AND their riders' gear over that gap. And that's without mentioning the toxic fumes emanating from the lava.
if that would be the reason i would say it would not be well set up and/or not true.
If you say the air is too less dense for the horses to fly, it would be reasonable enough to expect the charackters to mention the thin air or atleast breath more heavily.
Not to mention that, real natur-wise birds use the streams of hotter air to fly up more easily.
Never considered how similar it is to actual dnd for a party to just have this random loot which suddenly helps them out and then overuse it as much as humanly possible afterwards. Really thematic
To be fair, every fantasy adventurer would do that. If you have that powerful artifact, you would try to make use of it.
And since the typical adventurer goes into more than one dungeon, they will find more than one artifact.
For how the portal staff wasn't mentioned before that moment. It wasn't important. Until that point nobody needed a portal staff, so nobody tried to use it. It was early enough established that the walking stick exists, as a mundane item.
When the "rules" of magic that the world set and expect are discarded on a whim for the sake of convenience, you lose the tension of it's use
One of the reasons Hunter x Hunter has one of my favorite magic systems in anime is because it's as if it made Sanderson's laws into an actual part of its system (Hatsu crafting, Restrictions & Vows, and Memory overload, respectively).
Nen is legitimately one of the tightest, most cohesive "hard-magic" systems I've encountered
I like hxh but the biggest problem with nen is that every villains power needs like, 10 minutes to explain, no matter how minor the villain because powers get complicated really fast.
@@IIxIxIv It's called bungie-gum, it has the power of rubber and gum
@@benharder7816 Dear god, His nen has the properties of both rubber and gum!
8:30 I will very slightly disagree here; we weren't given verbal warning it was magic, but the stick was designed with enough "this is a wizard's magic stick" visual tropes that I think most people familiar with stories containing wizards knew it was going to be in some way magic.
Props for giving a nod to my boys Jon Strange and Mr. Norrell. A terrific setting to point to for how magic should fit into a story.
11:07 reminds me of Goblin Slayer where the eponymous hero is using a portal scroll to kill an ogre.
The other end was at the bottom of a lake and the pressurized water cut through the body of the ogre.
It's all about stakes. And stakes are all about cause and effect, and cause and effect relies heavily on consistency. If things are inconsistent then the ability of the audience to predict the effects of something happening is hindered, and if they can't be sure that this supposed-to-be-suspenseful thing is actually all that bad then, of course, it will be less tense because of it.
For example if you show an antagonist using some spell and it injures someone but they're okay, maybe it's a bit of a nasty cut but you know, just bandage it and keep it from being infected and it'll be fine, but then later on they make this grand threatening speech about how they're going to use that spell then despite clearly trying to be a suspenseful scene it will fail. And if it then straight up kills a hundred people, it'll be just a sudden shock rather than the tension-filled buildup that was intended because the audience didn't expect that that would be the effect. And of course, this can happen the other way around where an initial showing is incredibly powerful and then the audience feels tension or fear for that thing happening again but the characters do not and further uses show it to be far less potent.
Or to simplify, if magic can do anything with no limits then there's no stakes because anything bad that might happen can just be magicked away. There's no tension or suspense or sorrow for someone dying heroically if you know that they can just use magic to return to life, if magic can do ANYTHING then nothing matters. Which is why rules and limitations matter.
Usually if someone has their power go up drastically it's because they have some powerup, preferably something they are shown obtaining that visually shows that they have increased power.
For instance in the mlp episode magic duel after losing a duel trixie obtains the alicorn amulet that makes her eyes and magic glow red and gives her a massive increase in power enabling her to use magic she couldn't previously use, when later on in the episode she is tricked and removes the amulet her magic and eyes revert to normal and she loses the increased power making her spell fail.
Then, let's have the main character have the power to essentially magic things away, but their solutions are too simplistic and naive that they fuck things up more.
The mess they made would be too complicated to untangle that they can't magic it away as easily.
Consistency is also why creative use of established skills is more interesting that coming up with new ones.
The audience knows what is and what isn't possible. So they have expectations.
