# Would you ever break the rules of your magic system to create a sense of wonder?



## Annoyingkid (Aug 28, 2017)

Aka a miracle. 

I hear writers afraid of breaking the rules as if magic is really science. Where comes the big surprises then. If the character only ever does what the audience knows they can do.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Aug 28, 2017)

If miracles are possible, then the rules aren't broken.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Aug 28, 2017)

By rules of a magic system, I'm  not defining it expansively, where a miraculous events creates a new rule. I'm using the more useful definition of what has been defined in story as laws of reality and hard limits. Aka "This can't happen", but then happens anyway. Arguments against using miracles instead of established rules of magic to get out of a jam revolve around breaking the audience's trust, but if it's kept rare, and serves the drama instead of taking away, I don't see anything wrong with it.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Aug 28, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> Aka a miracle.
> 
> I hear writers afraid of breaking the rules as if magic is really science. Where comes the big surprises then. If the character only ever does what the audience knows they can do.



Surprises are cool, but they have to _make sense_. If your character achieves something that's too far away from what the reader expects them to be capable of the positive surprise may turn into a negative surprise, or even betrayal.

When reading a story you develop a sense of what's possible and what isn't. If you stretch the limits of what's possible too much without advance warning, the risk is that your reader will got "wtf?" instead of "wow!"


----------



## psychotick (Aug 28, 2017)

Hi,

Sometimes. But you always have to have some plausible (within the rules of the story) reason it can be done. Otherwise you end up creating a deus ex machina and your readers will not be happy. My usual approach to this, if I need my MC to do something impossible, or alternatively for something impossibleto happen for him, is to do some foreshadowing and then make it so that even though it's unexpected, it's not impossible after all. Often I like to make my heroes wrong - as in they have the wrong understanding of what's happening - so that I can do this.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## TheKillerBs (Aug 28, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> By rules of a magic system, I'm  not defining it expansively, where a miraculous events creates a new rule. I'm using the more useful definition of what has been defined in story as laws of reality and hard limits. Aka "This can't happen", but then happens anyway. Arguments against using miracles instead of established rules of magic to get out of a jam revolve around breaking the audience's trust, but if it's kept rare, and serves the drama instead of taking away, I don't see anything wrong with it.



I might break the known rules of magic, but not the true rules because then why would I bother making them. That said, I would tread very carefully around establishing rules I'm going to break later. Maybe hint that there might be more to magic than the characters know. Or only allow the antagonist to break the rules, possibly because they're older/more knowledgeable about magic. In any case, I'd want to avoid making it feel like it was just totally pulled out somewhere the sun don't shine.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Aug 28, 2017)

If something is impossible by my rules, no I don't break them. This doesn't mean that the story world might not believe something is impossible and then it happens.


----------



## Russ (Aug 28, 2017)

I think if you seed the event and/foreshadow it properly a miraculous went outside the normal expectations of magic in your world can make for a classic and entertaining twist.


----------



## pmmg (Aug 28, 2017)

I am not sure if breaking the rules is really the right definition for it. Many themes fall along the lines of there are limits that a large number of people operate in and believe to be hard limits, but a new character comes on board and shows those limits to be self imposed or false, usually by breaking past the limits in climatic fashion near the end of the story. So, while it may be all of the other character say it is impossible, really it is that it was just waiting for the right character to come along and show them its not.

I do think it is not wise to show a hard limit though, and then break it inexplicably. Spiderman, for example, can be shown to swing on web, and that his web shooters will run out, after which we will be stuck and likely fall, that would not be a good time to go...oh yeah, and he can also fly, see he starts flying.

Also, just a point to differ, but I don't think Dues ex Machina necessarily leads to the audience being unhappy. You know, we said it here a thousand times. It all in the execution.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Aug 28, 2017)

Here's my take: Don't state your rules. Then you can't break them. Give examples of what is possible early on, and do something similar later to get the MC out of a jam. If you want to pull a complete surprise out of the hat, have it work _against_ the MC. But anything the MC does to get out of a jam ought to make sense within the context, and have some degree of foreshadowing. Having the MC stumble on an unexpected, un-foreshadowed solution or be miraculously saved by external forces is the very definition of _deus ex machina_.

That's not to say that _deus ex machina_ is always bad. It depends on the story you're writing and how well you execute it.

Edit: I see that pmmg said some of the same thing I did first...


----------



## FifthView (Aug 28, 2017)

There is a great podcast about this on Writing Excuses: Writing Excuses Episode 14: Magic Systems and their Rules | Writing Excuses

In a nutshell, there are two ways of doing magic in a story: Rules based and non-rules based.

