100 réponses à ce sujet

[Zobert]

We started talking about this in the "Krem is an amazing character" thread and almost derailed it entirely with the off topic discussion about how the writers created rules in one world (Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age Two) and then ignore them in Inquisition because "it's fantasy, you can do anything you like".

 

I said I would create a thread on it today if anyone is interested.

 

I read Stephen King's "On Writing" which improved my writing 100%.  I can't cut and paste from it (so I'll cut and paste from blogs from other writers) but he basically said that once you create a world you have to stick with it like it or not because you asked people to accept these rules and once they do they need them to remain believing.

 

And the rules you create don't get to be changed just because there is magic and dragons.

 

 

From TV Tropes: http://tvtropes.org/.../MagicAIsMagicA

 

 

This is such a fundamental part of an audience's perception of a story that if you establish a fictional "rule" that isn't quite like reality, and then later break this law to make things act the way they actually would in Real Life, people will likely be distraught. Whether it's realistic doesn't matter. Even whether it's explained at all doesn't matter: depending on your audience, even "it's magic!" can be a satisfactory explanation, as long as the magic behaves consistently. The substitution of mere internal consistency for a bona fide logical explanation is a Necessary Weasel of Speculative Fiction. Without it, any instance of a wizard casting a fireball would quickly degenerate into an Info Dump of quasi-physics and pseudo-science. However, much like any other trope, too much of it can be unhealthy. If a consistent magical element is plot-significant and leads to new plot complications, you can expect even the most patient audience member to eventually want some explanation.

 

In Dragon Age: Origins they created a) a medieval world with rules of class, race, and sexual behavior similar to ours.  Zevran explains to you that he's bisexual as if you'd be shocked at his behavior.  Alastair cannot marry an elf or commoner even though he's born on the wrong side of the blanket.  Sten cannot believe a female is a warrior because their society is role-oriented and your sex defines your role.  Mages in Par Vollen are anathema and kept bound.  As the Arishok explains in the second one that you have roles you are given and have no choice BUT you have choice within that role.  Hawke considers this "slavery".

 

To a certain degree they have kept with some of it when it makes for great drama (Dorian's tale) , but it's bleeding out because people want to have a modern world of inclusivity in a medieval world they established with rules similar to other fantasy medieval kingdoms.

 

I don't mind the challenges of that world because the "hero" always overcomes them.  Having a race gate, having trangender issues, having sexual boundaries is all fine because the whole point of a heroic tale is to have adversity that you overcome.  Changing the rules to make it modern with some dragon fighting here and there is just sloppy writing and bad fans.

 

I loved proving both Sten and the Arishok wrong.  Didn't you?.

[o Ventus]

Clarification =/= change.

 

If that were the case, then J.R.R. Tolkien would be a terrible writer who couldn't make his mind up, since he "changed" just about every aspect of Middle-Earth's lore in The Silmarillion. Hell, even the slight alterations and clarifications that Tolkien made in LotR to things introduced in the Hobbit would be terrible retcons.

[X Equestris]

Give me examples of these supposedly ignored rules.

[raging_monkey]

Screw the rules i have money

But really clarifiying/adding arent inconsitencies

[Red of Rivia]

I believe this is normal. Some worlds are grounded in rock and some provisions do not change. In the case of Dragon Age, I think the first game left a mark that has been changing in accordance others, I think even in a subtle way, perhaps influenced by fans? I do not know, to me it does not bother much. But I expected something more, I confess.

[riverbanks]

In Dragon Age: Origins they created a) a medieval world with rules of class, race, and sexual behavior similar to ours.  Zevran explains to you that he's bisexual as if you'd be shocked at his behavior.  Alastair cannot marry an elf or commoner even though he's born on the wrong side of the blanket.  Sten cannot believe a female is a warrior because their society is role-oriented and your sex defines your role. Mages in Par Vollen are anathema and kept bound.

 

I'm not seeing where the rules for either of these examples have changed, though? Sexuality is still a private matter in the South (see the codex for Sexuality in Thedas), so Zevran being wary of your reaction is still valid - as is Dorian, later. Celene was maneuvred into a war because her affair with an elf would have cost her the throne, so King Alistair being unable to marry an elf/dwarf/mage is still valid. Female heroes have always existed, and have been proving the qun wrong for centuries. Mages under the qun are still sarebaas, but the qunari Inquisitor is Tal Vashoth, so one thing has nothing to do with the other.

 

Rules have changed between games, for better or worse, but none of these particular examples show anything being retconned.

