10369 réponses à ce sujet

[LupusYondergirl]

Re: magic training. I would imagine this to be like any other skill. How long does it take to learn to read? I was four. How long does it take to become skilled enough to read and fully understand, say, Finnegan's Wake or The Brother's Karamazov? For me, twenty five and thirty years, respectively.

It's the difference between being able to freeze a glass of water or being able to cast a blizzard spell. That's what I'd imagine the years of training focus on.

But then, I've always gone on the assumption that the one or two spells you start out with is pure game mechanics. I'd think by the time you reach the Harrowing you really would know basically all the spells there are to know. The rest of your life would likely be spent perfecting your craft in terms of one or two specializations, research, and teaching. So... I guess I consider the Harrowing getting a BA, for instance. Anything after would be the 'grad school' to narrow the mage's focus and honing their skills in one set area.

Although I do tend to make magic harder to learn and far less effortless than the game would imply, only because I don't like my characters being such immortal powerhouses. Imperfection makes them more interesting, at least to me.

Modifié par LupusYondergirl, 05 mars 2011 - 04:26 .

[Raonar]

LupusYondergirl wrote...

Although I do tend to make magic harder to learn and far less effortless than the game would imply, only because I don't like my characters being such immortal powerhouses. Imperfection makes them more interesting, at least to me.

You know, there is an easy way to have them be powerful and stil not overpowered/sues. Just make sure the enemies they face take some levels in badass of their own.

At least that's what I'm doing. My characters have their special perks, but I also gave upgrades to, say, the sloth demon in broken circle. Since that demon's power was so big because it leeched life/energy from its victims, in this case the warden, it was only logical that it would become MUCH stronger if it had FIVE EXTRA wardens to drain.

Of course, I like epic battles, so I only really added exra badassery all around because of that (well, mostly).

EDIT

Remembered something about mortals shaping the Fade. DREAMERS might not be able to... but otherwise, yes. The Baroness created that whole village copy thing in the fade. where she kept her folowers and leeched energy from there. She even became a pride demon.. So, I'm guessing mortal souls can become fade spirits under the right circumstances (and with enough power/blood magic/assistance).

EDIT 2

BTW, there's something that game mechanics did that I dislike. Basically, when fighting over the Anvil, some of Caridin's Golems may survive the batte... So, where are they? What happens to them after everything? They just jump into the lava like Caridin did? The game just un-spawns them, which is not nice.

Modifié par Raonar, 05 mars 2011 - 09:47 .

[LupusYondergirl]

I'm not a big fan of epic battles, per se. I prefer brutal, bloody battles. The kind where people end up dead and maimed at the end.  At least as far as my own fic is concerned.

I prefer writing about people, though. Their internal and external struggles, things like that. I'd rather write about someone coping with their failures and flaws than the reverse.

Modifié par LupusYondergirl, 05 mars 2011 - 08:16 .

[Raonar]

LupusYondergirl wrote...

I'm not a big fan of epic battles, per se. I prefer brutal, bloody battles. The kind where people end up dead and maimed at the end.  At least as far as my own fic is concerned.

I prefer writing about people, though. Their internal and external struggles, things like that. I'd rather write about someone coping with their failures and flaws than the reverse.

Does people mean protagonists? Because epic battles usually involve a lot of death of their own... and dead, bloddied, battered people.

And who says a story with epic battles doesn't have psychological turmoil? Or that tales focused on character develpment can't have awesome fight scenes?

[LupusYondergirl]

Does people mean protagonists

Yep. My main character's missing half her left hand, Oghren's blind in one eye and Anders walks with a slight limp. And they're all covered in scars.

I get a lot of compliments on my battle scenes, actually. But I prefer realism- or as much realism as one can manage with magic in the gameplan. And, for me, that means no one can spend their life fighting and remain unscathed. No one can be commander without having someone die under their command. No one can go a lifetime as a warrior without screwing up so badly it costs someone else their life, no matter how well meaning they might be. No one will always make the right decisions.

Violence is messy. I'd rather write about people's eyes stinging from the smoke of burning corpses, the blood and sweat on their faces, and their own exhaustion than about how they just sliced some ogre in half. Or about someone battling through physical agony since they have no other choice. Or screaming in horror as someone they care about is struck down.

I like flawed characters. Probably too flawed.

Modifié par LupusYondergirl, 05 mars 2011 - 10:09 .

[Mahkara]

Raonar wrote...

And who says a story with epic battles doesn't have psychological turmoil?  

