"Metagaming" in media

[shadow_archmagi]

First off: I think the angry gm (http://theangrygm.com/dear-gms-metagaming-is-your-fault/) is just about spot-on regarding metagaming.

What I'm thinking about here is how otherwise rational characters in fiction often make correct decisions that make no sense, based on "weird feelings" and hunches and whatnot. It shows up at every stage of the plot- a lot of protagonists hear the 'call to adventure' by picking a random stranger in the crowd and deciding they look really interesting and chasing them across town. Stuff like that.

I can't think of too many actual examples though- could the hive-ground help me?

[Ruslan]

First off: I think the angry gm (http://theangrygm.com/dear-gms-metagaming-is-your-fault/) is just about spot-on regarding metagaming.

What I'm thinking about here is how otherwise rational characters in fiction often make correct decisions that make no sense, based on "weird feelings" and hunches and whatnot. It shows up at every stage of the plot- a lot of protagonists hear the 'call to adventure' by picking a random stranger in the crowd and deciding they look really interesting and chasing them across town. Stuff like that.

I can't think of too many actual examples though- could the hive-ground help me?
Out of 1,000,000 people, 999,999 never have any wonderful and unlikely adventures. We are reading the story of the one who did.

[Darth Ultron]

Well, ''metegaming'' is not the right word as the actors (mostly) don't know the whole plot and story..and can't change things anyway.

But you could say the writer, or even director ''metagames'' .

The classic you see in most movies is ''well, we could go and get help...but we have three little kids and a dog so let just go save the world''.

Same way TV cops don't call for backup.

[quinron]

Out of 1,000,000 people, 999,999 never have any wonderful and unlikely adventures. We are reading the story of the one who did.

This is true and fair. But considering that most "metagaming" protagonists end up making correct gut decisions multiple times in a series, that means we're not reading about the 1 in 1 million who made the correct decision on instinct; we're watching the 1 in [functionally infinite number] who made every correct decision on instinct.

I'm with shadow; I need at least a veneer of verisimilitude in my fiction. It's why I can't enjoy Dickens - they're called "contrived" coincidences for a reason, after all, and I can only take so much contrivance before I get annoyed with the author for being lazy.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

And there it might have ended. In fact it did end there, in millions of universes. Edward d'Eath grew older and obsession turned to a sort of bookish insanity of the gloves-with-the-fingers-cut-out and carpet slippers variety, and became an expert on royalty although no-one ever knew this because he seldom left his rooms. Corporal Carrot became Sergeant Carrot and, in the fullness of time, died in uniform aged seventy in an unlikely accident involving an anteater.

In a million universes, Lance-Constables Cuddy and Detritus didn't fall through the hole. In a million universes, Vimes didn't find the pipes. (In one strange but theoretically possible universe the Watch House was redecorated in pastel colours by a freak whirlwind, which also repaired the door latch and did a few other odd jobs around the place.) In a million universes, the Watch failed. -In a million universes, this was a very short book.
~Men at Arms, Terry Pratchett

[Traab]

You want one of my personal favorite examples of "metagaming" by the creators? Diablo 3. You literally CANT avoid following the storyline. There is an entire massive map in each act, but you are not allowed to say, go kill belial right away. You arent allowed to enter that portion of the game until you proceed step by step through the full storyline. The reason I pick diablo 3 over so many other games on rails is, it gets really rubbed into your face that you have to follow each step before moving on when you can SEE all these zones around you, but, there is a cart in the way, the guard wont let you by, the gate cant be opened until it opens all by itself once you hand in the macguffin part 2. Many games give you an actual reason.

Take final fantasy 7 as an example. At the start you are in one portion of the midgar slums. You know there are like 7 different sections, and yet you cant get to them before the storyline lets you. Why? Well the only real way to move from section to section is by train, they are all heavily guarded and secured with the need for id cards and such and you cant risk getting detected so you dont go to the other areas until you have to. You dont have a bag of garbage in front of the doorway to section 3 of the slums that for some reason you just cant get past. The guy with the key isnt asleep and its utterly impossible to wake him despite him just being asleep and not in a freaking coma. There isnt a dog barking at you from the one entrance to the section that inexplicably scares off your party that just got done fighting a 60 yard long sea serpent capable of creating tidal waves. Yes, its still the same railroad style of game play, but it makes an effort to explain why you cant move on in a reasonable manner so it isnt being rubbed in your face.

[cobaltstarfire]

How about Wesley Crusher?

He tends to just know things, with the explanation being that he's basically a savant even by futuristic human standards, or evolution of humanity depending on who you ask.

There are some episodes where I feel he is just being resourceful or creative, but I know some people who feel like Wesley literally pulls all the solutions right out of his butt. So I suppose your mileage may vary on whether he qualifies...

[Kitten Champion]

That's pretty ambiguous, do you mean like the X-Files? Which is almost exclusively about a conspiracy theorist finding the least probable or genuinely impossible explanation for that week's phenomenon but is ultimately right 99% of the time. Or something like Castle where one of the characters - usually Castle himself - suddenly has an hitherto unstated long-time interest in some esoteric cultural activity which is inevitably relevant to the case itself?