By creatively applying the known magic, without breaking the rules, the hero is established as smart. The audience will think "wow, why haven't I thought of that"
@@HappyBeezerStudios Or if they did think of it, then the audience feels smart for having thought of it too. It's literally a win-win, there's _zero_ downside.
I think, in addition to creating a better story, the limitations on the magic (and the consistency with which they are kept) also reflects one thing that’s really fun about playing D&D. My favorite part of playing D&D is using the resources available to the party to solve problems creatively. I love playing spellcasters bc I love those moments of “huh, I wonder… hey this might actually work!” Like once, my group was up against this big golem that dealt massive damage and was really hard to hit. I took a guess that it would have a low wisdom, so I used Bestow Curse to make it roll a wisdom save or forfeit its turn, every round. The other players were able to chip away at it while it couldn’t do anything. That game is still one of my all-time favorites, and it only happened because I had to be strategic about what spell to cast and how to use it.
I watched it with my young nephew a day or two after we played a game of dnd, we both loved it, it was hilarious, fantastical, and allowed the whole party and even some other characters to shine brightly even the villains.
Yes, it's a shame it did not do better as I tire of all the superhero films and would love to see more fantasy like this.
Every single use of spells and other magic in the move follows presidents and rules form the TTRPG (except druids can't wild shape to a owlbear)
I'm sure there's some third party splatbook that allows it :V
I wouldn't put it past them to confuse pathfinder and dnd
@@Shenaldrac in pathfinder, you can wild shape into an owlbear, assuming the interpretation of at 8th level wild shape acting like beast shape 3. Otherwise beast shape 3 includes magical beasts so you can turn into one.
You also can't wildshape that often, and Time Stop doesn't exactly work as shown in the film but since the druid also doesn't cast any spells and the Time Stop as presented is still used well and is consistent and understandable in how it works both of these are entirely fine by me. The film is internally consistent, which is what matters the most
@@houndofculann1793
It's also in keeping with how the various novels use magic in that the characters aren't bound to the same rigid ruleset that PCs are and can advance their arts in more powerful, varied and dynamic ways.
Great video! Its also worth noting that the portals are created by a magic stick, rather than some heretofore undisclosed mega-powerful talent lurking within our not-so-competent sorceror guy. Yet (IIRC), he does get to demonstrate competence, and thus maintiain his character's credibility in the use of magic, by identifying the portal stick, and knowing how to operate it. He is educated, he just doesn't have mature abilities.
I love Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell! Great example of what you discuss in this vid (hence the video clips from that show I'm sure!). The magicians have somewhat defined and limited abilities that never just solve all the problems in the show. The antagonist however, the fairy, has undefined and very powerful abilities.
About D&D @8:34, this is where I was taken out of the movie. The Paladin MUST have his fight scene against immortal enemies he knows he cannot defeat, only to then run away (which he should have done first as he was going to anyway). The execution of said fight and revelation is pointless.
Also the movie's Meat-dissolving cubes..... that don't actually dissolve meat*
Could've pulled a Gandalf and have the fight to give the rest of the party time to escape. A heroic sacrifice.
"It's fantasy" is a perfect excuse for people who only know how to tear something apart, because they don't really care about how something works. They only want to critique without the responsibility of putting it back together.
The same rules apply for limits to technology, or indeed any major unexplained reveals or reversals, for the believability of any story.
Imagine a hard hitting story focusing on the life of Bob Cratchit and his family. Hard working for a horrible boss watching your youngest child slowly die, and then boom, the horrible boss has a massive personality change and is a great guy and your family flourishes.
Without knowing about Scrooge's experiences, that would come out of nowhere. Scrooge's story would have to be included, not 'left for another time' for the story to make any sense whatsoever.
For the specific example I could totally see a story from Bob Cratchit's pov being quite good without explaining Scrooge's night, but only because the plot of A Christmas Carol is so well known (even to those that never read it or watched an adaptation). So for that specific case you could argue the deus ex machina was adequately explained 180 years ago, but hopefully everyone reading this can extrapolate the principles out.
A simplified term for 'Willing suspension of Disbelief' is Verisimilitude: the appearance or semblance of truth; genuineness; authenticity:
(e.g.) The play lacked verisimilitude. >.>
A very valid take. There aren't nearly enough resources for healthy criticism of magic, magic systems, fantasy, scifi and the mechanisms and philosophies within them. Thank you, dope topic choice, dope content. Thank you.