[Rekkampum]

I think the problem is that we sometimes mistake the development and evolution of concepts in fictional worlds for things that they aren't. New ideas will naturally arise in some cases - the Aqun-Athlok, as Gaider discussed in another thread - but introducing new elements to the overall fiction isn't harmful in and of itself as long as it follows the vision the authors established and doesn't interfere with it. We also have the tendency to interpolate meaning into the text when trying to form our own understanding of the concepts being introduced, and as a result will have expectations that may or may not clash with what the author themselves has intended. In some cases, this can be beneficial, yet in others it can do more harm to the text overall. Many of us have no problem, for instance, with the tonal shift re: Elvhen history that we're introduced to in Inquisition, even the events of Red Crossing and the Emerald Knights, as one minor example. Is learning that the elves aren't as helpless and victimized as they seemed in Origins a retcon? Or is it seeing a development of their history that moves beyond our expectations? I'd naturally argue the same for other aspects of the DA lore. As one says, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[SerBlacky]

The only things that did bother me in term of consistency are the 3 mages limit with the Dalish and the lack of clarification on female Grey Wardens on wether or not they can turn into broodmothers.

[ThePhoenixKing]

The only things that did bother me in term of consistency are the 3 mages limit with the Dalish and the lack of clarification on female Grey Wardens on wether or not they can turn into broodmothers.

 

Yeah, the "three mage limit" thing was just stupid, designed to justify Minaeve's angst and once more dump on the Dalish. Bad writing at its most basic.

[X Equestris]

Yeah, the "three mage limit" thing was just stupid, designed to justify Minaeve's angst and once more dump on the Dalish. Bad writing at its most basic.

Considering that we know there's great variation between Dalish clans, it is well within the realm of possibility that some clans have a three mage rule, and others don't.

[o Ventus]

Considering that we know there's great variation between Dalish clans, it is well within the realm of possibility that some clans have a three mage rule, and others don't.

This is what the case actually was, as far as I knew.

 

Minaeve's clan won't hold any more than 3 mages, but some others might.

[vertigomez]

I'm beginning to think the term retcon is really just code for "contradicts the intricate headcanon I've built in my brain".

Not particularly directed at you, OP.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

Rules ? You should know that Bioware does not have Rules, but they have Retcons. Lots of it. 

 

Tis' rather ironic. I mean from the words of many who play this game, it seems what they want as an inclusive tolerant medieval-esque society with generic fantasy elements to it.

 

Here's the thing though :- Medieval societies were never tolerant. Men and women were not equal. People of different skin color were not equal. Monarchs practiced total authoritarian rule and in some cultures made themselves out to be God-Kings. Slavery was not only rampant but tolerated. So was prostitution though this was restricted to those who can afford having more than one partner. Life was hard and simple. I would guess 98% of society was highly religious where each society would only practice and tolerate one religion with non-religiosity would probably be found in very few educated or learned people, who would hide it. Wars and conflicts between the ruling class was often and frequent. Life for most people during the medieval times were hard and simple. Oh and medicine, twas quite macabre. People usually never made it past 25 or so and if they did, they were lucky. The look and feel during that time were not flashy and over-the-top high definition color either. Twas' mostly dull brown and dark green or simple colorful clothing, due to agrarian lifestyle with the exception of the rulers. 

 

The only entertainment material that I have seen so far that somewhat mirrors this is Game of Thrones. Dragon Age used to be something like Game of Thrones in Origins but now it has been diluted and neutered down to a generic fantasy game by trying to mash medieval-ness with modern civilization values. 

[Rekkampum]

I'm beginning to think the term retcon is really just code for "contradicts the intricate headcanon I've built in my brain".

Not particularly directed at you, OP.

 

That's almost always what I think.

[X Equestris]

Rules ? You should know that Bioware does not have Rules, but they have Retcons. Lots of it. 
 
Tis' rather ironic. I mean from the words of many who play this game, it seems what they want as an inclusive tolerant medieval-esque society with generic fantasy elements to it.
 
Here's the thing though :- Medieval societies were never tolerant. Men and women were not equal. People of different skin color were not equal. Monarchs practiced total authoritarian rule and in some cultures made themselves out to be God-Kings. Slavery was not only rampant but tolerated. So was prostitution though this was restricted to those who can afford having more than one partner. Life was hard and simple. I would guess 98% of society was highly religious where each society would only practice and tolerate one religion with non-religiosity would probably be found in very few educated or learned people, who would hide it. Wars and conflicts between the ruling class was often and frequent. Life for most people during the medieval times were hard and simple. Oh and medicine, twas quite macabre. People usually never made it past 25 or so and if they did, they were lucky. The look and feel during that time were not flashy and over-the-top high definition color either. Twas' mostly dull brown and dark green or simple colorful clothing, due to agrarian lifestyle with the exception of the rulers. 
 
