"You're overthinking fiction"

[MonkeySage]

I'm constantly told I overanalyze everything. I overthink the rules of a setting, I'm told, for example I'm rarely satisfied with "because magic"(I think "because magic" is lazy writing even when magic exists in the setting).

The thing is, overthinking and analyzing stuff is part of the fun, for me. I overanalyze my favorite works of fiction, even my favorite tv show isn't spared this treatment.

I'm not to the point where I simply must know how something works, especially when the writer hasn't even put thought to it, but I enjoy speculating.

On the otherhand, I've had a discussion once with a guy I've nicknamed "Sheldon Cooper", for his insistance that I explain the exact mechanics for why a certain creature in one of my D&D setting could be killed with jaded weapons. I think he pushed even my limits, since I established that I made that choice more for emotional significance than any other considerations.

Does it annoy you when other people "overthink" the internal logic of a fictional setting? Are you an overthinker?

[LaZodiac]

I'm constantly told I overanalyze everything. I overthink the rules of a setting, I'm told, for example I'm rarely satisfied with "because magic"(I think "because magic" is lazy writing even when magic exists in the setting).

The thing is, overthinking and analyzing stuff is part of the fun, for me. I overanalyze my favorite works of fiction, even my favorite tv show isn't spared this treatment.

I'm not to the point where I simply must know how something works, especially when the writer hasn't even put thought to it, but I enjoy speculating.

On the otherhand, I've had a discussion once with a guy I've nicknamed "Sheldon Cooper", for his insistance that I explain the exact mechanics for why a certain creature in one of my D&D setting could be killed with jaded weapons. I think he pushed even my limits, since I established that I made that choice more for emotional significance than any other considerations.

Does it annoy you when other people "overthink" the internal logic of a fictional setting? Are you an overthinker?

Depends on if the logic is sound or not. In Gurren Lagann everything works and makes sense because "being a badass" is a literal power source capable of doing these things. So it works. But there are other series and works where it isn't sound...I just can't think of any.

The problem of course here comes from the whole contention of "what is and isn't logical". I figure if it makes an in universe sense, it's alright. I think you can have a "it's magic" explanation, with the idea being "in this universe magic works that way". But you then have to make sure it's consistent.

Also wow, Sheldon Cooper? Does the guy realize you're giving him the deepest possible cut?

[Haruki-kun]

I tend to overthink things as well, but I accept "because magic" in most cases. "Because magic" is something that prevents fixating on why something is possible (Superman can fly because he has superpowers, simple as that) and allows me to focus instead what the effects of it being possible would be.

[Draconium]

If you enjoy "overthinking" fictional worlds and powers, then that's fine. It increases your enjoyment. That's a good thing! I might ask you not to discuss it with me, though, if it's something I would prefer not to get to overly analytical about - usually, the reason for that is because I know it won't hold up.

[Lethologica]

There's no limit on the extent or fineness of detail one can acceptably discuss. The key element is perspective. For example, consistency and clarity are generally good writing practices, but they are not prime directives to be held above all else. What may look like lazy writing at the level of fine detail may in fact be economy of expression at the narrative level, and it's not always clear where the line should be drawn. There are other ways of overthinking fiction, of course--each with their own virtues, and each with their own failures of perspective.

[Fri]

What a lot of people (creator and consumer both) miss is that what needed in fiction isn't realism or minutiae details of how everything works, it's consistency.

So basically, if at the beginning it's shown that magic do X with X rules, what make it more satisfying is that magic keep doing X with X rules, not that the author explain in details what X rules is or how X rules work in real life by changing molecule weight, or having magic do Y three chapters later but with detailed explanation with "this still work within X rules because *convoluted explanation*"

Of course there's exception for everything, but there's exception for everything.

[The New Bruceski]

Sanderson’s First Law of Magics: An author’s ability to solve conflict with magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic.

Consistency is key here and some stories can get away with it more than others. Tolkien, for (the classic) example, keeps magic strange and wonderful and powerful but also rare. If someone does something magic (or "because they're an elf" which is the same thing) it gets a pass because it's used as scenery not as obstacle-clearing. Meanwhile Brandon Sanderson likes to noodle around in magic systems, so he'll have clearer limits even if he doesn't go as far as "it takes X units of stormlight to fly for one second". Mistborn is interesting in that respect because it starts with the people *using* the local magic system not totally aware of how it works, but it's structured enough that when new parts are discovered it's understandable how they fit in with the rest. And a couple of places where characters outright BREAK the rules are plot points of the "maybe we have the rules wrong" variety.

I've found when reading stories, though, that I'll sometimes be much more willing to accept fudging than in other books, with no clear reason why. I find Harry Potter's "magic from a book ago doesn't exist" a bit frustrating while Zelazny's Amber uses "if I can imagine it, I can make it real" and I shrug and keep reading.

[Giggling Ghast]

"Because magic" is a perfectly valid explanation for basic rules of the universe, IMO. If you're asking how dragons fly or why werewolves turn at the full moon and "because magic" doesn't satisfy you, then you're overthinking things.

[The Troubadour]

Yeah, but if Dr. Strange suddenly conjures money out of thin air when it was a plot point in an earlier issue that he was running low on funds, that's bad writing.

[danzibr]

Sanderson’s First Law of Magics: An author’s ability to solve conflict with magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic.
What are others' thoughts on this? It's far too presumptuous for me to like it, regardless of whether it's sound advice.