I was looking forward to your latest release. Intriguing and thought-provoking as always...keep it up!
Excellent video! Congratulations on getting your youtube channel off to a good start!
Thank you! It's been a wild ride.
I've never seen that quote by Tolkien before, but it's absolutely bang-on. No wonder his world has persisted so well.
The tops of my knowledge about how horses work are that hay goes in one end, shit comes out of the other. Also, if I put money on one at the Grand National, it's chances of falling at Becher's Brook rise by about 300%.
Actually, they set up the hither dither staff pretty well. In the backstory flashback, Holga grabs a necklace for Kira. It turns out it's magical and allows the girl to turn invisible. Holga doesn't know that, she just thinks it will look good on Kira. Then when they are passing by her ex's, she says she just wants to grab some of her stuff. She notices the staff and points it out to Merrelman as a reminder of better times, but he offers it back to her since his new gal doesn't like to go for walks. Holga doesn't have a magic sense and she must have swiped this before adding Simon or anybody else who could identify it. She took the staff back because it represented her love which Merrelman didn't want anymore. I'm not sure when she explained she stole it from a wizard's tower, I thought it was at Merrelman's, but even if it wasn't until they were in the Underdark, they established the provenance of the stick well before the reveal.
I didn't have time to talk about the invisibility necklace, but I also thought they set up the end quite well. When they were leaving Kira behind, I suspected she would not and rescue them with her invisibility somehow. I was a bit off as I suspected she would join unbeknownst to the group whereas she was part of the offscreen plan (in keeping with heist traditions: the plan that is explained onscreen goes awry, the plan that is revealed as it is show works out).
However, I don't think writers should shy away from their endings being guessed. Surprising, but inevitable in retrospect should be the goal. It's deeply satisfying for a viewer/ reader to speculate on how the problem might be solved based on the tools available to the protagonists and then be partially right. It's just good foreshadowing without telegraphing too much.
Personally, I knew the staff was magic the moment I saw it the first time. It was more of a twist for me that she didn't know it was magic lol!
@@ninjawiz7932 Yeah, I would argue that the DESIGN of the "walking stick" is a clear indication it is magic, but because she knows nothing about magic, she doesn't know it's magic. Even though the design looks magical to US, it's not OBVIOUSLY magical in and of itself, like it isn't covered in glowing runes or it doesn't have like FLOATING bits and so on. It looks like a simply designed magic staff to us, but to her it's just a neat stick. The revelation it makes portals then becomes "Ok so THAT'S what it does" rather than "Oh wow, it's MAGIC?"
Even if there was NO indication it was magical, much like the invisibility necklace the item itself doesn't tip the balance of power itself, it's how they USE it that matters. Now if the walking stick had turned out to be a wand of disintegration that'd be a WHOLE other problem, even if the first thing they use it for is to get rid of a boulder blocking their path. IT STILL DISINTEGRATES THINGS, that's a bit much to just have lying around.
Great video I liked all the little movie clips from other movies you put in. Acknowledgment to the costs of using the infinite improbability drive. 2:52 Hurricane hitting Florida, ok. Bright star peaking over the horizon of mostly fully lit earth, hmmm.
Great video, love how clearly you explain what internal consistency is and why it matters (though not using that term itself)
Great breakdown of how characters (and DnD players) will abuse any new mechanci they find, stretching it to it's utmost limits. Also, did that clip from the Hobbit at 12:10 really happen? Those movies were wild, man. What were they smoking when they made them?
It was a deleted scene. But the fact that it even got as far as that with it all fully animated... oof. The decision making really took a turn for the worse when creating The Hobbit. One of the most heartbreaking scenes is the forlorn Peter Jackson in the dragon's lair when they had sent everyone home after they ran out of script to shoot and didn't know what to film next.
There is a good film buried in there that I suspect a number of fan edits have uncovered (Bilbo's decision to leave, Bilbo & Gollum, Bilbo and Smaug are all brilliantly done). However, there is so much drek to go through and the action became wildly cartoonish.