[Darth Ultron]

I can't think of too many actual examples though- could the hive-ground help me?

The unbeleaiably awful and bad show Sherlock might be a great example from start to finish. Now the main character is ''so smart'' that he can ''see and figure out everything'' with his amazing brain. But of course the writers don't have that skill or ability, so they have to fake it by doing the old ''altering reality so whatever Sherlock thinks and says is right''.

For example......Sherlock will examine the body at a murder and see it was stabbed in the back. Then he will idiotically say ''this murder took place at night, because victims are only stabbed in the back at night always and forever ever from the dawn of time this has been an absolute fact that no human has ever been stabbed in the back from sun rise to set set ever any where in the world" . And then Sherlock will say ''and as the murder absolutely took place at night, it must have been done by someone who works during the day, as only people that have day jobs have ever murdered anyone, ever. And then Sherlock will make the beyond stupid leap of ''well the murder is Jonny Mcgee as he works during the day.'' And reality is always altered to Sherlock is always right...

[Morph Bark]

The unbeleaiably awful and bad show Sherlock might be a great example from start to finish. Now the main character is ''so smart'' that he can ''see and figure out everything'' with his amazing brain. But of course the writers don't have that skill or ability, so they have to fake it by doing the old ''altering reality so whatever Sherlock thinks and says is right''.

For example......Sherlock will examine the body at a murder and see it was stabbed in the back. Then he will idiotically say ''this murder took place at night, because victims are only stabbed in the back at night always and forever ever from the dawn of time this has been an absolute fact that no human has ever been stabbed in the back from sun rise to set set ever any where in the world" . And then Sherlock will say ''and as the murder absolutely took place at night, it must have been done by someone who works during the day, as only people that have day jobs have ever murdered anyone, ever. And then Sherlock will make the beyond stupid leap of ''well the murder is Jonny Mcgee as he works during the day.'' And reality is always altered to Sherlock is always right...

This was a problem with the books too. Sherlock Holmes doesn't use deduction, he uses abduction: the practice of inferring information based on the outcome, rather than the other way around. The films with Robert Downey Jr. at least have him give good reasons for why he thinks something, which is because he uses deduction instead. Mostly.

[Anonymouswizard]

This is true and fair. But considering that most "metagaming" protagonists end up making correct gut decisions multiple times in a series, that means we're not reading about the 1 in 1 million who made the correct decision on instinct; we're watching the 1 in [functionally infinite number] who made every correct decision on instinct.

Eh, it depends. We're watching the one universe in [number] where this character made all the correct decisions for an interesting story. Sometimes it's all the right decisions, sometimes the decisions are wrong because it's more interesting. In fact, one of my favourite books has a character (Vimes, because this is Discworld) make a decision, but due to author fiat end up with the disorganiser of his alternate universe counterpart, who took part in another interesting story that would have ended the series there. Now, Vimes does have a tendency to stumble across the correct decision, sometimes as if by magic, but it's believable because it looks like he's either just looking at everything until something works (not 'Johnny McGee killed him because he was stabbed at 2 o'clock at night with an alligator' but 'right, if I was a killer I'd have used an alligator to frame Johnny McGee' for my really bad explaination) or working with facts others gave him (IIRC a decent part of Snuff has him basing actions on what he's been told of goblins).

So I think the answer is that poorly written 'metagaming' protagonists end up making correct gut decisions every time, but well written ones might make wrong decisions occasionally (the equivalent of doing something wrong because you rolled a 1 on your knowledge check).

There's also the question of how much of their actions are due to them making the right decisions, and how many of them are due to them being lucky. One of my favourite scenes ever is from the end of part 2 of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, where the villain just assumes that Joseph planed the events that led to his defeat when he was just playing along with what happened.

[Chromascope3D]

This was a problem with the books too. Sherlock Holmes doesn't use deduction, he uses abduction: the practice of inferring information based on the outcome, rather than the other way around. The films with Robert Downey Jr. at least have him give good reasons for why he thinks something, which is because he uses deduction instead. Mostly.

I was about to say, that isn't just a problem with the show. It's also kinda funny because Sherlock was actually based on a real person (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Bell) who was very good at making broad observations using minute details.

[Kato]

The unbeleaiably awful and bad show Sherlock might be a great example from start to finish.
Uhm ... What? I'm not going to makes claim Sherlock's solutions are always perfect but this makes me think you never saw a complete episode... :smallconfused :


This was a problem with the books too. Sherlock Holmes doesn't use deduction, he uses abduction: the practice of inferring information based on the outcome, rather than the other way around.
That's also not true... Book Sherlock solved most cases by going off screen, getting some strange information often on something exotic and then presenting it as the only thing that makes sense (ignoring other strange things which might be possible )


...
~Men at Arms, Terry Pratchett

Thank you :smallbiggrin: Wolf and sir Terry basically said what I think on it.. No, it's not good writing but sometimes success hinges on coincidence. Maybe you can use another contrived one instead, possibly one some would suggest is more likely. But writing a story without ANY seems strenuous and unnecessary. In infinite universes the hero fails because he doesn't help the farmer at the beginning of the story who saves him later on. But we watch the one where all pieces fall into place.