[The Troubadour]

What are others' thoughts on this? It's far too presumptuous for me to like it, regardless of whether it's sound advice.

It's sort of the fantastical equivalent to the Fair Play rule for mystery novels, I'd say. I like it.

[DigoDragon]

What a lot of people (creator and consumer both) miss is that what needed in fiction isn't realism or minutiae details of how everything works, it's consistency.

Yeah, I agree with this. Even if the explanation is "Because magic", I can accept it as long as the magic gives the same result for the same input.

[GolemsVoice]

Yeah, but if Dr. Strange suddenly conjures money out of thin air when it was a plot point in an earlier issue that he was running low on funds, that's bad writing.

That's however more a case of lazy writing or inconsistency, and a pretty glaring error. Overanalyzing means focusing on details that are not all that relevant to the story at hand.

Me, I like some mystery and some vagueness, and overanalyzing can annoy me. It can be fun, though, too.

[Kitten Champion]

Overthinking is fine, I personally get annoyed with nitpicking a work to death. I tend to want to look at the success or failure of a work as a body rather than jumping on every possible problematic detail at any point therein. I'm not saying such an approach to fiction - or any approach for that matter - is invalid, just I find it emotionally and mentally exhausting to go through a work with a fine tooth comb in order to criticize it when the sum total of that work left me satisfied or displeased in the end.

That's different from, say, questioning the politics of Droids in the Star Wars galaxy, poking around existential quandaries posed of the Toy Story movies, or surmising the larger socioeconomic implications of Elsa's ice powers. Going beyond the immediate implications of the text to see what can be sussed out can be fun.

[Giggling Ghast]

Yeah, but if Dr. Strange suddenly conjures money out of thin air when it was a plot point in an earlier issue that he was running low on funds, that's bad writing.

You're talking about a plot hole, which is a whole other barrel of monkeys. I'm talking about questioning the functionality of the impossible.

"How could magic animate that statue? It wasn't made with moving parts!"

"Dude, it's magic."

"UNACCEPTABLE! THOUSAND YEARS DUNGEON!"

[Orm-Embar]

It's sort of the fantastical equivalent to the Fair Play rule for mystery novels, I'd say. I like it.

Well put and thank you for that reference.

"Do you promise that your detectives shall well and truly detect the crimes presented to them using those wits which it may please you to bestow upon them and not placing reliance on nor making use of Divine Revelation, Feminine Intuition, Mumbo Jumbo, Jiggery-Pokery, Coincidence, or Act of God?"

[Jormengand]

What a lot of people (creator and consumer both) miss is that what needed in fiction isn't realism or minutiae details of how everything works, it's consistency.

So basically, if at the beginning it's shown that magic do X with X rules, what make it more satisfying is that magic keep doing X with X rules, not that the author explain in details what X rules is or how X rules work in real life by changing molecule weight, or having magic do Y three chapters later but with detailed explanation with "this still work within X rules because *convoluted explanation*"

This is, funnily enough, known as "Magic A is Magic A (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicAIsMagicA)".

[Admiral Squish]

I have this problem with a lot of stuff, even the stuff I write myself. Like, I'll go back through it and realize that I messed up how aether harvesting works in my fantasy story. Or I described the relationship between aether, anima, and mana wrong. Thankfully, I can fix my own work.

One thing that bugs the hell out of me is when there's cross-breeding between species. Like, I can understand half-orcs if the 'orc' is just a type of fantasy hominid, but if orcs come from space or evolved from some different stock, it will annoy the hell out of me. Sci-fi that does that with aliens prompts furious rants. No, it doesn't matter if they're shape-shifters, you need a very specific genetic composition to be sexually compatible. The likelihood that the aliens even use DNA, let alone having a compatible number of chromosomes, is inconceivably small!

Almost makes me wish I didn't know science so I could actually let go and enjoy that stuff.

[danzibr]

It's sort of the fantastical equivalent to the Fair Play rule for mystery novels, I'd say. I like it.

Well put and thank you for that reference.

"Do you promise that your detectives shall well and truly detect the crimes presented to them using those wits which it may please you to bestow upon them and not placing reliance on nor making use of Divine Revelation, Feminine Intuition, Mumbo Jumbo, Jiggery-Pokery, Coincidence, or Act of God?"
I think the fact that Brandon Sanderson stated it as a law is what bothers me.

[DigoDragon]

"UNACCEPTABLE! THOUSAND YEARS DUNGEON!"

"How would the dungeon even last that long? You have to keep it properly maintained and in that time the country could collapse, or change hands, or..." :smallwink:

[Maryring]

"How would the dungeon even last that long? You have to keep it properly maintained and in that time the country could collapse, or change hands, or..." :smallwink:

"But it didn't!" And this is where I can either love or hate overthinking fiction, because I find nothing wrong in analysing a work to figure out the smaller details, and get a better grasp of everything that's going on within the story. But I get incredibly annoyed when this "overthinking" turns into minor quibbling over probabilities or loud proclamations of what should or shouldn't happen. All works of fiction are by their very definition not real. There is *always* room for divergences big and small and if something happens in the story that does not immediately line up with what you'd expect from the real world, then you should question "Okay, *why* is this different?" rather than demanding that "this different thing shouldn't be here."

Am I making sense? I do hope so.

[Rodin]

There are really two places where overthinking bothers me.