@@Pas5afist Oh thank goodness. I thought maybe my brain had suppressed more of it than I remembered. The series was bad enough as it was, but that scene seemed outrageous.
But to your point, I'm not totally sure there was a good film underneath it all. The story was obviously solid, but thats because it was based on a halfway decent book we all know and love.
I'm currently re-reading the Lord of the Rings and it amazes me how much the films changed or tweaked whilst keeping the spirit of the books intact. The Hobbit book obviously has a different tone, but the movies seem to have been completely confused about what it was all about. That said, I haven't rewatched any of it, and don't really plan on doing so, but my perception could change.
sanderson's same rules work perfectly - as you hint with the superman citation - with super heroes and super powers.
The reason why the magic has rules that make it feel real in this film is because it’s based off of a Tabletop RPG, where the magic has extensive rules.
Dimension Door is a Spell in that game that lets you teleport 500 feet in a direction you can see for instance
Thank-you for the useful seminar in fantasy and Sci-Fi writing.
very happy that i subscribed. ended up finding this channel through the second video in the movie battles
I'm glad you are enjoying them!
I encounter a scientific problem.
"Well, lets fix it with science."
I encounter a computer problem.
"Well, lets fix it with computers."
I encounter a physical problem.
"Well, lets get the strongest person in the group to deal with it."
Usually it's let's fix it with math lol
Computer problem, yes pretty much sums it up. Computer Science is the science of solving problems with the help of computers, which you did not have without them.
Good video. I agree with much of what you said. The difference between being in the story verse suspension of disbelief made more sense then ever before and perfectly describes how I read books.
Even looney tunes can stick to the rule that you don't succumb to gravity until you look down
Rules also help us enter into the world ourselves. Having a better understanding of what's going on allows us to follow along, instead of just watching whatever happens. Rules allow the solution to a problem to be clever, because we understand how the solution works, and we even could've come up with it ourselves
Hitting the like because of that old cain reference lol ok old man, I’ll listen to u tell me the tale of an old cathedral.
See, I think they messed up with the portals in the wagon scene. It kept seeming like they were out or range, and I certainly didn't get how they were able to keep the portal functional inside for so long after the end of that scene. I definitely did not maintain my suspension of disbelief then.
I also thought the heroes were inside the cube for too long.
Deathgates were in Wheel of Time well before Brandon completed it? I think the first time she showed up was during one of Rand's Dragon Reborn episodes. iirc they were gates that flashed open and closed and moved in a set direction like extremely gory lawnmowers. (in response to 11:11)
Oh, you might be right. The series is so long, I forget where each thing is introduced. I will say that when Sanderson takes over all the pieces that Robert Jordan had set up get dialed up. But that is only natural as at the point in which Sanderson took over was when the story was barrelling to towards the climax.
the problem with portal magic is you have to be really really carefull when you put in into your setting, you have to have restrictions, hard restrictions. portal magic can be way to powerfull and deadly
Even more if you take away the requirement of portals and just have flat out teleportation. When there is no limit, what stops the hero from simply putting the villain in a trap. Portaling/teleporting them to outer space, or at the bottom of the ocean.
A great take! i really enjoy your work! keep at it!
2:35 - Exactly what happened to me on movies when I was seeing the Starkiller base of Ep7. No way on the rules of that Universe could it happen. Gravity still worked, Fluid Mechanicas still worked, Distances and trajectory still worked, no way a star could be "sucked' to be ejected on Ludicrous Speed to hit multiple targets on the other side of galaxy being seen on real time everywhere,
Starkiller Base only uses the star as a power source. What it does is collect dark energy, which is converted into phantom energy. This travels through hyperspace to its target, thus it's nearly instant. I'm kinda baffled that you think real world physics was totally unaltered in the Star Wars universe.
@@PlatinumAltaria Huge made up BS.
@@PlatinumAltaria "Phantom Energy" notbing. This was made up. The point of the video is the Magic/SciFi Universe has its internal rules, and Starkiller breaks even the basics physics. Even hyperspace has timing rules, ships doesnt go instantly to a place like Starkiller BS shot. Took time to Millenium Falcon reach Bespin, tlo Vader reach Scariff so goes on. Starkiller breaks the rules of gravity, and gravity works on SW. If the star is sucked, it would have a lot of consequences, like the ones on Star Trek Generations, where a star turning off was use to deflect gravitation. Starkiller base simply killed Star Wars.