[An Enemy Spy]

Uhm ... What? I'm not going to makes claim Sherlock's solutions are always perfect but this makes me think you never saw a complete episode... :smallconfused :

It's Darth Ultron. He thinks anyone who likes things other than Sci-Fi or Fantasy is an sociopath and an idiot. You really should just ignore anything he says.

[Asmotherion]

That's basically what I hate the most about batman. He seems to always know the right information at the right time to outsmart his opponent, without any explaination on how he got that information whatsoever.

I mean, he is not even a superhuman, just a regular human who wears a bat costume and has the money to have his scientists make gadgets for him. Gadgets that are not more effective in combat than what a regular gun or some shuriken would have been. Batman, as I see him, is merely meant to be a Mary-Sue for real life people to fantasise about becoming him.

Yet, he seems to always be perpared for everything every time.

An other example of this is how every single Superman Vilain somehow has his own piece of cryptonite, knows it will be effective against Superman, and sometimes will even have had the time to manufacture special bullets, daggers etc out of cryptonite. (Especially in smallvile, this was getting ridiculus).

In Charmed, and wile it's a show about Magic, it's still anoying that the book contains the weak points and I quote "vancuishing potion" to every single demon in the show. (An other thing anoying as hell in that show was the lack of any Strong Male Protagonist that was neither a Demon (thus held a tab on his forehead saying "I'll eventually be killed as part of the plot") or a pacifist. When Leo got his power-game, he was striped of all his power as a result. When Coal did the same, he was either vanquished, or at least put away from the plot. As for the angel kids, they only apeared on a handfull of episodes as fully-grown, wile they were babies for most of the show. I'm all for girl-power, but not like this).


When those things happen once or twice every 10 episodes, it is a plot-twist. When it happens every single episode, sometimes multiple times in the same episode, it's just anoying.

[Darth Ultron]

Uhm ... What? I'm not going to makes claim Sherlock's solutions are always perfect but this makes me think you never saw a complete episode... :smallconfused :

I unfortunately watched the whole first, um, ''series''.

Every cop show and CSI show has much the same problem: they always guess and find ''evidence'' that is always right.

The Walking Dead, while a good show, is another good example. Characters always act ''dumber then dumb'', just so the show has drama. But, of course, if any character had even one penny of common sense, there would be no drama.

[Rodin]

That's also not true... Book Sherlock solved most cases by going off screen, getting some strange information often on something exotic and then presenting it as the only thing that makes sense (ignoring other strange things which might be possible )



There's also the hilarious "Adventure of the Yellow Face", in which Sherlock looks at the evidence and comes up with a convoluted and sordid story resulting in....MURDERRRR!!!

And then he actually goes and talks to the suspected murderer, and finds out that he was 100% incorrect. As in, got pretty much every detail it was possible to get wrong, wrong. There was no murder, and the mysterious yellow face was actually something completely innocent.

As they walk way, Holmes says something along the lines of "Any time I'm feeling arrogant, Watson, remind me of this incident."

[Kato]

It's Darth Ultron. He thinks anyone who likes things other than Sci-Fi or Fantasy is an sociopath and an idiot. You really should just ignore anything he says.
ah, thanks for reminding me.




As they walk way, Holmes says something along the lines of "Any time I'm feeling arrogant, Watson, remind me of this incident."

I don't remember the specifics of the story but yeah, in remember that ending. It was a good moment for Sherlock, yeah.

[Themrys]

Almost all books with child protagonists are guilty of this.

Namely, the adults who let the kids run around and chase criminals and the like. They seem to know that the kids have plot armour and will remain unharmed. Otherwise, no responsible adult would take that risk.

For example, Harry Potter. The only realistic, benevolent adult in there is Molly Weasley. At least as far as I can remember she never let her children do dangerous things while they were still child-aged. And she is not at all impressed that Ron managed to fly his father's flying car.

Dumbledore? Hides a three-headed dog in a corridor and warns the children to not enter that part of the castle without putting any non-lethal wards on it. The other teachers apparently were on board with this.
Hagrid? Lets a bunch of schoolchildren interact with Hippogriffs who he knows react to rudeness with violence. Seriously, anyone who knows in the real world knows that too dumb to live kids like Draco Malfoy exist.

Either you think those people are uncaring monsters (which would go against the way they are characterised in the books), or you assume they know that nothing bad will happen.




(An other thing anoying as hell in that show was the lack of any Strong Male Protagonist that was neither a Demon (thus held a tab on his forehead saying "I'll eventually be killed as part of the plot") or a pacifist. When Leo got his power-game, he was striped of all his power as a result. When Coal did the same, he was either vanquished, or at least put away from the plot. As for the angel kids, they only apeared on a handfull of episodes as fully-grown, wile they were babies for most of the show. I'm all for girl-power, but not like this).


Because Boys Need Role Models and have no other shows they could watch for those? Seriously, you complain that there exists ONE show where there is no Strong Male Protagonist who fits your very specific criteria ... but apparently have no problems with zillions of shows where there is no female protagonist at all, not even a female side character?