The first is overthinking fantasy/Sci-Fi problems that are universal within a work. For example, there is little point in complaining about the first time around in a time travel story that reveals earlier things happening in the story were influenced by time travel. The question becomes "How did they know to travel back in time the first time?", and that is such a prevalent problem that it's better just not to think about it. Teleportation is another biggie for this...why didn't the villain just Scry-and-Die the heroes the instant they were asleep? The answer is that it would make a bad story.

And that leads into my second complaint - complaining when the story goes one way, but instead goes in another plausible one. Saying "Character would do X, but character did Y instead, ergo you are a bad author" drives me right up a wall. The character didn't do X because he didn't think of it, or because there was some circumstance that prevented it that you, the reader, didn't know about. Accept it and move on.

Now, that's very different from "What if character did X? What would have happened in the long run?" Those sorts of discussions can be fascinating, like the one I saw in this forum about "What if Xykon went to Girard's gate first?" That lead into a whole discussion about whether the Draketooths could fend off Xykon, whether the Order would have gotten there in time to stop him, etc. That's rather fun.

[The Troubadour]

Teleportation is another biggie for this...why didn't the villain just Scry-and-Die the heroes the instant they were asleep? The answer is that it would make a bad story.

That's a generous point of view. While it wouldn't necessarily be a deal breaker for me, I do consider "it would make for a bad story" to often (not always, but often) be another way of saying "the author couldn't think of a better way to tell their story".


You're talking about a plot hole, which is a whole other barrel of monkeys. I'm talking about questioning the functionality of the impossible.

Hm, I see what you mean. It's just that "it's magic" so often tends to be used as an "explanation" for plot holes that I've become suspicious of it.


Well put and thank you for that reference.

My pleasure. :-)

[Reddish Mage]

I tend to overthink things as well, but I accept "because magic" in most cases. "Because magic" is something that prevents fixating on why something is possible (Superman can fly because he has superpowers, simple as that) and allows me to focus instead what the effects of it being possible would be.

Superman can fly because he absorbs yellow sun energy unless exposed to Kryptonite.


"How would the dungeon even last that long? You have to keep it properly maintained and in that time the country could collapse, or change hands, or..." :smallwink:

That's why your sure to make a dungeon deep and hard to find and you forget it exists until a thousand year later a hodgepodge team of 6-8 misfits run across it...


You know nothing exists in a vacuum. There's always an explanation on how magic work or dungeons for that example...

[Ruslan]

Does it annoy you when other people "overthink" the internal logic of a fictional setting?Not at all.

As long as they don't feel the need to constantly share the result of their overthinking, of course. "Oooh, I spotted this small inconsistency in a work of fiction, now listen carefully how smart I am" ...

[Traab]

Depends on if the logic is sound or not. In Gurren Lagann everything works and makes sense because "being a badass" is a literal power source capable of doing these things. So it works. But there are other series and works where it isn't sound...I just can't think of any.

The problem of course here comes from the whole contention of "what is and isn't logical". I figure if it makes an in universe sense, it's alright. I think you can have a "it's magic" explanation, with the idea being "in this universe magic works that way". But you then have to make sure it's consistent.

Also wow, Sheldon Cooper? Does the guy realize you're giving him the deepest possible cut?

Too be fair, most bleach/naruto/one piece style anime run on rule of badass to a greater or lesser extent. It just isnt official. Basically, you cant truly defeat the main character, because he will always suddenly get the willpower to stand back up and unleash a badass attack or whatever to turn the tables. No this doesnt happen 100% of the time, but its a REALLY common trait in this type of story. Basically, willpower lets you ignore lethal wounds, total exhaustion, and being utterly outmatched.

[Lethologica]

Too be fair, most bleach/naruto/one piece style anime run on rule of badass to a greater or lesser extent. It just isnt official. Basically, you cant truly defeat the main character, because he will always suddenly get the willpower to stand back up and unleash a badass attack or whatever to turn the tables. No this doesnt happen 100% of the time, but its a REALLY common trait in this type of story. Basically, willpower lets you ignore lethal wounds, total exhaustion, and being utterly outmatched.
I don't know if pointing out that the thing Gurren Lagann was burlesquing actually happens unironically in other shows implies that we should "be fair" to those shows. YMMV on how much magical willpower actually affects your enjoyment of those shows, of course.

[Lord Raziere]

Too be fair, most bleach/naruto/one piece style anime run on rule of badass to a greater or lesser extent. It just isnt official. Basically, you cant truly defeat the main character, because he will always suddenly get the willpower to stand back up and unleash a badass attack or whatever to turn the tables. No this doesnt happen 100% of the time, but its a REALLY common trait in this type of story. Basically, willpower lets you ignore lethal wounds, total exhaustion, and being utterly outmatched.

Ah yes, I have this idea for a story/campaign to explore what happens when action anime like that meets a universe where that doesn't work, where the "willpower lets you overcome everything" is taken away and all the darker implications are explored. call it tvtropes deconstruction nonsense or whatever but...I want to do it.

[Traab]

Ah yes, I have this idea for a story/campaign to explore what happens when action anime like that meets a universe where that doesn't work, where the "willpower lets you overcome everything" is taken away and all the darker implications are explored. call it tvtropes deconstruction nonsense or whatever but...I want to do it.

The main characters die in the first handful of chapters picking a fight with the big boss when he makes his first appearance. Normally the big boss trounces them, they survive, and unlock new abilities, or even figure out how to use a wind scar technique or something to eke a lucky win. This time they get gutted and left laying in a pool of their own juices. Because not knowing when you are beaten is a great way to get killed.

