this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
755 points (97.8% liked)

Greentext

4613 readers
791 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Maggoty 15 points 4 months ago (16 children)

It's not meant to be a well sewn up world building project. It's literally two different worlds smashed together on a bunch of napkin notes. None of us read it for its intricate political maneuvering or realistic magic system.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago (15 children)

And that's why I bailed around book 5. Around that point I decided I wanted more realism, so I switched to Tom Clancy and JRR Tolkien, and I have been reading more "realistic" fiction ever since.

[–] Buddahriffic 5 points 4 months ago (10 children)

If you like realism in a fantasy setting, Delicious in Dungeon absolutely delivers. They take world building to a whole new level of detail.

It's a bit light on the high level stuff like global politics and history. But for an example of the level of detail they went for (keeping it vague to avoid spoiling anything), one problem they solve involves a character knowing how dragons are able to breathe fire. Even though they have magic in this world, they still came up with a plausible physical mechanism for how dragons breathe fire and wove it into the plot.

At another point, a character gives advice about best practices if you're about to turn into stone.

[–] fukurthumz420 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

meh. if magic conforms to physics, it's not magic. magic has no rules because it's magic.

[–] Buddahriffic 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's what I mean, though! They had a world that included magic, so they could have hand waved the whole fire breathing as just a magical thing dragons do (just like pretty much every other piece of media that includes fire breathing dragons), but instead came up with a way that would (theoretically) work with real world physics.

[–] fukurthumz420 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

and now dragons just became boring. take the magic away, and you, well, take the magic away.

i like mythic fantasy, not sci fi fantasy. if you consider magic to be a form of 'hand waiving', then maybe you don't really like mythology.

[–] Buddahriffic 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

A dragon is still just as formidable of an opponent whether its fire is summoned magically or is the result of using a spark generated by striking something on its tongue against its teeth to ignite oil produced in an organ that all undigestable things from the digestive tract end up in.

And it didn't upset me that it was summoned or created by magic and bound by magic, nor has it ever upset me when a story didn't bother to dive into the details of how the dragon can make fire. I was just impressed that they did.

[–] fukurthumz420 1 points 4 months ago

A dragon is still just as formidable of an opponent whether its fire is summoned magically or is the result of using a spark generated by striking something on its tongue against its teeth to ignite oil produced in an organ that all undigestable things from the digestive tract end up in

my point is that the dragon just becomes a beast with napalm sacks in this case. dragons are a mythotype (i made that word up) that are inextricably linked to something deep in the psyche of man - something that has been there since before written history across multiple cultures. that's special. that's an insight into who we are. that's more than just 'big lizard with fire breath'. they have an esoteric quality to them that makes them purely magical to me, and to make them anything less than that just cheapens them into something flimsy and 2 dimensional.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)