Try being a woman.

Besides, I am pretty sure Angel and Spike are vampires, not demons, and certainly not pacifists ... I haven't watched the show in ages, but didn't Angel even get his own show?

[Slayn82]

I think you are confounding Charmed, a Show about 3 witch sisters, and Buffy, a show about a teenage/young adult vampire hunter and her friends.

[Keltest]

Besides, I am pretty sure Angel and Spike are vampires, not demons, and certainly not pacifists ... I haven't watched the show in ages, but didn't Angel even get his own show?

Not only are buffyverse vampires considered to be a breed of demon, both of them were killed (or at least functionally so, if not literally so) at least once after they became a vampire.

And yes, Angel did get his own show. And Spike became a recurring character on it BEFORE he got resurrected.

[Murk]

For example, Harry Potter. The only realistic, benevolent adult in there is Molly Weasley.

That's because the entire Harry Potter wizarding world is bat**** crazy. It doesn't make sense that there's still people alive in that world. Those people are all lunatics.
But then, they have the actual excuse of "it's magic" as to why everyone is not dead yet. It might be meta-gaming by the OP's standards, but at least it's honest about it.

(It's also why I dislike the later books so much, because there suddenly the writer pretends there are normal wizards and there needs to be drama and rules. But this is not really the place for that discussion)

[HandofShadows]

Not only are buffyverse vampires considered to be a breed of demon, both of them were killed (or at least functionally so, if not literally so) at least once after they became a vampire.


Yep. It's explicitly stated that if someone is killed by a vampire and comes back as a vamp, what happens is a demon sets up shop in the body and has the orignal person's memories, but it is NOT the original person. Angel and Spike are two very special cases where they got their human soul back.

[shadow_archmagi]

Also, just to be clear, I'm looking for examples to support the overall theme that sometimes characters have to do weird stuff for no real reason just to get the story going.

[HandofShadows]

Also, just to be clear, I'm looking for examples to support the overall theme that sometimes characters have to do weird stuff for no real reason just to get the story going.

The thing is people do weird/stupid stuff in real life. So why shouldn't they do it in fiction? For example a national leader who started a major war but as the war went on, his enemies decided NOT to have this leader killed because he was doing such stupid stuff he was a HUGE help in defeating his own nation. Stupid invasion plans, demanding worthless super weapons, delaying or stopping very usefull inovative weapons, wasting huge amounts of resources on ego boosts. Killing or facring the very people he needed to win the war away. Just look to history.

[jayem]

Also, just to be clear, I'm looking for examples to support the overall theme that sometimes characters have to do weird stuff for no real reason just to get the story going.
If looking at the beginning...
Da Vinchi Code might be one.
Lesser coincidences you have the Famous Five starts and the like (particularly the way they always fall out with the criminal over something normal, and as a consequence...).


Practically I don't mind the beginning coincidences too much.
The metagaming only really starts to kick annoying when they are a 'better person' for making the right 50-50 calls (Kirk, Sherlock, being obvious potential examples)

This is particularly so when they make opposite calls right (e.g. 'orders are there for a reason', 'use own judgment') in apparently weaker cases (which hits series harder than a single fable or film).

And mitigated if they sometimes get it wrong in equally important situations (clear in Dark Knight Harvey/Rachel scene, Sherlock's yellow face counts), attempt to cover both bases or apply caution (DK again, often but not always present in Sherlock) or when calling it wrong leads to a safe non-story, or you can believe it's not 50-50.

[quinron]

For example, Harry Potter. The only realistic, benevolent adult in there is Molly Weasley. At least as far as I can remember she never let her children do dangerous things while they were still child-aged. And she is not at all impressed that Ron managed to fly his father's flying car.

Dumbledore? Hides a three-headed dog in a corridor and warns the children to not enter that part of the castle without putting any non-lethal wards on it. The other teachers apparently were on board with this.
Hagrid? Lets a bunch of schoolchildren interact with Hippogriffs who he knows react to rudeness with violence. Seriously, anyone who knows in the real world knows that too dumb to live kids like Draco Malfoy exist.

Either you think those people are uncaring monsters (which would go against the way they are characterised in the books), or you assume they know that nothing bad will happen.

To be fair, I don't think that makes Hagrid a poorly written character - he's pretty clearly shown to not understand that not everyone is as durable as he is, considering his frankly abysmal teaching career in books 3-4. But on the topic of Harry Potter and media metagaming, Dumbledore is a good example - he's often shown doing things that make no sense whatsoever, and much like the Sherlock Holmes case, it's meant to make him seem like an intelligent and intuitive character but just ends up making him seem lucky.


If looking at the beginning...
Da Vinchi Code might be one.

This always infuriated me. Why would a French curator in a French museum in Paris, leaving clues for his French granddaughter who works in Paris, leave those clues as English anagrams?

[Aedilred]

Almost all books with child protagonists are guilty of this.

Namely, the adults who let the kids run around and chase criminals and the like. They seem to know that the kids have plot armour and will remain unharmed. Otherwise, no responsible adult would take that risk.