I agree. Starkiller was ridiculous. It was almost a Mell Brooks insert for Spaceballs - the ludicrous Death Star,
@@jandogta2030 Good point you made. Star Trek Generations indeed showed what happens when a star is turn down, on a very believable way. I almost forgot that movie.
In one word: *consistency*
Yes! I hate the whole "thing works until it doesn't" trope
Can someone please tell me the name of the movie at 1:37? It looks so familiar, but I just can't remember.
Thanks!
This is quite an interesting video to see coming off of Tale Foundry's "Why magic systems don't feel magical".
I personally like that D&D has major events that are caused by reckless use of magic, like dead magic zones or the death of the goddesses of magic and striping of magic from 90% of living population. Forgotten Realms can be a trash fire at times but the ancient history is great even if most have no idea of any of it.
In my writing I started with a soft system in which the magic was op but through subsequent drafts I refined it into a hard system set in stone. I even got a document that I occasionally look through to make sure I don't break my rules. If magic is the answer to ever solution then magic is the problem. When I write myself into a corner I don't just make up some magic mcguffin that will solve everything unless that mcguffin is explained and foreshadowed earlier (like 100 or so pages earlier or maybe an entire book)
Really it depends how well the story is written and if it can adequately explain why it's magic is like that.
Soft magic works great as trouble, but also as window dressing. A floating mountain is probably mostly window dressing so it doesn't really need an explanation. Or trouble if the party needs to get to it. They probably won't have an opportunity to take advantage of its defensive ability by building a fortress atop it.
This
I don’t know how explain it
But it feels like you took some gibberish out of my brain and turned into something comprehensive
I also don’t like the „it’s fantasy" but I’ve never really understood why as well as now
Years ago I found these wonderful interviews with George RR Martin that, for the life of me I cannot find anymore, where he talked about his use of magic in ASOIF. I’ll never forget what he said, because I took it to heart in my own writing.
I’m paraphrasing, obviously, but he said something to the effect of “If you have too much magic in your story it begins to overwhelm the plot and it becomes nonsensical. If you have a wizard or a sorcereress who can simply whisper a word and destroy an army, then why would you even assemble an army?”
Any magic has to be tempered with believability otherwise the plot of your story becomes superfluous trapping.
I'm surprised this all had to be said.
I've seen similar sorts of problems in character building, i.e. half way through a tv series one of the characters suddenly has something in their backstory to solve a problem or create some tension for the plot, seemingly out of nowhere.
I totally agree.
WHEN you are introduced to certain info makes a big difference. There needs to be a set-up and a pay-off.
This has more to do with skills but the most blatant example I can think of are the sequences in some Bond movies where he gets a whole bunch of gadgets from Q.
You know there will be moments where all those specific gadgets will very conveniently be useful. This is no less convenient than when a character just has a gadget that's very useful for that specific situation that you didn't know about but you don't feel cheated, instead, you get an "aha" as an audience member right before the moment happens.
It's the same thing with a whodunnit where you don't introduce the actual murderer or the most vital clues near the end of story. You have to feel like you could have figured out the mystery yourself.
It's all about set-up and pay-off.
Even overpowered "win-button" abilities can work if they are extensions of well-established powers, and it works especially well if you can somehow bind it to character development. The final confrontation in Kung Fu Panda 2 is a good and blatant example of it.
At 1:09 it was a series i wanted to see but forgot the name, anyone knows?
Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell. It's an excellent adaptation of the book.
@@Pas5afist thank you this was my second question if it was a original and if not if was a good adaptation
This is all really useful tips for my own writing.
I'm working on a Sci-fi novel right now, but the same principals can be as easily applied to technology as they are to magic.
"any sufficiently developed technology is indistinguishable from magic"
And the same rules apply for both. The only difference is where it comes from. If you have a teleporter, it doesn't matter if it's magic or technology, the limits have to be there. If you have a lighter, it doesn't matter if's gas ignited by a spark from a piezoelectric crystal, or an angry ghost that breathes fire.