In general, I think that any scene without a bit of psychological turmoil (or emotions or whatever) is pretty dull

I remember reading somewhere that the key to a good action scene is to focus on what it means to the participants. You figure that a good author (like the woman who wrote Sea Biscuit) can make a horse race emotionally engaging.  If she can do that, I'd imagine that a decent author could do a lot with a battle in which not just the lives of thousands of people, but the fate of entire kingdoms, hangs in the balance.

[erynnar]

But Lupus that is what makes you a very good writer and your stories a great read!

And yeah, Kai is going to lose more friends and Scath before it's all done. She lost one of her own due to a betrayal she should have seen coming...I like flawed too.

[Raonar]

LupusYondergirl wrote...

Does people mean protagonists

Yep. My main character's missing half her left hand, Oghren's blind in one eye and Anders walks with a slight limp. And they're all covered in scars.

I get a lot of compliments on my battle scenes, actually. But I prefer realism- or as much realism as one can manage with magic in the gameplan. And, for me, that means no one can spend their life fighting and remain unscathed. No one can be commander without having someone die under their command. No one can go a lifetime as a warrior without screwing up so badly it costs someone else their life, no matter how well meaning they might be. No one will always make the right decisions.

Violence is messy. I'd rather write about people's eyes stinging from the smoke of burning corpses, the blood and sweat on their faces, and their own exhaustion than about how they just sliced some ogre in half. Or about someone battling through physical agony since they have no other choice. Or screaming in horror as someone they care about is struck down.

I like flawed characters. Probably too flawed.

He didn't exacltly get scars, but does bleeding from his eye sockets (twice within the span of hours) count?

[erynnar]

Oh ouch Raonar! and ewwww! ROFL!

[DreGregoire]

My characters are perfect with no flaws *whistles innocently*

Fortunately, I like reading all kind of stories and apparently I cannot keep away from fanfiction both writing and reading, it's become an obssession. LOL. No matter how much I read there is still many more I haven't had the opportunity to read. *sighs*

Modifié par DreGregoire, 05 mars 2011 - 11:46 .

[Raonar]

erynnar wrote...

Oh ouch Raonar! and ewwww! ROFL!

And should I mention it's because he pissed off the Archdemon by telling it, in a 'lucid nightmare' of sorts, to screw himself? Urthemiel was none too pleased and sent the hurlock Omega to blast his brain with some nasty magic that created a ''back door' to his mind which the tainted god tried to use to kill/drive him insane. The bleeding from the eyes/nose thing was a side-effect of his resistance (and in the end he only survived and recovered because the elf mage helped Sten pull off a big damn heroes moment in his mindscape )

So, is pissing off the archdemon deliberately (granted, he thought he was going to die anyway when he did it) enough of a flaw?

Well, really, his flaw is that he takes things a bit too far, both when he's being nice (he can get a bit lenient) and when he's being harsh/defiant (he gets a bit too vocal against Isolde, among other things, like the scene above ). Oh, and he's a sucker for kids and ca get broody because he knows he'll probably not have any (though he didn't feel he should have children even before his exile because the Orzammar of today is not the kind of place he wants them to grow up in).

[erynnar]

Yep Raonar, that is why I love your writing too!

[Corker]

Raonar wrote...

So, is pissing off the archdemon deliberately (granted, he thought he was going to die anyway when he did it) enough of a flaw?

Does it have a lasting negative consequence?

If it does not actually hurt the character - actually deprive him of something he wants or needs, prevents him from achieving a goal, gets in his way, hurts those he cares for, screws something up badly - it's not really a flaw. 

Bleeding from the eyes is icky and sounds nasty, but if it goes away when the battle's done... no biggie.  If it blinded him, yeah, that's some consequences.

[jackkel dragon]

I think Corker has a point. In my story, Tayte got a nasty scar in the prologue but most people don't really give a ****. It hasn't affected her one way or the other, and thus isn't a flaw or a boon.

[ZerbanDaGreat1]

rrrr, I have the BIGGEST case of writer's block! What's infuriating is that it's only one section.

So Ven used Blood Magic but the curse was ended. Now everybody's going to Orzammar to find out what happened to Malcolm (OC Warden). I know what I want exactly from finding Malcolm again onwards, but anything between ELUDES me!

[Raonar]

Corker wrote...

Raonar wrote...

So, is pissing off the archdemon deliberately (granted, he thought he was going to die anyway when he did it) enough of a flaw?

Does it have a lasting negative consequence?

If it does not actually hurt the character - actually deprive him of something he wants or needs, prevents him from achieving a goal, gets in his way, hurts those he cares for, screws something up badly - it's not really a flaw. 