The only entertainment material that I have seen so far that somewhat mirrors this is Game of Thrones. Dragon Age used to be something like Game of Thrones in Origins but now it has been diluted and neutered down to a generic fantasy game by trying to mash medieval-ness with modern civilization values.

That is a view of the medieval world built more on popular history than on fact. The quality of life in the Middle Ages was certainly worse than today, but nowhere near as bad as some people would have you believe.

[Rekkampum]

[snip]

 

This is Thedas, not medieval Europe, with magic and matriarchal societies - that were established in the first game, such as the Chantry - as well as fictional races. This isn't historical fiction. This is fantasy.

[(Disgusted noise.)]

Rules ? You should know that Bioware does not have Rules, but they have Retcons. Lots of it. 

 

Tis' rather ironic. I mean from the words of many who play this game, it seems what they want as an inclusive tolerant medieval-esque society with generic fantasy elements to it.

 

Here's the thing though :- Medieval societies were never tolerant. Men and women were not equal. People of different skin color were not equal. Monarchs practiced total authoritarian rule and in some cultures made themselves out to be God-Kings. Slavery was not only rampant but tolerated. So was prostitution though this was restricted to those who can afford having more than one partner. Life was hard and simple. I would guess 98% of society was highly religious where each society would only practice and tolerate one religion with non-religiosity would probably be found in very few educated or learned people, who would hide it. Wars and conflicts between the ruling class was often and frequent. Life for most people during the medieval times were hard and simple. Oh and medicine, twas quite macabre. People usually never made it past 25 or so and if they did, they were lucky. The look and feel during that time were not flashy and over-the-top high definition color either. Twas' mostly dull brown and dark green or simple colorful clothing, due to agrarian lifestyle with the exception of the rulers. 

 

The only entertainment material that I have seen so far that somewhat mirrors this is Game of Thrones. Dragon Age used to be something like Game of Thrones in Origins but now it has been diluted and neutered down to a generic fantasy game by trying to mash medieval-ness with modern civilization values. 

The genre isn't historical fiction. What actually happened in medieval societies, although your perspective on medieval societies sounds awfully limited, is irrelevant.

 

Also, if you're going to use if you're going to use archaic contractions, put your apostrophes in the right place. 

[Sarielle]

Clarification =/= change.

 

If that were the case, then J.R.R. Tolkien would be a terrible writer who couldn't make his mind up, since he "changed" just about every aspect of Middle-Earth's lore in The Silmarillion. Hell, even the slight alterations and clarifications that Tolkien made in LotR to things introduced in the Hobbit would be terrible retcons.

 

Tolkien was a terrible writer though. Great world-builder, terrible writer, lol.

 

Anyways ... in some cases I think we're just getting a deeper look at/different perspective on things. In others, I think Bioware realized they kinda painted themselves into a corner with some stuff and are trying to weasel a bit.

 

For one, the whole "Oh, Circles are actually pretty permissive, it's just those ones you actually interacted with that weren't." It doesn't particularly bother me either way, but I feel like DAI really went out of its way to paint both mages and templars in shades of grey (which is a good thing!) but that still felt a bit weasel-y. It's certainly not out of the realm of possibility, but .... eh.

 

(EDIT: And before this gets misinterpreted, I'm not of the rabid, pro-mage freedom variety. I think there's a compromise somewhere that could work.)

 

(EDIT EDIT: And eff you for sending me down the TV tropes rabbit hole again, OP! )

[Bayonet Hipshot]

The genre isn't historical fiction. What actually happened in medieval societies, although your perspective on medieval societies sounds awfully limited, is irrelevant.

 

Also, if you're going to use if you're going to use archaic contractions, put your apostrophes in the right place. 

 

I am speaking of medieval societies worldwide, not just in the West. Yeah, I know there is a whole other world out there other than the West...Thought you might know....

[o Ventus]

Tolkien was a terrible writer though. Great world-builder, terrible writer, lol.

 

Anyways ... in some cases I think we're just getting a deeper look at/different perspective on things. In others, I think Bioware realized they kinda painted themselves into a corner with some stuff and are trying to weasel a bit.

 

For one, the whole "Oh, Circles are actually pretty permissive, it's just those ones you actually interacted with that weren't." It doesn't particularly bother me either way, but I feel like DAI really went out of its way to paint both mages and templars in shades of grey (which is a good thing!) but that still felt a bit weasel-y. It's certainly not out of the realm of possibility, but .... eh.