I do not really get how to adopt these ideas into practice, but that has been true for a few years and dozens of people with dozens of examples.
I don't care about anything about dungeons and dragons, i watched the movie because I like all the actors in the movie, and the trailer looked really fun, and the movie was awesome and really, really fun to watch.
These are seriously good videos
There's few things more disappointing in a story than when a character gets a fantastic ability or gadget and then the possibilities behind it aren't sufficiently explored. Sanderson's 3rd rule is brilliant because it encourages the author to really think about that new ability they've introduced and what else it could be used for rather than treating it as yet another throw away plot convenience that gets tossed aside and forgotten afterwards.
If there's a major lack of limitation in this film's magic--from what I recall--it'd be the Druid's apparently limitless Wild Shape ability. Take that as you will, I thought it was fun to watch.
i think there's multiple ways to read that:
1) shifting into an owlbear is an indication it is neither 5es Wild Shape ability nor the Polymorph spell, since owlbears are monstrosities, not beasts. within 5e, it would have to be Shapechange if i'm not mistaken. Which is 9th level, but would allow multiple transitions at will.
2) it simply isn't 5e. the red wizard used like three 9th level spells in the final fight (true polymorph, time stop possibly multiple times, maybe meteor swarm), which is a bit much for a 5e wizard, but 3e certainly does feature multiple of those. if we assume 3e rules, the druid class has a lot more uses of Wild Shape, and the Shifter prestige class would add a lot more (note that the druid didn't cast a whole lot of spells in the movie)
3) the movie follows its own rules and the limitless shifting might be for rather harmless beast forms only; we didn't see the same amount of owlbear shifting
but is it really a lack of limitation? it didn't feel like it not being limited in uses was problematic in any sense, and we only saw animal (plus owlbear) forms, so the limits can be assumed to be somewhere along those lines
11:02 - Immediately obvious way to use it in combat given LOS limitation - portal under enemy with the other end miles (or as far as possible) above the ground so enemy falls to his/her death (assuming enemy cannot fly - which in D&D is certainly not a given).
Portal under very heavy object with other side over enemy, crushing enemy under said heavy object.
As an avid D&D player I could go on all day... my DM hates our group for this very thing.
Sorry, this has nothing to do with the disucssion of the video, but what is the image from at 1:26 ? It's driving me crazy ! ^^'
It's from the mini-series Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell. A very excellent adaptation of a very excellent fantasy novel. I cannot recommend both enough.
Good video, thanks
I wondered if you were going to mention him, but an excellent refutation of these general rules is Piers anthony. He intentionally writes internally inconsistent fantasy, regularly violating all sorts of these rules. But he manages nevertheless to create quite intriguing worlds. Although he is certainly an acquired taste.
My second recommendation, and by far my strongest, would be Lawrence Watt-Evans, who takes internal consistency to a whole new level. If you've ever wished the characters would actually employ real human intelligence in delving into the implications of their world's magic, read these books immediately.
Incidentally my favorite book of his, with a single spell, features exactly the same teleporting tapestry logic as in the D&D example.
Another worth checking out is the Inheritance cycle by Christopher Paolini. The magic system used by the characters in those stories, Gramarye, is well defined and consistent.
You know more or less what the MC can do at any given point and when he does something new it makes sense in the context of his skills.
Another worth checking out is the Inheritance cycle by Christopher Paolini. The magic system used by the characters in those stories, Gramarye, is well defined and consistent.
You know more or less what the MC can do at any given point and when he does something new it makes sense in the context of his skills.
I've noticed many ppl comparing the new D&D movie, & not really wrongly, to the MCU movies, but 1.) the new D&D movie is actually good lol & 2.) since I doubt it's getting a sequel there aren't going to be other filmmakers playing in this exact sandbox & will then retcon or contradict the rules of the magic/other rules introduced in this movie in a subsequent one, which is something I hate hate *hate* about the Disney era of Star Wars films/shows along with the MCU & DCEU movies. Cool video!
It's limits that make the almost unimaginable feel real, without them imagination descends into chaos. (I wish that was a quote, I guess it is now.)