Gandalf is the latter type. No one really knows the rules of Gandalf's magic, what he can or cannot do until he does something. The benefit of using this kind of magic is to add a sense of unexpected wonder, surprise, horror, whatever.

The former type, rules-based, allows using magic to solve conflict and overcome obstacles. If the reader knows the rules, then the reader can begin to anticipate what the protag will do whenever he faces an obstacle. 

The difference between using rules-based and non-rules-based magic is that the Gandalf variety can be used as deus ex machina if the protag is suddenly able to miraculously get out of bad situation by doing something that wasn't foreshadowed and doesn't follow any established "rule." The protag could "miraculously" win the final battle, whatever. This could hurt the story. However, a Gandalf type character can still intervene from time to time—but he's not the main protag.

Neither approach is better than the other.

You can have a protag suddenly do something unexpected, like using a rules-based magic in an unanticipated way, but the magic would still follow the rule, just not in a way that the reader would expect.

I'm just summarizing the podcast; there's more to it. One final note: the podcasters point out that those "rules" are basically rules for the reader, or the reader's understanding of the magic, and don't need to be based on reality, science, whatever. So if the reader knows that the protag can summon demons by drinking antifreeze or Liquid-Plumbr, and only that way, then this is a rule and you don't need to explain how demons exist. You might need to explain how the character can survive drinking those things—because that breaks another preexisting rule the reader will bring to the story, heh.


----------



## skip.knox (Aug 28, 2017)

All rules can be broken. Soft rules, hard rules. Indeed, setting up a "this can't be done" and then having it happen is a pretty standard story device.

The real issue is consequences. If you set up a rule, then have someone or something break it, and there are no consequences, or if the consequences are trivial or irrelevant, then what you have broken is your contract with your reader. Do that enough times, and you'll lose your reader.


----------



## FifthView (Aug 28, 2017)

skip.knox said:


> All rules can be broken. Soft rules, hard rules. Indeed, setting up a "this can't be done" and then having it happen is a pretty standard story device.
> 
> The real issue is consequences. If you set up a rule, then have someone or something break it, and there are no consequences, or if the consequences are trivial or irrelevant, then what you have broken is your contract with your reader. Do that enough times, and you'll lose your reader.



^Not sure I agree with the "all rules can be broken" truism here.

If you establish how magic works in the world and that it follows in-world rules, the only way to "break" that set of rules is not really a break. Rather, it's expanding the reader's understanding of the rules, expanding the set, and probably the characters' understanding also.

So let's crib off Sanderson's Mistborn magic, Allomancy, for an example. You could set up a set of rules saying that consuming X metal allows ability B, and go through a list of metals with paired effects. You could spend most of the story within those limits. But late in the story, you could introduce some mysterious, unknown metal or perhaps an antagonist who can create unusual magical alloys—and suddenly your MC gains some miraculous ability by consuming one of these strange metals/alloys. The rule is still in force, but it's just that none of the characters nor the readers knew that the set of potential abilities was larger than anyone could have guessed.

I think that if we establish an in-world "rule" for magic, we can also establish ignorance of the full scope of that rule or its limits....saving revelations of the greater possibilities until later.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 28, 2017)

Are we talking about rules as understood by the characters in the story world, or what are in effect laws that govern how the system works. If the former, then I don't see a problem with breaking them, so long as you avoid cheapening the story through use of _deus ex machina_ etc. If what you really mean is that you've defined laws about how the magic system works, and now you're breaking them, that doesn't make much sense. If you can break them, they were never hard rules or laws to begin with.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Aug 28, 2017)

_Deus ex machina_ is always bad because it's only _deus ex machina_ when it doesn't work, LOL. This is only slightly tongue in cheek.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Aug 28, 2017)

The problem in my story and what I'm trying to avoid is rules that are only on in order to serve the plot and have the MC win but turn off when the character is on the receiving end. That is no good. 

Specifically in this case it's been established that being hit with your elemental weakness will greatly depower anybody if the magic is powerful enough. Even the mightiest gods aren't exempt, although they will recover  fully within about ten minutes or so.

The MC is lightning based  and was already out of power, before taking two hits from a divine earth magic user. The third hit can be seen from outer space and if I followed the rules the she'd be _so_ dead.  

I think it's solved by having a shot of the brother on his knees praying while he reinforcements he got to run around him to try and rescue the MC.   Implied divine intervention. Allowing the MC to hang onto life by a thread.  She can't win the fight, anyway.