For example, Harry Potter. The only realistic, benevolent adult in there is Molly Weasley. At least as far as I can remember she never let her children do dangerous things while they were still child-aged. And she is not at all impressed that Ron managed to fly his father's flying car.

Dumbledore? Hides a three-headed dog in a corridor and warns the children to not enter that part of the castle without putting any non-lethal wards on it. The other teachers apparently were on board with this.
Hagrid? Lets a bunch of schoolchildren interact with Hippogriffs who he knows react to rudeness with violence. Seriously, anyone who knows in the real world knows that too dumb to live kids like Draco Malfoy exist.

Either you think those people are uncaring monsters (which would go against the way they are characterised in the books), or you assume they know that nothing bad will happen.

I think an argument could be made for Snape as a reasonable adult figure in the books. Over a number of books he is frequently seen to be not only intelligent and responsible but genuinely concerned with the safety of the children under his care, especially, though not exclusively, Harry. On at least one occasion he risks his life directly to protect them. However he is so often cast in the role of antagonist that we have to strip away the perception filter that comes from the story being about Harry to see it. It's also worth noting, to be fair, that he is a pretty terrible teacher, and hides behind a mask of malevolence. The main problem Snape has though is that he answers to someone who is certifiably insane.

Perhaps the best example of Snape getting a raw deal is in the fifth book, where, after Harry, against his explicit and sensible instructions, begins to act on information he's received via his visions, and communicates that to Snape, immediately takes action and launches a rescue mission to save Harry from the consequences of his own stupidity. However, Harry blames Snape entirely for the casualties taken on that rescue mission because of personal animosity with Snape, and because Snape wasn't stupid enough to give away in front of the Order's enemies that he was in cahoots with the Order. It's just about the one time Snape actually overtly cooperates with Harry's desires rather than getting in the way, and Harry hates him for it.



Also, just to be clear, I'm looking for examples to support the overall theme that sometimes characters have to do weird stuff for no real reason just to get the story going.
An old example, I think: The Lord of the Rings. Or more specifically, The Hobbit. Gandalf decides that Bilbo should be the group's burglar for no real reason at all: a hobbit who has no qualifications or experience for the role, isn't interested in it and has no idea what's going on. It's not even as if Gandalf knew Bilbo very well and had had the chance to see great hidden depths. But if he hadn't chosen Bilbo as the thief, Bilbo would never have got the Ring, which means Frodo would never have got the Ring, which means the Lord of the Rings story as we know it wouldn't have happened, and Sauron would almost certainly have conquered Middle-Earth.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

To be fair, I don't think that makes Hagrid a poorly written character - he's pretty clearly shown to not understand that not everyone is as durable as he is, considering his frankly abysmal teaching career in books 3-4.
Quite the opposite. The griffins were not dangerous to the class - it is only looks to be so from our human perspective. But when your medicine means you can regrow bones in seconds, risking a slash from a talon of a griffin is less dangerous than chancing a boy get a concussion from playing american football in PE class.


But on the topic of Harry Potter and media metagaming, Dumbledore is a good example - he's often shown doing things that make no sense whatsoever, and much like the Sherlock Holmes case, it's meant to make him seem like an intelligent and intuitive character but just ends up making him seem lucky.
[citation needed]. I think you are confusing "doing things that don't make sense to Harry" (and therefore to the reader, with their limited knowledge) with "doing things that make no sense whatsoever". Dumbledore, for example, had reasonable good reasons to give Harry a shot at Voldemort even as early as book 1, because there was a chance that Voldemort would die immediately, therefore fulfilling the prophecy that Dumbledore was already aware of.

Grey Wolf

[jayem]

An old example, I think: The Lord of the Rings. Or more specifically, The Hobbit. Gandalf decides that Bilbo should be the group's burglar for no real reason at all: a hobbit who has no qualifications or experience for the role, isn't interested in it and has no idea what's going on. It's not even as if Gandalf knew Bilbo very well and had had the chance to see great hidden depths. But if he hadn't chosen Bilbo as the thief, Bilbo would never have got the Ring, which means Frodo would never have got the Ring, which means the Lord of the Rings story as we know it wouldn't have happened, and Sauron would almost certainly have conquered Middle-Earth.

See what you mean,
I guess the caveat/'fudge'* applies above that Gandolf had to chose someone, and we'd have the story of Cohan of the rings or something if it had been someone else.
and there's a bit in unfinished tales where he describes how everything fell together.
And there is the suggestion of divine metagaming anyway.

*fudge in that you can only use the selection justification once, had the 2 events been independent it would be clear that things are odd, had the 2 events been inevitably connected (perhaps the ring being on the dragon?) it would have explained it all, the finding of the ring falls between the two...

[Darth Ultron]

Also, just to be clear, I'm looking for examples to support the overall theme that sometimes characters have to do weird stuff for no real reason just to get the story going.

The Walking Dead really does fit this idea. For example, tons of episodes have characters doing the ''I'm going for a walk out in the zombie apocalypse full of zombies and evil humans''. But, of course they have to so you can get all the drama.

Just about any horror type move has ones like:

*Someone will die and everyone will be like ''whatever'' and just go back to what they were doing. You know..the classic mayor from Jaws.

