Sanderson's laws: Difference between revisions
1d4chan>Saarlacfunkel (I'd say nobody cares about those stories nowadays except for fans of Superdickery.) |
1d4chan>Brick3621 mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
* This statement applies to players, as well. If they can understand it, they can control it. | * This statement applies to players, as well. If they can understand it, they can control it. | ||
* You don't need to go too deep; the fact that the Ring | * You don't need to go too deep; the fact that [[The Lord of the Rings | the One Ring's]] effects are undone by destroying it, and that there's only one place on Middle-earth where it can be destroyed, are sufficient if the point is that the Ring is uncontrollable, and wants most of its wearers dead. | ||
==Sanderson's Second Law of Magic== | ==Sanderson's Second Law of Magic== | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
'''"Limitations > Power"''' (For the purposes of reader interest) | '''"Limitations > Power"''' (For the purposes of reader interest) | ||
Limitations are more interesting than powers. Almost nobody cares about a Superman story unless it | Limitations are more interesting than powers. Almost nobody cares about a [[Superman]] story unless it either features him facing off against a nigh-cosmically powerful antagonist or involves Kryptonite, magic, maintaining his secret identity, and/or his personal morality (all of which act as limitations on his power). Keeping this in mind is one of the best ways to avoid creating a [[Mary Sue]]. | ||
* [[Elf]]s are only fun if they're weak in some way or going against type. | * [[Elf]]s are only fun if they're weak in some way or going against type. | ||
Revision as of 11:50, 16 June 2020
So, there's this writer, Brandon Sanderson. He does a lot of worldbuilding. He's suggested three "laws" of Magic systems and characters, all three of which are somewhat /tg/ relevant if you're doing worldbuilding (in other words, homebrewing).
Sanderson's First Law of Magic
"An author's ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic."
In short, if the reader can't understand the solution to the problem presented, all you've done is just made a boring Deus Ex Machina. Unknown magic causing problems is perfectly fine, though, as is to a lesser extent preventing problems (not solving them, mind, but preventing from coming up (e.g., "We don't know how the magic keeps the water out of the undersea cave ruins, but that's fine as long as we don't have to examine it too closely.")).
- This statement applies to players, as well. If they can understand it, they can control it.
- You don't need to go too deep; the fact that the One Ring's effects are undone by destroying it, and that there's only one place on Middle-earth where it can be destroyed, are sufficient if the point is that the Ring is uncontrollable, and wants most of its wearers dead.
Sanderson's Second Law of Magic
"Limitations > Power" (For the purposes of reader interest)
Limitations are more interesting than powers. Almost nobody cares about a Superman story unless it either features him facing off against a nigh-cosmically powerful antagonist or involves Kryptonite, magic, maintaining his secret identity, and/or his personal morality (all of which act as limitations on his power). Keeping this in mind is one of the best ways to avoid creating a Mary Sue.
- Elfs are only fun if they're weak in some way or going against type.
- Part of what made the D&D Wizard so OP was that his main limitation was Spells per Day, which became less important as he went up in levels.
Sanderson's Third Law of Magic
"Expand on what you have already, before you add something new."
Less directly /tg/ relevant, but still good DMing advice. It's usually more interesting to the players to see some new aspect of an already understood thing (for example, an unknown new part of town with understandable interactions with the rest of the town) than an entirely new thing.