It'll work if the reader likes the character but won't if they don't. :throwball:


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Aug 28, 2017)

Nahhh. I like hard fantasy. I like magic to work by consistent laws, and to have many of those laws clearly laid out for the reader. Don't like breaking the rules. 

Even though I'm obsessed with Harry Potter, the magic system irks me. How and why do spells work? You can apparently invent spells; what determines whether a set of words will have a magical effect? I know it's for wonder, and I love that, but in my own writing I like the magic to be down to a science. And, whenever possible, confined. 

"It's magic" doesn't work for me to explain away impossible things. Yeah, but how does the magic work?


----------



## Devor (Aug 28, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Nahhh. I like hard fantasy. I like magic to work by consistent laws, and to have many of those laws clearly laid out for the reader. Don't like breaking the rules.



For me I like having hard rules and not spelling them out, or at least, not until some time after they've been shown.  That way the first reaction is wonder and the second reaction is "....and it totally makes sense!"


----------



## Svrtnsse (Aug 28, 2017)

I thought about this when stumbling home from the pub, and it struck me that if the antagonist breaks the rules it's an interesting plot-twist (which is fine), whereas if the protagonist breaks the rules it's a deus ex machina (which is not fine).

Please be aware that the above statement is overly simplified due to reasons alluded to in the initial part of the sentence.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Aug 28, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Nahhh. I like hard fantasy. I like magic to work by consistent laws, and to have many of those laws clearly laid out for the reader. Don't like breaking the rules.
> 
> Even though I'm obsessed with Harry Potter, the magic system irks me. How and why do spells work? You can apparently invent spells; what determines whether a set of words will have a magical effect? I know it's for wonder, and I love that, but in my own writing I like the magic to be down to a science. And, whenever possible, confined.
> 
> "It's magic" doesn't work for me to explain away impossible things. Yeah, but how does the magic work?



You have to stop at a certain point though. For instance a wizard can throw a fireball. You can explain that by saying they can telekinetically cause enough friction between molecules to set the air on fire. Then the next question is how can they use telekinesis? They evolved a brain organ that can communicate with the basic consciousness of the atoms of the air. How? Through Sigma waves. What are Sigma waves? Pulses of unstable quarks that this organ sends through the intermolecular spaces of the skull. How does it not set all the air around your head on fire? The organ is activated through the brainwaves of concentration. Won't these particles dissipate making it less likely to set the air on fire compared to the instant it left the head? Err..magic. One has to add made up phenomena to explain made up phenomena.

Do you find it a challenge to keep fights from being predictable?


----------



## FifthView (Aug 28, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> Specifically in this case it's been established that being hit with your elemental weakness will greatly depower anybody if the magic is powerful enough. Even the mightiest gods aren't exempt, although they will recover fully within about ten minutes or so.
> 
> The MC is lightning based  and was already out of power, before taking two hits from a divine earth magic user. The third hit can be seen from outer space and if I followed the rules the she'd be _so_ dead.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure I understand everything you are describing, and I don't have the context of the whole story, so I'm not sure if this will work...but maybe the hits are worse while the target has power, and the fact that she's already used up her power means that they didn't hit quite as hard as they normally would?

I'm getting that lightning is opposite earth here. Getting hit by your opposite (or weakness) "will greatly depower," but what if you are already out of power? I can see where a sudden total loss of power, from such a hit, might be a great enough shock (pun, heh) that it can kill. But perhaps already being out of power limits the effect. 

Maybe this would be something that neither the characters nor the readers understand at the moment this scene is happening, but this facet of "the rules" of that world can be made clear later when the group of characters are talking. One says, "God saved you sis!" and someone pipes in to say, "Naw, dude, God had nothing to do with it. She had already used up her power. This is the only thing that saved her." And then of course, they can brawl over the theological implications/dispute, heh.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Aug 28, 2017)

Svrtnsse said:


> I thought about this when stumbling home from the pub, and it struck me that if the antagonist breaks the rules it's an interesting plot-twist (which is fine), whereas if the protagonist breaks the rules it's a deus ex machina (which is not fine).
> 
> Please be aware that the above statement is overly simplified due to reasons alluded to in the initial part of the sentence.



Sometimes the antagonist's breaking of the rules will leave the reader gasping wtf too. But it's less likely, unless the reader has been looking over the antagonist's shoulder as much as the protagonist's.

The protagonist (and thus the reader) might learn of some magical effect specifically because it's used against her by the antagonist.