*No one will pick up any weapons and or go grab and the items that could be weapons.

And, of course....

*''Lets split up''.....

[GloatingSwine]

Also, just to be clear, I'm looking for examples to support the overall theme that sometimes characters have to do weird stuff for no real reason just to get the story going.

How about Citizen Kane?

A movie about people trying to understand the final whisper of a man who died alone.

Basically everything in that movie is people acting on whim not information because nobody in the film could possibly have had the alleged information.


For example, Harry Potter. The only realistic, benevolent adult in there is Molly Weasley. At least as far as I can remember she never let her children do dangerous things while they were still child-aged. And she is not at all impressed that Ron managed to fly his father's flying car.

The Wizarding World is supposed to be presented as culturally strange with a consistently devil-may-care attitude to things like risk of personal injury. And not without cause, I mean Neville got dropped out of a window as an infant and he just bounced.

[Traab]

Perhaps the best example of Snape getting a raw deal is in the fifth book, where, after Harry, against his explicit and sensible instructions, begins to act on information he's received via his visions, and communicates that to Snape, immediately takes action and launches a rescue mission to save Harry from the consequences of his own stupidity. However, Harry blames Snape entirely for the casualties taken on that rescue mission because of personal animosity with Snape, and because Snape wasn't stupid enough to give away in front of the Order's enemies that he was in cahoots with the Order. It's just about the one time Snape actually overtly cooperates with Harry's desires rather than getting in the way, and Harry hates him for it.

Exactly how much time did he need? Harry and crew had to fly from scotland to london which is roughly 500 miles as the crow (or thestral) flies. That means snape had HOURS to pass on the warning and make arrangements for a rescue of the rescue group and so on. And yet harry and crew not only got there first, they broke into the ministry, stumbled their way to the hall of prophecy, got into an extended running battle with the inner circle, and only just at the very end did the good guys show up for the last second save. Keep in mind that snape didnt exactly have much to hide from at this point as shortly after he got the warning, umbridge got dragged off into the forbidden forest to be traumatized by a herd of centaur. So what took him so long? He had the better part of 5-6 hours or so to form the rescue group and NOBODY at the castle that could get in his way or otherwise "catch" him passing on the warning.

No, Snape earned every drop of animosity harry could toss his way. He may have been technically a good guy, but he was an ass who went out of his way to be as awful as possible to the rest of the good guys, and considering his two most hated people were involved, harry and black, him delaying till the last second sounds far more reasonable than anything else to explain why it took so long to grab a dozen members of the order and get their ass to the ministry.

[Keltest]

Exactly how much time did he need? Harry and crew had to fly from scotland to london which is roughly 500 miles as the crow (or thestral) flies. That means snape had HOURS to pass on the warning and make arrangements for a rescue of the rescue group and so on. And yet harry and crew not only got there first, they broke into the ministry, stumbled their way to the hall of prophecy, got into an extended running battle with the inner circle, and only just at the very end did the good guys show up for the last second save. Keep in mind that snape didnt exactly have much to hide from at this point as shortly after he got the warning, umbridge got dragged off into the forbidden forest to be traumatized by a herd of centaur. So what took him so long? He had the better part of 5-6 hours or so to form the rescue group and NOBODY at the castle that could get in his way or otherwise "catch" him passing on the warning.

No, Snape earned every drop of animosity harry could toss his way. He may have been technically a good guy, but he was an ass who went out of his way to be as awful as possible to the rest of the good guys, and considering his two most hated people were involved, harry and black, him delaying till the last second sounds far more reasonable than anything else to explain why it took so long to grab a dozen members of the order and get their ass to the ministry.

Well, its not like Harry announced his intention to go break into the ministry once they ditched Umbridge to Snape. Its entirely plausible that he figured that Harry would be detained while he went and prodded the Order into mobilizing properly and with verified intelligence on what they were facing. Plus, he would have figured out it was a trap almost immediately, so the Order has every reason to take their time and tread carefully until they learn that Harry screwed up again.

[Peelee]

How about Citizen Kane?

A movie about people trying to understand the final whisper of a man who died alone.

Basically everything in that movie is people acting on whim not information because nobody in the film could possibly have had the alleged information.


RAYMOND: Yeah. I heard him say it that other time, too. He just said, uh, "Rosebud," then he dropped the glass ball and it broke on the floor. He didn't say anything after that, and I knew he was dead. He said all kinds of things that didn't mean anything.

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet, and all that. I think I've seen people timestamp it at 1 hour 51 minutes in, if you want to pull up the film and check.

Anyway, Darth Ultron's ramblings aside, Sherlock's been a crock ever since the season 2 finale. Season 3 opened with an entire episode saying, "we're not going to tell you how he did it, because we don't really have a good answer." And now Moriarty too? Good money says it's gonna go the same route, because it already worked once. Perfectly good way to end the series, if a little too soon for me, yet they pull the trigger early, declare it was a prop gun, and hope you don't notice that the metaphorical brains were clearly splattered.