[Ruslan]

The main characters die in the first handful of chapters picking a fight with the big boss when he makes his first appearance. Normally the big boss trounces them, they survive, and unlock new abilities, or even figure out how to use a wind scar technique or something to eke a lucky win. This time they get gutted and left laying in a pool of their own juices. Because not knowing when you are beaten is a great way to get killed.
First ten minutes of of Game of Thrones Season 1 Episode 1. :smallbiggrin:

[Lord Raziere]

The main characters die in the first handful of chapters picking a fight with the big boss when he makes his first appearance. Normally the big boss trounces them, they survive, and unlock new abilities, or even figure out how to use a wind scar technique or something to eke a lucky win. This time they get gutted and left laying in a pool of their own juices. Because not knowing when you are beaten is a great way to get killed.

.....eh, more plot to it than that....by cutting it so short and focusing only on that one trope, you leave out a lot of the other parts you have to examine to do it properly in my mind.

I mean yes it would start out doing that, but then there more than just the beginning of the journey, you have to examine the end of it as well, and how its dark even for the people that have succeeded.

[Traab]

.....eh, more plot to it than that....by cutting it so short and focusing only on that one trope, you leave out a lot of the other parts you have to examine to do it properly in my mind.

I mean yes it would start out doing that, but then there more than just the beginning of the journey, you have to examine the end of it as well, and how its dark even for the people that have succeeded.

True, if they kept the mindset, they would possibly win but be so scarred and ruined by the adventures (How many times has ichigos torso been speared by something massive?) that they would be awful wrecks. And possibly have lost a lot of their friends and fellows on the journey. Mad eye moody would look on them with pity.

[ThinkMinty]

Not at all.

As long as they don't feel the need to constantly share the result of their overthinking, of course. "Oooh, I spotted this small inconsistency in a work of fiction, now listen carefully how smart I am" ...


This, pretty much. It's not the nitpicking, it's how easily it can lend itself to funkilling smugness.


One thing that bugs the hell out of me is when there's cross-breeding between species. Like, I can understand half-orcs if the 'orc' is just a type of fantasy hominid, but if orcs come from space or evolved from some different stock, it will annoy the hell out of me. Sci-fi that does that with aliens prompts furious rants. No, it doesn't matter if they're shape-shifters, you need a very specific genetic composition to be sexually compatible. The likelihood that the aliens even use DNA, let alone having a compatible number of chromosomes, is inconceivably small!

Almost makes me wish I didn't know science so I could actually let go and enjoy that stuff.

See, I came up with an in-universe explanation for cross-species in my atomic fantasy thing is a thing, because I didn't want to let science ruin the fun of half-elves, or the guy who's half-dragon n' half-ogre who's a snarky supreme court justice, or the various other hybrids. I'll share it because it's not trade-secret, just kinda funny.

So, there's mojo, the radioactive, magical quintessence blossoming forth from every living thing that warps reality. It's what makes using magic tools possible for everyone, and it's where spellcasters usually get the juice for their spells from. However, it does have...side-effects. Mojo responds to how you're feeling, so it'll pool and surge in people's downstairs areas when they're Doing the Dew; the mojo might burst at the finish due to the build up, and that sudden release of radioactive nether-tingles can make gametes a lot more open-minded. There's a variety of methods for getting around it, but people don't always use protection anyways, so that's where hybrids come from. Well, that and a world where avoiding the "pretty good races, ugly evil races" and "always evil, always good" thing means there's a lot of hot Orks n' whatnot.

...yes, sometimes this leads to a two mommies scenario.

So it's not quite because magic, more...because magic orgasms.

Much sillier; much more fun than going so hard-on sci-fi to the point where every grain of sand has to file a tax return in triplicate or your work is considered impossible childish nonsense for daring to put fun, characterization, and storytelling above the kind of scientific rigidity you need a degree or five to be entertained by.
If this idea somehow raised more questions than it answers, ask me in a PM.

[GolemsVoice]

The thing is, it also depends on what kind of media I am consuming: if I watch "The Bourne Casino - Mission Implausible" and the hero jumps through an explosion with his beautiful girlfriend and an impeccable tuxedo, I don't care if the explosion would have killed them, becaus that's not what I came for. If I'm watching "The Realistic Tale of Real Spaceships", it's fun to point out how the science that is presented as plausible actually isn't.

[dps]

"How would the dungeon even last that long? You have to keep it properly maintained and in that time the country could collapse, or change hands, or..." :smallwink:

Meh, the Tower of London is almost that old.

Anyway, as long as you aren't at the point where analyzing a work in detail lessens your enjoyment of it, you're not over-thinking it.

When discussing a work with other people, if they start complaining that you're over-thinking it, the problem isn't your approach to fiction so much as your social skills (this applies mostly to in-person discussions, not those on the internet, where you don't get a lot of the subtle hints you should pick up on in RL conversation).

[Olinser]

To me the key point is how the CREATOR has framed their world, and whether they stick to the rules that THEY have stated govern their world.

If a creator is content to handwave a lot of stuff and not really explain how teleportation/telekinesis/energy weapons/FTL travel/magic power, etc, actually work, I'm pretty willing to hand wave it in favor of letting the story flow.

If they spend an entire chapter exhaustively explaining exactly how a particular aspect of the world works, and then a book later somebody violates those rules, then picking apart how their characters violate their own universe's rules is 100% fair game.