----------



## FifthView (Aug 28, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> You have to stop at a certain point though. For instance a wizard can throw a fireball. You can explain that by saying they can telekinetically cause enough friction between molecules to set the air on fire. Then the next question is how can they use telekinesis? They evolved a brain organ that can communicate with the basic consciousness of the atoms of the air. How? Through Sigma waves. What are Sigma waves? Pulses of unstable quarks that this organ sends through the intermolecular spaces of the skull. How does it not set all the air around your head on fire? The organ is activated through the brainwaves of concentration. Won't these particles dissipate making it less likely to set the air on fire compared to the instant it left the head? Err..magic. One has to add made up phenomena to explain made up phenomena.
> 
> Do you find it a challenge to keep fights from being predictable?



^This gets back to that thing I mentioned those podcasters saying.

Being "rules based" only means that there are rules the readers understand. It's like saying you can watch a football match on television but you can't watch it on a watermelon. People don't need to know how televisions work and why watermelons don't display televised sporting events on their skin, heh.

I think there's the example of the X-Men. There are certain "rules" to Wolverine's powers, and it'd be irritating if he could suddenly launch lightning bolts when trying to kill an opponent flying 50 feet above him. But we don't need more than "There's a special mutant gene" and "mad scientists laced his bones with adamantium" to explain how he has his own particular set of powers.
_
Edit: Had used apple instead of watermelon for my example, but suddenly realized the loophole in that hah._


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Aug 28, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> The problem in my story and what I'm trying to avoid is rules that are only on in order to serve the plot and have the MC win but turn off when the character is on the receiving end. That is no good.
> 
> Specifically in this case it's been established that being hit with your elemental weakness will greatly depower anybody if the magic is powerful enough. Even the mightiest gods aren't exempt, although they will recover  fully within about ten minutes or so.
> 
> ...



Yeah, when magical conflict escalates, people are realistically going to end up dead. One way to avoid this particular death is to have some object that will help absorb part of the attack. You can go back in your story and introduce a magical device of some sort that is said to have a one-time use, and then destroy it at this point instead of the MC. You can even have fun with the device up until this point, having the MC consider using it before this, but not. There are other takes on this that will work just as well too.


----------



## Penpilot (Aug 28, 2017)

FifthView said:


> There is a great podcast about this on Writing Excuses: Writing Excuses Episode 14: Magic Systems and their Rules | Writing Excuses
> 
> In a nutshell, there are two ways of doing magic in a story: Rules based and non-rules based.
> 
> ...




To add to this, I like to follow Sanderson's first law.

Sanderson?s First Law

With one of my stories I tried to have it both ways. I did it by having two levels of magic. One was very rules bases and had specific limitations. The other was vaguely defined and used that to try and create wonder. But i made sure that the latter was never used to solve problems. 

IMHO the heart of creativity lies within being able to work within limitations and coming up with creative solutions without breaking the rules. 

As others have said you can break the rule if that breaking of the rules has been foreshadowed and set up as an integral part of the story. Otherwise it's just cheating and dishonest and that's IMHO the worst type of infraction a writer can do to the reader.


----------



## psychotick (Aug 28, 2017)

Hi,

Liked Sanderson's post I have to admit. I especially liked the way he linked the idea of the firmness / hardness of the rules of your magic system to the way in which your MC can resolve the crisis. I don't agree with it completely. If you write soft magic as he calls it where the magic is ill-defined, I don't see that there's any reason why your MC can't resolve things with his magic. Yes it makes it more difficult to avoid having the book either fall flat as the suspense dies or else looks contrived, but you can write your way around that. On the other hand I agree completely with the other side of his dimension of hard and soft magic, in that if you have rigidly defined rules of magic, you can't let your MC break them in order to solve the crisis.

All of which ties in neatly to the OP. Would you ever break the rules of your magic system? It sort of depends on the rules themselves. Are they, as was said in the Pirates, rules? Or more sort of guidelines?

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Aug 28, 2017)

FifthView said:


> I'm not sure I understand everything you are describing, and I don't have the context of the whole story, so I'm not sure if this will work...but maybe the hits are worse while the target has power, and the fact that she's already used up her power means that they didn't hit quite as hard as they normally would?
> 
> I'm getting that lightning is opposite earth here. Getting hit by your opposite (or weakness) "will greatly depower," but what if you are already out of power? I can see where a sudden total loss of power, from such a hit, might be a great enough shock (pun, heh) that it can kill. But perhaps already being out of power limits the effect.
> 
> Maybe this would be something that neither the characters nor the readers understand at the moment this scene is happening, but this facet of "the rules" of that world can be made clear later when the group of characters are talking. One says, "God saved you sis!" and someone pipes in to say, "Naw, dude, God had nothing to do with it. She had already used up her power. This is the only thing that saved her." And then of course, they can brawl over the theological implications/dispute, heh.