[thatSeniorGuy]

Anyway, Darth Ultron's ramblings aside, Sherlock's been a crock ever since the season 2 finale. Season 3 opened with an entire episode saying, "we're not going to tell you how he did it, because we don't really have a good answer." And now Moriarty too? Good money says it's gonna go the same route, because it already worked once. Perfectly good way to end the series, if a little too soon for me, yet they pull the trigger early, declare it was a prop gun, and hope you don't notice that the metaphorical brains were clearly splattered.

Peelee, are you saying that you think Moriarty is coming back?


Because the major twist for The Abominable Bride is that it's actually modern-day Sherlock trying to figure out how Moriarty could pull that off. His answer? He didn't; Moriarty did kill himself, and it's someone else in the season 3 finale using his image for nefarious purposes.

[Aedilred]

Exactly how much time did he need? Harry and crew had to fly from scotland to london which is roughly 500 miles as the crow (or thestral) flies. That means snape had HOURS to pass on the warning and make arrangements for a rescue of the rescue group and so on. And yet harry and crew not only got there first, they broke into the ministry, stumbled their way to the hall of prophecy, got into an extended running battle with the inner circle, and only just at the very end did the good guys show up for the last second save. Keep in mind that snape didnt exactly have much to hide from at this point as shortly after he got the warning, umbridge got dragged off into the forbidden forest to be traumatized by a herd of centaur. So what took him so long? He had the better part of 5-6 hours or so to form the rescue group and NOBODY at the castle that could get in his way or otherwise "catch" him passing on the warning.

No, Snape earned every drop of animosity harry could toss his way. He may have been technically a good guy, but he was an ass who went out of his way to be as awful as possible to the rest of the good guys, and considering his two most hated people were involved, harry and black, him delaying till the last second sounds far more reasonable than anything else to explain why it took so long to grab a dozen members of the order and get their ass to the ministry.

The final sequences of book 5 are a little messy, and there isn't a clear-cut answer to that question, but I think it's possible to piece together the actions Snape might have taken. He can't apparate out of Hogwarts and the Ministry is watching the Floo network, so he'll have to physically get out of the grounds before he can go anywhere, without arousing suspicion along the way. It's not just Umbridge he has to watch out for, mind, it's Slytherin students too, many of whom will probably have parents in the Death Eaters and know of his connection. That could take a while, even if he doesn't have to fly the whole way to London. Then he has to work out where to go once he's out of the grounds. If Harry's vision is accurate, Grimmuald Place may be compromised, so he will have to locate another member of the Order - again, without raising suspicion. Kingsley and Tonks have Ministry day jobs, Lupin could be anywhere, and Sirius was both based at Grimmuald Place and the one who may be missing, so most likely he goes to Moody. Then he has to convince Moody that he's on the up and up and that this is worth investigating. Given that Moody is suspicious of Snape's Death Eater past, this could take some doing. Eventually he succeeds, and then with the help of Moody and maybe a couple of the others (Moody being able to contact Tonks and Kingsley without causing so many raised eyebrows) they go back to Grimmuald Place in force. On arrival they find Sirius and Lupin alive and well. With that settled they then have to work out why Harry had the vision and what it means. By this point Snape has Sirius to contend with and their bickering will slow everything down, especially as Sirius will blame Snape for calling off the Occlumency lessons and thus helping to create this situation (not entirely unfairly).

At any rate Snape probably departs for Hogwarts at some point after this, leaving the rest of the Order debating the situation or maybe awaiting further reinforcements. He may also take a detour to a Death Eater contact to try to gain some intelligence on plans and the meaning of the vision. When he gets back to Hogwarts (again, potentially time-consuming) he finds Harry is gone. This could take a while to establish, especially given that with McGonnagall and Umbridge incapacitated, the school is descending into chaos. Eventually he confirms that Harry isn't at the school and conveys this information to the rest of the Order. They agree the Order will go into the DoM in case that's where Harry is headed. Snape at this point contacts Dumbledore and tells him the plan, so that he can go to provide backup.

Honestly it's already a pretty silly plot contrivance that the Order arrive just in the nick of time to save Harry and co. but while the timeline might be a little woolly, I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable that it could take a few hours to work out what was going on, assemble the necessary people, and mount the rescue mission. The Order don't have the benefit of knowing what Harry's up to in the way the reader does and are presumably aware of the potentially dire consequences of failure should they mount an attack on the DoM without justification; they don't have the luxury of Harry's recklessness allowing them to charge in on the off-chance.

[Peelee]

Peelee, are you saying that you think Moriarty is coming back?


Because the major twist for The Abominable Bride is that it's actually modern-day Sherlock trying to figure out how Moriarty could pull that off. His answer? He didn't; Moriarty did kill himself, and it's someone else in the season 3 finale using his image for nefarious purposes.


Yes, but because I was unaware of this episode. I largely stopped caring after the season 3 intro, and finished the season because it was already streaming.