 

Every Circle has its own rules. They AREN'T all permissive. The ones that are are still heavily regulated. Of the known Circles, only the Montsimmard and Dairsmuid Circles are "free". Even the Ferelden Circle requires mages to get special permission before they can go outside the tower, and that's only for temporary leave and special occasions.

[Sarielle]

 

 

 

 

Every Circle has its own rules. They AREN'T all permissive. The ones that are are still heavily regulated. Of the known Circles, only the Montsimmard and Dairsmuid Circles are "free". Even the Ferelden Circle requires mages to get special permission before they can go outside the tower, and that's only for temporary leave and special occasions.

 

 

See my edit, please. I didn't mean to start that downward spiral. I've discussed that in circles (har har) in one of the Vivienne threads. I can roll with it, I base my debates on the assumption it's true, but it still feels like Bioware backing off their original stance/intent a bit. That's all I'm saying.

[BabyPuncher]

Here's the thing though :- Medieval societies were never tolerant. Men and women were not equal. People of different skin color were not equal. Monarchs practiced total authoritarian rule and in some cultures made themselves out to be God-Kings. Slavery was not only rampant but tolerated. So was prostitution though this was restricted to those who can afford having more than one partner. Life was hard and simple. I would guess 98% of society was highly religious where each society would only practice and tolerate one religion with non-religiosity would probably be found in very few educated or learned people, who would hide it. Wars and conflicts between the ruling class was often and frequent. Life for most people during the medieval times were hard and simple. Oh and medicine, twas quite macabre. People usually never made it past 25 or so and if they did, they were lucky. The look and feel during that time were not flashy and over-the-top high definition color either. Twas' mostly dull brown and dark green or simple colorful clothing, due to agrarian lifestyle with the exception of the rulers. 

 

The only entertainment material that I have seen so far that somewhat mirrors this is Game of Thrones. Dragon Age used to be something like Game of Thrones in Origins but now it has been diluted and neutered down to a generic fantasy game by trying to mash medieval-ness with modern civilization values. 

 

You're really not doing yourself any favors by trying to claim Game of Thones mirrors medieval life.

 

I think you need a few history lessons.

[Sifr]

Tolkien was a terrible writer though. Great world-builder, terrible writer, lol.

 

Yeah, Tolkien's world building is incredible, but he should probably have cut out the constant littany of giving people, places and things about twenty names in various languages, not to mention the random breaking out into song.

 

Not to say that other writer's aren't guilty of similar things, GRRM has a ton of superfluous food-porn in ASOIAF.

 

And as King, he's consistent in that he constantly uses the same cliches and overused tropes in his writing? Plus he chose to end The Stand with a deus ex machina of the Hand of God suddenly appearing to thwart Flagg and destroy Vegas? Sure, the work had established the vaguely supernatural elements of Flagg and Mother Abigail, so it was somewhat consistent in that regard, but having all pretense ripped away like that felt so out of the blue and ludicrous, it kinda spoiled the novel for me? Love the ideas behind King's novels, but I hate how he handles them.

[(Disgusted noise.)]

Yeah, Tolkien's world building is incredible, but he should probably have cut out the constant littany of giving people, places and things about twenty names in various languages, not to mention the random breaking out into song.

 

Not to say that other writer's aren't guilty of similar things, GRRM has a ton of superfluous food-porn in ASOIAF.

 

And as King, he's consistent in that he constantly uses the same cliches and overused tropes in his writing? Plus he chose to end The Stand with a deus ex machina of the Hand of God suddenly appearing to thwart Flagg and destroy Vegas? Sure, the work had established the vaguely supernatural elements of Flagg and Mother Abigail, so it was somewhat consistent in that regard, but having all pretense ripped away like that felt so out of the blue and ludicrous, it kinda spoiled the novel for me? Love the ideas behind King's novels, but I hate how he handles them.

IMO, King is a much better writer when he keeps the focus small and tight (Misery, for example). He tends to hang himself with his own ambition otherwise.

[Sifr]

IMO, King is a much better writer when he keeps the focus small and tight (Misery, for example). He tends to hang himself with his own ambition otherwise.

 

Like how he revised The Stand in 1990 with all the filler he'd cut from the original novel. It was nice for some of the "Meanwhile in..." stories during the outbreak, but it also bogged the narrative down with a ton of padding that it obviously didn't need?

 

That being said, you're right that his smaller and more focussed plots tend to be better, which is probably why I find his novellas far better than his novel-length work most of the time? He has less opportunity with shorter stories to end up accidentally rehashing his own work?