The impact forces involved in the hit is whats lethal. All being out of power would mean is that she's too tired to evade it now. I can't use the one shot item trick again, as I already used it on a different opponent. Would be cheap to do it again. 

The weakness of the attacker here is toxic waste and polluted environments, much like Captain Planet, but the nearest environment like that is at least 30 miles away. So that's not an option. I'm turning the cliches on its head, here the spirit of the earth is angry that elves and fairies have harmed the environment. 

The deity in question who provides the miracle isn't a vague abstract only defined through scripture but is a prominent character who's one of the main characters the title of the work describes and is a friend of the MC who turned evil but who the MC redeemed and who "died" saving the world. The divine intervention would foreshadow the fact that the character comes back at the end. The theme is to show that the bonds of friendship between the three characters described in the title is unbreakable. 

I'm hoping the reader gives my MC a pass as its accepting the challenge/attention of the earth magic based attacker that allowed the brother and the princess and a baby to get out of there safetly. Its all meant to be very heroic and all that. :showoff:


----------



## psychotick (Aug 28, 2017)

Hi,

Can your MC instead die - but somehow still survive as static electricity in the air?

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## FifthView (Aug 29, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> The deity in question who provides the miracle isn't a vague abstract only defined through scripture but is a prominent character who's one of the main characters the title of the work describes and is a friend of the MC who turned evil but who the MC redeemed and who "died" saving the world. The divine intervention would foreshadow the fact that the character comes back at the end. The theme is to show that the bonds of friendship between the three characters described in the title is unbreakable.
> 
> I'm hoping the reader gives my MC a pass as its accepting the challenge/attention of the earth magic based attacker that allowed the brother and the princess and a baby to get out of there safetly. Its all meant to be very heroic and all that. :showoff:



I think that talk of giving it a pass signals a potential weakness in the delivery.

But the fact that the deity plays such a significant role in the world, among the characters, and in the story is good. It would seem that all you need is adequate foreshadowing, and you'll be fine.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Aug 29, 2017)

Like FifthView said, with some adequate foreshadowing, you might be okay. Is there any indication earlier in the story that divine intervention is something that occasionally happens? An example of another deity exercising divine intervention, say, in favor of the MC's enemies, might be enough foreshadowing.

You have to be careful not to let this escalate into a war of intervening deities -- unless that's what you want.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Aug 29, 2017)

Michael K. Eidson said:


> Like FifthView said, with some adequate foreshadowing, you might be okay. Is there any indication earlier in the story that divine intervention is something that occasionally happens? An example of another deity exercising divine intervention, say, in favor of the MC's enemies, might be enough foreshadowing.
> 
> You have to be careful not to let this escalate into a war of intervening deities -- unless that's what you want.



It is a story of deity(co creator of the universe) who wants to cause less damage to reality and save lives in the long run by resolving divine disputes using grand armies that consists of each universe's inhabitants, instead of direct fights between two gods. The people he's trying to conquer understandably don't want to be forced into a giant meat grinder and have their planet strip mined. 

By book 3 almost all the elf and fairy territories have fallen to him. They're desperately trying to  keep the arch enemy away from the counter offensive against his world, to contain him long enough for the MC to arrive and save the day.

Now she has to take down:

Both creators of the universe. 
1000 transcended elves (super elves)
The enemy's 3 greatest servants, one of who beat her last time.
And finally a second generation deity who is the spirit of the earth. 

The path to victory is elusive, narrow and very easy to stray from. :running:


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Aug 29, 2017)

Personally, I don't think your "miracle" is the _deus ex machina_ that it first sounded like, in that it's not entirely contrived. You can always write the story the way you want, and give it to beta readers. If they all like it, then great. If some of them don't, then maybe you could figure out a not-too-painful fix.