[Anonymouswizard]

Exactly how much time did he need? Harry and crew had to fly from scotland to london which is roughly 500 miles as the crow (or thestral) flies. That means snape had HOURS to pass on the warning and make arrangements for a rescue of the rescue group and so on. And yet harry and crew not only got there first, they broke into the ministry, stumbled their way to the hall of prophecy, got into an extended running battle with the inner circle, and only just at the very end did the good guys show up for the last second save. Keep in mind that snape didnt exactly have much to hide from at this point as shortly after he got the warning, umbridge got dragged off into the forbidden forest to be traumatized by a herd of centaur. So what took him so long? He had the better part of 5-6 hours or so to form the rescue group and NOBODY at the castle that could get in his way or otherwise "catch" him passing on the warning.

No, Snape earned every drop of animosity harry could toss his way. He may have been technically a good guy, but he was an ass who went out of his way to be as awful as possible to the rest of the good guys, and considering his two most hated people were involved, harry and black, him delaying till the last second sounds far more reasonable than anything else to explain why it took so long to grab a dozen members of the order and get their ass to the ministry.

I haven't read the book in a long time, but I don't think it took hours to get to the ministry. I'd put it at somewhere under two hours, as invisible magic flying horses are likely fast, maybe as much as three hours. Shapes possible actions are:
-Attempt to rally order members at Hogwarts. This could easily take an hour or more, depending on how many members had already gone to bed.
-Leave Hogwarts and rally the other Order members. It should take at least half an hour, possibly more, to get to a place he can aperate, then a variable amount of time to get enough order members.

Assuming that it takes Snape half an hour to realise Harry and company have left (not unreasonable), he first contacts at least Magonagal (can't remember spelling), then leaves to inform order members including Dumbledore and Sirius, we can say this takes 30+10+30+(5*order members) minutes at a rough estimate, I can't remember how many order members appeared but assuming it's 5 including Dumbledore it takes Snape and allies an hour and thirty five minutes to get to Operation Fluffy Kitten (a.k.a. rescuing the idiot), not including planning, but here I'm assuming Snape knows where everyone he contacts is (not certain). If we assume it took Snape an hour or more to realise Harry is missing (someone goes to his dorm and realised he's not there, Snape hears a bit later from Magonagal [bit busy to look up the spelling]) we can assume Operation Fluffy Kitten arrives sometime between Harry and company taking the lift and entering the department of mysteries. They get delayed by a scuffle with Death Eaters put there for this purpose (not mentioned because they fled once Operation Fluffy Kitten left to warn Voldemort, so Harry never saw them), and so only show up in time to save everyone.

[Wardog]

A slight tangent, but bear with me because its relevent:

A little while ago, I found a trope on TV Tropes called ''Psychic Dreams for Everyone (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PsychicDreamsForEveryone)''

In Real Life, dreams are just dreams. If a friend turns on you or your sister dies or you're living in a palace made of lego that floats in the sky and changes colour, it's not an early glimpse of things to come.

On the other hand, television shows have a strange attitude towards prophetic dreams, whereby it's not necessary to have any actual Psychic Powers to have them. You can just be a super-warrior (as in Buffy the Vampire Slayer) or a healer (as in Carnivàle), and all your dreams about the past, present and/or future will come true/turn out to be true, down to the smallest detail. In fact, it's not even necessary to have any powers of any description, or be in a show where supernatural things occur. May be an example of Mundane Fantastic or Skepticism Failure.

The trope description treats this as a ''strange attitude'', possibly even a sign of bad storytelling or world design. Why can everyone have prophetic dreams, when there is no evidence that they - or anyone - has any other psychic poweres?

However, I think this interpretation misses a major point - for much of history, the world working this way this was the default assumption. It was commonly accepted that dreams were meaningful, and could predict or point to future events.

I bring this up, because I think a lot of the ''metagaming'' being discussed here is similar - traditionally, it was assumed that these sorts of things actually happened, or were how the world worked. For example,


The idea that you can tell when you are being watched.
Or even when someone elsewhere is talking about you.
Or any other example of someone ''sensing'' trouble, or ''having a feeling'' that they should (or shouldn't) be doign something, or going somewhere, etc.
Or that luck isn't just ''random occurences opporating in your favour'', but a supernatural force that can make things opporate in (or against) your favour. (So is character repeatedly succeeds against the odds, or stumbles across information that they most likely wouldn't have, that doesn't mean its a badly-written, versimilitude-breaking story, but that the character is someone how is Lucky, and so can expect that to happen).


I can't think of specific examples of those things at the moment, but they should be good pointers as to what else to look for.

Although I do think that these sorts of plot points are rarer than they used to be.

[Traab]

I think buffy is a bad example, im pretty sure giles specifically talks about slayer portents where they actually do get visions and dreams of threats yet to come. They also have actual gods or godly beings "the powers that be" who are fully capable of sending you visions at will.

[Kitten Champion]

Buffy was always - back to the original movie - supposed to be self-aware down its characters making assumptions based on horror tropes ala Cabin in the Woods, albeit generally subtler.

Though a specific occasion that I can recall was the Dracula episode, where the reason all the vampire weaknesses are common knowledge in-universe was because of Dracula in his attention-seeking nature leaked them to Stoker, everyone was kind of star-struck that such a renowned figure would be their nemesis, and Buffy knew to show up at the very end to re-kill him because she'd seen a Dracula movie before.