Bleeding from the eyes is icky and sounds nasty, but if it goes away when the battle's done... no biggie.  If it blinded him, yeah, that's some consequences.

Hmm, how should I put this. It didn't leave him PHYSICALLY crippled or anything (yet, but any more would be a spoiler), but the fact that he pissed off the Archdemon made the latter send a small army after them (about 200 darkspawn). The archdemon was able to pinpoint the DN's location when his mental defenses dropped (he'd been keeping the Archdemon out-no nightmares- for a while, pissing it off even more, but had a breakdown when he learned his father was dead and he felt it was his fault -since he faked Trian's death and kept Endrin out of it, who went ill etc.). This almost got everyone killed and, though they don't know it yet, made the Archdemon accelerate the Blight itself. He has to be careful not to drop the again because they WILL be in even worse trouble (again).

Plus that the Archdemon has been getting stronger and smarter/more coherent in its insanity because of his repeated 'confrontations' with the warden commander.

As for what gets in his way, he has that issue with chaotic magic that causes spells to screw up badly, plus that he lost it once (well, twice, and that tear in the veil inside him puts him in danger of being possessed like mages are) and broke Alim's arm, just before his magic blew up like a templar smite and almost cost them a battle.

And Wynne used a sort of AoE mana clash at one point (in her vessel of the spirit mode)... and it affected HIM too (he's a spirit warrior, sort of).

Still, as far as scars go, I can't find a justification for most of them or for debilitating injuries (except when several tendons are severed, like in Gorim's case) when there is magic capable of bringing people back from the brink of death. I understand that in The Calling, Fiona mended someone's entire chest in an insant (as far as i heard anyway). That said, I at least made poisons hard/impossible to cure by magic (though one can still use spells to enhance someone's constitution so that he/she may fight them off).

Basically, whatever flaws my characters have are psychological.

erynnar wrote...

Yep Raonar, that is why I love your writing too!

Haha, thanks. I didn't even know you read my 'little' story.

ZerbanDaGreat1 wrote...

rrrr, I have the BIGGEST case of writer's block! What's infuriating is that it's only one section.

So Ven used Blood Magic but the curse was ended. Now everybody's going to Orzammar to find out what happened to Malcolm (OC Warden). I know what I want exactly from finding Malcolm again onwards, but anything between ELUDES me!

Hmm, I sometimes have this too, but it doesn't last long. When it doubt, just use some character development (maybe between different characters).

I admit, it's easier for me since I have more characters than usual. So when I have to fill in something, I ask myself "Which of these guys has been neglected in terms of character growth recently?" And then I pick one/two/three/x and have them banter until something happens (like they sense a large darkspawn raid coming their way).

Modifié par Raonar, 06 mars 2011 - 08:43 .

[erynnar]

SNORT!!! Little story...hmmm yes, little like mine is little. ROFL!

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

jackkel dragon wrote...

I think Corker has a point. In my story, Tayte got a nasty scar in the prologue but most people don't really give a ****. It hasn't affected her one way or the other, and thus isn't a flaw or a boon.

I don't think scars or physical disabilities can be categorised as flaws, really...they can be debilitating and inconvenient, but there's nothing you can really do about them. You can't be blamed for the state of your body or physical defects, usually.

I was under the impression that a character flaw is usually a mindset, personality trait or way of doing things that is a weakness and can lead to trouble, but also a trait they can overcome or change if they want to.

If I may bring the tabletop RP series of Worlds of Darkness in as an example, during character creation you are required to pick two specific character traits: a Vice and a Virtue. (eg. Cowardice and Compassion). During the game, you get rewarded via a mechanic whenever you indulge your Vice or Virtue, but ONLY if you indulge in a way that really costs you something--it means both good and bad traits can extend into flaw territory, and is an excellent roleplaying device.

So you wouldn't gain anything if you dropped some coins in a beggar's bowl, but if you'd been entrusted to deliver a bag of gold to someone important and gave THAT away to, say, pay off a mob who were about to gang-rape someone, then you'd be rewarded mechanically, because you'd have to deal with an in-game fallout as well.

Cowardice? Running away from scary situations isn't always a bad thing. But when you realise your companion has tripped and is going to be torn to pieces if you don't turn around to help...well, if you stop and help them, you might get injured but you'll heal. If you don't, that's when the cowardice becomes a true flaw.

You don't lose anything for never taking the vice/virtue to an extreme, but the GM is supposed to recognise when you're RPing a flaw.