----------



## Addison (Aug 30, 2017)

As long as the Miracle doesn't also serve as a Deus Ex Machina for the story then yes, it's fine. My only...flinch, perse, is if the characters are just running and all of sudden, Boom!, Miracle. Unless there's somekind of precursor then it seems to cross the line from Wonderful Miracle to Unbelievable "Huh?!". It doesn't have to be someone roaring at the sky, spewing a mixed prayer, ground shaking or anything so physical. It could be a sense or some other reaction. Like humidity in the air foreshadows rain, fish disappearing from the lagoon tells you "Shark!" etc. Let there be some kind of foreshadowing that something is coming so the miracle doesn't come out of thin air. Magic comes from somewhere, so miracles aren't an exception if your story has a magical miracle.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Sep 2, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> You have to stop at a certain point though. For instance a wizard can throw a fireball. You can explain that by saying they can telekinetically cause enough friction between molecules to set the air on fire. Then the next question is how can they use telekinesis? They evolved a brain organ that can communicate with the basic consciousness of the atoms of the air. How? Through Sigma waves. What are Sigma waves? Pulses of unstable quarks that this organ sends through the intermolecular spaces of the skull. How does it not set all the air around your head on fire? The organ is activated through the brainwaves of concentration. Won't these particles dissipate making it less likely to set the air on fire compared to the instant it left the head? Err..magic. One has to add made up phenomena to explain made up phenomena.
> 
> Do you find it a challenge to keep fights from being predictable?



That's not exactly what I mean by consistent laws. 

By consistent laws I mean, "People with heat/fire related powers can create heat by accelerating the motion of molecules. They can use this power to do anything from create warmth to start fires. Focusing their powers into a smaller area will enable them to create more intense heat, while heat spread out over a wider area will have to be less great in intensity." People can only have one power or related set of powers if you like. The strength of their powers grows with age and practice; it works this way with all powers. 

Or, say with emotional manipulation powers; there are several different ones, including fear, anger, happiness, etc. i would define things like this power can be used on others, but not on oneself; inflicting or draining away emotions is possible, but draining is more difficult and causes the following symptoms (migraines, etc.) As for the explanation of how they work like you described, powers are thought to be connected to the soul, and to come from some sort of force variously interpreted as a projection of a person's inner self, a prediction of one's destiny, or a divine being. That part is not understood, though it is studied. 

What I DON'T like is answering questions like "how does the flying city float?" with "Oh it's magic," If this magic was shown to have some kind of rules and limitations (like, it takes a team of hundreds of wizards to cast the spells powerful enough to make the city float!) I don't like magic used to do things without a strict explanation of what it can and can't do, or else it just becomes "whatever." 

As for Harry Potter, there's just too many questions. The spells are Dog Latin; what would a wizard that literally spoke Latin do? Why are some words/sounds spells and others not? 

Honestly, what I'm referring to is the book on hiatus and I can't recall having many fight scenes using powers.

As for my current WIP, well...I'm stuck on my magic system being overpowered, so there's that.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Sep 2, 2017)

This brings up an interesting question, though...how much do your characters know about your magic system and how it works? 

like, natural phenomena here on Earth used to be thought of as the work of gods or magic. Eclipses, for instance, were seen as a terrifying omen.

So if said "breaking of the rules" is just something that breaks your MCs' UNDERSTANDING of the rules, I'd be cool with it. It would be like the eclipse...it's not breaking the rules of science, its just something the MC's don't know about. 

I do like my rules fairly well-established and known by the MC's though, or at least have them learn the rules, so maybe I'm contradicting myself...


----------



## Annoyingkid (Sep 2, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> As for Harry Potter, there's just too many questions. The spells are Dog Latin; what would a wizard that literally spoke Latin do? Why are some words/sounds spells and others not?



So you're one of the few people who preferred that the force was explained, with midichlorians communicating with the Jedi's cells?



> So if said "breaking of the rules" is just something that breaks your MCs' UNDERSTANDING of the rules, I'd be cool with it. It would be like the eclipse...it's not breaking the rules of science, its just something the MC's don't know about.



It's not. By the rules my MC would be dead instantly 100% of the time. :showoff: Instead shes badly mutilated but clings to life just about through divine intervention. Which can't be called part of the rules as even the deity providing it  is vulnerable to elemental weakness. But its something I'm willing to accept to unlock some incredible drama. Because thats what magic and powers ultimately are imo, tools to facilitate thrills, conflict and drama. So even if its not watertight, it ultimately isnt about the magic.


----------



## Devor (Sep 2, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> So you're one of the few people who preferred that the force was explained, with midichlorians communicating with the Jedi's cells?



Is that what Dragon said?

There's a difference between setting up some ground rules - some limits on how and why your magic works - and BSing a sciency explanation that has absolutely nothing to do with limits or rules, like whether the force can make lightning or destroy a planet.