Now, one caveat - nothing says that characters in a story have to be TRUTHFUL about how their science/magic works. If they are explaining how their magic works to somebody else, and it later comes out they intentionally lied about it for their own purposes, that's completely acceptable.

For instance, if a character just says 'activate the teleporter!' and is immediately teleported to their target location, fine, they can use that whenever they want. If the character spends 10 minutes talking about the fact that they can only teleport to specific locations with receiving pads and can only teleport 2 characters at once, and then 20 minutes later they teleport 5 characters to a random desert, it's perfectly acceptable to call shenanigans on the writers.

On the other side of the scales, if a character explains to somebody from a different land that they can only teleport 2 characters twice a day, and then a week later teleports an army into the other guy's city and announces he lied, that's perfectly fine.

[Killer Angel]

Depends on if the logic is sound or not. In Gurren Lagann everything works and makes sense because "being a badass" is a literal power source capable of doing these things. So it works.

Another notable example is warhammer 40k. Ork vehicles go faster when they're red because Orks think they do.



The thing is, it also depends on what kind of media I am consuming: if I watch "The Bourne Casino - Mission Implausible" and the hero jumps through an explosion with his beautiful girlfriend and an impeccable tuxedo, I don't care if the explosion would have killed them, becaus that's not what I came for. If I'm watching "The Realistic Tale of Real Spaceships", it's fun to point out how the science that is presented as plausible actually isn't.

Yeah, pretty much.

[DigoDragon]

That's why your sure to make a dungeon deep and hard to find and you forget it exists until a thousand year later a hodgepodge team of 6-8 misfits run across it...
You know nothing exists in a vacuum. There's always an explanation on how magic work or dungeons for that example...

The joke being that dungeons are often forgotten for centuries where they do remain in a vacuum for that long. The air is perfectly clean, the water potable, and Skyrim seems to believe that you can still find perfectly edible apples in the barrels buried deep in the bottom levels. :smalltongue:

I've been a Dungeon Master for a long time, so I tend to over-analyze dungeons pretty hard when I'm a player.



Meh, the Tower of London is almost that old.

But it is being maintained though.

[Rodin]

The thing is, it also depends on what kind of media I am consuming: if I watch "The Bourne Casino - Mission Implausible" and the hero jumps through an explosion with his beautiful girlfriend and an impeccable tuxedo, I don't care if the explosion would have killed them, becaus that's not what I came for. If I'm watching "The Realistic Tale of Real Spaceships", it's fun to point out how the science that is presented as plausible actually isn't.

Of course, franchise history also matters here.

I'm perfectly fine with crazy stuff happening in the Bourne movies, because from day 1 that's been the premise - crazy action hero stuff, car chases, explosions, yadda yadda.

The exact same thing in the Mission Impossible movies infuriates me, because they're based on a TV series where such things didn't happen. They were secret agents with the emphasis on secret, and the plans often went off without a hitch and virtually always succeeded after a bit of improvisation. Tom Cruise, on the other hand, is the worst IMF agent to ever live because his plans constantly fail and he resorts to "beat the villain up with my fists and/or blow him up" after destroying whatever location the heist is taking place in this time. If they hadn't gone with the Mission Impossible brand I'd be a heckuva lot more forgiving.

[LaZodiac]

Another notable example is warhammer 40k. Ork vehicles go faster when they're red because Orks think they do.

Yeah, pretty much.

Except that's been explained that Ork's are naturally psionic but don't know it, to the degree that if their mind assumes something, their psychic powers make it true. It's still valid, your point, but it IS explained.

[Reddish Mage]

I find it odd just how much of the things I found friends or acquaintances point out as being obviously implausible, impossible or a plot-hole is actually explained in the show. The critic just hasn't paid very much attention.

[LibraryOgre]

Does it annoy you when other people "overthink" the internal logic of a fictional setting? Are you an overthinker?

My tumblr is literally named "Overthinking It" because I started it while watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer and wanted to yell about how stupid the Watchers were.

[Fragenstein]

Except that's been explained that Ork's are naturally psionic but don't know it, to the degree that if their mind assumes something, their psychic powers make it true. It's still valid, your point, but it IS explained.

I once created a Mutants and Masterminds hero based on this concept -- although mine was drawn from action movies where ANY car that a hero drove was superior to EVERY car owned by villains. 'Mainly an answer to the Fast/Furious movies that I love despite the flaws.

He actually was aware of his power, though. He could consciously manipulate the performance of any vehicle he was in down to the molecular level. Improve speed, handling, make repairs on the fly... that sort of thing. He was a fun guy to play.

But then he ran afoul of gypsies. Things did not end well...

[Aotrs Commander]

"It's magic, I don't have to explain it" is the absolute fastest way to get me to immediate cease to value something.

If the author can't be bothered to think about it, then it's clearly not worth my time.

I will tolerate - to a degree - "it's magic/technology" as an explanation, provided it is sensibly lensed (i.e at least not debilerately refusing to even try to explain and being smug about it) and ideally with some attempt to say how magic/technology did it. It doesn't even have to be that deep, but I do expect the author to have at least spent a little time thinking about it. (And also, as said above, consistency.)



Myself, I tend to spend HOURS of research for quest-writing to ensure the basic details are RIGHT before I will slather over the gaps with "bits I/current science cannot actually explain so assume magic/technology/exotic material."

"It's magic" is not an acceptable explanation. "It's an alloy of titanium with some unfamilar, possibly bio-engineered organic compound/reinforced by magic" is. (I will also accept the in-universe "we don't know how it works; we have a few theories (expound), but we don't actually know.)