It made me thing of an anime that had a character able to transform at will and act like an OP superhero throughout the show but when they faced off against the final boss (as it where) the boss just goes "who did you think gave you the power to transform?", clicks their fingers and suddenly the protagonist is just a normal person again; collapsing the whole illusion that "just use magic to solve everything" is an option and the story became a lot more real. It's those moments when the happy fantasy hits grim reality that can make a story and the friction between the two always makes a story more interesting.
Thought you were going to tell us about the Law of Similarity and the Law of Contagion (more or less Rules for Magic) as opposed to "rules for writing a believable use and utility of magic in a narrative framework". But I like your presentation.
I'm especially displeased with all the people who say they love fantasy yet are dismissive of it in the same breath. They are nothing more than mindless consumers who are there for flashy effects and the occasional quip.
The helm of disjunction not being used in the final battle seems like a more glaring error. They have a helmet that can dispel magic and they're fighting a powerful wizard.
You could turn this whole video in a 3 sec clip where you say "internal consistency" once.
I mean I am okay with powerful magic solving stuff but I perfer when doing this comes at a massive cost. Like if there is a magic to solve the problem you risk having a different problem or losing something important to you in the process.
1:35 aayyyeee Mirror Mask! that was one weird movie.
Someone described the introduction of magical/extraordinary factors as if the writer having a currency of 100 points, and each introduction takes some points, if it's introduced early, it takes less points, if it's introduced in a low stakes situation it takes less points still, and if you run out of points, people's suspension of disbelief will be broken
To add on to how the staff was introduced, the problem was also introduced in a joke, which even further lowers the sense of stake that's happening.
It sets the problem up as an excuse to introduce the solution.
7:25
I disagree. Kryptonite is probably the worst possible weakness you can write for a character. What makes Superman interesting is his humanity, that is his real "weakness". For all his strength and awesome abilities he ultimately is just some guy and there are countless things beyond his control. Superman stories that take advantage of that "weakness" and put Superman into situations, where he can't just punch the problem away, are usually some of the best.
Flaws and weaknesses should an integral part of a character, something a character is build around, not just slapped on top as an afterthought or, worse, an excuse to deflect criticism towards said character.
ngl, your my hero for making this video.
Brando Sando's 4th-ish law: If magic work is cheaper than a mule, you've broken your medieval economy.
I unintentionally figured out this rule while giving my world a reason to not adopt magic cars. In my world, there's a race with magic, and to really oversimplify, the magic works like this: Internal energy goes through SOMETHING and generates effect. Effect experiences fantastical inertia in world, DnD style magic occurs. The biggest factor leading to the rejection of the magic car is that magic is primarily used to keep the species alive (They eat a lot, like 9 full meals a day, and a lot of magical shenanigans are being used to essentially create the magical version of the modern logistical network, keeping cities afloat and food prices low.) and powering a car with only magic is just too wasteful. So they use bulls the size of elephants and cast magics on them to make them haul even more stuff quickly through a continent the size of North America, carrying a ridiculous amount of food. Of course, there are other ramifications beyond the basics, for example culture wise eating while doing other things is pretty much a given, water is pretty much for irrigation only because the sheer amount of food they eat is enough to supply their body with all of the water they'll need, this leads to a different strategy regarding city placements (Large roads substituting water sources), there is a seaborne city whose sole job is to generate clouds to supply the rest of the continent with rain whenever needed, etc. All in all, lots of worldbuilding to be done, and it's a work in progress.
Great video. I came up with this myself some time ago.
you used avatars mountains for we dont need to know when we do know avatars mountains float because they are filled with unobtainiam which has magnetic properties its magneticly held up
I think Superheroes also fit the bill. If you want an interconnected universe (or even multiverse) of villains, heroes, and passive observers, the rules need to be very consistent and the different parts need to make sense as a whole. If you split them up into different parts that coexist without affecting each other all that much, you can have differing rules and not all parts need to fit each other all that well. The MCU up to Endgame is a good example of keeping consistency and fitting the parts to make up the whole. There were problems, but they were relatively minor and the real reason for a movie being bad was that it was bad on its own. The Modern MCU (as in after Endgame) shows clearly a lack of consistency and a swath of incongruence. They are having many different parts, each having their own rules, which are starting to suffer, but the real hang-up is that these different parts are extremely inconsistent compared to each other, and they don't even try to make sense of how they fit into the world.