In one of my settings the gods left magical artifacts strewn across the world, and have since vowed not to make any more.  So characters know there are artifacts, each connected to one of the gods, but not how many there are or what they do.  There are spirits that appear in areas where enough magic comes together, but it's not clear to every character why the magic gathers or what the spirits will be like or will come to do.  There are serving traditions that raise people their entire lives to utilize different magics that exist in the world, and while each magic can be described in general terms, and in theory used by all, the ways of each tradition are broad and mysterious.*

^ These are the rules of the magic system.  There's one or two things I didn't mention, but there's nothing outside of the system.


*In my desire to keep the details under wraps, I made it sound like something it's not.  The traditions each have a specific role in society, like, say, teaching, performing, or being a travelling judge.  They aren't wizards; the magic they use is extremely subtle.  For instance, a judge might give you advice on how to manipulate your karma (this is the watered down version).


----------



## Annoyingkid (Sep 2, 2017)

Devor said:


> Is that what Dragon said?
> 
> There's a difference between setting up some ground rules - some limits on how and why your magic works - and BSing a sciency explanation that has absolutely nothing to do with limits or rules, like whether the force can make lightning or destroy a planet.



Midichlorians is comparable to what he said :_ "By consistent laws I mean, "People with heat/fire related powers can create heat by accelerating the motion of molecules."
_


> Even though I'm obsessed with Harry Potter, the magic system irks me. How and why do spells work? You can apparently invent spells; what determines whether a set of words will have a magical effect? I know it's for wonder, and I love that, but in my own writing I like the magic to be down to a science.



Midichlorians is taking magic down to a science. So I'm asking if he preferred that. It has everything to do with limits. Someone with lower midichlorians = hard limits in force potential. Makes the force about numbers.


----------



## TheKillerBs (Sep 2, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> Midichlorians is comparable to what he said :_ "By consistent laws I mean, "People with heat/fire related powers can create heat by accelerating the motion of molecules."
> _
> 
> 
> Midichlorians is taking magic down to a science. So I'm asking if he preferred that. It has everything to do with limits. Someone with lower midichlorians = hard limits in force potential. Makes the force about numbers.



But that's wrong, because midichlorians do not exist. It's pseudoscience BS.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Sep 2, 2017)

TheKillerBs said:


> But that's wrong, because midichlorians do not exist. It's pseudoscience BS.



Fictional science. Because one can't explain magic with real, existing science.


----------



## TheKillerBs (Sep 2, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> Fictional science. Because one can't explain magic with real, existing science.



Again, no. DOTA's explanation is pure science with "magic happens" in between. Person does magic, which speeds up molecules, ergo causing heat. Saying you energised the molecules of something is the exact same as saying you heated that something up. Meanwhile, midichlorians remains made-up sciencey-sounding hocus pocus.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Sep 2, 2017)

Thing is, midichlorions don't explain anything. They don't have anything to do with how the force works or what its limits are or what kinds of powers a force user can have, it's just a vague, kind of nonsensical made up thing to supplement another made up thing. 

They don't make sense anyway. Qui-Gon says no life could exist without them. Are they not a life form then? What are they? 

They just make things more confusing instead of defining rules about how force powers can work. So no. Not fond of midichlorions.

Why are we even talking about this? It seems a wide jump in topic.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Sep 2, 2017)

By down to a science, I mean that magic works consistently in ways that can be measured and understood and defined. That's the way i prefer my magic systems. Science works because the laws of nature are consistent, enabling us to make predictions. Likewise i like magic systems to be governed by consistent rules. 

Along with this, I like them to fit nicely with known laws of science, somewhat, but i'm flexible with this. Bend them, sure. Don't smash them to pieces. As in magic causes agitation of molecules, creating heat. (As opposed to magic doing things like causing objects to grow wings or transmuting pure elements. Things where it's very hard to both explain what exactly the magic is doing and why can't that be applied in other, very overpowered ways. A wizard who could split apart atoms and recreate them in different configurations could have power over all matter, kill people at will and create anything he wanted, not to mention create a nuclear explosion...so, if you have a wizard turning lead into gold, or objects into stone, or rocks into biscuits dripping with butter, I'm going to wonder why he can't just turn the dark lord's brain tissues into uranium or his bladder into an angry pigeon with razors for claws. If there's a long alchemical process, I'm still going to wonder why lots of technologies aren't invented. And why there aren't massive amounts of deadly radiation coming from his lab or wherever he works.) 

Not saying i wouldn't accept an alchemist or even write one (given strict rules about the limits of the alchemist's powers, if writing) though. 

I also like them confined, as in, there are lots of things magic can't do. 