Fundementally, I just do not believe in "there is no explanation" because there always is. There may be an explanation that is beyond current technology, knowledge or thuamthergy to FIND, but doesn't mean there isn't one.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I start with "what is the author trying to do with this story?" and aim to approach the story on its own terms. I don't apply a realism analysis to Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

I think that, most frequently, this complaint is along the lines of "if you're analyzing it in hypercritical detail, you aren't the audience for this story", and that's totally okay. Not every story is for everyone, and in some cases there's more important things about a story than the precise details.

I think people tend to use this defensively when someone gets caught up on the specific details of a story, and starts criticizing it as valueless because of those details, and I really sympathize with that, because I think you need to take stock of the story as a whole. Sometimes you have to accept that not everything about a story hangs together perfectly.

[Traab]

"It's magic, I don't have to explain it" is the absolute fastest way to get me to immediate cease to value something.

If the author can't be bothered to think about it, then it's clearly not worth my time.

I will tolerate - to a degree - "it's magic/technology" as an explanation, provided it is sensibly lensed (i.e at least not debilerately refusing to even try to explain and being smug about it) and ideally with some attempt to say how magic/technology did it. It doesn't even have to be that deep, but I do expect the author to have at least spent a little time thinking about it. (And also, as said above, consistency.)



Myself, I tend to spend HOURS of research for quest-writing to ensure the basic details are RIGHT before I will slather over the gaps with "bits I/current science cannot actually explain so assume magic/technology/exotic material."

"It's magic" is not an acceptable explanation. "It's an alloy of titanium with some unfamilar, possibly bio-engineered organic compound/reinforced by magic" is. (I will also accept the in-universe "we don't know how it works; we have a few theories (expound), but we don't actually know.)



Fundementally, I just do not believe in "there is no explanation" because there always is. There may be an explanation that is beyond current technology, knowledge or thuamthergy to FIND, but doesn't mean there isn't one.

Speaking of magic systems, to pick on david eddings some more, at least he followed a general KISS style with his magic. Either its will and the word, with a few specific exceptions and otherwise all is possible, or its all basically prayer to the gods and you can be as specific as you have to so long as you can speak the language properly. The only limits being, "Will the gods grant that prayer?" And, "Can I remember the right words since im praying in a foreign language here?"

Its interesting because, you see that the author doesnt HAVE to go into a deep 50 page description of his magic system, its limits and restrictions, and still churn out an acceptable magic system. And too be honest, I think the people who DO go deep into the mechanics are basically asking for trouble. The more rules you establish, the easier it is to accidentally break one. Its fine if you can pull it off, I enjoy a good deep discussion on the rules and mechanics of magic as much as the next guy, its just, dont feel you HAVE to go deep into minutiae.

[LibraryOgre]

Speaking of magic systems, to pick on david eddings some more, at least he followed a general KISS style with his magic. Either its will and the word, with a few specific exceptions and otherwise all is possible, or its all basically prayer to the gods and you can be as specific as you have to so long as you can speak the language properly. The only limits being, "Will the gods grant that prayer?" And, "Can I remember the right words since im praying in a foreign language here?"


And there wasn't any real indication that the gods would ever not answer a prayer made... they usually seemed to handle it on autopilot. Though there was the one knight in the Tamuli who couldn't do magic because his voice was too deep for Aphrael to hear. ;-)

To counter your "Too many details causes problems", I'd point to Katharine Kerr's Deverry novels. A very detailed magic system, but largely consistent once you understand it. Defining your metaphysics constricts what you can do, but it also provides reasonable limits if you let people know what they are.

[Traab]

True, and as I said, it can work just fine going in depth, its just that it makes it easier to stumble as well. Also with aphrael, dont forget that when you have a direct line to a goddess like sparhawk does you dont even need to speak the language or even make the specific request since she knew about it.

"Oh REALLY sparhawk! Thats incredibly improper!"
"You know both languages, what does it matter?"

(paraphrased)

And yeah, the prayers are basically on autopilot, its never made clear if the gods are able to tell and decide on every spell cast by every follower barring exceptions like sephrina and sparhawk since she had a close connection to them. Like when sephrina bluffed and started to cast a death curse on someone to get his attention, aphrael was VERY emphatic that she wouldnt grant that one. We dont know if that was because she is always connected to her high priestess, or if trying to cast a death curse would always grab her notice from any follower.

[jseah]

And too be honest, I think the people who DO go deep into the mechanics are basically asking for trouble. The more rules you establish, the easier it is to accidentally break one.
It's easier if you first establish the premises and build outwards from there. If you start with "this is what I want to happen" first, then you are asking for trouble.

[Monkplayer]

If your looking for a plausible story line that makes sense then try David Farland's Runelord series.

[Zrak]

Sanderson’s First Law of Magics: An author’s ability to solve conflict with magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic.

This is still just the silliest idea. There is an almost infinite amount of information about a fireball spell nobody needs to know to be satisfied when a dude blows up a guy with a fireball.


What are others' thoughts on this? It's far too presumptuous for me to like it, regardless of whether it's sound advice.