However, within all this, there is a simple rule to be found: Less is more. Try to pin down the basics to a few points, especially in regards to how they fit together. If you can't do that, try to trim down the magic system to something that can be explained that way. Depth beats breadth by miles, and having the basics narrowed down is the most important part of that
1:37 what movie is that from?
It switches quickly. If it's the spiral stairs, then MirrorMask (screenplay by Neil Gaiman)- kinda a trippy movie, but I love it. If it's the rotund robot, then it's Return to Oz which I like for its strangeness.
@@Pas5afist thank you
Sounds like Holga learned about magic from Uncle Chan, "Magic must defeat magic."
I think part of the reason the portal staff introduction works is how unserious the scene is.
The bridge has not been foreshadowed, and we expect them to pass it without too much trouble. If they spent half an hour trying to cross this bridge, the pacing would feel off.
The paladin starts describing the rules and they are absurd. The sorcerer triggers the trap, and it is played as a joke. The solution to the problem doesn't need to be serious. We want it to be quick too, so we accept that they introduce a new type of magic.
The currency of fiction is consistency.
It's like Sudoku, right? Anybody could solve it if you could just put any number anywhere. But because there are rules, constraints, limitations, it becomes an interesting puzzle. Even watching other people solve one is fun. This is why heroes in stories coming up with clever solutions is so thrilling.
Consistency is the key to belief. Always thought this. However, there may be a bias. I, and probably you, are logical thinkers. So for us inconsistency breaks belief more than other things.
Personally, I really love the idea of magic as similar to a luminiferous ether, in a format like Warhammer Fantasy's Winds of Magic system.
I really liked D&D: Honor Among Thieves and it does NOT deserve the damning criticism of "you might [like it] too if you like guardians of the galaxy marvel-style humor." You take that back.
the dnd teleport spells limits predates brandon sandersons writing carrer
Thankfully, the movie has an old-school approach of "ingenuity over abilty" to solve many problems the party faces. Otherwise the movie would have lots of 30 to 40 minutes stretches where they stand around and debate which specialised move or sub-sub class feat is best to use in this specific situation.
The staff also works due to the fact it was Olga that is the one who is given it and it’s established she knows nothing of magic so ofc when Simon sees it he’s like oh it’s allows teleportation. It has an ignorant character obtain for the more wise character to realize.
Doric's shape shifting power, while much more simple than the portal staff also followed Sanderson's rules pretty well.
1. Her ability is easy for the audience to understand and predict.
2. While there a few limitations on her powers, (She only have the physical traits of her current form; people know about shapeshifter and can look for tells an animal is shape shifter if they are suspicious; Sofina can sense her.) they were used very well to generate tension.
3. Doric used the same shape shifting power in several different ways to solve several different problems.
I'd argue that it's not quite appropriate to think of magic as needing to obey the rules of that world. iI's not like sci-fi where it's literally about respecting the rules a world of that kind would operate under. Rather, what let's magic work for the reader is more about honoring the way your story relates magic to human level elements like emotions, duty, sacrifice etc etc..
For instance, in a sci-fi story you can send in the intern with the master passcodes to make the giant ship serve your bidding but in a (non-comedy) fantasy novel epic spells can't be done offhandedly by idiots who get lucky (they might find an ancient artifact but that has it's own narrative rules). Even if that's how they'd probably work if you really dug into the details.
This restriction isn't more or less binding than the internal coherence of sci-fi but it is different. For instance, think about the last ride of those ghost dudes in return of the king. In terms of pure world consistency that doesn't really fly. In a sci-fi novel that would be the equivalent of modulating a tachyon beam using your warp core to magically escape the trap in a story which never mentioned tachyons.
But in a fantasy setting it works because it reflects who the character is and seems to flow from their nature. It would have been ridiculous had Boromir gotten to use that kind of trick even though in terms of pure consistency he could just as easily have had an ancestor owed a favor by ghosts.