[DreGregoire]

A flaw can be many things. However, in writing when we refer to a character flaw we mean a flaw in one's character. Character being the total of a person's personality, thoughts, and beliefs and how these three impact the person's behavior and actions; as well as the external forces that impact all of these things (other people, events, etc) As you can imagine, it can get very involved. We don't always have the chance to learn everything about a character we are reading about and it's always nice to get surprised by a new quirk in a favorite character.

Corker wrote...

If it does not actually hurt the character - actually deprive him of something he wants or needs, prevents him from achieving a goal, gets in his way, hurts those he cares for, screws something up badly - it's not really a flaw. 

As Corker already said if the character quirk (personality trait) does not deprive or harm the individual or another individual, then it is not called a flaw, but a trait.

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

I was under the impression that a character flaw is usually a mindset, personality trait or way of doing things that is a weakness and can lead to trouble, but also a trait they can overcome or change if they want to.

What Shadow said too. It is often true that these traits can be changed if changes in a person's beliefs and motivations change.
--------------

Examples:

A person who loots corpses and abandoned wagons vs. a personal who can't stop themselves from stealing, causing harm to themselves or others through the obessive need to steal.

A person who is quick to anger and has learned to display the anger in an appropriate manner or control the anger vs. a person who is quick to anger that flies of the handle and screams and shouts and hits things, etc.

----------
A physical flaw is also a flaw but it pertains to a physical attribute not a character one. That aside a physical flaw can create a character flaw if the physical flaw impacts the person's beliefs, feelings, and behavoir in a way that creates problems for them and others.

Modifié par DreGregoire, 06 mars 2011 - 11:14 .

[DreGregoire]

Here I'll use my own main fanfiction character as an example:
((I apologize in advance if I bore anybody. LOL))

Aonghas is young, extremely intelligent, cunning, impulsive, selfish, combative, argumentative, stubborn (willful), manipulative, has had some radical physical changes; he's a mage, a noble man's son, a thief, a liar, and a better than average fighter with shield and sword.

Now being young is what he is and really doesn't create a problem for him unless his behavoir is considered youthful and creates a problem for him because he chooses to act his age.

I don't consider him being intelligence, cunning, or being a better than average fighter to be negative traits.

Stubborn (willfulness) can be a positive thing if it doesn't cause harm or impede his success.

The fact that he is a mage could cause problems for him but he has chosen to not let it do that, so it will never create a flaw in his character. The same for being a nobleman's son. Although these two things together could cause him problems in Ferelden they still are not his flaws.

Being impulsive, combative, argumentative, manipulative, and a liar are definately character flaws because they do cause harm to himself, others, and keep him from getting where he needs to be, although in his mind they get him what he wants.

The thief thing could become a flaw if he let's it interfere, but he's pretty smart about it except those times he gets caught but that is rarely. hahah. Four times tops. LOL

His physical changes take some getting use to and other than making him stand out in a crowd they are not flaws. I think they make him more attractive than Fergus. LOL j/k. And they will never be considered a character flaw because they are just his physical appearance.

Modifié par DreGregoire, 06 mars 2011 - 11:12 .

[Raonar]

erynnar wrote...

SNORT!!! Little story...hmmm yes, little like mine is little. ROFL!

I admit, when i started it, I didn't think it would eolve into THIS kind of monster but it's my own fault for putting in so many characters.

[DreGregoire]

Raonar wrote...

erynnar wrote...

SNORT!!! Little story...hmmm yes, little like mine is little. ROFL!

I admit, when i started it, I didn't think it would eolve into THIS kind of monster but it's my own fault for putting in so many characters.

With that many characters you could definately have enough for nearly endless story archs.  So many tales to write, yet so little time. Heh

[Corker]

FWIW, Robin D Laws (mostly an RPG author but also a thinker-about-narrative-structures) wrote a good bit on iconic heroes.  Those are blog posts, so they'll be more coherent if you start at the bottom and go up. 

From what I recall, iconic heroes change the world; dramatic heroes are changed by it.  You can probably get away with an iconic hero who doesn't have much in the way of flaws.  Indiana Jones is pretty much the same guy at the end of Raiders as he was at the start.  Batman stays pretty constant; he doesn't have an epic crisis of conscience that changes the way he does business.  

(I think you can also be iconic and flawed, vis. James Bond's hubris and the trouble it can cause him.)

Depends on what you're writing.  Thrilling action stories are there for the thrilling action, not so much for the character development.

ETA: And of course, some folks don't like thrilling action stories with no character development.  Some folks do.  It's not good or bad (if we're looking at it sheerly from an entertainment/consumption standpoint), just different.  If you want to argue literary merit... don't look at me, I didn't take those classes.

Modifié par Corker, 06 mars 2011 - 02:31 .