Even putting aside my disdain for rules or "laws" of writing, categorically, it's terrible advice. Generally, I object to various writing "rules" because following them won't necessarily make your writing better and breaking them won't necessarily make your writing worse. As such, they're pretty bad rules; they're not even super reliable as guidelines. That's not even the problem with Sanderson's Law, though; it's not that following it won't necessarily make your writing better, it's that following it is almost certain to make your writing worse. On a very direct level, it essentially encourages excessive, tedious exposition in that it basically states that, as long as you continue providing new information, all exposition is good. On a more indirect level, it grievously misapprehends what makes a conflict's resolution satisfying or unsatisfying.

[huttj509]

Even putting aside my disdain for rules or "laws" of writing, categorically, it's terrible advice. Generally, I object to various writing "rules" because following them won't necessarily make your writing better and breaking them won't necessarily make your writing worse. As such, they're pretty bad rules; they're not even super reliable as guidelines. That's not even the problem with Sanderson's Law, though; it's not that following it won't necessarily make your writing better, it's that following it is almost certain to make your writing worse. On a very direct level, it essentially encourages excessive, tedious exposition in that it basically states that, as long as you continue providing new information, all exposition is good. On a more indirect level, it grievously misapprehends what makes a conflict's resolution satisfying or unsatisfying.

Um, no, it's saying "don't cheat the reader."

If you've established that your wizard can cast a fireball, only has that spell, and he's up against a fire immune demon, the character winning by casting an iceball needs some prior indication that element shifting is a thing that can happen, or some posterior indication that that was a weird thing for the character to do.

If the story climax involves a character hanging off a cliff, "oh yeah, I memorized Feather Fall this morning" isn't a good solution unless the existence of that spell has at least been hinted at.

[Zrak]

Um, no, it's saying "don't cheat the reader."

That is not what it is saying at all. It is saying an author's ability to provide satisfactory conflict resolution through magic is directly proportional to the reader's understanding of said magic. If it were saying "don't cheat the reader," it would say "don't cheat the reader." Less facetiously, the difference between "don't cheat the reader" and the idea that satisfactory conflict resolution hinges on the reader's understanding of magic is, as I was saying, misapprehending what makes unsatisfactory conflict resolution unsatisfactory. There are innumerable ways to cheat the reader, even in the specific context of resolving a conflict through magic, which aren't really even related to the reader's understanding of the magic system, let alone directly proportional to it.

To take your example, you could provide page after page of explanations about why fire spells can't be used to cook food, then go on to page after page of why fireballs don't heat up the air around them, and then draw those together into a coherent, holistic explanation of the limits of pyromancy, but the dude randomly casting iceball is still going to come out of nowhere. The reader certainly understands the magic system better than if you didn't explain all of those things, but they're not going to be any more satisfied with the resolution. You could even provide a similar level of detail about the uses and limitations of ice magic, the effect of personality types on the shape of ice crystals formed, and the metaphysical constraints which necessitate a spherical shape for ice ball spells, but they're still not going to be any more satisfied by a dude randomly casting iceball instead of fireball unless they know the dude can cast iceball. Conversely, if the reader neither knows nor understands anything about the magic system other than the facts that 1) the dude can cast iceball and 2) fire demons can be harmed by ice, there's nothing unsatisfying about dude killing a fire demon with iceball. The reader can know literally two things about the magic system and be satisfied, or know all but two things about the magic system and feel totally cheated. That is not what directly proportional means.

Put into another example, if a reader understands absolutely everything there is to know about how teleportation magic and death spells work, would that make some random wizard we've never seen before teleporting into the climactic battle and killing all the bad guys for no reason a satisfying resolution to the conflict? To use a non-magical analogy, imagine an action hero realizing he has to leap off a skyscraper to escape an explosion. If a helicopter shows up, apropos of nothing, to save our erstwhile action hero from the exploding building, do we feel cheated because we don't get how the spinny thing makes helicopters fly, or because there was no established reason for a helicopter to be there?

In other words, a reader doesn't ever feel cheated because they lack of understanding of the magic system, generally; if a deficiency in the reader's understanding of the system causes the reader to feel cheated, it's because of a specific gap in their understanding, not a diffuse lack of understanding. Improving the reader's overall understanding of the magic system (or even the specific magics involved in the scene) doesn't necessarily solve the problem, because the problem isn't really that the reader doesn't understand the magic system, it's that they don't understand the scene. As such, any amount of information you provide that doesn't address that specific gap that's causing the problem doesn't really help, while the rule says it does. Moreover, a huge number of problems (i.e. the random kill-stealing wizard) that have nothing to do with the magic system can cause the reader to feel cheated, which the rule also doesn't address and, in fact, advises the wrong course of action (providing more information about the involved magics) to solve. It misidentifies, in the case of the reader feeling cheated, a gap in the understanding of the scene for a gap in the understanding of magic, when the two do not always overlap and, even when they do, overlap only in very specific aspects.

[NichG]

It can be fine or it can be awful. What matters what you do with your overthinking, and what sort of social contexts you apply it in. If we're talking about passive media, the question is ultimately, when you overthink everything and find an inconsistency, does that then ruin your ability to enjoy the media, or does that challenge you to find a way to explain it and make you even more interested?

In a social context, like a tabletop game, you also have to consider the effects it can have on the group dynamic.

If you're in a tabletop game and you start an argument with the DM over a detail, with the result that the game gets bogged down or there are massive retcons, then that's bad.
If you're in a tabletop game and based on your overthinking, you come up with a way to suddenly tie everything together, that can be very good.

[ThinkMinty]

The mechanics don't, per se, need exposition to be explained, let alone in full. Demonstrating them via showing what the spell does is easier than pausing to explain everything all the time. Do fire spells cook soup? If not, that can be inferred when no one does it, or when someone scolds someone else for being wasteful when they try to. Do they heat the air around you? If not, don't describe that happening.