This is all just my preference. I'm a hard fantasy type gal, i guess. I've had softer fantasy magic ideas, but they are usually on a very small, mundane scale. Like magical candy or something. I'm tired and I'm not gonna argue.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Sep 3, 2017)

TheKillerBs said:


> Again, no. DOTA's explanation is pure science with "magic happens" in between. Person does magic, which speeds up molecules, ergo causing heat. Saying you energised the molecules of something is the exact same as saying you heated that something up. Meanwhile, midichlorians remains made-up sciencey-sounding hocus pocus.



The "magic happens" part  with a little bit of appropriated real science sprinkled in makes it made-up sciencey-sounding hocus pocus. Dragon defaults to: 



> _powers are thought to be connected to the soul, and to come from some sort of force variously interpreted as a projection of a person's inner self, a prediction of one's destiny, or a divine being. That part is not understood, though it is studied. _



It's either real science or it isn't. Star wars took the concept of cells (real science), added in a fictional element (midchlorians interacting) while DragonAerie took the concept of heat physics (real science) and added a fictional element (see quote). Any difference in principle you argue is splitting hairs. 



> Thing is, midichlorions don't explain anything.



It explains Anakin's force potential, Chosen one status and creates a measurable numerical hierarchy in terms of force potential. 



> They don't make sense anyway. Qui-Gon says no life could exist without them. Are they not a life form then? What are they?



I could pick apart your system the same way. As I established earlier, every explanation you create, creates another question. You cannot explain magic with science. All anyone can do is provide a veneer of scientific language. Aka technobabble.



> wizard who could split apart atoms and recreate them in different configurations could have power over all matter, kill people at will and create anything he wanted, not to mention create a nuclear explosion...so, if you have a wizard turning lead into gold, or objects into stone, or rocks into biscuits dripping with butter, I'm going to wonder why he can't just turn the dark lord's brain tissues into uranium or his bladder into an angry pigeon with razors for claws. If there's a long alchemical process,



Which is why I would argue that mixing magic and science isn't a good thing. It opens you to plotholes. More so than if you just stayed vague. While you can say it's your opinion and you like what you like, and that's true, but it more objectively does is put the focus on the magic, which leaves it open to more scrutiny, and restricts the ways in which magic can facilitate the narrative which is desirable or not depending on the tone of the setting. Meaning he reason why Harry Potter's magic isn't explained much is because to do so would inhibit the zany adventure and make it something more grounded and creatively conservative.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Sep 3, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> The "magic happens" part  with a little bit of appropriated real science sprinkled in makes it made-up sciencey-sounding hocus pocus. Dragon defaults to:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, no one will be forcing you to read my books, if it bothers you this much.

I can defend my worldbuilding choices into infinity, but in the end, the only reason I can offer for why my world is the way it is, is that I like it that way. There's no way to say any one approach is "better" than another, and I'm not saying there is. I follow the one that suits me.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 3, 2017)

It is worth noting that something isn't precluded from being scientific just because there are open questions or things that can't be explained at the moment. It is scientific when it is subject to the scientific method. The fact that you reach a "no one knows yet" point doesn't change this--happens in real science all the time.


----------



## glutton (Sep 3, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> so, if you have a wizard turning lead into gold, or objects into stone, or rocks into biscuits dripping with butter, I'm going to wonder why he can't just turn the dark lord's brain tissues into uranium or his bladder into an angry pigeon with razors for claws.


Why wouldn't a "dark lord" have resistance to magic from a common wizard? If you prefer your magic to have limits, I'd think a natural limit for it to have would be what (or who) it can effect and to what extent.

For my works magic often doesn't fare too well against "cute girls".  For example the dark lord's death energy that kills hundreds of men at a touch within seconds, when pumped directly inside the body of one of the Baeforce champions for an extended time... only hurts her but not enough to stop her from physically ripping his head off. lol


----------



## skip.knox (Sep 3, 2017)

I see two different things being argued here, one inside the story and one outside.

Inside the story, the only thing the author need do is engage a reader. Note I do not say engage *every* reader. There will always be someone unconvinced by your magic system, no matter how logical it appears to you. The goal is to convince most readers that what happens within the confines of the story makes sense.

Outside the story, it's another matter entirely. That's where all these arguments about scientific explanations of magic take place, because now we're operating under real-world physics. There's no need to hold the story to that standard, nor is there much to be gained by trying to impose or inject serious science into a work of fantasy. Breaking out of real-world science is part of the point of fantasy. One kind of logic for inside, another for outside. Much of the disagreement I'm saying stems from mingling the two.

Or, as the great philosopher Marx once said: 
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.


----------