[Raonar]

Corker wrote...

FWIW, Robin D Laws (mostly an RPG author but also a thinker-about-narrative-structures) wrote a good bit on iconic heroes.  Those are blog posts, so they'll be more coherent if you start at the bottom and go up. 

From what I recall, iconic heroes change the world; dramatic heroes are changed by it.  You can probably get away with an iconic hero who doesn't have much in the way of flaws.  Indiana Jones is pretty much the same guy at the end of Raiders as he was at the start.  Batman stays pretty constant; he doesn't have an epic crisis of conscience that changes the way he does business.  

(I think you can also be iconic and flawed, vis. James Bond's hubris and the trouble it can cause him.)

Depends on what you're writing.  Thrilling action stories are there for the thrilling action, not so much for the character development.

On that note, I honestly think awesome people with few flaws can actually exist in real life, so I fail to see the problem with them appearing as iconic heroes in tales And, of course, the only thing you need to make a hybrid of both these types (provided you know your stuff) is time and willingness to make the story longer than it would be if you chose just one of these types.

I disagree about the Batman part though. He did have a crisis of conscience that made him batman and is constantly plagued by melancholy and general apprehension (albeit of the quiet kind) at the world. I think the reason he doesn't evolve much in any direction is because, for DC comics (and his comics in particular) Status Quo is God, so he can't really break down or have an epyphany if his efforts don't really do anything but maintain the current, crappy status of Gotham City (he sees inconclusive results so he can't decide whether to become more of a cynic or idealist).

EDIT

What i mean is that Batman DOES stay true to his so-called self, sort of, but his actions don't really change the world (Gotham city this case) hence why his iconic Hero status is a bit up in the air for me (Of course, if we were to get into all the justice league things, opinions vary). Although I always found it amusing that superheroes/heroes in DC and Marvel Comics end up changing galaxy-wide/extraterrestrial and/or universal policies/leadership and whatever situations on a regular basis... but Earth still doesn't really improve much.

Modifié par Raonar, 06 mars 2011 - 04:03 .

[Mahkara]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

I don't think scars or physical disabilities can be categorised as flaws, really...they can be debilitating and inconvenient, but there's nothing you can really do about them. You can't be blamed for the state of your body or physical defects, usually.

I was under the impression that a character flaw is usually a mindset, personality trait or way of doing things that is a weakness and can lead to trouble, but also a trait they can overcome or change if they want to.

Agreed.  Beyond that, flaws that don't in any way impact the character significantly, while flaws, aren't really that  *flaw like*.

Consider Bella Swan's (Or Usagi's, or any of the other awful Mary Sue protagonists of fiction) tendency to be clumsy.  Why are they clumsy? Who knows!  Probably as an attempt to convince the reader that they're realistic.  And, hey, people are clumsy!  But unless this clumsiness manifests itself as the problem that gets them killed by <<insert evil villain>> or loses the war or has their LI break up with them or something, while it's a *flaw* it's not a flaw that's particualrly meaningful.

I always loved the Ancient Greek concept of the fatal flaw as also being the greatest ability of the character.  Odysseus is a bastard, let's face it. He's willing to lie and cheat his way through any encouter. But it's also that slipperiness that makes him so valuable to Agamemnon.  Akhilleus is a great, amazing warrior.  He's also brilliant and shiny and wonderful in so many ways.  For better or worse, though, he *knows* it and is quite arrogant, which causes oh so many problems. He also (not out of line for a great warrior) has an explosive temper.  We can all see how this would cause *real* problems (and does in the Iliad).

I'm probably rather inarticulate as it's still early over here, but...hopefully my point makes sense in that there are *real* flaws (that often go along with the other traits that the character has, both good and bad) and there are cosmetic flaws (like a scar on his/her face, or a tendency to break dishes when asked to do them).  Cosmetic flaws really don't make a character interesting, while genuine flaws tend to, particularly when they feed into how the character is written over all.

And "flaws" don't have to be entirely bad.  I can 100% see a Warden written as so sweet and kind that she cries when a bug is crushed.  But it's going to cause her *agony* when she saves Loghain (as everyone deserves a chance at redemption!) and it loses her Alistair.  She also may make some less than good choices (such as helping out Brother Burkle just to cause all sorts of problems, etc.).  In many ways, it might make less sense to think that characters need "flaws" so much as they need consistency, and that sometimes a behavior which would be the best way to handle one situation might be the *worst* way to handle another.  But a well written character can't necesarily just go "huh, well, in situation A I need to take the nice route, but in B I need to be all hard core" just because things go better that way.