The character won't need everything explained to them, especially stuff they already know. If they don't know, the explanation should be for the character's benefit, rather than the reader's. Verisimilitude and whatnot.

Here's an example of this from Gravity Falls:

So, on Gravity Falls, they need some unicorn hair to protect the Mystery Shack from magic. We're told this by Stan Pines, who says that unicorn hair (among other ingredients) can be used to protect the shack, and that only a pure, good-hearted person can go on a magical quest to find the unicorns. Mabel eagerly volunteers because of course she does, and sets off on the quest with a journal, a crossbow, and friends she called to help her out. That exposition is organic, quick, and peppered with the right amount of silliness and seriousness to make it both urgent and fun. The rest of the information about unicorns comes about along with the story, when the girls are in the enchanted section of the forest. While initially the unicorn, Celestabellebethabelle (aka C-Beth), seems like a noble and beneficent waif straight out of The Last Unicorn or Lisa Frank art, she's revealed by her actions as a sadistic bully who likes emotionally torturing little girls by telling them they're not pure-hearted enough, just because she can, with the other unicorns finding it messed up. We're shown rather than told that unicorn tears kill plant life, and another unicorn demonstrates the ability to play rave music with its horn while it points out that unicorns aren't as crazy-powerful as they seem.
The viewer/reader got the same information over time they would have if it had been front-loaded, but the up-front being less-is-more about it was more plausible in-story and more entertaining, and didn't give away all of the plot points by explaining it all beforehand.


While I'm more of a fan of powers that can be used in broad, idiosyncratic, eclectic, and creative ways, narrow powers can also be interesting if someone develops workarounds for getting the most mileage out of what seemed useless at first glance. There shouldn't be bad powers (in my opinion), only bad users. This includes the very silly powers that show up in superhero parody. Unless you just got them, someone's going to have some degree of fluency in their powers, although misuse can be funny as hell if done right.


Heck, a character can give smug little gloats of exposition about how their powers work rather than provide anything resembling a full explanation. Or they might provide incorrect information to an enemy and/or someone they distrust to make sure they don't actually have the proper response to it. Sanderson's Law (as read by me) isn't an absolute, it's more of a "you'll get away with more if it's consistent rather than inconsistent" or "the third act is when you have to let the rules play out as they're currently understandable".

From an extradiegetic/Doylist/out-of-story standpoint, the victory shouldn't come out of nowhere, or rely on a particularly anal read of the story to make sense. It can be an asspull from an intradiegetic/Watsonian/in-story standpoint.

[Raimun]

Yeah, I am.

[Lord Raziere]

Um, no, it's saying "don't cheat the reader."

If you've established that your wizard can cast a fireball, only has that spell, and he's up against a fire immune demon, the character winning by casting an iceball needs some prior indication that element shifting is a thing that can happen, or some posterior indication that that was a weird thing for the character to do.

If the story climax involves a character hanging off a cliff, "oh yeah, I memorized Feather Fall this morning" isn't a good solution unless the existence of that spell has at least been hinted at.

Exactly.

Sanderson himself never explained the whole of Allomancy all at once, or Feruchemy for that matter. what he did do was provide the details that were important for the story for other things to happen, and anything that was left unexplained when it happen was something that was already an intentional unknown to be filled in later.

why I can't say most of the stuff or explain what he did that he leave unknown, because how the magic works in Scadrial are actually pretty important plot points that could spoil you just by knowing the tricks it can do.

[McStabbington]

To answer the original question, my response would be that my willingness to suspend belief and simply allow things to slide is directly proportional to how much the authors tried, and to a lesser extent succeeded, in making me care about what is going on.

To use an old example, in Star Trek it was always a rule that you can't use the transporters through the shields . . . until suddenly it wasn't in that particular episode. Sometimes I minded, sometimes not. In the episode "Relics", for instance, Scotty and Geordi are beamed back to the Enterprise despite having to beam through at least one set of shields. Now I could make some technobabble argument about how these two master engineers found a loophole in the rule, but the real answer is that I don't care how it happened, because the rest of that episode is a clear labor of love honoring a beloved character from the original series.

By contrast, when it happens on a random episode of Voyager, it's clear that there the writers are doing it because they care about the rules about as much as they care about their characters: not very much at all. So I'll happily jump down Voyager's throat for it.

It is a double standard, but one based on a desire to have a writer not phone it in. I'll accept an episode done badly but one where they are clearly trying over one that is technically better but done without care by the creators.

[Aotrs Commander]

It is a double standard, but one based on a desire to have a writer not phone it in. I'll accept an episode done badly but one where they are clearly trying over one that is technically better but done without care by the creators.

I concur.

I'll take something that is wrong but has actually TRIED over something it is wrong and clearly hasn't tried anyday. (Or (theorhetically) even something that is right but hasn't tried if it's really bad enough, though you don't generally get anything so bad that it is able to BE right in the first place usually.)

[crayzz]

The joke being that dungeons are often forgotten for centuries where they do remain in a vacuum for that long. The air is perfectly clean, the water potable, and Skyrim seems to believe that you can still find perfectly edible apples in the barrels buried deep in the bottom levels. :smalltongue:

Well in Skyrim it is at least partially explained. In game there's a journal of a guy who lives in one of the crypts for a while, observing the draugr. They actually live out lives and maintain the crypt.